On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:40:21 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

. 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

My beef is you making a big deal about it and making some pretense
that decently trained students could not have handled the situation.

Hell..if they had simply shot the guy, it would have been handled
decently.

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

BottleBob wrote:
Carl Nisarel wrote:
.......

If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.

Carl:

No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.

You're excusing it.


Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted
that he did it.

Do you think he did it deliberately?

Do you think his computer typed the word "armed" without him?

Should a mistake in labeling be
equated to being a liar?

You're excusing dishonesty.


....

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?

No, it doesn't. Lewis' definition is a moronic appeal to emotion
fallacy.

......

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?

Huff and puff all you wish. A 'victim of a violent crime' and "a loved
one assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and
doing bodily harm" are not equivalent.

.....
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.

I'm shredding Gunner. He's spouting the standard propaganda from
gunner websites, I'm noting relevant and recent research with which he
is unfamiliar.

If you think he's more aware of the research and data, you really have
poor evaluation skills.

.....

1) It demonstrates the idiocy of Lewis' emotionally driven fallacious
definition.

Are 410,121 victims 100's of thousands?

They aren't "100's of thousands" that fit his definition.


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.

Gunner wrote

On 8 Dec 2003 19:28:40 -0800, (Carl
Nisarel) wrote:
......

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.

ROTFL! You've got to be one of the biggest gunner idiots around.

Produce a statement from Kleck's DGU research where he concludes that
more guns produce less crime.

Then explain how Kleck could 'back up' Lott when Kleck conducted his
DGU research before Lott conducted his MGLC research.

I know you won't but it will be entertaining to watch you sputter.

Gunner wrote

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.

It's still flying well over your head.



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

Kellerman's studies were peer-reviewed.

And found incorrect.

And somehow "BottleBob" thinks you are more well-informed.

First you mindlessly parrot the claim that Kellerman's study wasn't
peer-reviewed and then when that lie is noted, you try a different
tactic.

If the result of the peer-review was that his research was incorrect,
then it wouldn't have been published. That's the purpose of
peer-review. Since it was published in a journal after going through
the peer-review process, it demonstrates that the peer-review did
'find it' correct.

It will be entertaining to watch how you decide to spin that.


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?

My credentials are irrelevant to the fact that Rick Lowe is not
qualified nor trained to evaluate research.

Nonetheless, I am qualified, trained, and publish peer-reviewed
research.

It will be entertaining to watch you spin that one.


......

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.

You're batting .000

.....

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?

It's your website, idiot.

That's another swing and a miss. You're still batting .000

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote:
Carl Nisarel wrote:
......

If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.

Carl:

No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.

You're excusing it.

Carl:

Am I?


Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted
that he did it.

Do you think he did it deliberately?

Do you think his computer typed the word "armed" without him?

No, I don't. But let me rephrase my question. Do you think he added
the word "armed" to intentionally be deceptive?
The statistics Richard listed were supportive of his contention about
the number of people being victimized in rapes, robberies, and assaults
every year. What difference would it make to the statistics listed if
the perpetrators were armed or not? Would the victims be any less
robbed, raped, or assaulted?


Should a mistake in labeling be
equated to being a liar?

You're excusing dishonesty.

Excuse me? I'm excusing dishonesty by realizing he probably made a
typing boo-boo, or probably made an incorrect word association by using
"armed" with robbery?
Richard has said a number of things that were probably wrong and/or
contained inaccurate data that you could have focused upon. But you
chose to focus on his comment about hundreds of thousands of victims of
violence every year. YOU chose to challenge THAT particular comment and
accused Richard of making that data up out of thin air. When the data
itself was shown to be essentially correct, you changed your focus to
him adding the extra word "armed" in front of robbery as if that somehow
invalidated the data. You must realize that in no way changes the
original data or validates your accusation that he made the data up out
of thin air.


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?

No, it doesn't. Lewis' definition is a moronic appeal to emotion
fallacy.

Perhaps. But are the FACTS of there being hundreds of thousands of
victims of violent crime every year correct?


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?

Huff and puff all you wish. A 'victim of a violent crime' and "a loved
one assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and
doing bodily harm" are not equivalent.

I'm sorry, I don't perceive the fine distinction you're trying to make
here. Could you elaborate on the difference between "a loved one
assaulted..." and a "victim of a violent crime"? Is not "a loved one
assaulted etc." a victim of violence? And are not victims of violent
crime probably someone's loved one?



....
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.

I'm shredding Gunner.

Gunner probably thinks he's "shredding" you.

He's spouting the standard propaganda from
gunner websites,

And Gunner might very well say YOU'RE spouting the standard propaganda
from ANTI-gunner websites.
Would he be right and you wrong?
Would you be right and he wrong?
Could you both be right?
Could you both be wrong?
Or is it reasonable to assume that there areas of right and wrong on
both sides of this issue?

I'm noting relevant and recent research with which he
is unfamiliar.

Perhaps.


If you think he's more aware of the research and data, you really have
poor evaluation skills.

Actually, I'm not reading all the data at the URL's given. I don't
have enough motivation, (either pro-gun, or anti-gun), or the time to
read pages of statistics and associated rhetoric.


....

What does your repeated use of these dots signify? The end of a
subject?


1) It demonstrates the idiocy of Lewis' emotionally driven fallacious
definition.

Are 410,121 victims 100's of thousands?

They aren't "100's of thousands" that fit his definition.

Are they victims? Are these victims the possible loved ones of someone
else?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:40:21 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

. 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

My beef is you making a big deal about it and making some pretense
that decently trained students could not have handled the situation.

"Decently trained"? Is this the same Gunner who was extoling the virtues of
gun laws that don't require a permit, and who discounted Michigan's stats
because the state requires a ten-minute gun-handling quiz in order to
purchase a handgun?

Nah. 'Must have been another Gunner....

Ed Huntress

Carl Nisarel wrote:


And somehow "BottleBob" thinks you are more well-informed.

Carl:

I didn't say that, now did I. When YOU claimed to be more
"well-informed" than anyone else posting to this thread, I just said
that that's your "opinion", which may, or may not, be true. I made no
assertions that Gunner was, or was not, more "well-informed"

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:30:29 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:40:21 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

. 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

My beef is you making a big deal about it and making some pretense
that decently trained students could not have handled the situation.

"Decently trained"? Is this the same Gunner who was extoling the virtues of
gun laws that don't require a permit, and who discounted Michigan's stats
because the state requires a ten-minute gun-handling quiz in order to
purchase a handgun?

Nah. 'Must have been another Gunner....

Ed Huntress

I take it you missed the post about mandatory training in school?
Want me to repost it? Or are you simply ignoring it as it doesnt fit
your mindset?

RHINO. G

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:30:29 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:40:21 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

. 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

My beef is you making a big deal about it and making some pretense
that decently trained students could not have handled the situation.

"Decently trained"? Is this the same Gunner who was extoling the virtues
of
gun laws that don't require a permit, and who discounted Michigan's stats
because the state requires a ten-minute gun-handling quiz in order to
purchase a handgun?

Nah. 'Must have been another Gunner....

Ed Huntress

I take it you missed the post about mandatory training in school?
Want me to repost it? Or are you simply ignoring it as it doesnt fit
your mindset?

I didn't see it. I don't read the really dreary-sounding threads. g

So, this one is interesting. Isn't that a little bit fascist? Aren't you
supposed to be able to just go in and buy a gun anywhere, anytime, without
any kind of test or permit?

Are you suggesting that gun training should be the fourth "R"? Reading,
'Riting, 'Rithmetic, and Revolution?

Just what are you suggesting here, Gunner? How does it comport with your
right to buy and own a gun?

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:30:49 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:30:29 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:40:21 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

. 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

My beef is you making a big deal about it and making some pretense
that decently trained students could not have handled the situation.

"Decently trained"? Is this the same Gunner who was extoling the virtues
of
gun laws that don't require a permit, and who discounted Michigan's stats
because the state requires a ten-minute gun-handling quiz in order to
purchase a handgun?

Nah. 'Must have been another Gunner....

Ed Huntress

I take it you missed the post about mandatory training in school?
Want me to repost it? Or are you simply ignoring it as it doesnt fit
your mindset?

I didn't see it. I don't read the really dreary-sounding threads. g

So, this one is interesting. Isn't that a little bit fascist? Aren't you
supposed to be able to just go in and buy a gun anywhere, anytime, without
any kind of test or permit?

Are you suggesting that gun training should be the fourth "R"? Reading,
'Riting, 'Rithmetic, and Revolution?

Just what are you suggesting here, Gunner? How does it comport with your
right to buy and own a gun?

Ed Huntress

I suggested that it be manditory for firearms safety and use training
be taught in schools from K-12.

That the certificate be good for any type of weapon, concealed at
any time once the certificate has been granted, and good for carry in
public. Unified requirements across all state lines, good for all
states and territories, and only granted in full at the age of
Majority. "learners permits" for hunting etc to be issued on
completion of various levels of classes.

No registration of weapons, or owners, only whether or not the
individual had completed the certification course for public carry.
Period. Penalties for an uncertified individual carrying in public to
be harsh and swift, unless in an emergency or legal duty.

This would not effect your right to purchase, own or carry on your own
property, but only in public. And would not discriminate between a
Glock, a mini Uzi, a M16, and a sawed off shotgun in a shoulder
holster.

Of course, all prohibited persons would have that certificate
rescinded. Private party sales, mail order sales, gun store sales all
ok, with proof of cert. Counterfeit certs to be punished swiftly and
harshly.

I recommended that shooting competition of all types be offered in
schools much as it was in your and my day.

Quite a list of things, all basic common sense.

Removes the Forbidden Fruit problem, removes the ignorance problem,
etc. Very much like a drivers license. Drive anything, any time,
anywhere as long as the cert is good. We can discuss refreshers every
10 yrs.

Break the law, removal of cert, up to lifetime depending on act in
addition to all applicable criminal penalties. All btw..only for
public property. No restrictions on type, usage or carry on your own
private property. Basic right.

This should make the groups concerned about public safety happy. The
gun grabbers simply could go **** up a rope. Its Constitutionally
sound as it does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms
except to prohibited persons, and allows unified freedom in all states
without restriction. Im pragmatic enough to suggest the cert. Shrug.
Others will disagree with me of course, in both directions.

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


This should make the groups concerned about public safety happy. The
gun grabbers simply could go **** up a rope. Its Constitutionally
sound as it does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms
except to prohibited persons, and allows unified freedom in all states
without restriction. Im pragmatic enough to suggest the cert. Shrug.
Others will disagree with me of course, in both directions.


Haha! Veddy interesting. I take it you've never been to a school board
meeting...or at least you've never made this proposal at one, because you're
still alive. g

Well, here we are back at the corral, having gone around the horn with
statistics and so on, now arriving back at where the real gunfight is: the
great cultural divide. If you plan to promote this idea of yours, let us
know so we can watch the fireworks.

Ed Huntress

BottleBob wrote
Carl Nisarel wrote:


And somehow "BottleBob" thinks you are more well-informed.

Carl:

I didn't say that, now did I.

Make sure you remember that next time you try to stuff words into my mouth.

When YOU claimed to be more
"well-informed" than anyone else posting to this thread, I just said
that that's your "opinion",

It's a very well-informed, and accurate, opinion.

BottleBob wrote
Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote:
Carl Nisarel wrote:
......

If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.

Carl:

No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.

You're excusing it.

Carl:

Am I?

Yes, you are.



Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted
that he did it.

Do you think he did it deliberately?

Do you think his computer typed the word "armed" without him?

No, I don't.

Then he did it deliberately. He had the correct label in the table he
used. He chose to relabel it.


But let me rephrase my question. Do you think he added
the word "armed" to intentionally be deceptive?

Yes.


The statistics Richard listed were supportive of his contention about
the number of people being victimized in rapes, robberies, and assaults
every year.

That wasn't his contention. His 'contention' was a fallacious appeal
to emotion.

......

You're excusing dishonesty.

Excuse me?

No.

I'm excusing dishonesty by realizing he probably made a
typing boo-boo,

I doubt it.

.....

No, it doesn't. Lewis' definition is a moronic appeal to emotion
fallacy.

Perhaps.

There's no 'perhaps' about it.

But are the FACTS of there being hundreds of thousands of
victims of violent crime every year correct?

That's the goalpost move. He knew he was screwed by his definition so
he had to drag out something else.

God knows why you're supporting and excusing his dishonesty.

......

Huff and puff all you wish. A 'victim of a violent crime' and "a loved
one assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and
doing bodily harm" are not equivalent.

I'm sorry, I don't perceive the fine distinction you're trying to make
here.

I can tell.


Could you elaborate on the difference between "a loved one
assaulted..." and a "victim of a violent crime"?

You don't know much about crime statistics, do you?

Most victims of violent crime are violent criminals.

Would you tend to label a violent criminal a "loved one"?


....


I'm shredding Gunner.

Gunner probably thinks he's "shredding" you.

He is rather delusional.


He's spouting the standard propaganda from
gunner websites,

And Gunner might very well say YOU'RE spouting the standard propaganda
from ANTI-gunner websites.

He, and you, would be wrong.

If you think that's correct, identify a single item that I've
'spouted' from such a web site.

......

I'm noting relevant and recent research with which he
is unfamiliar.

Perhaps.

See Weibe, 2003. There's no perhaps about it.


If you think he's more aware of the research and data, you really have
poor evaluation skills.

Actually, I'm not reading all the data at the URL's given. I don't
have enough motivation, (either pro-gun, or anti-gun), or the time to
read pages of statistics and associated rhetoric.

Like I said, you really have poor evaluation skills.


....

What does your repeated use of these dots signify? The end of a
subject?

It's a standard usenet netiquette for noting that material was snipped
out of the post.

......

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote
Carl Nisarel wrote:


And somehow "BottleBob" thinks you are more well-informed.

Carl:

I didn't say that, now did I.

Make sure you remember that next time you try to stuff words into my mouth.

Carl:

When did I do that?


When YOU claimed to be more
"well-informed" than anyone else posting to this thread, I just said
that that's your "opinion",

It's a very well-informed, and accurate, opinion.

Don't you think Gunner would no doubt say the same about his own
opinions?

Just an offhand observation, but for someone who claims to be
"qualified, trained, and publishes peer-reviewed research" you tend to
be a little touchy and emotional and seem to have an anti-gun bias. Are
those desirable traits in an impartial researcher?

BTW, just curious, are you a regular on any of the three groups this
thread is crossposted to, or did you do a global search for gun
arguments?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:48:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


This should make the groups concerned about public safety happy. The
gun grabbers simply could go **** up a rope. Its Constitutionally
sound as it does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms
except to prohibited persons, and allows unified freedom in all states
without restriction. Im pragmatic enough to suggest the cert. Shrug.
Others will disagree with me of course, in both directions.


Haha! Veddy interesting. I take it you've never been to a school board
meeting...or at least you've never made this proposal at one, because you're
still alive. g

I was ON a school board. I quit in disgust. To many really stupid
people (libs for the most part) wanting every thing but the kitchen
sink, ignoring the kids education and wanting it all for free. That
was my first wake up call to the dangers of Liberals in the
educational system.

Well, here we are back at the corral, having gone around the horn with
statistics and so on, now arriving back at where the real gunfight is: the
great cultural divide. If you plan to promote this idea of yours, let us
know so we can watch the fireworks.

Ed Huntress
Of course it will never fly, unless common sense becomes valuable
again. Unfortunately Me 'ism has been the watchword of the past 40 or
so years. Im sure JFK is spinning in his grave.

"Ask not, what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for
your country"

Liberal translation: " Ask for every thing you can from your country,
and Do everything you can do TO your country"

Spit

Gunner




"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

First you mindlessly parrot the claim that Kellerman's study wasn't
peer-reviewed and then when that lie is noted, you try a different
tactic.

First, you try to call me a liar and claim I made up facts that
dispruted your ifiotic argument and when those facts were proven true,
you switch to a different tactic and argue semantics.

Give it up, moron. You're an idiot and a liar and we all know it.

ral

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

It's a very well-informed, and accurate, opinion.

And yet you argue violent crime stats that are cited on dozens of
differnt definitive sites?

Ok, idiot.

ral

"Ed Huntress" wrote ....

Well, here we are back at the corral, having gone around the horn with
statistics and so on, now arriving back at where the real gunfight is: the
great cultural divide. If you plan to promote this idea of yours, let us
know so we can watch the fireworks.

Speaking of fireworks...

You should check out Lambert's Blog (if you haven't already) on his
latest news on Lott's sockpuppet habits.

"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote ....

Well, here we are back at the corral, having gone around the horn with
statistics and so on, now arriving back at where the real gunfight is:
the
great cultural divide. If you plan to promote this idea of yours, let us
know so we can watch the fireworks.

Speaking of fireworks...

You should check out Lambert's Blog (if you haven't already) on his
latest news on Lott's sockpuppet habits.

I'll look.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:57:07 -0500, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:


BottleBob wrote:

Carl Nisarel wrote:
SNIP
BTW, just curious, are you a regular on any of the three groups this
thread is crossposted to, or did you do a global search for gun
arguments?

Interesting observation.


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...=Google+Search

R,
Tom Q.

I believe I mentioned this sometime back. Churl or Cattle as he is
also named, is indeed a well known troll. I suspect he is a submissive
homosexual, looking for someone he can call Master, and this is how
he gets his kicks and does a bit of Master searching at the same time.

Shrug. He and I have been crossing swords for at least 2 yrs that I
can think of. He floats in, starts ****, gets his ass handed to him
and then floats out again..usually about 48 hours is his limit.

Gunner

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or
delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

-- Krusty the Clown, "The Simpsons"

In article , Gunner says...

I was ON a school board. I quit in disgust.

Then you're part of the problem! You should have
simply recruited more folks like you, and given
the board a tussle. If you were half as persistent
there are you are here, there would be nothing
left but rubble when you were done with them.



Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

(Richard Lewis) wrote

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

It's a very well-informed, and accurate, opinion.

And yet you argue violent crime stats that are cited on dozens of
differnt definitive sites?

No, dimwit, I pointed out that you dishonestly move the goalpost and
changed the labels of those stats.

It figures that you don't have the balls to admit that you changed the
labels.

BottleBob wrote in message ...
Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote
Carl Nisarel wrote:


And somehow "BottleBob" thinks you are more well-informed.

Carl:

I didn't say that, now did I.

Make sure you remember that next time you try to stuff words into my mouth.

Carl:

When did I do that?

You do it below when you claim that I am anti-gun.

When YOU claimed to be more
"well-informed" than anyone else posting to this thread, I just said
that that's your "opinion",

It's a very well-informed, and accurate, opinion.

Don't you think Gunner would no doubt say the same about his own
opinions?

What Gunner would say is irrelevant to the accuracy of my statement.


Just an offhand observation, but for someone who claims to be
"qualified, trained, and publishes peer-reviewed research" you tend to
be a little touchy and emotional

If you're seeing that, you're seeing your own feelings, not mine.

and seem to have an anti-gun bias.

Produce a quote from me where I state that I am 'anti-gun'.

BTW, all researchers have biases and those who think they are
impartial are fooling only themselves.

(Richard Lewis) wrote

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

First you mindlessly parrot the claim that Kellerman's study wasn't
peer-reviewed and then when that lie is noted, you try a different
tactic.

First, you try to call me a liar and claim I made up facts

You did 'make up facts' when you labeled the category 'robbery' as
'armed robbery'

You 'made up facts' when you frantically moved the goalpost in your
attempt to support your emotional claim.

http://www.rdfrost.com/Reference/RKBA/Kleck.html

Where was Kleck when I was at FSU. Took a crim course in that dept back in '72
and did and "editorial term paper" on gun control. The prof flunked it, saying
it was "well thought out & well written but he disagreed with the content". It
was basically a case against more restrictive gun laws. He told me that
editorial term papers that agree with his views always got good grades,
regardless of quality. At least he was honest (I think . Oh well, it was an
elective & I passed the course (barely).
Greg Sefton

BottleBob wrote ...

....

I made no
assertions that Gunner was, or was not, more "well-informed"

"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."

Keep on waffling, BB.

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote
Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote:
Carl Nisarel wrote:
......

If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.

Carl:

No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.

You're excusing it.

Carl:

Am I?

Yes, you are.

Carl:

Where?



God knows why you're supporting and excusing his dishonesty.

Actually, I was only pointing out the apparent falseness of your
accusation that Richard Lewis was making his data up out of thin air,
when he said hundreds of thousands of people are victims of violence
every year.


.....

Huff and puff all you wish. A 'victim of a violent crime' and "a loved
one assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and
doing bodily harm" are not equivalent.

I'm sorry, I don't perceive the fine distinction you're trying to make
here.

I can tell.

Could you elaborate on the difference between "a loved one
assaulted..." and a "victim of a violent crime"?

You don't know much about crime statistics, do you?

Most victims of violent crime are violent criminals.

Even if that were true (which hasn't been shown), when I subtracted 70%
from the 1,410,000 victims of violence number, to simulate "most". We
still are left with 410,000 victims who would in all probability fit
YOUR criteria for "loved ones". Do you consider rape victims violent
criminals as well?


Would you tend to label a violent criminal a "loved one"?

You mean they don't have mothers, wives/girl friends, kids? g


...

I'm shredding Gunner.

Gunner probably thinks he's "shredding" you.

He is rather delusional.

He might say the same about you.



He's spouting the standard propaganda from
gunner websites,

And Gunner might very well say YOU'RE spouting the standard propaganda
from ANTI-gunner websites.

He, and you, would be wrong.

How would *I* be wrong? I have made no assertions as to you "spouting"
any alleged propaganda. I'm just making an observation that you both
may be making comments driven by an emotional bias.



I'm noting relevant and recent research with which he
is unfamiliar.

Perhaps.

See Weibe, 2003. There's no perhaps about it.

You misspelled Wiebe.


Like I said, you really have poor evaluation skills.

How could you make an assumption like that, the only thing I've
"evaluated" so far in our little chats here is the data for victims of
violent crime. Which you claimed Richard made up out of thin air, but
was given at the FBI site I went to.



....

What does your repeated use of these dots signify? The end of a
subject?

It's a standard usenet netiquette for noting that material was snipped
out of the post.

.....

Now that's interesting. I never knew that, and I've been posting since
'97. I imagine it can't be TOO much of a standard if I've never seen it
in all that time. Is this primarily a UK thing?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote ...

...

I made no
assertions that Gunner was, or was not, more "well-informed"

"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."

Keep on waffling, BB.

Carl:

Care to point out the assertion in that paragraph where I stated Gunner
was more "well-informed" than you? I said he may or may not be more
familiar with the data. I didn't make a definitive statement that he
was.

I'd be careful about criticizing other's evaluation skills if you make
these sorts of interpretational errors from simple comments. In the
future I would suggest you read what I actually say, not what you
imagine I say.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote in message ...

Make sure you remember that next time you try to stuff words into my mouth.

Carl:

When did I do that?

You do it below when you claim that I am anti-gun.

Carl:

OK, that's valid. I retract any comments I may have made claiming or
inferring that you are anti-gun.


Just an offhand observation, but for someone who claims to be
"qualified, trained, and publishes peer-reviewed research" you tend to
be a little touchy and emotional

If you're seeing that, you're seeing your own feelings, not mine.

Calling people idiots, moronic, stupid, and what not, would seem to be
a display of emotional touchiness not directly germane to the issues at
hand.


and seem to have an anti-gun bias.

Produce a quote from me where I state that I am 'anti-gun'.

I withdrew that comment.

ARE you anti-gun?


BTW, all researchers have biases and those who think they are
impartial are fooling only themselves.

ALL researchers have biases? You mean there is no researcher anywhere
without a biased desire to have the issue they are researching come out
in a particular way?

Hey, you forgot to insert your five dots indicating you cut my
following question out. g

BTW, just curious, are you a regular on any of the three groups this
thread is crossposted to, or did you do a global search for gun
arguments?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

BottleBob wrote:

Actually, I was only pointing out the apparent falseness of your
accusation that Richard Lewis was making his data up out of thin air,
when he said hundreds of thousands of people are victims of violence
every year.

Might as well give it up, Bob.

The question over whether or not the info was true was settled long
ago....what's his name didn't think so and got proven to be wrong
which he hates. Once the info was proven true, he switched to arguing
semantics (notice that he still can't address the fact that "hundreds
of thousands of victims a year....etc").

If you prove him wrong on semantics, he'll probably latch onto some
other useless drivel like spelling or something.

ral

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

It figures that you don't have the balls to admit that you changed the
labels.

Sorry, idiot. I still don't see your point.

Are you claiming that the crimes in question *don't* happen hundreds
of thousands of times a year?

Provide cites to prove it, trashboy.

ral

BottleBob wrote ....

....

What does your repeated use of these dots signify? The end of a
subject?


How do I quote correctly in Usenet?

2.7 How do I mark text I left out?

Text you left out when quoting should always be marked with "[...]" or
"(...)", while the first is much more common. Another possibility that
has become more and more common is to use "snip".

http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.7

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

BottleBob wrote ...

...

I made no
assertions that Gunner was, or was not, more "well-informed"

"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."

Keep on waffling, BB.

It's you doing the waffling, idiot.

Bob pointed out that your claims don't tend to stack up to everyone
else's....and everyone else has provided cites to back their argument
except for *you*.

ral

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

You did 'make up facts' when you labeled the category 'robbery' as
'armed robbery'

Not in the least. Semantics if anything.

You 'made up facts' when you frantically moved the goalpost in your
attempt to support your emotional claim.

You still claim the crimes in question don't happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year, idiot?

Prove it.

ral

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

more sheer idiocy that he is known for....

No cites to disprove it yet, idiot?

I thought you said you were better than that.

ral

BottleBob wrote

BTW, just curious, are you a regular on any of the three groups this
thread is crossposted to, or did you do a global search for gun
arguments?

Since it looks like you would be an expert source on the subject, do
you think that someone could make nearly all of an AK-47 using only a
handsaw and files?

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote ....

....

What does your repeated use of these dots signify? The end of a
subject?

How do I quote correctly in Usenet?

2.7 How do I mark text I left out?

Text you left out when quoting should always be marked with "[...]" or
"(...)", while the first is much more common. Another possibility that
has become more and more common is to use "snip".

http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.7

Carl:

That's good to know. I bookmarked the site.

I've seen and used snip.

But you don't seem to be using your dots correctly. The examples given
show an opening and closing parenthesis separated by three dots.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote

BTW, just curious, are you a regular on any of the three groups this
thread is crossposted to, or did you do a global search for gun
arguments?

Since it looks like you would be an expert source on the subject, do
you think that someone could make nearly all of an AK-47 using only a
handsaw and files?

Carl:

I don't know about expert source, but it would seem to me to be quite
difficult to drill the barrel with only a handsaw and files.

BTW, which group are you posting from? If a.m.cnc or m.s. Perhaps we
could eliminate crossposting to r.c.m. since they no longer seems
interested in this thread.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

In article . net, Richard Lewis
says...

Keep on waffling, BB.

It's you doing the waffling, idiot.

Did too.

Did not.

Did too.

Did not.

This is what happens when gunner crossposts....



Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

BottleBob wrote ....

....

ALL researchers have biases?

They do!

You mean there is no researcher anywhere
without a biased desire to have the issue
they are researching come out in a particular way?

That's different. Researchers have biases but not all researchers
allow those biases to significantly skew their research.

Having a bias and have a biased desire to skew research are different
things.


....