 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#281
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
|
#282
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message om... "JTMcC" wrote .... Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to emotion fallacy? You're just demonstrating that you are not intelligent enough to figure out how to deal with life without a gun. Your moronic, and unoriginal, retort does not have anything to do with Lott's invalidated research. OK, I guess you don't have a lovely wife then. When did you stop beating your wife? Of course you are trying to stigmatize anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment as a wife beater, but just to be clear, I've never hit any woman and I'm pretty sure no friend of mine has either, I have been beaten pretty thouroghly by some real irate women as a part of my employment g, but I took it in stride. I would stop any man from beating any woman, by any means available to me. And I have done so quite a few times, to the point of breaking multiple bones, women are just not to be hit, period. JTMcC. |
|
#283
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message om... BottleBob wrote Carl Nisarel wrote: (Richard Lewis) wrote Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K; assault....910K etc etc etc. .... Robberies 420,637 Do *you* understand the difference between robbery and armed robbery? Do you understand the difference between having "a 'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" and those statistics? If you do not, you're simply one of the idiots. Richard's data does not match Richards claim. His claim was simply emotional drivel unsupported by actual data. I wouldn't let a personal negative bias against a person, or group, interfere with an impartial evaluation of relevant statistics. Dude, those are not the relevant statistics. Richard created the definition and then moved the goalpost. Are you aware of the fact that most assaults and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim? OK, so someone my wife, or daughter KNOWS tries to assult my wife, or daughter. This doesn't change the laws of physics, so,the ,45 caliber slug still will disable and probably kill the assulter just as it would if he had been previously unknown to them. JTMcC. |
|
#284
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
jim rozen wrote in message ...
In article , Carl Nisarel says... When are you going to admit that John Lott has lied about his research? Hey, I thought he lied about being Mary Roush. Oh. That too. Never mind. LOL. Truly amazing that after a long morning of moving snow around, small things can make one smile. Here's another for you: "I have not participated in the firearms discussion group nor in the apparent online newsgroup discussions" John Lott 1-14-03 "The MaRyRoSh pen name account was created years ago for an account for my children, using the first two letters of the names of my four sons." John Lott 1-21-03 "I always presumed that many people suspected me to be behind Mary Rosh, I certainly was not particularly surprised when Julian Sanchez made the exact same linkage based upon the similarity in the language used in my postings." John Lott 4-06-03 |
|
#285
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 7 Dec 2003 13:50:12 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... I notice you keep bringing this up. Umm, gunner - as far as 'keeps bringing a subject up' I would suggest you install a lightning rod soonest on your dwelling. Jim I understand your comment. And from your place in the Cave of Apathy..it makes sense. Gunner 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 |
|
#286
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
|
#287
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 7 Dec 2003 14:11:53 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... Did he lie IN his research,.... or about his research? The first being, he fabricated the data, and then told the truth about the bogus information; the second being that he did impeccable research and published it accurately, but then lied about the contents when publicizing it? Lott's data and research has been well reviewed and found to be accurate, and published correctly. Thats a given. His various studies have been attacked time and time again and no challenge to it has been founded. The Mary Roush stuff..shrug.. If you want to take a look at what Churl Neaseus's cronies have to say about it: http://www.askjohnlott.org/answers.html Browse around...I should mention..this is Not a John Lott site but a Bash Lott site...all done nice and neatly to make the reader think it is. Kind of makes a person wonder why they have to go to such extremes to demonize the individual, and not the data. Perhaps the Data is unimpeachable, so they have to try to poison the researcher? You be the judge. Some bits of interest on that site btw... http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1213358.html "The fraud and abuse manager for one Internet Service Provider (ISP), whose features had been used by the fraudulent website, confirmed to CNSNews.com Tuesday that the website was "piggy-backed" on the account of an anti-gun organization. "There is a merchant that is related, and I do see that there is some correlation," he said, speaking on condition that neither he nor his business would be identified. "They seem to be some sort of anti-gun advocate, something to that effect. "However," he added, "it does seem that mostly they're using the service to conduct legitimate business." The ISP manager said the "AskJohnLott.org" services formerly provided by his company appeared to have been terminated and that an attempt appeared to have been made to delete the records of the services' use. He would not name the "anti-gun advocate" to which the fraudulent website's services had been billed, noting that he could not confirm from his records whether his legitimate client had authorized the specific use." Here..btw..is the real John Lott site. Take some time and look around, look at his data sources etc..its all there in black and whitel http://www.johnlott.org/ You might want to read this paper as well http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=372361 Gunner Gunner I guess I'm in a quandry here. I'm not sure I really see the difference (is there one?) between the two. Perhaps I'm missing something here. Jim ================================================= = please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================= = 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 |
|
#288
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Gunner says...
So again I ask..what lies are in his research. What's with your comment, that he lied 'about' his research but not 'in' the research. I really don't understand the distinction. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#289
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net... "Ed Huntress" wrote: Same here, dickhead. You never did come up with the "4/5 of the murders" that "Ford" claimed in the statement you were defending. I cited 2000 numbers if you recall, idiot. You claim to have cites that disprove them....feel free to do so. It looks like you need some work on your memory to go with your remedial math and remedial reading. Here's what YOU said about it, dickhead: That's in 2000, of course....couldn't find this year's numbers. The total US that year has 15,517 murders so that makes 11,762 in states that restrict open carry as per Gunner's quote....and that makes a grand total of right at 76% of all murders committed in restricted carry states etc etc etc. 76% is closer to 3/4 than 4/5, Einstein. And 2001 produces exactly the same numbers, using your list of states. I never said anything to the contrary. Then you included states that have no preemption and lots of local permit and/or no-carry laws, Bull****, idiot. Nothing but state laws as cited on the NRA-ILA site that you claim to know so well. I haven't been to the NRA-ILA site for a couple of years. You do have a reading comprehension problem there, dickhead. And you ought to get out more and see what some other sources have to say about it, from the USDOJ for the "prohibited persons" list to Packing.org for another take on which states really are "open carry." And when you're through with them, read the actual damned laws. Then you won't look like a dope for saysing that Utah has some "strict restrictions" on open carry. Right. You have to pull the trigger twice. Dickhead. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#290
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... Here..btw..is the real John Lott site. Take some time and look around, look at his data sources etc..its all there in black and white Black? Is Mary wearing one of those little black Halston dresses? Or is he playing John on this site? g I miss Mary. Imagine my disappointment when I found out she really was John... Ed Huntress |
|
#291
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 7 Dec 2003 19:49:50 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... So again I ask..what lies are in his research. What's with your comment, that he lied 'about' his research but not 'in' the research. I really don't understand the distinction. Jim Hummmm..you are slower than I thought. The lies about his research is a reference to the Mary Roush bug****. Where he used a female persona on newsgroups to defend his research, and not have every nut case antigun wonk lined up for miles to fill his email account or the newsgroup he was on with trash. He never did lie IN the research. Thats been verified 12 ways from Sunday. The only lying he did About his research was the use of a persona. Still confused? Please say no..else my very high respect for your intelligence level will go down several notches. Gunner 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 |
|
#292
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:40:12 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . Here..btw..is the real John Lott site. Take some time and look around, look at his data sources etc..its all there in black and white Black? Is Mary wearing one of those little black Halston dresses? Or is he playing John on this site? g I miss Mary. Imagine my disappointment when I found out she really was John... Ed Huntress but "she" was good in debate. Gunner 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 |
|
#293
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner sputtered:
He never did lie IN the research. Thats been verified 12 ways from Sunday. Heh. Lott's been caught numerous times. He reported results from a survey he never conducted. http://tinyurl.com/y8er He back-dated a chart in an analysis and tried to pretend he didn't change an analytical model. http://tinyurl.com/y8f5 He constantly lies by omission when he excludes research that contradicts his results. http://tinyurl.com/y8fb and much, much mo http://tinyurl.com/xlnr Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science, correctly described John Lott's work as a "fraud". |
|
#294
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"JTMcC" wrote in message ...
"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message om... BottleBob wrote Carl Nisarel wrote: (Richard Lewis) wrote Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K; assault....910K etc etc etc. .... Robberies 420,637 Do *you* understand the difference between robbery and armed robbery? Do you understand the difference between having "a 'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" and those statistics? If you do not, you're simply one of the idiots. Richard's data does not match Richards claim. His claim was simply emotional drivel unsupported by actual data. I wouldn't let a personal negative bias against a person, or group, interfere with an impartial evaluation of relevant statistics. Dude, those are not the relevant statistics. Richard created the definition and then moved the goalpost. Are you aware of the fact that most assaults and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim? OK, so someone my wife, or daughter KNOWS tries to assult my wife, or daughter. That someone is more likely to be you, or your son, than a stranger. |
|
#295
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote ...
Did he lie IN his research,(which has been backed up by Kleck, This is what Kleck thinks about Lott's MGLC research: "more likely the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." - Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997. Kleck has never produced any research that 'backs up' Lott. |
|
#297
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
BottleBob wrote in message ...
Carl Nisarel wrote: BottleBob wrote Carl Nisarel wrote: (Richard Lewis) wrote Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K; assault....910K etc etc etc. .... Robberies 420,637 Do *you* understand the difference between robbery and armed robbery? Carl: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf The main heading for robberies at the above side doesn't distinguish between armed and unarmed robberies. But further down it does list the percentage (42.1%) of robberies where a firearm is used. Why is this "armed" distinction of robbery important to you? If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice. Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted that he did it. Do you understand the difference between having "a 'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" and those statistics? I would venture to guess that most of those robbery and assault victims had someone to care about them and were therefore the "loved one" of someone else. Ok, you don't understand the difference. Lewis created the idiotic definition and is moving the goalpost trying to get anything crammed into it. If you do not, you're simply one of the idiots. Richard's data does not match Richards claim. His claim was simply emotional drivel unsupported by actual data. You seem pretty free with calling other people idiots on marginal data. The data is in the thread and it isn't marginal. Dude, those are not the relevant statistics. Richard created the definition and then moved the goalpost. Are you aware of the fact that most assaults and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim? I saw where you said that before. I have no information on which to judge whether it's actually a "fact" or not. Do you have a credible site that DOES have this information? I have credible information and I am much more familiar with the research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread. BTW, thinking about it right now, as soon as an "acquaintance" or "family member" engages in the act of robbery, rape, or assault of another... then they BECOME "an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm", do they not? One minute a friend, next minute a felon. 1) It demonstrates the idiocy of Lewis' emotionally driven fallacious definition. 2) People tend to be rather hesitant about a self-defense shooting people they know. |
|
#298
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:40:12 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . Here..btw..is the real John Lott site. Take some time and look around, look at his data sources etc..its all there in black and white Black? Is Mary wearing one of those little black Halston dresses? Or is he playing John on this site? g I miss Mary. Imagine my disappointment when I found out she really was John... Ed Huntress but "she" was good in debate. Gunner The hell she was. After describing those armed guys as "students," she neglected to mention that they were also police officers -- one of them currently employed. That he had a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his car should have attracted her curiosity about that fact. g That's a habit of mind, Gunner. If a writer is that sloppy in researching an editorial, not checking out his facts, then there's a good chance he was sloppy in researching his book. If there was money in it I'd love to go do some digging on that book that you guys are talking about. But that's at least $5,000 worth of work. BTW, it's Mary Rosh, not Roush. Ed Huntress |
|
#299
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Gunner says...
but "she" was good in debate. Ha ha ha. The image of lott prancing around in a dress is, well, frankly - priceless. The guy has *zero* credibility after that. Face it, he's a laughingstock. I'm sorry to have to disillusion you, but your man (?) did let you down. No matter how good he is at what he does, a stunt like that undoes any former good work he ever did for that cause. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#300
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"JTMcC" wrote
"Carl Nisarel" wrote "JTMcC" wrote .... Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to emotion fallacy? You're just demonstrating that you are not intelligent enough to figure out how to deal with life without a gun. Your moronic, and unoriginal, retort does not have anything to do with Lott's invalidated research. OK, I guess you don't have a lovely wife then. When did you stop beating your wife? Of course you are trying to stigmatize anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment as a wife beater No, I'm not. It's the classic example of the complex question fallacy. It seems you aren't bright enough or educated enough to recognize it. But thanks for demonstrating that you're just another gunner who's mindset is still back in the 1950s. |
|
#301
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 8 Dec 2003 06:44:43 -0800, (Carl
Nisarel) wrote: "JTMcC" wrote in message ... "Carl Nisarel" wrote in message om... BottleBob wrote Carl Nisarel wrote: (Richard Lewis) wrote Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K; assault....910K etc etc etc. .... Robberies 420,637 Do *you* understand the difference between robbery and armed robbery? Do you understand the difference between having "a 'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" and those statistics? If you do not, you're simply one of the idiots. Richard's data does not match Richards claim. His claim was simply emotional drivel unsupported by actual data. I wouldn't let a personal negative bias against a person, or group, interfere with an impartial evaluation of relevant statistics. Dude, those are not the relevant statistics. Richard created the definition and then moved the goalpost. Are you aware of the fact that most assaults and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim? OK, so someone my wife, or daughter KNOWS tries to assult my wife, or daughter. That someone is more likely to be you, or your son, than a stranger. Cites? Gunner 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 |
|
#302
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 8 Dec 2003 06:47:20 -0800, (Carl
Nisarel) wrote: Gunner wrote ... Did he lie IN his research,(which has been backed up by Kleck, This is what Kleck thinks about Lott's MGLC research: "more likely the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." Nice cut and paste out of context. - Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997. Kleck has never produced any research that 'backs up' Lott. http://www.rdfrost.com/Reference/RKBA/Kleck.html http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html "222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their household in the past 5 years. After correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had experienced at least one DGU. When multiplied by 1.478, the average number of DGUs reported per DGU claimant for the preceding year, and by the total adult population, an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per year was arrived at. However, Kleck reviewed the record associated with each reported DGU and flagged every report for which: (1)it was not clear if the respondent had actually confronted the perpetrator; (2)the respondent was a police officer, soldier, or security guard; (3)the interviewer had not properly recorded exactly what the respondent had done with the gun, so it was not certain that the respondent had actually used the gun; or, (4)the record did not state a specific crime the respondent thought was being committed. When all such cases were eliminated, the results were 1.125 percent of adults had used guns defensively an average of 1.472 times each, for a total of 2.16 million DGUs per year. This, then is the K-G conservative estimate of annual DGUs. So, rather than saying that K-G found that there are 2.5 million DGUs per year, we should say that there are up to 2.5 million, or be more conservative and say something like over 2 million." http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html So Churl..if you dont like Lott's study...we can simply go with Klecks. Ok with you? Laugh laugh laugh Gunner 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 |
|
#303
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
|
#304
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
|
#305
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Gunner says...
Umm, gunner - as far as 'keeps bringing a subject up' I would suggest you install a lightning rod soonest on your dwelling. I understand your comment. And from your place in the Cave of Apathy..it makes sense. No. It comes from the Cave of My Metalworking Shop. It's a metalworking ng, so the odd man out is you, bringing up off topic stuff. That's fine, clearly there's a big interest. But it is off topic, and you are the one who keeps churning it. Apathetic about metalworking, no. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#306
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
|
#307
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:13 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:40:12 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . Here..btw..is the real John Lott site. Take some time and look around, look at his data sources etc..its all there in black and white Black? Is Mary wearing one of those little black Halston dresses? Or is he playing John on this site? g I miss Mary. Imagine my disappointment when I found out she really was John... Ed Huntress but "she" was good in debate. Gunner The hell she was. After describing those armed guys as "students," she neglected to mention that they were also police officers -- one of them currently employed. That he had a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his car should have attracted her curiosity about that fact. g They Were students. And if one is not currently employed..he is not a policeman. Correct? If I had been one of the participants, would that have made any difference? Ive been a policeman, I carry handcuffs in the truck and occasionally have body armor about. In the grand scheme of things, this means exactly what? That two armed citizens stopped the criminal? Yes indeed they did. As happens 2.5 million times a year. That's a habit of mind, Gunner. If a writer is that sloppy in researching an editorial, not checking out his facts, then there's a good chance he was sloppy in researching his book. If there was money in it I'd love to go do some digging on that book that you guys are talking about. But that's at least $5,000 worth of work. Sloppy or just didn't present facts that really were not germane to the story? Were either student there for the express purpose of responding to the criminals action? No. Were either of them on duty and in uniform at the time? No. Would it have made any difference if either of them had been gay interior decorators? No. BTW, it's Mary Rosh, not Roush. Shrug. Ed Huntress Gunner 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 |
|
#308
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 8 Dec 2003 07:43:57 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... but "she" was good in debate. Ha ha ha. The image of lott prancing around in a dress is, well, frankly - priceless. The guy has *zero* credibility after that. Face it, he's a laughingstock. I'm sorry to have to disillusion you, but your man (?) did let you down. No matter how good he is at what he does, a stunt like that undoes any former good work he ever did for that cause. Jim Granted, it was a stupid thing to do. Shrug. You are aware that old Ben Franklin had a thing for pubescent girls..under 13 yrs old, right? And this affects his impact on the Constitution exactly how? Id imagine you still think Bill Clinton was a generally good president, right? Rape, murder, Monica Missiles..blow jobs under the dest, are are to be disregarded in the Grand Scheme of things, correct? Your partisianship is noted. Lott ****ed up using the Mary Roush thing. It makes no differene to his research, other than giving you antigun individuals something to try to hand your hat on. If it wasnt one thing, the antigunners would try something else to demonize the man, as the data is untouchable. Lott was the first individual to put the lie to the Antigunners agenda, and as such the biggest target. The others whom conducted other studies, came up with largely the same conclusions, are not demonized, for to do so, would bring those studies also into the light of day and thats the Least thing the Antis want to happen. Gunner 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 |
|
#309
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... I miss Mary. Imagine my disappointment when I found out she really was John... Ed Huntress but "she" was good in debate. Gunner The hell she was. After describing those armed guys as "students," she neglected to mention that they were also police officers -- one of them currently employed. That he had a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his car should have attracted her curiosity about that fact. g They Were students. And if one is not currently employed..he is not a policeman. Correct? Oh, for Christ's sake, Gunner. A "student," with a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his car? Lott's editorial was about the role of "armed citizens" in stopping a crime. He neglected to mention that the "armed citizens" were a currently employed cop equipped with vest and 'cuffs, and another cop who was studying law. Do you really want to go through that again? Lott gave up on it himself. Sloppy or just didn't present facts that really were not germane to the story? Were either student there for the express purpose of responding to the criminals action? No. Were either of them on duty and in uniform at the time? No. Would it have made any difference if either of them had been gay interior decorators? No. Then the story is that we need more off-duty and former cops. He said nothing about cops. That's because, if he had, anyone with a lick of sense would have realized that the story wasn't what he said it was. If that doesn't sink into your head, then you don't understand why Lott saw fit to write an editorial about it in the first place...and why he neglected to say anything about bulletproof vests, handcuffs, or cops. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#310
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 8 Dec 2003 10:59:53 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... Umm, gunner - as far as 'keeps bringing a subject up' I would suggest you install a lightning rod soonest on your dwelling. I understand your comment. And from your place in the Cave of Apathy..it makes sense. No. It comes from the Cave of My Metalworking Shop. It's a metalworking ng, so the odd man out is you, bringing up off topic stuff. That's fine, clearly there's a big interest. But it is off topic, and you are the one who keeps churning it. Apathetic about metalworking, no. Jim I thae this to mean you have run out of arguments and are taking your ball and going home? Your participation in this thread has been ongoing..and noted. G Gunner 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 |
|
#311
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
-- "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country." - John Dickinson, 1771 - "Gunner" wrote The part the argument want off on..was about the 4/5 murders being done in the other 25 states, or do you not recall that? Recent head injury? And he showed conclusively that the quote was in error. So what is your point? Dan |
|
#312
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country." - John Dickinson, 1771 - The Brain - is wider than the Sky - For - put them side by side - The one the other will contain With ease - and You - beside. -- Emily Dickinson Ed Huntress |
|
#313
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
-- "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country." - John Dickinson, 1771 - "Gunner" wrote in message ... On 8 Dec 2003 09:44:46 -0800, (Carl 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 "Fifty out of 5,000 people responded that they had used handguns in an actual confrontation against another human attempting a crime. In 47.2 percent of the cases, the criminal was armed. About one in six were armed with a firearm, the rest with knives, clubs or some other weapon. In 73.4 percent of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victims. Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare--well under 10 percent. This disproves the Kellerman myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love." This is the level of "refutation" in the above cite. I'll leave the logical fallacies and lack of statistical relevance to the reader... One really ought to READ the material one cites, or at least point out some of the known shortcomings of the material, if one expects to be taken as an honest person... Given the above, it is hard to give credence to anything else in the piece. Can you say "bias?" Dan |
|
#314
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Carl Nisarel wrote: BottleBob wrote in message ... Carl Nisarel wrote: BottleBob wrote Carl Nisarel wrote: (Richard Lewis) wrote Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K; assault....910K etc etc etc. .... Robberies 420,637 Do *you* understand the difference between robbery and armed robbery? Carl: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf The main heading for robberies at the above side doesn't distinguish between armed and unarmed robberies. But further down it does list the percentage (42.1%) of robberies where a firearm is used. Why is this "armed" distinction of robbery important to you? If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice. Carl: No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine. Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted that he did it. Do you think he did it deliberately? Should a mistake in labeling be equated to being a liar? Do you understand the difference between having "a 'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" and those statistics? I would venture to guess that most of those robbery and assault victims had someone to care about them and were therefore the "loved one" of someone else. Ok, you don't understand the difference. Rapes 95,136 Robberies 420,637 Assaults 894,348 -------- Total 1,410,121 Do you mean to imply that no significant quantity of those 1,410,121 victims were the "loved ones" of another? Now since we have 1,410,121 victims, don't you think that tends to validate Richard's original claim that "a loved one is assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" hundreds of thousands of times a year? Now even *IF* we were to subtract an amount to simulate your alleged "MOST assaults and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim", let's say an even 1,000,000 (about 70% of the cases), we still would have 410,121 cases. Which seems to leave 100's of thousands of cases to me. Lewis created the idiotic definition and is moving the goalpost trying to get anything crammed into it. ARE 100's of thousands of people the victims of violent crime per year? DID Richard make up those statistics out of thin air? If you do not, you're simply one of the idiots. Richard's data does not match Richards claim. His claim was simply emotional drivel unsupported by actual data. You seem pretty free with calling other people idiots on marginal data. The data is in the thread and it isn't marginal. The data as I see it, seems to show that 100's of thousands of people are the victims of violent crime per year. Wasn't THAT one of your points of contention with Richard? Are you aware of the fact that most assaults and rapes are committed by someone known to the victim? I saw where you said that before. I have no information on which to judge whether it's actually a "fact" or not. Do you have a credible site that DOES have this information? I have credible information and I am much more familiar with the research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread. You "claim" to have credible information but how can we judge *IF* it's credible without seeing it, or it's source? Not saying it ISN'T credible, and not saying it IS. As far as your statement that you are "...much more familiar with the research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread." Well that's an opinion, perhaps true, perhaps not. There seems to be a battle of the statistics going on between you and Gunner which may, or may not, jeopardize your claim to being more familiar with the data than anyone else. BTW, thinking about it right now, as soon as an "acquaintance" or "family member" engages in the act of robbery, rape, or assault of another... then they BECOME "an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm", do they not? One minute a friend, next minute a felon. 1) It demonstrates the idiocy of Lewis' emotionally driven fallacious definition. Are 410,121 victims 100's of thousands? 2) People tend to be rather hesitant about a self-defense shooting people they know. I would be inclined to see that as a relatively true statement. -- BottleBob http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob |
|
#315
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote
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 Kates' assertion cannot be 'refuted' since it is false. That fact whizzed right over your head. ..... Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed." Kellerman's studies were peer-reviewed. A typical comment from a criminalogist about Kellerman: " Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:16 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Rick Lowe is in law enforcement and only has undergraduate degrees. He is neither qualified nor trained to evaluate research. ...... You're mindlessly repeating another gunner lie. Just cant handle the refutation of your whole mindset can you? I'm fine, you're an idiot. You just mindlessly parrot what other people have written and don't even realize that what they wrote is false. ..... 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: ...... 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 There's nothing in there that refutes Wiebe's research. At this point..you may well want to fold up your tent and move on to more receptive pastures. The 'receptive pastures' are right here. You're an easy target and it's entertaining to make you look like a fool. |
|
#316
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote
On 8 Dec 2003 06:47:20 -0800, (Carl Nisarel) wrote: Gunner wrote ... Did he lie IN his research,(which has been backed up by Kleck, This is what Kleck thinks about Lott's MGLC research: "more likely the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." Nice cut and paste out of context. Lousy try at spinning it. It's not out of context. - Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997. Kleck has never produced any research that 'backs up' Lott. http://www.rdfrost.com/Reference/RKBA/Kleck.html http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html "222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU Kleck's DGU research does not 'back up' Lott's MGLC research. It's tangential. But you're too stupid to realize it. |
|
#317
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:50:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . I miss Mary. Imagine my disappointment when I found out she really was John... Ed Huntress but "she" was good in debate. Gunner The hell she was. After describing those armed guys as "students," she neglected to mention that they were also police officers -- one of them currently employed. That he had a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his car should have attracted her curiosity about that fact. g They Were students. And if one is not currently employed..he is not a policeman. Correct? Oh, for Christ's sake, Gunner. A "student," with a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his car? No **** Sherlock. If they were taking classes, they were students, No? Or were they ice cream sellers, or hummmm barnacle grinders? Lott's editorial was about the role of "armed citizens" in stopping a crime. He neglected to mention that the "armed citizens" were a currently employed cop equipped with vest and 'cuffs, and another cop who was studying law. Do you really want to go through that again? Lott gave up on it himself. You seem to be missing the other 2.5 million individuals in your distain for Lott. Thats hardly like you. Sloppy or just didn't present facts that really were not germane to the story? Were either student there for the express purpose of responding to the criminals action? No. Were either of them on duty and in uniform at the time? No. Would it have made any difference if either of them had been gay interior decorators? No. Then the story is that we need more off-duty and former cops. He said nothing about cops. That's because, if he had, anyone with a lick of sense would have realized that the story wasn't what he said it was. Why would we need more off duty and former cops? An armed citizenry does a fair job as it is now. If that doesn't sink into your head, then you don't understand why Lott saw fit to write an editorial about it in the first place...and why he neglected to say anything about bulletproof vests, handcuffs, or cops. They were not cops. They were students. When they went on duty, they were cops. I have oodles more training than 95% of most cops..and Im not a cop. Im just a citizen. Your harping on this is a bit interesting. The issues you must be carrying around with you are fascinating. Gunner 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 |
|
#318
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 8 Dec 2003 19:28:40 -0800, (Carl
Nisarel) wrote: Gunner wrote On 8 Dec 2003 06:47:20 -0800, (Carl Nisarel) wrote: Gunner wrote ... Did he lie IN his research,(which has been backed up by Kleck, This is what Kleck thinks about Lott's MGLC research: "more likely the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." Nice cut and paste out of context. Lousy try at spinning it. It's not out of context. - Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997. Kleck has never produced any research that 'backs up' Lott. http://www.rdfrost.com/Reference/RKBA/Kleck.html http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html "222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU Kleck's DGU research does not 'back up' Lott's MGLC research. It's tangential. But you're too stupid to realize it. And they reached roughly the same conclusions. Thank you very much for playing. You really ARE this stupid. Sarah B is not getting her moneys worth from you. Gunner 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 |
|
#319
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On 8 Dec 2003 19:20:55 -0800, (Carl
Nisarel) wrote: Gunner wrote 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 Kates' assertion cannot be 'refuted' since it is false. That fact whizzed right over your head. .... Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed." Kellerman's studies were peer-reviewed. And found incorrect. A typical comment from a criminalogist about Kellerman: " Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:16 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Rick Lowe is in law enforcement and only has undergraduate degrees. He is neither qualified nor trained to evaluate research. LOL...and you? ..... You're mindlessly repeating another gunner lie. Just cant handle the refutation of your whole mindset can you? I'm fine, you're an idiot. Spoken like a true useful idiot. You just mindlessly parrot what other people have written and don't even realize that what they wrote is false. So far..Im batting 300..and you? Strike Out! .... 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: ..... 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 There's nothing in there that refutes Wiebe's research. Cites? At this point..you may well want to fold up your tent and move on to more receptive pastures. The 'receptive pastures' are right here. You're an easy target and it's entertaining to make you look like a fool. You entertain easily. You into S&M I take it? So far the beating has all been on you. Hire a Dominatrix..she will hurt you just the way you want it. Sarah really isnt getting her moneys worth Gunner 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 |
|
#320
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Gunner" wrote in message
... They were not cops. They were students. When they went on duty, they were cops. I have oodles more training than 95% of most cops..and Im not a cop. Im just a citizen. Well, then, let's get more cops, and more Gunner-like former cops, out there with guns. If you've been a cop and if you'd had 95% more training than most cops, I doubt if many would object to the idea of you being armed and handy when a cop or a cop stand-in is needed. On the other hand, if you argue that armed, ordinary college students, who HAVEN'T had your training, are what we need more of, you're going to get a hell of a lot of objection. Which is why Lott's editorial was worth publishing -- it made this very provocative argument, that armed college students saved the day. Of all the people I heard from while that discussion was going on, and for months afterward, you're the only one I can recall who just doesn't get it. Let me spell it out slowly, one last time. If you (or John Lott/Mary Rosh) had said that the situation at that law school shows that it's good to have some armed cops around, or former cops -- anyone who was trained as a cop, who passed muster to become a cop, and who has both the knowledge that cops have about handling armed criminals and guns and the experience of having thought like a cop, served as a cop, and qualified as a cop -- hardly a peep of objection would have been heard. Whether they were on duty or off, serving actively or on leave to study law, retired, resigned, or whatever, they had the background that makes the difference to much of the public. You don't hear many people saying that they don't want armed cops around, and those that *do* say it tend to be the people we want the cops to protect us from. You seem not to recognize this point. Lott probably *does* recognize it, which is why he said nothing about it. If he had written an editorial about the value of having armed cops/former cops/whatever cops in a situation like that, it would have been so unremarkable, and so uncontroversial, that the NY Post would have had no reason in this world to publish the editorial. Lott knew it, the Post knew it, and almost every sentient being in the country who read the story knew it. Except you, of course. g If you want to argue that having armed college students running around campus is a good thing, go ahead and argue it. That isn't the point here, and I won't get involved with it because it's purely speculative, unless you want to count the carefully selected anecdotes you probably could dredge up from the NRA or whatever -- and I don't count anecdotes, because they're often misleading, especially when they're selected by fervent advocates on one side of an issue. The issue was never whether ordinary college students should be armed. The point was that Lott selected bits from the larger story and glossed over some very telling ones when he told it. That's one form of propaganda: selecting bits of truth and weaving them into an argument that draws a misleading conclusion. From the actual evidence, there's nothing that can be said about what would have happened if those armed "students" had just been ordinary college kids with guns, and not college students who happened to be trained as cops, and who happened to have served as cops. If you don't recognize this, ask yourself why, if the point isn't "germane," as you said in your last post, you would get excited about the fact that it came up in this discussion. If it isn't germane, you have no reason to remark about it. I never said ANYTHING about it being bad, or wrong, for college students to be armed (although I would if you had asked -- I remember college students and their qualities of judgment and maturity very well, because I was one g). What you're getting excited about is the fact that I researched it and found out that they were cops, and then pointed it out. If it's not germane, then what's your beef? Ed Huntress |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Barn conversion - how deep should the footings be.....? | UK diy | |||
| Deep drawing of aluminum bottle | Metalworking | |||
| Deep hole drill profile question | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
