kbordson

They are few and far between, but they are out there. Look up Lott and Mustard because they're lobbyist.

For (VERY UNFORTUNATELY) too many, sex is not done for the "right reasons." First, what do I consider the "right reason" -intimate connection with someone (even yourself) -sensation of pleasure, endorphin release with orgasm Many women have issues with low libido, painful intercourse, and true psychological issues that interfere with the pleasure of intercourse. So the "real" reason that she might be having sex with him might be a manipulation or a control or a trade. and... then there are those that have sex to keep me employed!

Indeed. But there have been MANY other studies [sic] that came to similar conclusions. I already cited one a few posts ago. Here are some more: www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/04/26/Gun_ownership_correlates_to_gun_deaths/UPI-65011209186884/ This is an "analysis by a U.S. non-profit group" (unidentified in this article) that simply compares statistics with gun ownership and CDC data from 2005. Not really a "real" study www.gunguys.com/?p=2793 Gun guys . com?! This is an op-ed article discussed 3 anecdotal cases. Tragic cases... but not a "real" study www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html This (like the first link) is simply a comparison of gun ownership statistics and CDC data from 2001. And... the link kinda devalues that as a "reliable" source... other "strange news" included The best approach for avoiding a zombie? It would have better defended your statement to actually have linked to the journal in Social Science and Medicine www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/social-health-hazards/guns-and-suicide/index.html This is actually your most "powerful link." (kinda laughing to myself with that one.... "powerful link" - combining their conclusion with the internet lingo... ok, so I'm easily amused) But still it's actually only a "powerful link." Owning a gun is NOT the cause of suicide. However, having rapid access to a very irreversible tool.... will increase the success probability. But.... we could also do a study looking at tylenol- very available. (lets call all the households and ask how many have APAP in the medicine cabinet) combined with a very low toxicity threshold. (4gm - that's ONLY 8 of the extra strength tabs) But.... tylenol does NOT cause suicide. Edited to add: if you really believe the statistics are flawed and the conclusions are incorrect, you have the credentials to write a rebuttal to the journal editors and have it printed. Why don't you do that? partly because in this field, you don't want to be labeled as a "gun nut" and opposing said views, even when you can defend the statements, is a risky career move partly because I actually WANT them to proceed with the further study and if they get caught in a pissing contest ... that might derail that. partly due to a bit of an inferiority complex.... lil david trying to bring down the popular medical opinions. But.... even with all of that.... I still might.

Honestly, not trying to goad you on. But to say that someones opinion, interpretation or evaluation of the study is "totally meaningless" and to not be willing to defend that statement with a more critical statement than "because".... Are you not willing to look at the arguments offered by the opposing view and intelligently counter them with data? And remember - My initial opinion was guarded. (cuz bias DOES matter and numbers CAN lie) I feel that I confirmed that opinion by actually looking at the data. I truly think that this study bordered on intellectual dishonesty and should NOT be used to make assumptions EITHER way. "the "n" was too low, the p was "borderline" statistical significant and the 95% CI was too broad (almost touching 1)" Good STARTING POINT for a real study.

OHHHHHH I know who would like THIS on that site!!!

(but.... they were just so mean to the poor protagonist. He wasn't really a "loser" and while he might have been slightly overweight, he wasn't really fat.... ok... maybe he did have a stubby nose.....)

I'm defensive with my past experience due to the perceived insult when you questioned if I was a "military person." I'm proud of my service and supportive of the military members.... but despite that I feel that we are over extended and spending way too much. And with respect to deferring to Nerdgirl, I have some opinions, but am not as prepared to answer those questions as someone like her would be. I would prefer to wait on ranking priorities until I have more (reliable) information on which to base my opinion.

You could technically call lying anything other than telling the complete truth. If you think someone is an idiot, yet you filter that into some PC bullshit to avoid hurting their feelings, then it is not the truth. But if your opinion wasn't asked for and you still proceeded to tell said idiot that he was an idiot.... is that lying or just being mean?

Went to go see The Invention of Lying and started thinking.... Lying v. internal filter v. Not randomly saying mean things I think that this movie kinda confused those three categories. What are your thoughts on "Lying"?

That's just great! Are you by chance a military person, kbordson? Blues, Cliff My father was active duty Air Force for 20+ years I was active duty Air Force for almost 5 years My stepson was active duty Air Force. You have NO place to question my personal ties to the military.

OK, that makes good sense! Which theaters do you believe are important to the US ? And why? You might want to include which theaters we are currently involved in that you disagree with .., and why. Blues, Cliff I would defer to Nerdgirl's opinion on that. Or at least consider her input before ranking theaters.

Do you believe that we shouldn't be fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq , Somalia, Pakistan, and the Phillipines? Or is your belief that the Congress just shouldn't declare that? Blues, Cliff I think our country is broke. Although war does increase production within the "war machine" and does actually further medical trauma research... it doesn't really help the society in a long term basis. I think that we should look at expenses and CUT costs. We need to re-finance our country. Babysitting or playing big brother to countries that don't have a direct impact on the American population is not in our current best interest. So ,kbordson, Are you in favor of just dropping everything and bringing all the troops home? Blues, Cliff I wouldn't say "just dropping" - rather restructuring our deployments to focus on those theaters that are important to the well being of the U.S.

Interesting, kbordson! I'm intriqued! Care to expand on your reply? Do you believe that we shouldn't be fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq , Somalia, Pakistan, and the Phillipines? Or is your belief that the Congress just shouldn't declare that? Blues, Cliff I think our country is broke. Although war does increase production within the "war machine" and does actually further medical trauma research... it doesn't really help the society in a long term basis. I think that we should look at expenses and CUT costs. We need to re-finance our country. Babysitting or playing big brother to countries that don't have a direct impact on the American population is not in our current best interest.

No.

This post is from Marty: "Someone asked why I would carry a gun, I said 'Because cops weigh too much.'"

EVERYBODY SIT DOWN. We need to finish Journal Club for today Journal article being discussed: Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault Charles C. Branas, University of Pennsylvania Therese S. Richmond, University of Pennsylvania Dennis P. Culhane, University of Pennsylvania Thomas R. Ten Have, University of Pennsylvania Douglas J. Wiebe, University of Pennsylvania link to online copy of article Billvon already stared this discussion. Purpose and Hypothesis were reviewed. Main findings were discussed: -"individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P

Thanks! brb.

Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf? No. I think the Congressman/woman and Representative SHOULD know what his/her constituents think. But major lobbying efforts are not that. An individual writing his/her Congressmen is an example of lobbying, making that individual a lobbyist, something you previously stated you don't really like. I want the politicians to know the people that they represent. Lobbyist are both a sub culture of that population and a also a larger group of those NOT represented by that politician. For example: Tammy Baldwin is a Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives for WI. She represents the PEOPLE of Wisconsin. Those that want firearms rights and those that don't. The NRA contains a SUBGROUP of that population The NRA ALSO is a MUCH LARGER demographic that also contains NON-Wisconsin residents. Representative Baldwin should know HER constituents.

Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf? No. I think the Congressman/woman and Representative SHOULD know what his/her constituents think. But major lobbying efforts are not that.

Their mission is to create safer communities through the systematic reduction of injury and its repercussions to the individual, family, and society. -I FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. broadly disseminating information to policymakers - is what could be bad. They're lobbyist. I don't really like them on EITHER side If those policymakers don't critically review the information presented to them and if those policymakers then correlate the findings of one population to all and if.... that's where useful studies can be used as propaganda.

The article was reported in New Scientist. I don't think that they would have the full article published in American Journal of Public Health, but they might. If they do, please post it (or if that is ... less than ethical... then review it and answer some questions for me) 1. Why was the study done? 2. What was the hypothesis? 3. What were the main findings of the study? 4. Was this study funded by pharmaceutical company(s)? 5. How large was the study? How many subjects? How were subjects selected? Was the study sample adequate in size and nature to justify the conclusions? 6. Was the overall design of the study clearly articulated and appropriate for the hypotheses? Was there a control group? Was there a representative sample? 7. Were the data collection methods clear and appropriate? 8. Was the data analysis clearly explained and appropriate? 9. What were the main findings 10. What were the limitations of the study? 11. What are the implications of the study for clinical practice? 12. What are the implications of the study for future research?

Not personally knowing those researchers, I don't know where their political leanings are on Second Amendment Rights. But, I think we could make an intelligent guess. I would be VERY surprised if they personally possessed a firearms collection. Does that make their research "right" or "wrong"? It might. Personal beliefs do sometimes interfere with results. People see what they want to see. A good researcher is very GUARDED about this ... as I think they were with this study ... and why I gave them credit for having a Professor of Biostatistics with calculation of the numbers. But without the full and actual article (and yes.... I am cheap and don't want to spend the money to fully review the article itself) - we have what is listed in the abstract. And from that - I do NOT think that this study has broad implications for the American population as a whole.

So by that statement, if I were to list 25 articles by some author printed by the NRA... YOU will admit that that is indicative of an area of expertise for that author? You would disagree with the statement that he/she had bias? Being listed on the Web site of F.I.C.A.P. does not imply that an article/study was written for F.I.C.A.P. ok... I corrected it. So would the above statement be correct?

It could and I think that you would be a fool not to recognize a level of bias. Especially if I belonged to an anti-abortion group that used my studies on their website. I didn't say that their research wasn't valid. Nor that this study was or wasn't biased... just that looking at the authors themselves, there appears to be a bias that I feel that they would need to overcome.

STRONGLY disagree. Publishing many scholarly articles in one area is a typical research profile of an active researcher and is not indicative of bias, it is indicative of area of expertise. So by that statement, if I were to list 25 articles by some author written for the NRA... YOU will admit that that is indicative of an area of expertise for that author? You would disagree with the statement that he/she had bias?