On 8 Dec 2003 09:44:46 -0800, (Carl
Nisarel) wrote:

Gunner wrote ..

The link below is a pretty decent report on the bogus data or spin put
on any gun study.

http://reason.com/9704/fe.cdc.shtml

It's the typical BS from Don Kates.

The authors use the typical gunner lies.

They wrote about Kellerman: "Consider a 1993 New England Journal of
Medicine study that, according to press reports, "showed that keeping
a gun in the home nearly triples the likelihood that someone in the
household will be slain there." This claim cannot be verified because
Kellerman will not release the data."

Kellerman's data was released and is easy to find.
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi/archive.prl?study=6898

And easily refuted

http://www.joepierre.com/Kellerman.htm

"The Kellerman pseudo-study was refuted by several well-qualified
sources, including sociology professor H. Taylor Buckner; Henry E.
Schaffner, Ph.D.; and J. Neil Schulman, in his book Stopping Power:
The Humanistic Case for Civilian Arms, Centurion Press, 1994. His
sampling methods, methodology, analysis of data and conclusions have
all been censured as unscientific.

But, perhaps most telling was the study by Professor Gary Kleck, head
of the criminology department at Florida State University, which was
summarized in his paper Guns and Violence: A Summary of the field
prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political
Science Association, which was held at the Washington Hilton, August
29 through September 1, 1991.

Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed."

A typical comment from a criminalogist about Kellerman:

" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:16 -0600 From: Rick Lowe
Subject: ACICR: Firearms "Facts"

Sirs:

I am not a medical doctor; my degree is in criminology. With
that in mind, having read your "Firearms Facts", I have grave
concerns about the validity of the data you are putting out.

I am not familiar with all the research you quote in your
"Firearms Facts". I am however, as a criminologist, particularly
well informed regarding Kellerman et al who you cite at the
bottom of your "firearms facts" as one of your sources.

Kellerman's studies have been thoroughly refuted by
practically every prominent criminologist working in the
violence/firearms field - in criminology circles they have a
well deserved reputation for being founded on personal bias. In
fact, the only place I am aware they can claim "peer review" is
in NEJM - hardly a criminology periodical. Furthermore, if
memory serves me correctly, the NEJM was involved in funding and
supporting this "research" and was not exactly at what one would
call arm's length relating to this study. I believe I also
recall that the very same editor of NEJM from that time was
recently fired for publishing poorly done and prejudiced
research in other areas.

Whatever the fate of the editor of NEJM was, I find it
appalling that an organization connected with a university would
use refuted and discredited research as a reference for
published claims. I suspect that any graduate students at your
university who tried to defend their thesis using discredited
research would be given short shrift indeed. Why then, would you
feel it perfectly acceptable to use refuted research in your
firearms "facts"? Were you incapable of finding the work of
Kleck... Wright, Rossi&Daly... Suter??? All of whom, I suspect,
are prominent and available in your university's criminology
library?

If Kellerman is indicative of the quality of research used
by your organization as the basis for information disseminated
to the public, then the public is poorly served. Those using
such research to back up their allegations should be sent back
to redo some basic first year university courses until they gain
the necessary understanding of the importance of using peer
reviewed research - not claptrap psuedo science written to serve
the author's personal prejudice.

You do the university which hosts you little credit. I
wonder whose "research" you will cite next... Keegstra's? "






You're mindlessly repeating another gunner lie.

Just cant handle the refutation of your whole mindset can you?
Laugh laugh laugh

Let's watch how you handle it since I just demonstrated that Kates
lied in the article.

Here's another one that you can't handle:

"Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally
(gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm."


Of course it is. Haveing a swimming pool is a risk factor for an
accidental drowning as well. Driving a motor vehicle is a risk factor
for being involved in a fatal traffic accident.

Your point is exactly what? That Kellerman was wrong and disproved
many times? Thank you for your admission.

Wiebe, D. 2003. "Injury Prevention Homicide and suicide risks
associated with firearms in the home: A national case-control study,"
Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41:781-781.

http://www.locksley.com/6696/guns2.htm


And of course..if you dont like Lott, and disregard Kleck (laugh laugh
laugh) we can always change to the Wright and Rossi's study funded by
the US Department of Justice...

Some comments on that study...
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/sc....mcdowall.html
http://www.2ampd.net/prnet/whois_lp.html

"FACT: It is not well known that President Jimmy Carter and his people
wanted to push a major gun control law through Congress in the late
'70s. They decided that the best way to accomplish this would be to
have an exhaustive scientific study conducted which, in the end, would
proclaim that gun control laws were effective in reducing crime.

Two highly respected, pro-gun-control professors from Massachusetts,
James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, were hired to conduct the study.
Wright and Rossi spent four years and hundreds of thousands of dollars
to produce the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever
undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research: an
exhaustive, three-volume work entitled "Under the Gun." Their
findings, and I quote co-author Wright: "Gun control laws do not
reduce crime."

Keep up the good work Churl...and as long as you keep spewing your
lies..Ill keep up posting the rebuttals. Think of me has having found
a new hobby. You.

At this point..you may well want to fold up your tent and move on to
more receptive pastures. Perhaps one of the MTV2 newsgroups, or even
alt.sarahbrady.rocks? Im sure you can fine enough mush brained
liberals to believe you that your ego will get stroked just fine, and
maybe even a young man whom will be thrilled enough with your "wisdom"
to keep you occupied on these cold winter nights, under a nice thick
quilt.

Laugh laugh laugh


Gunner Asch
No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith