On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:48:48 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Mark the Moron Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote:

One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did
the Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc.
IRRC it was first published in JAMA.

Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy.

"Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous,

Yet another genetic fallacy.

I'll let zuckier kick your ass on the Kellermann research.
You're not even smart enough to spell his name correctly.

Thats pretty sad Cattle..when you are so low on ammo you have to
resort to spelling flames..snicker


.....

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

Kellermann's studies were peer-reviewed.

Really? By whom..Sarah Brady? Cites boy..cites!

Why are you posting false statements, Mark?

Why are you lying to deflect, Cattle?

Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:54:52 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

You need to get smacked around every so often, Mark.

Bring your lunch, a designated driver and notification for
your next of kin.

You get your ass kicked so often, you know what you need to
do.


ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:56:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:07:29 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote:

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses
(DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of
the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck

That same study fails predictive validity tests, Mark.

Marvin Wolfgang, ....

None of which is relevant to the fact that Kleck's work fails
predictive validity tests.

Cites?

You're simply posting an anecdotal opinion.

By one of the most noted authorities on the subject. Thats called Peer
Review. If that doesnt hold water..nothing does on any side of the
topic.

Why don't you admit that you don't even know what "predictive
validity" is or how to deal with it?

Do I need to know?

Gunner


...

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:19:09 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Ok..so answer my question. Is the right to keep and bear arms an
individual right in the US?

Yes or no.

Come on Cattle..double dog dare you to answer. If you wont...the
rest of your spew is not only suspect..but you are null and void.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:32:40 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:

Ah..John..even during its most wild and wooley days..Dodge City had a
crime rate below that of most modern cities. Something about
committing a crime when your victims are are armed tends to either
make Darwin Events out of those that arnt really bright, or moderates
the behaviors of those with enough brain cells to understand the deck
is stacked against them.

"(Actually, Dodge City, Kan., wasn't the Dodge City of myth. It was
much safer than today's Washington, D.C.,

Heck, it was safer than Washington D.C. in those days too.

with homicides running to
one or two per cattle-trading season and marshals mostly concerned,
writes the historian Roger Lane, "with arresting drunks and other
misdemeanants.") "

Most o the trouble was the usual, young single transient males. Many who
had just gotten paid and wanted "to get drunk, get laid or get in a fight. Any
one or all three, don't matter."
Same demographic that is the cause of much trouble in these "modern" times.
(See Sig)

But dont let your Hollywood bred issues get in the way of your own
view of reality.

Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the
term "true colors". Please amplify.

Gunner

I would suggest that one or two fatalities per year in a town of 1200 is quite
high.


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:29:12 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:32:40 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:

Ah..John..even during its most wild and wooley days..Dodge City had a
crime rate below that of most modern cities. Something about
committing a crime when your victims are are armed tends to either
make Darwin Events out of those that arnt really bright, or moderates
the behaviors of those with enough brain cells to understand the deck
is stacked against them.

"(Actually, Dodge City, Kan., wasn't the Dodge City of myth. It was
much safer than today's Washington, D.C.,

Heck, it was safer than Washington D.C. in those days too.

with homicides running to
one or two per cattle-trading season and marshals mostly concerned,
writes the historian Roger Lane, "with arresting drunks and other
misdemeanants.") "

Most o the trouble was the usual, young single transient males. Many who
had just gotten paid and wanted "to get drunk, get laid or get in a fight. Any
one or all three, don't matter."
Same demographic that is the cause of much trouble in these "modern" times.
(See Sig)

But dont let your Hollywood bred issues get in the way of your own
view of reality.

Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the
term "true colors". Please amplify.

Gunner

I would suggest that one or two fatalities per year in a town of 1200 is quite
high.


Mark Rand
RTFM

Indeed. And most would be knifings or beating to deaths, usually
involving drugs or booze.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Skipping school, I decide to piggy back on Gunner
fosted Sat, 22 May 2004 03:46:10 GMT in misc.survivalism , viz:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 20:23:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote:


Im still waiting for your answer on whether or not firearms
ownership is an individual right in the US.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a legitimate cite.

You're just waving an irrelevant red herring.

This is hysterically funny. King of the Red Herring Chasers Catl says he
won't answer "irrelevant red herrings" Sounds to me that Catl is now using
"red herring" instead of "straw man argument" as his reason for not responding
to anything he doesn't understand.

Go smack yourself in the face with it, Mark.

Simple question, or a really really tough one for you to answer? You
are marginally smart enough to understand that no matter which way you
answer..you get hammered.

If you answer no..then I supply the cites that it is. Cites that you
cannot dodge.

If you answer yes..then your entire anti-gun argument goes down the
while porcelain receptacle with a swirl.

Must really suck to be you right about now. Posting nit pics while you
go up in flames.

Catl seems to be handling the part of the discussion he truly understands,
which is to say "not much".

Chortle..

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."

Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Sat, 22 May 2004 21:52:49 GMT in misc.survivalism , viz:
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:19:09 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Ok..so answer my question. Is the right to keep and bear arms an
individual right in the US?

Yes or no.

Come on Cattle..double dog dare you to answer. If you wont...the
rest of your spew is not only suspect..but you are null and void.

Catl is null and void. He still hasn't made up his mind if it was a good
thing or not for the Klan to have been prevented from murdering Dr Perry, a
Civil rights activist back in the sixties. Judging from his other blitherings,
Catl is most upset by the use of firearms by Negroes to prevent murder by the
Klan.
--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:04:01 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:40:13 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

A sad situation that only backs up the unarmed (largely)
civilians being ripe targets for the picking.

"There is little or no need for a gun for self-protection
because there's so little risk of crime. People don't
believe it, but it's true. You just can't convince most
Americans they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck

Most are not. Most folks are not at risk from house fires,
floods or vehicular accidents. So its smart not to have
insurance, or wear their seatbelts?

Most folks are at risk of house fires and car accidents.

Everyone is at risk of something. One just has to figure the odds.

Will a smoke detector or seat belts go a long ways to saving your life
in the exeeedinly rare instance that you have a fire or life
threatening accident? Indeed. Its far better to have them, then to
need them.

Same with a firearm.

Its not the Odds..its the Stakes

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 24 May 2004 06:58:33 GMT, Gunner wrote:

||On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:29:12 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:
||
||On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:32:40 GMT, pyotr filipivich
||wrote:
||
||Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner
||fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:
||
||Ah..John..even during its most wild and wooley days..Dodge City had a
||crime rate below that of most modern cities. Something about
||committing a crime when your victims are are armed tends to either
||make Darwin Events out of those that arnt really bright, or moderates
||the behaviors of those with enough brain cells to understand the deck
||is stacked against them.
||
||"(Actually, Dodge City, Kan., wasn't the Dodge City of myth. It was
||much safer than today's Washington, D.C.,
||
|| Heck, it was safer than Washington D.C. in those days too.
||
|| with homicides running to
||one or two per cattle-trading season and marshals mostly concerned,
||writes the historian Roger Lane, "with arresting drunks and other
||misdemeanants.") "
||
|| Most o the trouble was the usual, young single transient males. Many
who
||had just gotten paid and wanted "to get drunk, get laid or get in a fight.
Any
||one or all three, don't matter."
|| Same demographic that is the cause of much trouble in these "modern"
times.
||(See Sig)
||
||But dont let your Hollywood bred issues get in the way of your own
||view of reality.
||
||Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the
||term "true colors". Please amplify.
||
||Gunner
||
||I would suggest that one or two fatalities per year in a town of 1200 is
quite
||high.

Heed the immortal words of Marion Barry, several times (before and AFTER prison)
mayor of DC: "Other than the killings, our crime rate is pretty low"
Texas Parts Guy

On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:14:10 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:04:01 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:40:13 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

A sad situation that only backs up the unarmed
(largely) civilians being ripe targets for the picking.

"There is little or no need for a gun for self-protection
because there's so little risk of crime. People don't
believe it, but it's true. You just can't convince most
Americans they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck

Most are not. Most folks are not at risk from house
fires, floods or vehicular accidents. So its smart not
to have insurance, or wear their seatbelts?

Most folks are at risk of house fires and car accidents.

Everyone is at risk of something. One just has to figure
the odds.

Produce the cites that show that the risk of needing a gun
because of a violent criminal act are the same as the risk of
a car accident.

I know you won't because I know you can't. You're simply not
smart enough to figure out how to do it and the odds are not
in your favor on this point, Mark.

I really dont care what the odds are, Cattle..Im more concerned about
the stakes. Ive had 5 DGUs in the past 27 yrs. This means Im way
ahead of the curve. Ive never had a car accident or a fire.

But I will still wear my seatbelts, and maintain my smoke detectors
and fire extinguishers, along with my CCW.

Btw..Im still waiting for you to answer the question about Individual
Rights. At this point..it appears that you and your comments are
dangerously close to becoming null and void.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:26:56 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:14:10 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:04:01 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:40:13 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

A sad situation that only backs up the unarmed
(largely) civilians being ripe targets for the
picking.

"There is little or no need for a gun for
self-protection because there's so little risk of
crime. People don't believe it, but it's true. You
just can't convince most Americans they're not at
serious risk." -Gary Kleck

Most are not. Most folks are not at risk from house
fires, floods or vehicular accidents. So its smart not
to have insurance, or wear their seatbelts?

Most folks are at risk of house fires and car accidents.

Everyone is at risk of something. One just has to figure
the odds.

Produce the cites that show that the risk of needing a gun
because of a violent criminal act are the same as the risk
of a car accident.

I know you won't because I know you can't. You're simply
not smart enough to figure out how to do it and the odds
are not in your favor on this point, Mark.

I really dont care what the odds are,

So you were lying when you previously claimed that "one just
has to figure the odds".

....
Nicely disingenuous snip there Cattle. Typical of your posting "style"

Indeed, one does have to figure the odds. How much is your life, or
the life of your loved ones worth to you? Where will you be going? A
monastery or East LA? Do you work from home, or run a register in a
liquor store in Watts? Will you be wearing lots of gold jewelry
during your nocturnal walkabouts in Manchester?

But then..as others have said..its not the odds..its the stakes.

Still refusing to answer the question?

You are now null and void. Its been fun. As usual you loose.

Bye.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Wed, 26 May 2004 01:01:52 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

You are now null and void. Its been fun. As usual you
loose.

Bye.

Mark's running away like a little wuss. Again.

I suspect he simply got bored with you. Justifiably so.
Sue

On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:25:03 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Sue wrote:

I suspect he simply got bored with you.

Nah, he knows he can't deal with the truth.

Piffle. You deal with your truth, he deals with his. Neither of you
will *ever* change the other's mind. I suspect he was smart enough to
realize this. God, I hope so beause this whole thing has gotten
exceedingly boring.

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:48:48 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Mark the Moron Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote:

One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did
the Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc.
IRRC it was first published in JAMA.

Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy.

"Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous,

Yet another genetic fallacy.

I'll let zuckier kick your ass on the Kellermann research.

Sounds like fun to me. God save me, my worst vice is deflating pompous
ignorant windbags.

You're not even smart enough to spell his name correctly.

Thats pretty sad Cattle..when you are so low on ammo you have to
resort to spelling flames..snicker

It's not a spelling flame when you can't even spell the name of the
person you are discussing. How exactly do you search for 'Kellerman',
and get anything other than the hermetically sealed little world of
crackpots, gunloons, and Usenet cranks which keeps repeating the same
nonsense and passing it around and then trotting it out as though they
had actually taken the time to read the original paper and ponder it
deeply. Take your post here as a case in point. On the other hand, if
you actually search for 'Kellermann', you may at least find some
intelligent commentary from the world of the sane. For someone who
squeals 'Cites! Cites' as much as you, you sure don't have much
interest in actually making use of the information the net provides to
those who make an effort. I look forward to your discussions of what
you've learned about Shakespear, Einstien, and Platoh.



.....

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

Kellermann's studies were peer-reviewed.

Really? By whom..Sarah Brady? Cites boy..cites!

There it is again, 'cites! Cites!'. Perhaps you could explain to us
all exactly what 'Cites' have to do with peer review. Peer review is a
specific term with a specific meaning that has been unchanged for
decades, maybe even centuries, and 'Cites' are not involved. You
apparently don't know the difference between peer review and a book
review.
For your information, NEJM is perhaps the most aggressively peer
reviewed journal in the world. No paper gets published there without
peer review. That's why when someone like Kellermann publishes there,
the little diddly arguments you guys use against this 'Kellerman'
character don't wash. The paper has already been scrutinized by people
more intelligent and educated than you will ever be.

Why are you posting false statements, Mark?

Why are you lying to deflect, Cattle?

Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , z says...

There it is again, 'cites! Cites!'. Perhaps you could explain to us
all exactly what 'Cites' have to do with peer review.

Peer review is a little-understood concept. Anyone can blurt out
any old thing in a web site, and pretend to be anyone. "I'm
not an expert but I play one on the internet" is a humorous yet
apt description.

Peer review as you use the term means that before publishing
an article, the journal distributes it to three or four
reviewers.

The reviewers will be contributors to the field, and may be
both competitors and neutral players. Each one writes a
page of critiscism of the work, and makes suggestions that
can include specific changes they would see made before
publication occurs.

So under that scheme, a famous poster here (say, for example
Gunner) would have his each of his posts reviewed by some
other individual who is knowledgeable about the field (say,
for example, Sarah Brady) and would have to listen to her
suggestions before having his words dispersed into the aether.

Consider the flip side of this though: 'ol Sarah would have
all of *her* stuff peer-reviewed by Gunner!! LOL.

Jim

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

"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
s.com...
Bjórrúnar skaltu z rista --

For your information, NEJM is perhaps the most aggressively
peer reviewed journal in the world.

My experience is that ASQ (Administrative Science Quarterly)
would take that title with three reviewers for every paper and
a less than 5% acceptance rate.

They're either very tough, or they have an awful lot of crackpots trying to
get their articles published. d8-)

Ed Huntress

In article m, Carl Nisarel
says...

The reviewers will be contributors to the field, and may be
both competitors and neutral players. Each one writes a
page of critiscism of the work, and makes suggestions that
can include specific changes they would see made before
publication occurs.

A page? I wish.

For top journals, some reviews are as long as the original
article. Writing a one page review, in social science journals
anyway, will be the last one sent to that peer reviewer.
Editors demand almost as much from the peer reviewers as they
do from the authors.

Social science? Bah. That's an oxymoron. Most 'real'
science articles are a page or two long. With figures.
But you're right, the reviews are about as long as the
articles.

Jim

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

jim rozen wrote in message ...
In article , z says...

There it is again, 'cites! Cites!'. Perhaps you could explain to us
all exactly what 'Cites' have to do with peer review.

Peer review is a little-understood concept. Anyone can blurt out
any old thing in a web site, and pretend to be anyone. "I'm
not an expert but I play one on the internet" is a humorous yet
apt description.

Peer review as you use the term means that before publishing
an article, the journal distributes it to three or four
reviewers.

The reviewers will be contributors to the field, and may be
both competitors and neutral players. Each one writes a
page of critiscism of the work, and makes suggestions that
can include specific changes they would see made before
publication occurs.

So under that scheme, a famous poster here (say, for example
Gunner) would have his each of his posts reviewed by some
other individual who is knowledgeable about the field (say,
for example, Sarah Brady) and would have to listen to her
suggestions before having his words dispersed into the aether.

Consider the flip side of this though: 'ol Sarah would have
all of *her* stuff peer-reviewed by Gunner!! LOL.


just one more thing: the peer reviewers are theoretically anonymous
to the authors, (and the authors too, to the reviewers, IIRC), to
prevent influence peddling, etc., although in practice, the number of
authorities in a given field and their biases and styles is typically
low enough that a good guess can be made.
When the reviewer has a criticism of a paper, the editor generally
decides whether the criticism is warranted or not; if he can't decide,
he gets the author to reply and makes a decision based on that. When
criticisms are warranted, the paper has to be modified to deal with
the problem before it can be published. sometimes you have a good
answer, but sometimes that might just mean including a paragraph in
the paper pointing out that you're aware of it and don't have an
answer, like 'a valid criticism of our work can be made that everybody
interviewed was a grad student; later studies will have to enlarge
upon this population' or some such. you do have to make some sort of
response, though. That doesn't mean that there are no valid criticisms
of peer reviewed papers as published; far from it. It just mmeans that
all the low hanging fruit have already been picked. if you think you
have a criticism that's screamingly obvious, even to the layman,
you're probably wrong.
And 'cites' don't enter into it, do they?

In article , z says...

just one more thing: the peer reviewers are theoretically anonymous
to the authors, (and the authors too, to the reviewers, IIRC), to
prevent influence peddling, etc., although in practice, the number of
authorities in a given field and their biases and styles is typically
low enough that a good guess can be made.

This is the "it's a small world" theorem. The corollary of
which is, "the paper you are reviewing right now is authored
by the guy who's gonna review *your* next submission." So
play nice.

And 'cites' don't enter into it, do they?

Erm, yes and no. The references on a paper, and the authors
of the papers they refer to, often tell quite a story. But
most scientific works have a list of citations - to other
like articles. In peer-reviewed publications....

Jim

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

jim rozen wrote:

This is the "it's a small world" theorem. The corollary of
which is, "the paper you are reviewing right now is authored
by the guy who's gonna review *your* next submission." So
play nice.

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. A paper I submmitted many
years ago came back from the three reviewers with the following
comments:
1) There is no possible way this could work.
2) This is well a well known reult.
3) The design is flawed.

BTW, the apparatus worked fine.

Ted

In article , Ted Edwards says...

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. A paper I submmitted many
years ago came back from the three reviewers with the following
comments:
1) There is no possible way this could work.
2) This is well a well known reult.
3) The design is flawed.

LOL. I recall a former supervisor of mine was
laid off from a job at one time. He said that
during his exit interviews, one of his bosses
said "your trouble is, you're just not broad
enough. You specialize too much."

His other supervisor said, "you need to settle down
and specialize in one particular area...."

Jim

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

Ted Edwards wrote in message ...
jim rozen wrote:

This is the "it's a small world" theorem. The corollary of
which is, "the paper you are reviewing right now is authored
by the guy who's gonna review *your* next submission." So
play nice.

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. A paper I submmitted many
years ago came back from the three reviewers with the following
comments:
1) There is no possible way this could work.
2) This is well a well known reult.
3) The design is flawed.

BTW, the apparatus worked fine.

Ted

Yeah, I remember my reviewers comments on my first pub, expanded from my thesis.
#1: A great paper, publish as is.
#2: A terrible paper, trash it.
#3: A decent paper, needs the following corrections.
Sheesh.

Gunner wrote in message . ..

The Kellerman pseudo-study was refuted by several well-qualified
sources, including sociology professor H. Taylor Buckner; Henry E.
Schaffner, Ph.D.;

Schaffner? You're citing Shaffner as antiKellermann? Shows what you
know, in spades. Shaffner has never written anything in the slightest
critical of Kellermann. Anyone who read Shaffner would know that.
Whenever Shaffner wrote of Kellermann, he had nothing but high praise
for the study.

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote:

One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did the
Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc. IRRC it
was first published in JAMA.

Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy.

"Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous, and indicates--as does
his financing and publication by gun-control zealots James Mercy at
the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of
NEJM--that the intent of these so-called studies is to produce
pro-gun-control soundbites for Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc.,
rather than scientific knowledge. The CDC's anti-gun propaganda was so
flagrant and outrageous that the Congress threatened to cut off its
funding entirely.

The Kellerman pseudo-study was refuted by several well-qualified
sources, including sociology professor H. Taylor Buckner;

Let's see; a peer-reviewed article from the New England Journal of
Medicine which you consider bogus, according to a 'review' never
reviewed and never published. Well perhaps Buckner is an unheralded
genius who can see what 3 peer reviewers couldn't. Let's take a look:

Buckner tosses in this little paragraph of lies and irrelevancies:

"They [Kellerman & Reay] conducted their research by limiting their
cases to people murdered in their own homes, thus excluding any
instances where intruders were killed by the homeowner. They did not
ask the victim's proxy (from whom they got their data about the
victim
and his or her household) whether or not the victim had previously
defended him/herself with a gun. Thus their conclusion that a gun
provides no protective benefit flows from their failure to consider
cases where it might have."

Gee, right away Buckner's starting out on a bad foot here. He's
confusing Kellermann's 1993 paper and Kellermann's 1986 paper. I begin
to fear that you don't know what each paper actually says, you just
know that you're supposed to hate Kellermann because he doesn't
provide the results that gunnies consider Politically Correct, so what
does it matter. Better policy to consult primary sources yourself to
check out what a 'review' says so that you don't get caught like this.

But that's OK, since Buckner starts out his review by being completely
confused himself as to which of Kellermann's papers he's writing
about. Buckner's first sentence is a lie, and irrelevant. He states
that they excluded any instances were intruders were killed by the
homeowner. This is obviously completely false; if the homeowner died,
that was a homicide for the homeowner, if the homeowner lived because
he killed the intruder, that was a nonhomicide for the homeowner; the
life or death of the assailant was never in question either way. The
only question is: did the gun make it more likely or less likely that
the owner survived? It's more than misleading for Buckner to state
that cases including the death of the assailant were not counted by
Kellermann's methodology, it's a lie. The basic question asked in the
1993 paper was very simple: If people keep a gun in the house are they
more likely or less likely to be killed in their own homes? And the
answer found by actual count was:
they were more likely to be killed if they kept a gun.
Any questions of whether the intruder was killed or not, or whether
the intruder might have been killed in their own home, or how many
times the homeowner successfully defended his house, are not really
relevant to the basic
calculation: of two groups of homes, one with a gun and one without a
gun, at the end of 5 years which group has had more murders? Just
score two simple factors: gun, yes or no, and homicide, yes or no.
This is pretty clear to me, to NEJM's peer reviewers, and to millions
of others who read the paper. This is why it's unfortunate that
Buckner's 'review' was never subject to peer review or somebody might
have caught his dumbass mistake.

He states that Kellermann did not ask the victim's proxy whether the
victim had previously defended him/herself with a gun. That's true,
but also irrelevant, for the same reason; the gun owner is either a
homicide victim or he is not, as is the nongunowner, and the rates at
which they are both murdered are compared, and their histories are
irrelevant.

Buckner decides that Kellermann's conclusion that the gun provides no
protective benefit is from failing to consider cases where it might
have. This is again, false, to the point of silliness. Any overall
protective value of the gun cannot help but show up if there were more
gun owners who were alive than gunowners who were homicide victims,
compared to nongunowners, no matter how the gun worked its protective
magic. How could it not show up? That's the meaning of protective
benefit: more of those people are protected from being dead.

It's not a hard concept. If you give a 6 year old two bags of jelly
beans and he pulls out 10 from each bag, and from the first bag he
pulls 2 red and 8 black, and from the second bag he pulls 2 black and
8 red, most kids will tell you that they think there are a higher
percentage of black in the first bag than the second. And 99% of the
time they'd be correct, even if Buckner complains that 'they failed to
consider cases where there were more red jelly beans in the first
bag'. His objection that they 'failed to consider cases where the gun
saved a life' is just exactly as absurd as that.

"In order to provide a control group they selected another person
from
the neighborhood of the same sex, race, and age group as the victim,
and asked them the same questions they had asked the victim's proxy.
While matched on the demographic variables, the control group was
stunningly different on behavioral measures. Compared to the control
group the victim group was more likely to: rent rather than own, live
alone, drink alcoholic beverages, have problems in the household
because of drinking, have trouble at work because of drinking, be
hospitalized because of drinking, use illicit drugs, have physical
fights in the home during drinking, have a household member hit or
hurt in a fight in the home, have a household member require medical
attention because of a fight in the home, have a household member
involved in a physical fight outside the home, have any household
member arrested, and be arrested themselves. Thus the victim group
and
the control group had very different lifestyles, with the victim
group
living a very high-risk lifestyle."

Now Buckner is talking about the 1993 study, all of a sudden. Yes, it
has been well established that murder victims tend to have more
'marginal' lifestyles than the average. Was Buckner suggesting that
this would be why there were more gunowners killed, because gunowners
tend to indulge in illegal, immoral, and dangerous behavior? Are you
recognizing yourself here?

For this to be a valid criticism, Buckner must be suggesting that all
gunowners
are a higher risk group. He doesn't demonstrate that, however. Because
he can't, because it's demonstrably false, as gunowners obviously know
and post here all the time. For both gunowners and nongunowners, as
can be seen in the study, the homicide victims are a higher risk group
than the survivors, so the difference in homicide rates can't be due
to a difference in behavior. That's why case-control studies are done
for this type of question. Did Buckner
misread the difference in risky behavior for homicide victims as a
difference in risky behavior for the gunowners? Or is he deliberately
obscuring things by confusing the two groups? Who knows.

Furthermore, the advantage of a case-control study such as this over a
population study such as Kleck or Lott produce is that the population
can be subgrouped so as to exclude any group you find unacceptable.
Buckner doesn't bother trying this; luckily, Kellermann did and put
the results right there in the paper: it changes the degree of the
risk, but doesn't eliminate it. Take just the people with no arrest
record, no drug use, no alcohol abuse, no violent history; you still
see more homicides in the gunowner group. Even if Buckner doesn't make
the effort to examine the data himself and see that his theory is
quite wrong, didn't he see where that was stated in the paper? Again
he seems to be 'reviewing' a different paper from the one Kellermann
published.

This result of the risk not being tied to a subgroup validates the
second part of Kellermann's paper, the factor analysis of the
independent effect of each of these on the risk of homicide, if the
groups were perfectly matched in terms of all other factors. In
contrast to the simple gun-yes-or-no/homicide-yes-or-no calculation,
this is something a lay person might not be familiar with. It would
appear from his complaint above trying to implicate the bad habits of
the homicide victims that Buckner himself does not understand that the
various
factors can be mathematically isolated; except that he then goes on to
critique the paper further, on the basis of these same factor analysis
results:
"In fact, Kellermann found that having a gun in the home ranked fifth
out of six risk factors in the victims' lives. Using illicit drugs
lead to a 5.7 times risk of being murdered, being a renter 4.4 times,
having any household member hit or hurt in a fight 4.4 times, living
alone 3.7 times, guns in the household 2.7 times, and a household
member being arrested, 2.5 times."

Note that in contrast to his complaint just above, all of a sudden
Buckner now accepts these results that find gun ownership as an
independent risk factor, not dependent on criminal behavior in the
sample; he just thinks it isn't big enough to be important. Well,
Kellerrmann just provides all the risk factors that are statistically
found to reach significance, that's mathematically verifiable. Buckner
wants to talk about what he considers a large or small risk; that's a
judgement call. Most things in life have more than one risk factor. If
speeding on icy roads turns out to be a bigger risk factor than
driving drunk, would that mean that driving drunk was not worthy of
being noted as a risk? If working around asbestos turns out to be a
bigger risk factor than smoking, does that mean that all the papers
identifying smoking as a risk are wrong?

Note that the risk of homicide associated with gun ownership is in
fact greater than that associated with having a family member
arrested, which Buckner had
just identified in the paragraph above as something part of a 'high
risk lifestyle', as he put it. Buckner seems to pick and choose what
risk factors are significant based on something other than how big of
a risk they are.

Then buckner's other critique:
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kellerman-buckner.html
Yes, underreporting of gun ownership by the no homicide group relative
to the homicide group would reduce the correlation. Kellermann points
that out himself. But it would take an additional 20% of the no
homicide group lying that they had no gun, over and above however many
of the homicide group who lied, to make the 'raw' risk (not the
multifactorial logistic regression) go away (but not yet demonstrate
any protective value for guns; that would take even more). Kellermann
finds some sources that support his position that the numbers are at
least accurate enough, Buckner has nothing other than the possibility
that they might not be.

Buckner points out that the control group actually recorded 35.8%
ownership whereas the homicide group reported 45.4% ownership, as
opposed to a national average of 48%. So, what are the possibilities?
Well, the control group might actually have had 10% lying about their
gun ownership, to make them equal with the homicide group. The control
group and the homicide group might actually both be equal to the
national average, so that 12.2% of the control group were lying. But
it's starting to strain things to assume with no evidence that 20% of
the control group were lying but none of the homicide group;
particularly when Buckner goes to great pains to explain what a
highrisk, highly criminal group the homicide group actually was. One
would expect such a group to be more likely to have guns than the
control, lower risk group; to be more likely to be legally barred from
owning guns; and to lie more often that they did not have guns, rather
than the reverse. Buckner's argument requires the famous 'law-abiding
citizens' to not only be much more frequently armed than criminals who
are actively conducting risky crimes, but also to lie that they do not
own guns, more frequently than the criminals do. Is that your opinion
of law-abiding gun owners? And this is just to establish that the guns
are not a risk factor; you'd have to go even further in the same
direction to prove that guns offer any protection.

Buckner mentions the high risk of the homicide group as though it
contradicts the finding of the presence of the gun as a risk factor;
but these risks are controlled for by the multivariate regression, as
Buckner actually knows and understands, since he then points out how
many of these factors were more important than guns. But this does not
mean that guns were not a risk; just that they were only the fourth
highest risk. Kellermann never said the presence of the gun was the
highest risk.

So, while Buckner would be correct in stating that Kellermann hasn't
formally proved his case in the absolute mathematical sense, because
he has not proved that criminals keep secret guns and lie about it
more often than law-abiding citizens. However, since most people,
particularly law-abiding gunowning citizens, do believe that criminals
lie about having a gun more than they themselves do, Buckner is
stretching it when he says the study is 'seriously flawed', and is
just blowing hot air when he says 'the conclusions were driven more by
ideology than research'. Kellermann's conclusions come
straightforwardly out of the data. Ironically, it's that last little
ad hominem dig that Buckner couldn't refrain from tossing in that
shows that in fact it's Buckner's conclusions that are driven by
something other than logical analysis, not Kellermann's.

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:05:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote:

One should also understand that Arthur Kellerman MD did the
Study at the request of the once AntiGun CDC etc. IRRC it
was first published in JAMA.

Once again Mark goes for the idiotic genetic fallacy.

"Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous, and indicates--as does
his financing and publication by gun-control zealots James Mercy at
the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of
NEJM--that the intent of these so-called studies is to produce
pro-gun-control soundbites for Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc.,
rather than scientific knowledge. The CDC's anti-gun propaganda was so
flagrant and outrageous that the Congress threatened to cut off its
funding entirely.

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.

Schulman also confuses Kellermann's 1986 and 1993 study. Do you not
have anybody available for your side who understands that a person can
do more than one study in his life? Schulman starts off by mentioning
Kellermann's 1993 study, then drops it and immediately launches into a
discussion of the limitations of the 1986 study, which are not
relevant to the 1993 study. It's all very nice that Schulman can see
the flaws in the early work now that the improved version is out, but
why is he telling us about them now, when in fact
Kellermann's 1993 study does 'include cases in which burglars or
intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a
firearm.'
and 'Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a
house
known to be armed' by its very design, as we discussed in connection
with Buckner? One more time: if there are some cases where the
homicidal intruders do not actually intrude because of the firearm,
then there will be fewer
homicides in the houses with the firearms. Or where they intrude but
are frightened away, etc. Or if the presence of the gun prevents a
homicide in any way, whatsoever, the homicide rate will be lower for
gunowners. That is the whole point of the 93 study, it's not just a
duplicate of the 86 study. The 1993 study involved expensive and
difficult house to house canvassing to get to the bottom of these
questions.

So after showing off his erudition by complaining about the 1986
study, does Schulman go on to say that 'But the 1993 study doesn't
have these limitations'? No, he just drops it. A little misdirection
and sleight of hand there, but lying by omission to imply a false
conclusion is still lying. If you believe that cases where intruders
either avoid a house known to be armed, or are wounded or frightened
away by a gun, somehow would not appear in a simple table of counts of
'homicide victim, yes or no' vs. 'gun owner, yes or no', then Schulman
has successfully confused you.

The rest of his article manages to hit the trifecta of fallacies. He
complains 'Another problem is that by relying on a case study of
households with homicide victims Kellermann is looking at almost twice
as many black households as white'. Yes, more homicide victims in
America are black. In other words, Schulman feels Kellermann's study
of homicide victims vs. non-victims is invalid because his homicide
victims are typical homicide victims. As Kellermann said once, he did
not choose the victims, just counted them afterwards. Schulman raises
similar complaints about social dysfunction among the victims. I
wonder who Schulman thinks we are supposed to be studying? Homicide
rates among people who are not actually homicide victims? He also
manages to completely ignore the process of firstly choosing a control
for each specific homicide that matched that household on several
parameters, then secondly isolating individual causal factors by
logistic regression.

At any rate, if Schulman has a problem with the preponderance of
African American homicide victims, despite the fact that they are the
people most at risk, he can feel free to examine only the white
victims, where, as discussed above, he will find the same qualitative
results, i.e. that the gun is a risk factor, not a protective factor.
The same for the social dysfunction markers, as discussed above. And
in fact, he knows this, since he quotes Kellermann 'We found no
evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup',
with no discussion.

Then Schulman tries to suggest reverse causation, but stubs his toe
very badly. 'Wouldn't logic tell us that the risk of dying as a result
of falling from an airplane would be far greater by those people who
fall from airplanes who don't have a parachute handy?' Yes, it would.
And that is what the data shows, confirming our logic. Similarly,
Schulman's logic presumably tells him that the risk of dying as a
result of being shot would be far greater by those people who don't
have a gun handy; but, unlike jumping out of a plane with no
parachute, the data do not show that, they show the exact opposite.
Normally, when your beliefs contradict real-world data, it's time to
adjust your beliefs; but apparently Schulman believes that when his
theories are contradicted with what Kellermann finds in reality, any
reality which does not accord with his theory must be disregarded.

And again, back to the 'didn't study households where the gun
prevented the homicide without killing the bad guy' fallacy. Can
anyone either demonstrate that Kellermann restricted the non-victims
to ones where the bad guy was killed, or explain how gunowners scaring
away all the bad guys from their houses would not affect the homicide
rate of the gunowners? If not, why does this absurdity keep coming up?

Then he ventures deeply into religious territory; the inability to
explain this mystery he ascribes to the deep understanding possessed
only by the high priesthood, criminologists. 'Dr. Kellermann can't
study such questions because these are the proper focus not of medical
doctors, but of criminologists.' Of course, Schulman himself is quite
qualified to discuss this matter, as a 'Los Angeles novelist,
screenwriter, and journalist', so we can amend his statement to read
that the proper study of risk factors related to homicide is
restricted to criminologists, novelists, screenwriters, and
journalists, but not epidemiologists.

Unfortunately, Schulman's demonstrated inability to understand how
this study, by its very basic nature, includes ANY and ALL ways in
which the gun prevents the homicide, immediately identifies Schulman
as someone who is not qualified to comment on the study, let alone on
who is qualified to carry out such a study.

Surprisingly enough, in the end Schulman basically admits that he gets
it!
'What this adds up to is that while home is where you are far less
likely to be murdered by a stranger - not surprising since homes
usually have locks to keep such people out - the great majority of
murders that do take place at home are at the hands of those who have
a key. The caution here might well be that if you live with someone
whom you think might possibly murder you, you might want to move out
if they also keep a loaded handgun. Or, if the loaded handgun is
yours, you might want to keep it somewhere where you can get to it
faster than he or she can.'
Which is exactly the takehome message from Kellermann's study,
summarized very nicely into a single paragraph. Schulman here is
admitting that a handgun is, after all, an obvious risk factor for
domestic homicides. His list of precautions is quite reasonable in
view of that fact, but he just doesn't want to mention the other
caution that stem from the paper: if all you want is to protect
yourself from being murdered in your home, don't buy a handgun;
because home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a
stranger and more likely to be murdered with your own gun. And, no
surprise, if you have a gun around for other purposes, you're better
off keeping it locked and unloaded when at home than ready for instant
use by by anyone who feels the impulse.

Heck, Schulman sums Kellermann up so well, I'll repeat his summary:
'What this adds up to is that while home is where you are far less
likely to be murdered by a stranger - not surprising since homes
usually have locks to keep such people out - the great majority of
murders that do take place at home are at the hands of those who have
a key. The caution here might well be that if you live with someone
whom you think might possibly murder you, you might want to move out
if they also keep a loaded handgun. Or, if the loaded handgun is
yours, you might want to keep it somewhere where you can get to it
faster than he or she can.'
-Schulman, agreeing with Kellermann while trying not to.
What makes you think this in any way refutes Kellermann's study?

Gunner wrote in message . ..

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"


You may want to pay more attention to our discussion of peer review
over the past couple of days. Papers delivered at meetings, as you
describe Kleck's, are not peer reviewed, unlike paper's published in
journals, as you describe Kellermann's, which are.

See how confused you get, when you can't even search the topic of your
discussion under its proper spelling?

On 6 Jun 2004 11:13:03 -0700, (z) wrote:

. His list of precautions is quite reasonable in
view of that fact, but he just doesn't want to mention the other
caution that stem from the paper: if all you want is to protect
yourself from being murdered in your home, don't buy a handgun;
because home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a
stranger and more likely to be murdered with your own gun.

There is the crux of the matter. Tis a bogus statement and reflects
Kellermans 43 times claim.

Piffle to the rest of your spew.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On 6 Jun 2004 11:18:20 -0700, (z) wrote:

Gunner wrote in message . ..

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"


You may want to pay more attention to our discussion of peer review
over the past couple of days. Papers delivered at meetings, as you
describe Kleck's, are not peer reviewed, unlike paper's published in
journals, as you describe Kellermann's, which are.

See how confused you get, when you can't even search the topic of your
discussion under its proper spelling?

See how lame you are when you have to go back 3 weeks for something to
discuss.

It was well covered at the time. Snicker..

Care to answer the question..Is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms a
collective or individual right?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jun 2004 11:18:20 -0700, (z) wrote:

Gunner wrote in message . ..

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"


You may want to pay more attention to our discussion of peer review
over the past couple of days. Papers delivered at meetings, as you
describe Kleck's, are not peer reviewed, unlike paper's published in
journals, as you describe Kellermann's, which are.

See how confused you get, when you can't even search the topic of your
discussion under its proper spelling?

See how lame you are when you have to go back 3 weeks for something to
discuss.

Oh. Did you change your position in the meantime? Or have you been
unable to support your statement that Shaffner is skeptical of
Kellermann's findings, given three weeks to do so?


It was well covered at the time. Snicker..

What was well covered at what time? Three weeks ago? Or just some
random time in the past, where you can shove things that might prove
embarrassing? Maybe you could take thirty seconds to search out for me
something more about this attack on Kellermann's findings by Shaffner
which you claim. I'll freely admit being unable to find anything about
it; which is odd, if 'it was well covered at the time'. Snicker.


Care to answer the question..Is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms a
collective or individual right?

Well, no; I don't care to comment on fields about which I am not
knowledgeable and about which I have nothing to say which would be
worth the time of the reader/listener. Unlike **some others** I do not
think my opinion on anything and everything is something people should
listen to, just because it's me saying it. You really ought to
consider such a philosophy. The one thing you have made a convincing
case for is that you have no clue regarding Kellermann's work, can't
do anything more than parrot something you read somewhere about how
some other folks oppose it, when challenged can't even bolster that
with anything more than vague references to 'it was well covered at
the time', then make bizarrely irrelevant references to three weeks
having passed followed by a rather jarring attempt to change the
subject. It's no wonder your skull is so vacant; you're emitting
'facts' at a rate much higher than you are entering any into there, so
naturally you're rapidly depleted. Maybe you should stop giving us the
benefit of your wisdom until you manage to get it refilled.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jun 2004 11:13:03 -0700, (z) wrote:

. His list of precautions is quite reasonable in
view of that fact, but he just doesn't want to mention the other
caution that stem from the paper: if all you want is to protect
yourself from being murdered in your home, don't buy a handgun;
because home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a
stranger and more likely to be murdered with your own gun.

There is the crux of the matter. Tis a bogus statement and reflects
Kellermans 43 times claim.

How utterly bizarre of you to call that a 'bogus statement', as it's a
virtual paraphrase of Schulman's statement:
'What this adds up to is that while home is where you are far less
likely to be murdered by a stranger - not surprising since homes
usually have locks to keep such people out - the great majority of
murders that do take place at home are at the hands of those who have
a key.'
You do remember Schulman, don't you? He's the guy you mentioned a
couple of posts back who 'refutes Kellerman [sic]'. And here you are,
calling what he says a 'bogus statement'. You are a confused person.
Do you agree with Schulman or not?


Piffle to the rest of your spew.

Go piffle in your own spew, I don't want to catch whatever it is that
has demolished your brain tissue so thoroughly.

On 10 Jun 2004 21:54:59 -0700, (z) wrote:

Well, no; I don't care to comment on fields about which I am not
knowledgeable and about which I have nothing to say which would be
worth the time of the reader/listener.

So why are you posting on this subject now? Its obvious you have little
knowlege of the subject, though you go on and on about that which you
know little. Ego or the simple rantings of an left wing extremeist anti
gun nut?

If I was a betting man..Id have to say both.

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On 10 Jun 2004 22:01:23 -0700, (z) wrote:

How utterly bizarre of you to call that a 'bogus statement', as it's a
virtual paraphrase of Schulman's statement:

Kellermans original claim was you were 43 times as likely to be harmed
with your own weapon.

All of your spin, misdirection and ranting will not change the fact
this is indeed bogus.

Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:01:51 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --

Its obvious you have little
knowlege of the subject, though you go on and on about
that which you know little.

You have so little knowledge of Kellermann's research that you
can't even spell his name correctly.

Why are you commenting on it, Mark?

Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his first name in
your posts. Either you think you are being insulting (Mark is a fine
name IMO) or you think you are letting out some big secret and you are
somehow special because you discovered it (he's posted his full name
on several occasions including a long string of middle names).
shrug
Sue

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista --

Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his first
name in your posts. Either you think you are being
insulting (Mark is a fine name IMO) or you think you are
letting out some big secret and you are somehow special
because you discovered it (he's posted his full name on
several occasions including a long string of middle names).

Neither. Sorry, Sue.

No apology necessary. Then perhaps it's a sign of respect. How nice.
Whatever it is I'm sure you have an excellent reason.
Sue

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 10 Jun 2004 22:01:23 -0700, (z) wrote:

How utterly bizarre of you to call that a 'bogus statement', as it's a
virtual paraphrase of Schulman's statement:

Kellermans original claim was you were 43 times as likely to be harmed
with your own weapon.

Keep backing away from your own statements.


All of your spin, misdirection and ranting will not change the fact
this is indeed bogus.

Why is it bogus? It's actual counts of people who were shot to death.
Such things are pretty accurately kept track of. Do you have figures
that show something else? What's your numbers say?


Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 10 Jun 2004 21:54:59 -0700, (z) wrote:

Well, no; I don't care to comment on fields about which I am not
knowledgeable and about which I have nothing to say which would be
worth the time of the reader/listener.

So why are you posting on this subject now? Its obvious you have little
knowlege of the subject, though you go on and on about that which you
know little. Ego or the simple rantings of an left wing extremeist anti
gun nut?

An odd reply for someone who cannot spell the subject on which he
posts, and has thus far failed to produce anything supporting his
statement that Shaffner 'refutes' Kellermann, and has posted that a
quote from Schulman is a 'false statement', after referring to
Schulman 'refuting' Kellermann. Before we continue, let me ask this..
Are you actually an idiot? Medically diagnosed, etc.?


If I was a betting man..Id have to say both.

If you were a betting man, you'd be bankrupt after an hour, judging by
your inability to perceive reality.


Gunner

"A vote for Kerry is a de facto vote for bin Laden."
Strider

Sue wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista --

Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his first
name in your posts. Either you think you are being
insulting (Mark is a fine name IMO) or you think you are
letting out some big secret and you are somehow special
because you discovered it (he's posted his full name on
several occasions including a long string of middle names).

Neither. Sorry, Sue.

No apology necessary. Then perhaps it's a sign of respect. How nice.
Whatever it is I'm sure you have an excellent reason.
Sue


So let me get this straight; Gunnie's standard stle of 'debate' is to
delete the content of any post that makes substantial criticisms of
his previous unsupported assertions, and instead reply with general
content-free nastiness and call the other guy names, but you have
issues with Carl's motives in calling him 'Mark'?

On 12 Jun 2004 05:31:39 -0700, (z) wrote:

Sue wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista --

Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his first
name in your posts. Either you think you are being
insulting (Mark is a fine name IMO) or you think you are
letting out some big secret and you are somehow special
because you discovered it (he's posted his full name on
several occasions including a long string of middle names).

Neither. Sorry, Sue.

No apology necessary. Then perhaps it's a sign of respect. How nice.
Whatever it is I'm sure you have an excellent reason.
Sue


So let me get this straight; Gunnie's standard stle of 'debate' is to
delete the content of any post that makes substantial criticisms of
his previous unsupported assertions, and instead reply with general
content-free nastiness and call the other guy names, but you have
issues with Carl's motives in calling him 'Mark'?

"Issues" may be too strong a word, but yep. However, I believe you
answered my question. Thanks.
Sue

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:43:15 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista --

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:57:40 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Bjórrúnar skaltu Sue rista --

Seems rather odd to me that you almost always use his
first name in your posts. Either you think you are being
insulting (Mark is a fine name IMO) or you think you are
letting out some big secret and you are somehow special
because you discovered it (he's posted his full name on
several occasions including a long string of middle
names).

Neither. Sorry, Sue.

No apology necessary. Then perhaps it's a sign of respect.

You are correct there. I treat posters generally in the same
way they treat me.

Were that the case you would be calling him Gummer or some such. G
It occurred to me that you are attempting to rise above the name
calling. A wise move IMO.
Sue


...