kbordson

OK.... short of actually spending $30 dollars for a one day view of that article (Other options are not reasonable options: American Journal of Public Health is not in my hospitals Ovid database, it's an EPub journal ahead of print so I can't order a hard copy, membership to AJPH is $195/year) I did some personal research into this article. Examining the bias of the five authors (Branas CC, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Ten Have TR, Wiebe DJ.) Branas CC - VERY published, per pubmed, He has 50 published articles. However, according to F.I.C.A.P (The Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, 25 of those publications were as lead author from 2000-2007 regarding firearms violence. Now, while he might be VERY smart and what he concludes might be VERY valid points. One MUST acknowledge a bias here. Richmond, TS. She has 48 published articles per F.I.C.A.P (The Firearm and Injury Center at Penn). Same bias concerns Culhane DP is a professor in Psychiatry with 21 publications per pubmed - medical problems and homelessness, child welfare, social and structural dimensions of urban neighborhoods. Diverse examinations of psych and public health views. (no lead author publications per F.I.C.A..P.) Ten Have TR I would have to personally consider having him on the list of authors as a true plus for this study. He is a Professor of Biostatistics in Biostastics and Epidemiology. He's a numbers cruncher. Of his other 65 journal articles, the topics were varied including Corticosteroids and mortality in children with bacterial meningitis, Baseline patient characteristics and mortality associated with longitudinal intervention compliance and Adaptive designs for randomized trials in public health. I would bet that he was included to attempt to distance FACT from bias. (no lead author publications per F.I.C.A.P.) [url "http://www.med.upenn.edu/apps/faculty/index.php/g275/p33678">Wiebe DJ. Again, very well publisned - 59 articles per pubmed, but 25 of those were listed on F.I.C.A.P website. Same bias. Looking at that, 3 of the 5 authors seem to have considerable bias AGAINST firearms. Just like on this forum, when you see certain posters respond... you KNOW which slant they are going to take, same with "research" (although I do, again, give them credit for including Dr. Ten Have) While I'm not willing to call them "a bunch of idiots" or "morons" like some on this site, I do have to listen with an understanding of their beliefs. (sidenote: the pubmed links to published works will not let me directly link to that specific author, you will need to type in that individuals name to view the actual titles) Discussion of data: The study used an n of 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault with a control of 684. But in that same time period, according to Philadelphia Police Crime Statistics, there were 332,428 major cases of crime reports with 40,150 being related to aggravated assault. Using those numbers, the "n" in the study only represented 0.20% of all major crime in the Philadelphia area and 1.68% of all aggravated assault cases. But lets be honest here, those stats are for ALL of Phili. If we narrow it down to potential demographics associated with the U of Phili (zip code 19104) That encompasses 3 police districts (District 16, 17 and 19) and referring back to page 2 of Philadelphia Police Crime Statistics , you can click and calculate the crime per year for each of the districts. I calculated it to a total n of 35,986 cases of major crime with 5863 cases of aggravated assault. Giving a more reasonable parallel with the study where the "n" of 677 would represent 1.8% of all major crime and 11% of aggravated assault. SO... with an 11% sampling of that population, what parallels can be inferred? 1. The findings are localized to THAT population demographics. Going back to the Philadelphia Police Department site - look at the crime statistics for those 3 districts. They might not be the worst (that would be districts 15, 25, 12, and 18) but these three (districts 16,17 and 19) closely follow. So we MUST acknowledge that this isn't suburban America. 2. Are these LEGALLY carried firearms? Because... that is what the lawmakers are going to use this study to argue: Guns are bad and laws make things "safer." So were these legally owned and carried? Going to www.legallyarmed.com (I tried to find non biased stats through the Pennsylvania sites, but they didn't have the numbers listed), there are 627,068 people with concealed carry permits in the state. (not specific to Phili, nor to that zip or police district). CNN claims that there are 29,000 permits to carry in Phili. (again... rather slanted site) But it might be reasonable to assume that those 29,000 represent a a more narrow and likely more correct portion of the population studied. But... it's likely to be shaved down even quite a bit more.... considering the crime statistics for that area and that you can NOT obtain a CCW with a felony conviction. So just taking the population of Phili (approx 1.5mil) and dividing that by the number of CCW owners reflects that 2% of the Phili population has a CCW. But that's looking at a RANDOM assortment of those that have CCW's. Being honest with ourselves, we know that's not really valid in THIS population. So... Skyrad, if you get the copy of the actual article, I would still LOVE to look at it. But... I don't think that this study represents the American population as a whole.

Are you seriously unwilling to look at the research itself to examine it's validity? As noted above, what if, in that cohort, x% of the patients were taken to prison after medical treatment? Were those "victims" truly innocent bystanders that just HAPPENED to be walking around Phili with a legally owned CCW OR were these illegally owned and used in illegal acts. Those are two COMPLETELY different populations. I don't know if it would be mentioned, but I would like to see the study first. Examine it for the confounding variables and see what limitations they themselves had identified. THEN, we can answer whether this was this a flawed study and the only "real" link is "crime kills" (although I think that referring to those scientist as "a bunch of idiots" and "morons" is a bit harsh) or is Skyrad posting something valid?

Wow, Bob. Some issues here. Point #1. I'm flattered that with all the respondents to that thread... you pick me to resurrect that thread! sniff sniff (wow... ) sniff Point #2. You are correct. I have no balls. I technically have ovaries - I carry my lil reproductive tykes indoors. well maybe you meant a different type of "balls"... like red bouncy ones, or fuzzy yellow tennis balls or baseballs - and you were talking about stepping up to the plate. So lets go along the metaphorical pathway and assume that in reality that was meant as a "throw down".... kind of a "what are you, chicken?" to which I should respond "am not!!" and come at you guns a blazing. (do you know what guns are? You threw a baseball metaphor in there but I don't want to assume that you understand American) Point #3 Men only skydives... the main topic of such hate and venom. Yes, Virginia, there ARE male only skydives. (hey... you called me a "bloke"... I can use a movie reference to refer to you as a lil girl) They might not be "advertised" as such or even intended as such.... but you have a CHOICE (at least here in the US) to jump with whom you choose. If you're walking out to the plane and you see a skirt climbing in... (although why wear a skirt on a skydive?).... you have the option to walk away and only board when there are ONLY BALLS on that plane. And trust me (do to the male and female ratio) there will be MANY planes that go up to the sky with men only. Now... does the DZO have the right to exclude women from his dropzone. That opens the discussion on if it's a right to refuse service v. discrimination. And that answer depends.... is it on private property? what state (or in your case country)? Here in the US, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination and guarantees all persons the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.” (but... looking at it, it doesn't actually say gender discrimination... I could now point out The Women's Rights Project (WRP) which was founded in 1972 by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to ensure women's full equality in American society.) But with either complaint of discrimination (gender or otherwise), the DZO can still get a "good" lawyer to argue some exceptions: As a general rule, right to refuse service can be based on one of the following five reasons: -Patrons who are unruly (is "she" unruly?) -Patrons who would place your business overcapacity in violation of local fire laws (the plane is already filled with "balls" and just cuz she stomps her Prada and DEMANDS to not be discriminated against... the plane is full.) -Patrons who wish to be served after hours or just before closing, necessitating the expenditure of overtime for your employees. (hmmmm... can we throw the requests for "extra altitude" in here?) -Patrons who bring non-paying customers with them that require more space than one person would be reasonably be allocated. In other words, if a paying customer brings three non-paying customers and is seated at a four person booth, service cannot be refused. However if the customer brings six non-paying customers, he or she can be refused service because it requires the use of more than the one booth allocated to the paying customer. (ok.... I don't think this one really would apply.... but you can try) -Patrons who exhibit such poor hygiene that results in numerous customers leaving. (ummm.... on the dz, it's typically not the females with this problem.... and even if there are "poor hygiene issues" such as horrid foul egg and bean farts on the plane... the customers all leave anyway) Ohhhh... but looking at current events - you're bitching about the Jump for the Cause now, aincha? You wanted to be one of the skydivers in that record. Well... first, there are MANY other ways that you can contribute cuz guys can get breast cancer too... and IF you happened to be one of those males and talked with the organizers of JTC and explained the situation... I'm sure there would be hugs and openness and you would likely be given a pink jumpsuit. The jump wasn't meant to EXCLUDE based on genetics, it was done as SUPPORT for those that develop malignancies in their ta-ta's.... Breast cancer hits 1 in 10 women.... That's a bit concerning... and many women ARE concerned about it. Secondly, as noted above, do a benefit for testicular cancer. SERIOUSLY.... no female would be upset by being excluded from a fundraising event for testicular cancer.... or if she would, she PROBABLY wouldn't hold a grudge for THREE FRICKIN YEARS. Point #4 - Gender discrimination. It happens. My father was a Master Mason and a member of Zor Shrine. It's male only. But... not too many women are kicking down the doors of the temple demanding her "rights" to a fez (although the comments above about the tassels were kinda funny) SHOULD it happen? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that. I had a discussion with a friend yesterday about a "sausage hang" party and how he was disappointed that he couldn't bring his wife... I tried to explain to him my thoughts on it (which are actually kind of muddy). Basically it gets down to "sometimes guys just want to bond".... and likewise.... "sometimes girls just want to bond." When it's recreation... be with whomever makes you happy. When it's work or political, ignore the DNA. So... I'm going back to my statement three years ago ***Move on. Life has much bigger issues.

All I can get (through my weak half hearted effort) is the abstract. If you are currently on hospital grounds with access to the full article, can you attach or link it?

Congratulations!!!

A deep full breath A sound night of sleep An exciting taste or wonderful smell or the feather touch of a caress EXCITEMENT of turning points or contentment of reading a book Dance and music and wind and fire (yes.... even fire) EXPERIENCE is what brings me pleasure

Please educate me, You forgot to mention some,,,I am not aware of any in my country. When you resurrected this three year old thread, you forgot to include this part in your post

No. Reason: You can't win over a population (especially a "hidden" population) by force against the entire community. England didn't do it with the insurgent Americans 200 years ago. We didn't do it in Vietnam 50 years ago. We won't accomplish the objectives with this one either... even with NATO backing. So what do we do? What options do we have? Lets parallel this to "How do you protect yourself from being mugged and killed in NYC/Chicago/Rio?" - Play the victim (Stand back and allow ourselves to be randomly attacked by cowards) - Don't play with "them" (No one goes there and no one comes here. Completely isolate and prevent ANY foreign "threats" into our country - we're kind of doing this already, I've heard comment that some rather nice people from across the pond refuse to visit the US anymore do to treatment received at immigrations) - Constant surveillance (Increase paranoia. Improve intelligence even to the point of limiting personal liberties) - Remove the threat, Eliminate the criminals (send more troops....) What is the objective? To be strong and "safe." To travel where I want without any threat of harm. Will any of those options prevent the muggings? And is the cost worth the benefit? Are we going to make the World "safe"? Is that a reasonable expectation? How many do "we" have to kill or attack before they will see that we are "right"? How many military members have to be killed or attacked before they will see that we are "right"? I'm not a "dove" but this current plan isn't working. We have to work this smarter, not harder.

OK... I understood WHAT he was referring to, but it's the visual that I was having trouble with. They're characters from Father Ted, one of the greatest sit-coms of all time. Who/what they represent doesn't really matter that much (although I would say Mrs Doyle is the Irish Gov't and Ted the people), it's more that they are very, very funny. So... does Ted (aka "the people") get to *cough* (wink, nudge) *cough* with Mrs Doyle (the "Government") Other side of that - the Government is f'ing the people. But they seem to want it. Why vote AGAINST self determination? Oh wait... that's what we're kind of doing too?!

Well, ability to get laid is really the ultimate test. Soc Biol. 1999 Spring-Summer;46(1-2):146-53. New evidence for dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States. Lynn R. University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland. Data were taken from the 1994 National Opinion Research Center survey of a representative sample of American adults to examine the relation between the intelligence of adults aged 40+ and their numbers of children and their numbers of siblings. The correlations were found to be significantly negative at -0.05 and -0.09, respectively, indicating the presence of dysgenic fertility. Further analysis showed that dysgenic fertility is present only in females. The correlation for females between intelligence and ideal numbers of children was effectively zero, indicating that if women had the numbers of children they consider ideal, dysgenic fertility would be reduced. WAIT A MINUTE! So being smarter is correlated with less babies!? But only in females? GUYS, WTF!? Don't like the smart chicks? But those librarian fantasies and in bonfire they said... (so do I believe 10 year old research or bonfire?) -Good thing that I'm normal. But this is information to tell my patients. --The real question is the reason why? What are the confounding variables here? Were those females "harder to get" and so more guys gave up? Did those women spend too much time actually focused on learning and not chasing / being chased? Were the guys that they associated with also more interested in discovering "the meaning of life" that they miss out on "play time"? Ya know... the guys on big bang theory never really seem to do well on their dates (except Leonard and Penny are now *WOO HOO*) and it seems, per a bonfire thread, that engineers have "no game." Logically one would think that a higher ability to process threats and solutions would be a trait that one would want in someone to continue your lineage.... why would it be inversely related? ---or maybe smart girls just think too much and it kills the mood when instead of moaning and panting, she analyzes technique ----(and just to CLARIFY) Good thing that I'm normal. But this is information to tell my patients.

totally glad someone else knows the rules to the game. Shoes off - you MEANT to go to sleep in that pile of puke and in a position that you couldn't assume sober if you studied yoga for a century. Shoes on - you passed out.

OK... I understood WHAT he was referring to, but it's the visual that I was having trouble with.

OK... so help a poor lil yank with that visual. Is Ireland supposed to be in a French Maid outfit? Or would that be Jolly ole playing the role of Mrs Doyle? Being across the pond, it's kinda hard to see who's wearing the skirt in that skit.

There are only 16 listed Schitts nationwide (or 15, and maybe 14 if two of the Jack Schitts are the same) source and one poor soul in MI, Dawg Schitt (actually listed twice)

No you don't. At least one old-timer here to recognize it...anyone else? OLD-TIMERS..... Hey. Just cuz a movie came out 29 years, 3 months and 2 days ago doesn't mean .... (holy shit!!!!!)

Adam completes middle school (grades 6-8) in three years. Bob takes 15 years to complete the same three grades. During the last nine years of Bob's middle school attendance, Adam went on to graduate from high school, earn an undergrad degree and started grad school. But, in the end, they both earned their middle school educations. kinda a 'so what' point isn't it? the smarter guy has more potential, by definition, as long as he uses it, this also moves into application of learning as well so I agree with you Edit: I'm so indoctrinated with the 'typical' SC bullshit, that I was sure you were intending to call that a social inequality/unfairness situation when one person is smarter than the other - then I read the next couple posts and see you were just clarifying my point. sorry about that trip down the left/righty stereotype path (retroactively) And.... sometimes being TOO smart is a disadvantage.

Not a lot of branches in that family tree!!!!

Bonfire. OK... that was amusing.

I think this movie will be a good show. The CG looks fun.... but I think it will spark some of the fear mongering and uncertainty that we say Dec 31, 1999. Anytime someone says "The end is near!", you will have those cheering the destruction and those nay-saying the "prophet." And then you have the masses in the middle..... those that will still plan for college graduation in 2014 or watching lil susie (who is now 5yo) get married.... To them, I think this will be entertainment. But, they're not very vocal, are they? They just work to get to the next day and then party on the weekend. Where's the story in that? I think the press will focus more on the "story" that this movie might generate. Those that ABSOLUTE that the Mayans had it right v. those that LOUDLY dismiss anyone that believe such superstition. And that then pulls us back to the "prepared" thread.... how many people in Cali have a plane just waiting on the tarmac just for them... except for those that live at 'snore or perris

Did you get the phone pic I sent? I switched phones and plans this weekend (kept the same number)... but in all that... no pic from Lisa

That's why you should stick to rum

I believe that you still should. Of her two "best" books - Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged - I would have you lean more toward Atlas Shrugged. It's longer and some parts are a bit more trying to get past, but it has more ... "story" and less "sell" of her philosophy. (That and I think the names Dagny and Ragnar are just kinda cool and I was amused by seeing them)

I haven't. Do you have a link? /Marg Time Magazine. 12 Oct 2009

Interesting link. I don't know what to truly think of the corruption and IQ list. There doesn't seem to be any exact relationship between IQ and level of corruption. The higher IQ's tend to be near the top of the list... but then there's outliers like China and South Korea (both under "5" on the corruption scale) and Oman, Bahrain, Botswana and Qatar (all above "5" but with lower IQ values) And I think that listing the average IQ's from different countries could just add to xenophobic opinions. ("our countries average iq is 'xx', so obviously as a country, we are smarter and know better than a country with an iq of 'xx'") - but the Causes of IQ differences among Countries was an interesting read. (edit to finish a thought)

It was fun to watch. We'll see how character development grows and what they might do with the plot to make it more than Gilligan's Island in space (like Voyager was) but seriously?! the code imbedded in a video game script? So does that give validation to all of those scoring high in Mafia Wars. "See Ma, If I stick with this, I can be an astronaut!"