Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe point was to respond to piper17's completely unverified claim, as you would know if you were paying attention to the thread.
I answered to the same question - piper's claim has been verified - resistance tends to decrease your injuries in an attack, not increase.
Ahem - that was NOT his claim. You really should try to pay attention.
yawn - your favorite technique to bore us - keep telling us what is NOT being said. Avoid talking about any actual material.
Sorry, not a chance. Time to go running.
kallend 2,184
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe point was to respond to piper17's completely unverified claim, as you would know if you were paying attention to the thread.
I answered to the same question - piper's claim has been verified - resistance tends to decrease your injuries in an attack, not increase.
Ahem - that was NOT his claim. You really should try to pay attention.
yawn - your favorite technique to bore us - keep telling us what is NOT being said. Avoid talking about any actual material.
Sorry, not a chance. Time to go running.
Lame weaseling excuse.
Here's some more light reading:
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1730916
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
Nice ad hominem attack, Professor - nice to see you're still up to your same tricks when you can't refute the data.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,184
QuoteQuoteThat is a shitload of murders, Many of them probably not with guns, many with.
You guess a lot, don't you? And so often wrong.
~70% of the murders are committed with firearms.
If the guns were gone, people would substitute. Knives seem popular in the UK.
Want to compare homicide rates between the USA, UK, Australia and Canada then, to see if knives are substituted?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,184
QuoteNice ad hominem attack, Professor - nice to see you're still up to your same tricks when you can't refute the data.
Quoting your own words back to you does not constitute an ad-hominem attack. I'll trust the statistical analysis of peer reviewed Harvard epidemiologists over yours any and every day.
By the way, have you looked up "strawman" yet?
www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23cons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,184
QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you have any data to back up your statement that having a gun is more likely to get you killed? Not many armed robbers or rapists take the time to practice, get training, or actually learn how to use the firearm they possess (probably illegally).
I think you will find that the facts are quite the opposite and all you need to do is do a little reading and research.
A little reading never hurt anyone:
arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/1/12/6601
"The authors are careful as to what conclusions they can draw from this work. They stress that this work does not establish a "causal relationship between guns and homicide", stating that this could be a case of "reverse causation"—that there are a higher number of households with guns because of an already high homicide rate."
So what was your point, exactly?
(yes, silly question to ask given his history)
Convenient that you omitted this bit:
"However, a reverse causation hypothesis would not be capable of explaining the non-correlation between household firearm prevalence and non-firearm related homicides found in the data."
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
Quote
Here's some more light reading:
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1730916
KELLERMAN??????
If they used Kellerman as a source, no WONDER their study was so jacked up.
Debunked
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,184
QuoteQuote
Here's some more light reading:
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1730916
KELLERMAN??????
If they used Kellerman as a source, no WONDER their study was so jacked up.
Debunked
National Review? How about trying a peer reviewed journal.
At least Kellerman didn't pose as a woman like Lott did, to support his data.
Here's more:
injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/8/4/345
www.springerlink.com/content/e5642376x6743620/
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteNice ad hominem attack, Professor - nice to see you're still up to your same tricks when you can't refute the data.
Quoting your own words back to you does not constitute an ad-hominem attack. I'll trust the statistical analysis of peer reviewed Harvard epidemiologists over yours any and every day.
By the way, have you looked up "strawman" yet?
www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23cons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Funny - I was unaware that I ever said "I am SURE they'd appreciate input from an expert statistician like
You (try to) cast doubt on the data I provided by stating I am not a statistician - something I have freely admitted but has NO bearing on the data I provided.
Shall I provide the definition of ad hominem for your further embarassment, or shall you admit you were incorrect?
I'd also say the UCR data puts the lie to your expert, as well - unless there some sort of statistics trick that makes Wyoming's murder rate (6.5% the size of DC's) somehow prove that more guns = more murders.
Oh - I know - they finally found a way to make guns satisfy the Koch postulates!!! That's it, isn't it????
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
Here's some more light reading:
content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1730916
KELLERMAN??????
If they used Kellerman as a source, no WONDER their study was so jacked up.
Debunked
National Review? How about trying a peer reviewed journal.
At least Kellerman didn't pose as a woman like Lott did, to support his data.
Here's more:
injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/8/4/345
www.springerlink.com/content/e5642376x6743620/
How about providing a peer review of Kellerman's work in something OTHER than a *MEDICAL* journal that already has a bias towards gun control?
How about, oh, I don't know... something like Criminology - who, if I recall correctly, *HAS* peer-reviewed Kleck's work vs. Kellerman's, who has been debunked over and over again.
BTW...using Kellerman's "methodologies" (if they can be called that), non-justifiable deaths in a NON-gun-owning home is a ratio of 99:1 vs. his 43:1 ....
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,184
KLECK!!!!
His data has been debunked by none other than the US DoJ.
And then there's John Lott, proven to have fabricated data, and then gone online masquerading as a woman to praise himself
And since gunshot victims are treated or pronounced dead by the medical profession, seems like gunshot deaths and injuries are fair game for medical journals. Suggesting that epidemiologists are poor statisticians just displays amazing ignorance.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
Quote>Some body messes with my family, my property, or puts my life
>or property, or my neighbors life or property in emminent danger, i
>would have no problem sending them straight to hell.
Likewise, should you shoot a teenager who is smashing mailboxes in your neighborhood, a jury will have no problem sending you straight to jail.
You love your extreems to make your points dont you
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteThat is a shitload of murders, Many of them probably not with guns, many with.
You guess a lot, don't you? And so often wrong.
~70% of the murders are committed with firearms.
If the guns were gone, people would substitute. Knives seem popular in the UK.
Want to compare homicide rates between the USA, UK, Australia and Canada then, to see if knives are substituted?
Completly absofuckinglutly irrelavant.
But, he nailed you as to why you do this crap
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo you have any data to back up your statement that having a gun is more likely to get you killed? Not many armed robbers or rapists take the time to practice, get training, or actually learn how to use the firearm they possess (probably illegally).
I think you will find that the facts are quite the opposite and all you need to do is do a little reading and research.
A little reading never hurt anyone:
arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/1/12/6601
Isn't this the same info you used for your "scatter chart" post that I showed was complete bullshit?
No, you did nothing of the sort. You just made an unsupported claim.
Unsupported? Hardly - in fact, it is STRONGLY supported by the UCR stats.
The top "guns=murder" states (highest gun ownership) (murder rates per 100k population)
Wyoming 1.87
Alaska 6.03
Montana 2.27
South Dakota 2.43
West Virginia 4.13
Mississippi 11.42
Idaho 2.46
Arkansas 10.46
Alabama 13.32
North Dakota 1.67
Here's the bottom of the "guns=murders" lineup:
Maryland 26.33
California 6.88
Illinois 14.31
New York 6.00
Connecticut 3.94
Rhode Island 2.54
Massachusetts 3.06
New Jersey 5.00
Hawaii 1.86
DC 29.06
So, professor... tell me again how that more guns equals more murders thing works again, will you? Especially seeing where DC came in?
You should take it up with those epidemiologists from Harvard whose results were quoted. I am SURE they'd appreciate input from an expert statistician like yourself.
"I'm not a statistician (obviously)", mnealtx, Oct 27, 2007, Speakers Corner
Are you talking about the anti 2nd amendment epidemiologists or those Drs from the AMA who are completely antin gun?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteKLECK!!!!
His data has been debunked by none other than the US DoJ.
Cite. DoJ coming up with a different POSSIBLE number != "debunk". Kleck's work was lauded in Criminology (please note the correlation between the work and the publication) - maybe you can provide Criminology's review of the DOJ rebuttal of Kleck's work?
QuoteIn 1993, the American Society of Criminology bestowed its highest award on Point Blank, declaring it the single most important contribution to criminology in the past several years.[111] American and foreign reviewers hail the book as a prerequisite to scholarly research or discussion of the issues; even scholars who disagree with Kleck's views call Point Blank the essential reference work, the "indispensable" text "for anyone concerned about guns and violence."[112] Professor Wright, co-author of 1981 and 1983 reviews that previously held sway as the authoritative work on the criminology of firearms, freely concedes that Point Blank eclipses those reviews.[113](p.543)
QuoteAnd then there's John Lott, proven to have fabricated data, and then gone online masquerading as a woman to praise himself
Lott is not under discussion, here - another one of your red herrings, Professor? Or shall we bring in Bellesisles, among others, if you wish to discuss manufactured data?
QuoteAnd since gunshot victims are treated or pronounced dead by the medical profession, seems like gunshot deaths and injuries are fair game for medical journals. Suggesting that epidemiologists are poor statisticians just displays amazing ignorance.
False argument to authority - unless you're saying that these epidemiologists are doing trauma surgery in the ER. Try again, professor - you may want to consider just admitting you can't refute the data - all these red herrings laying around are starting to stink up the place.
These type of statements coming from someone that considers the mathematics necessary to calculate /100k murder rates to be "expertise in statistics" leads me to believe that higher education in the USA is in a LOT worse shape than I thought...
Oh, wait...this is like the "climatologists are better statisticians than statisticians" argument, isn't it?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
You guess a lot, don't you? And so often wrong.
~70% of the murders are committed with firearms.
If the guns were gone, people would substitute. Knives seem popular in the UK.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites