craddock

Since what you wrote was almost directly quoting from Hemingway I will just post direct quotes form Kleck. Quite frankly I don't give a shit about getting into this debate with you via a computer. Not to the point of where we are now. I did not post data at first as I Knew it would come to it. Look at all the other studies. Look at the subsequent study sponsored by the Department of Justice in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). 1.5 million defensive uses. As far as why that NCVS number is so low? You're source of info from Hemingway probably had Klecks response but if I must I'll just quote him since you are damn near quoting Hemingway ""Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted." "It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident." "...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee." Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection." And in case you have not seen his response to Hemingway "THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: GETTING THE DEFENSIVE GUN USE ESTIMATE DOWN Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz * INTRODUCTION It is obvious to us that David Hemenway (H) had no intention of producing a balanced, intellectually serious assessment of our estimates of defensive gun use (DGU). Instead, his critique serves the narrow political purpose of "getting the estimate down," for the sake of advancing the gun control cause. An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high. Equally important, it would have given greatest weight to relevant empirical evidence, and little or no weight to idle speculation about possible flaws. H's approach is precisely the opposite--one-sided and almost entirely speculative. Readers who have any doubts about the degree to which H's paper is imbalanced might carry out a simple exercise to assess our claim¾ count the number of lines H devotes to flaws tending to make the estimate too high and the number devoted to flaws making the estimate too low. We submit that the ratio is over 100-to-1, i.e., almost entirely devoted to speculations about why the estimate is too high. The political function of this advocacy scholarship is clear. While high estimates of DGU frequency do not constitute an obstacle to moderate controls over guns, they constitute the most serious obstacle to advocacy of gun prohibition. Disarming the mass of noncriminal prospective crime victims would, if high DGU estimates are even approximately [Page 1447] correct, result in large numbers of foregone opportunities for uses of guns that could prevent deaths, injuries, and property loss. To acknowledge high DGU frequency would be to concede the most significant cost of gun prohibition. H's paper is an attempt to neutralize concerns about such costs and to provide intellectual respectability for positions identified with Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI), the nation's leading gun control advocacy group. H has close ties to HCI through two key staff members of HCI's "educational" branch, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV). His closest and most frequent collaborator on gun-related research is Douglas Weil, currently Research Director of CPHV,[1] while H has co-edited a strongly pro- control propaganda tract with Dennis A. Henigan, legal counsel to HCI and CPHV.[2] H's political intentions and strong feelings are also evident in his overstatements and in the grandiose conclusions he draws from weak or irrelevant evidence and fallacious reasoning. He does not get past his title before making his first overstatement, claiming that he had established, without benefit of any new empirical evidence, that our estimates are too high and that they are "extreme overestimates."[3] He states in his first paragraph that "it is clear that [the Kleck and Gertz] results cannot be accepted as valid."[4] He incorrectly claims that "all checks for external validity of the Kleck-Gertz finding confirm that their estimate is highly exaggerated,"[5] when in fact these checks have repeatedly confirmed our estimates. DGUs usually involve unlawful possession of a gun by the gun-wielding victim, and sometimes other illegalities as well,[6] a point H does not dispute. Yet, in making the extraordinary and counterintuitive claim that there is a social desirability bias to people reporting their own illegal behavior,[7] H insists that such a desirability bias is not [Page 1448] only plausible, but that it is likely.[8] By the end, without having provided a scintilla of credible supporting evidence, H concludes that our research was afflicted by an "enormous problem of false positives" (persons claiming a DGU who did not have one) and "massive overestimation," flatly stating that "the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States."[9] It is an impressive achievement to be able to arrive at such high-powered conclusions without the inconvenience of gathering or even citing any new empirical evidence." Just the introduction. I don't expect you to have read it all though. Just as I skimmed through your jibberish from Hemmingway. Now please quit asking me to provide more sources. It should be clear to any reasonable person that while estimates of 2- 2.5 million are most likely on the high side, that the NCVS number is no where near reality. But then again it should not be. That is not what the study was looking for. IE. Total Defensive Firearm use. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Now your putting words in my mouth. That's alright, it's the Liberal way. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

LMFAO No you have not. Your data is a joke at best. Here is a bit if data for you. "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, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually." And from the NRA "studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired prevents crime in many instances" and one more "Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun - "By this time there seems little legitimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive gun use is very common in the U.S., and that it probably is substantially more common than criminal gun use. This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders." I could go on and on but I would start to feel a bit like John R. Speaking of which I am suprised he is not here to help me out. Yes but more times than not it does. I will take that chance. You need not decide for me. If Mr. Kleck's study is correct we have 2 Million Defensive compared to your 1 million Offensive. I can throw numbers around too. If you don't like our guns you are welcome to stay over there. This was a thread started by a Canadian(who does not like guns) about what he thought was a stupid new handgun ban. You used it as a chance to bash the US. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

The first three post in this thread were from Canadians. None of which supported the ban. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Keep it mind the Liberal mindset will have a very hard time with this. As applies to everything they don't agree with, conservatives are doing it all wrong but the Liberals don't dare try to tell how to do it right. Liberals are very good at handing out problems, solutions can be a different story. This is a glaring problem with Liberals. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

I currently do not own a 9mm although I think they are adequate for self protection. Some like them because in offers 15 +1 where as my single stack .45 offers 8+1 without an extended Mag. This is a non issue to most people however. What is important is how comfortable you are with the firearm. Handle several. See who they feel. Shoot as many as you can. See if a .45 double stack fits your hand or are you looking at a 1911 style? If so are you comfortable with the SAO design, and the breakdown of it. Are you planning on carrying as in CCW? If so what kind of holster do you want? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

I don't have time to go off as much as I would like about the ignorance of your post. But let me touch on a few points of using a handgun for hunting. 1. Over the years I have missed oppurtunities to take a shot at several deer that I could have haversted with a 44 mag and prefferably a red dot scope. Although open sights would be just fine as in most cases the deer was damm near right under the stand. My father could not shoot at a nice 8 point this year that he could have got with a handgun. I don't hunt in open prairies where the long shot is the norm. In fact I had half dozen deer this year less than 50 yards directly in front of my stand that I could not take an ethical shot at(heavy slashings). Deer can be very quiet, in fact this year I saw eight before I harvsted my first opening day but only heard but one. So here is the senerio. Deer walks up from off to your right side and a bit behind. You do not know he is there untill he is almost to your tree(assuming you shoot right handed if not reverse scenerio) With a rifle this is a very difficult shot if not impossible unless you pull up left handed. Many people do not practice this and even then your gun is not in the position to pull up that direction. Deer is to close for much movement. Solution. 44 mag in the left hand aimed at the vitals. Game over and fresh tenderloins back at the camp that night. 2. Grouse hunting. some days with my dog we come across little to no grouse. Squirrels are very tasty assuming they are on a good diet(the same applies to grouse- diet is very important- this also applies to deer) While you could always shoot them with your shotgun, you risk the chance of putting multiple bb's in the meat. This can be avoided if you carry a rimfire handgun. A .22 works great for this although I am looking ar a .17 hmr revolver. I purchased four firearms so far this year so I will have to wait untill next year.(although the 20 ga. I bought was for my son Collin who was born the last day in July 05 but I will have to give it good break in on grouse to work out any kinks it may have) These small caliber rimfires offer extremely accurate ballistics. 3 Archery hunting. I like a small rimfire for the same reasons as #2. While I have killed my fair shair of squirrels with an arrow I have missed my shair as well. I don't like nocking a different arrow up to shoot a squirrel and there are only certain shots I will take with a bow anyway at one. I have had on multiple occasions a squirrel go running of with an arrow under the skin of his neck with no vitals hit. I have also stuck one dead to a tree that i had to retrieve. It is not worth it and in some caes not ethical so there are very few instances I will shoot at one with a bow when I am out deer hunting. Yet there are tasty and plentiful when sitting in a tree for hours waiting for a fat doe to walk along. I can't wait for my new Tracker .17 Hmr 4. Protection. We have alot of Bears and Wolves running around where I hunt. The DNR has been trying to regain control of the Wolf population but some liberal judge has interveined to stop from getting the timberwolves downgraded from an endagered species. They have killed many dogs in my area and in some cases they have breed with domestic dogs. These offspring can be particularly dangerous as they are born domesticated. One report of a wolf pack comming ito a back yard very close to a young girl this last year. Some people like to carry a side arm when Small game or archery hunting. I have myself left the rimfire at the camp and brought my 1911 if I knew I was going in the woods for the last few hours. My stand is 4 miles into the woods from our cabin which is already in the middle of nowhere. While I most likely will never need it, it can be comforting knowing you have it coming out of the woods in the pitch dark listening to the Wolves howling. I don't have time to get in the whole self defence issue. I am sure you have comforted everyone enough by informing them criminals only invade homes in "War Zones" That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Sorry I Misunderstood what you meant by total, although I still don't agree with your thoughts. I am an avid hunter so it is a sore spot with me. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Perhaps you need to understand. Canada has some of the largest game animals in North America. Hunting produces revenue for your country both from residents and non-residents who travel from all over to hunt. Your statement is one of the most ignorent I've read to date. I had a friend die in a automobile crash. Mabey we should ban cars being driven outside working hours and limit those who need them for work use.. This would save far more lives than banning guns. Oh wait, you mabey drive a car so that makes no sense to you. What about all you fellow Canadians that own Firearms? Fuck em you say? Absurd thinking That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Are you fucking serious? Bunch of liberal bullshit. It couldn't have anything to do with the drastic difference in culture in the US. No it must be the guns. In a home invasion the idea is NOT to confront the criminal with a holstered or cased firearm. LMFAO. Quite often in the US the mere presence of a firearm protects ones self or property with out even being discharched. Furthermore you mistakenly are under the impression that firearms are only to be used against criminals armed with another firearm! ??????? It it an honor over their to be killed via a knife or baseball bat? A while back around where I live a 71 year old man from out of state was being beating by his own cane by a bunch of youths that were robbing him. He was in legitiment fear for his life and managed to get to his car amist the violence where he retrived and put to work his loaded .44 mag. He is still alive. And even though one of the youths was killed and he was in a non CCW state, he was not charged for ANY crime. The Senate has now just passed a CCW bill in this state. The who? National Crime Victimitazion Survey? One should really expect honest fiqures here. Do you know that other studies indicate firearms are used (used does not imply fired) over 2 million times a year for personl protection.? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

sorry missed the word "few" It was not intentional That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Since we are into quotes now I would like to share a paragraph from a recent book I read. It is from the indroduction to a book by Bernard Goldberg titled "100 people who are screwing up America (and Al Franken is #37)" He is explaining how he came to his picks and admits no two people in the world will agree. he goes on say "And it won't take you long to notice that there are a lot of liberals on the list, which, of course, is just how it ought to be. If I were compiling the list years ago, say, when I was in college, there'd be a lot of conservatives on it. But this isn't years ago, and besides, I'm smarter nmow than I was back then. And, believe it or not, it's not so much because of their left of center politics that they're on the list, as because of their willingness-make that their eagerness-to live up to the most embarrassing stereotypes many of us hold about today's culteral-elite liberals: that they're snooty, snobby know-it-alls, who have gotten angrier in recent years and who think they're not only smarter, but also better than everyone else, especially everyone else who lives in a "Red-State"-a population they see as hopelessly dumb and pathetically religious. And it is precisely this elitist condescension-this smug attitude that Middle America is a land of right-wing yahoos who are so damn unenlightened that they probably don't even know where the Hamptons are- that hurts liberals and their causes way more than it helps them. It's one of the reasons John Kerry is still a senator and not the president of the United States" This applies to a few liberals on these boards perfectly. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

please explain what this means? What is a blog? Is this a personal attack? You or I have every right to dislike O'Reilly. But to call him a Hypocrite because FOX has SOME things on their site labled "holiday" is pure liberal bullshit. So long as they are not boycotting the use of "Christmas" it would seem to meet his standards. If you wish. I surely don't think your stupid though. p.s. please be sure to use the twisted liberal defenition of "liar" although I never used such a word That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

To hell with the liberal rhetoric over my choice of words. Why so much hate to keep spinning to suit you? In response to the rest that you posted.... Ok that is his opinion. I have no problem with him having an opinion. I just can't see how you get off calling him a hypocrite because SOME of the items at Fox's store say Holiday? You don't think Macy's has anything in their store that says "Holiday" on it. J.C.Penney's "Christmas Catalog has no holiday items in it? WTF? My Christmas tree has a holiday ornament on it. I used to consider myself an Independent years ago, but with the pure sleazy spin some liberals spew it drove me to the right. Of course some of the Republicans do the same but I am not sure I have met an intelligent yet honest liberal yet. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Here's the relevant quote: Snip> Shop where you like the atmosphere. Just remember, Kohl's and Sears/Kmart basically not all right. Thanks for clearing up that he did not infact tell anyone to boycott these stores. He gave the info for the veiwers to decide. He is more than welcome to his opinion that "Kohl's and Sears/Kmart basically not all right." > But some refuse to use the word Christmas at all. It seems to me > this is what O'reilly has a problem with. Nope. See above. He is offended that some stores label this season "the holiday season." What the fuck Bill? How can you not see that he is implying a refusal to use the word Christmas? If they said Merry Christmas and a happy holiday season it would be different. He is entitled to his opinion. I have seen nothing that says he recommends not to shop at a store that sells a "holiday ornament". He uses the word holiday himself quite a bit. Tell me again how he is being hypocritical? Because he has a Holiday ornament on his Christmas tree? You can spin it all you want Bill. Doesn't mean it's going to make sense though. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Hmm. But O'Reilly doesn't say "boycott the ad managers for Sears" he says "boycott Sears." So I fear we must follow his lead and boycott his website. Unless - you don't think - perhaps he is being a little bit bombastic in his rants against stores? Could it be that he's just working himself up into a lather and not really thinking about what he's saying? Could you please provide a link to where Bill said to Boycott these stores? In your first post you claim "Recently O'Reilly called for a boycott of stores that refuse to refer to the holiday as "christmas" and use "happy holidays" or whatever, all part of his 'Christmas Crusade.' " I was watching the Factor last night and he claims that while others have called for he boycott, that he has done no such thing. Also my impression is that he has no problem with the work Holiday so much as people who refuse to use the word Christmas. He wishes Happy Holidays, Hanukkah, and Merry Christmas. Just confused my your rant. We all use the word Holiday's. But some refuse to use the word Christmas at all. It seems to me this is what O'reilly has a problem with. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

True if you plan on shooting High Power Competition and need an A2. But if you just want a very accurate plinking gun and do not plan to compete then there are more options. I would recommend a Varmint version. You can pick up a RRA Varmint for around $900. Throw a scope on it and with the right ammo you have a factory sub 1/2" MOA rifle. I would much prefer this to a match A2 for plinking and varmint hunting. I have never liked the mounts for the A2 and while I am more than competent with Iron sights, I prefer shooting tight groups with a good scope. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Sorry, I can not speak for every municipality in IL. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

You may be confusing Illinois with Chicago. Not to be ashamed as Mayer Daley does it quite often. Other than the Foid and no NFA weapons there are not really many restrictions at the State level. Chicago and a few of its surrounding communities have stricter restrictions. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

As much as John drives me nuts at times, and I feel he does our cause(firearm owners) more harm than good, I could not disagree with you more. A double action only revolver is very easy to handle. I could feel very comfortable handing one to a untrained competent adult, show them how to load and empty the gun, operate the safety and make sure they are aware not to point it at anything they don't intend to shoot. Pointing it and shooting your spouse is not lack of training but rather lack of a fucking brain. You have made mention in the past how much training you need so handle your firearm before you take it in the woods. I find it no less or more puzzling everytime you bring it up. While it is a good idea to brush up on you shooting(accuracy) skills before shooting live game, I can't for the life of me figure out how much you could possibly forget in regards to safely handling a firearm after a years time? What do you forget every year? how long does it take you to relearn how to operate your firearm? The rules are basic and quite simple, and your typical hunting firearm is not all that complicated. Just wondering. Thanks That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

For a guy that loves his "generic mp3 player" so much yet thinks his Ipod is a piece of crap you sure use it enough. Everything you have said lately sounds fishy to me. I think you may have just sold me on an Ipod That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

How is the battery life? Can you give an est. of how many hours on a charge. My cell phone has a built in mp3 player with expandable memory of 512(I think they are working on a 1 gig trans flash card) but the battery life is not near what an Ipod is. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

First off realize that I am not Pro Ipod YET but do not see your facts as conclusive that the Ipod is at a disadvantage. Let's just use your first Fact. Apparentely these kits that you call a limitation are available for around $20. Now you claim a fact but do a poor job in selling how it is a limitation. This is like marketing a new feature without explaining the benifit. I do not know if your problem with these kits are that they are not available at Walmart or that they cost $20. I don't shop at Walmart and $20 every couple of years seems reasonable to me. Furthermore you have yet to tell me what kind of batteries your preferred Mp3 players uses. Is it available at Walmart? Does is cost much less than $20? Others have claimed that the Ipod has much better battery life than other Mp3 players. Do you dispute this? Do you think the other Mp3 players that do not require a "kit" have longer battery life. I feel, along with many others, that battery life is much more important than where you have to buy a new battery every couple of years. You are proud of you facts and I mean no offence, but I do not know what is your problem with the Integrated battery. You are not clear in that regard and from the battery life others claim it sounds like an advantage. I have to disregard the WMA files because I don't have any. If this is true and I had a bunch of files that were of a format the Ipod would not play then I would not buy the Ipod. If I had a bunch of software for mac I would not buy a PC and then be pissed because it would not run them. I simply do not know how much of an issue this is as this will be my first mp3 player(other than my cell phone). I am not sure what the advantage is to playing WMA files if I do not have any yet. Than What? Let me ask that again. Than What? If this is at the Core of your argument than this is a poorly convied fact. I am trying to find out what is better than the Ipod and all you can do is tell me how bad and overpriced the ipod is. What is out there that does more and cost less? How is it's battery life? service issues? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

In your opinion. I was directed to this thread as I am interested in purchasing an Ipod of other MP3 player. I know little of the Ipod other than this thread. You have not given me ANY compelling reasons not to buy one. Your main gripe seems to be that you prefer different software that you already use to manage your music. Most everyone else really likes the itunes or other available software. Whether I open WE instead Itunes is not an issue for me. You mention not being able to offload songs on to a PC at work. Others say they can. I have ZERO need for this but you may have a point. Not very convincing though. Price- Now we are getting somewhere but you fail to mention models that you prefer or their coresponding price? I am not sold on an Ipod yet and if their is something better for less I am all ears. But just because I can use Explorer does not make it better. Itunes sounds pretty cool to me. This is a fair question and was what I was looking for in the first place. You don't seem to be listening to the answers though. Durability, ease of interface, very stable, ect. have all been given. Your are stuck on the fact that you can't transfer files with your prefered software and that it takes a bit longer to change batteries every couple of years? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Mabey not through the provider, but My motorola for Verizon has an MP3 player built in. Although currently I believe 512 mb is the largest external memory card available. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.