[quote]
yes or no crimson
I think he’s ignoring me.
Yes or no Crimson
[quote]
Yes, I am ignoring you.
There being only so much time in the day, and me having work, school, cartoons and a big bag of marijuana to busy myself with, I find repeating things I’ve already said once in a forum to interrogators who do not observe basic rules of sentence cohesion, punctuation, generally superfluous and frustrating . I do not think this an unreasonable policy on my part, although I would perhaps entertain arguments otherwise, if plied with old whiskey and young women. Those things not forthcoming, I’m afraid you’ll have to make do with the voices in your head.
Uncle Beer was right when he characterized you at the beginning of this thread.He said when you begin losing you would ignore the poster.
I will repeat my original comment.You do not understand the consequences of what you are trying to do.
You are antagonistic and have stepped on tour tongue too many times for anyone to take you seriously.God help them if they do.
Considering the history of your posts in this forum I take your excuse of having to go to work school and whatever to be too lame to not answer me.Up to this point you have not.
You are smart but lack the common sense to be discussing something that could mean life or death to someone.
I hope you will shut your mouth long enough to learn something in school
All I was pointing out is that it doesn’t take a national collapse to render the possession of a firearm to be a downright handy thing.
You say that it is pretty unlikely that the entire US will fail at the same time. I say, so what? Whether the “civil unrest” is nationwide or confined to the area within sight, my immediate problem is the same.
I dunno, Max, he seems like an amalgamation of TheUglyTruth, Stoidela, and G-Nome. He acts like a schoolboy (“I won, you lost”, or whatever he said), is fanatically devoted to his side of the argument and refuses to comprehend that an opposite view (and evidence) could possibly exist, and he confuses the hell out of everything that’s posted.
In short, I don’t think you’ll get a straight, accurate, fair, or otherwise correct answer out of him. If asked what 2+2 is, he’d provide a dozen cites expounding the history of math in general, but he wouldn’t be capable of saying “4”.
Hipster Dufuz has asked me to comment on the criticism
of Kellermann that has appeared here.
This is from a posting that Henry Schaffer made to talk.politics.guns when Kellermann’s paper was first published. Unfortunately, it entirely ignores the multivariate analysis that Kellermann used that controlled for things like drug use and violent families.
Schaffer is correct but highly misleading when he states that controlling for neighbourhood does no control for family violence, since Kellermann DID control for family violence and Schaffer failed to mention it.
Max Torque, have you actually read Kellermann’s paper?
What an interesting debate tactic. Bringing in reinforcements from outside the board when you’re outclassed. That’s a new one on me.
We may have reached an impasse, since my source asserts that Kellermann did not adequately demonstrate that his controls were from the same subgroup as the victims, and you claim that the controls were adequate. Unless we can verify one way or another, we’re arguing ipse dixit.
Incidentally, Tim, I find it interesting that, from what I’ve seen, your archive consists of arguments in a vacuum. You’ve saved your own posts to talk.politics.guns, but no replies. Why is that?
One more thing: the question that I believe our mutual associate ran to ask you concerned the variables found “strong enough” to consider. I’m particularly interested in “living alone” and “being a renter”. While it may well be that someone who lives alone is more likely to use drugs or be prone to violence, those two factors are in categories of their own, so, unless Kellermann didn’t adequately isolate his variables, one should have nothing to do with another. Perhaps, also, living alone means that one is prone to some other risk factor, but then why was that risk factor not listed instead of “living alone”?
Honestly, no I haven’t. Finals are here, and I don’t have the time to do article-searching in any fashion other than ‘online’. I am, however, quite familiar with Kellermann’s previous work, including his previous deeply-flawed survey in King County, one of the three counties studied in the present article. His track record does not impress me.
You know, speaking to someone with knowledge regarding a subject when you don’t have an answer to a question you’ve been asked right away.
You have an exaggerated opinion of the debunking power of the simple statement “well, maybe his neighborhood controls are inappropriate.”
How dare someone speak as to a subject they’ve conducted extensive research into.
At a minimum. you’d have to say “the real world effects of having guns in your house are not well understood.”
Or “being a renter” and “living alone” correlate well to some un-measured factor like sociability, or access to immediate medical attention.
Unless you can show the neighborhood controls are fudged, or data was omitted for some inappropriate reason beyond no matching control, you still have to explain the general failure of guns in the home to protect their owners, whether guns are merely coincidental to the causes of the violence or not.
What are the flaws with Kellerman’s other study? be specific, too, no speculation.
Memo to Justwanano: The wet moose walks backwards at midnight.
Aw, you’re just sore I didn’t let you get away with assuming the existence of invisible, intangible, completely unfalsifiable things that just coincidently say you’re right.
Wait, who are we talking about, again? Joe Cool, maybe? Throw in “ignorant about history,” too.
That’s not even a sentence. Take another shot at it.
Do you deny fetching a friend/associate/whatever of yours and having him register for the specific purpose of answering questions you were not equipped to answer? Sure seems to me that that’s what happened…
I thought I already had, at least in effect. Let me say it again: “the co-incidence of firearms and higher murder rates may merit further study into causation”. Kellermann’s study in itself does not demonstrate causation.
Then (and I’ve said this so many times I’m starting to wonder if I’m wasting my breath) why was that factor not listed as an independent risk factor, rather than listing the factor as “living alone” or “being a renter”? If access to immediate medical attention is indeed a significant contributing factor, it should be listed separately!
According to the Schaffer article I’ve quoted to you twice now:
By all means, prove the above statement wrong. I doubt you’ll be able to, since, according to this article:
What say you?
As with the present study, the greatest flaw is that Kellermann decided to count only encounters where a death occurred. As such, his studies don’t give a reliable measure of actual defensive gun uses. According to this article, Kellermann himself has said “Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified. We did not report the total number of nonlethal firearm injuries involving guns kept in the home. A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known.”
Yet another problem were the very numbers Kellermann thought worth including. Including suicides with homicides and accidents inflated his numbers tremendously. Disregarding the suicide numbers alone, Kellermann’s famous “43:1” ratio drops to about 6:1. Kellermann likely did not count (for he made no mention of them) cases in which the shooter went to trial and was acquitted on self defense grounds, or where the conviction was overturned on appeal. Failing to count these numbers casts further doubt on his ratio.
Using Kellermann’s methods to evaluate deaths among NON-gun owning households (counting murders and suicides and setting the accidental gun death figure to 0), the ratio of unlawful deaths to justifiable homicides in the same county for the same period (estimated, based on national figures) would be 99:1, compared to 43:1 for gun owners. Ludicrous, right? Just goes to show how the methodology is flawed…
Well, that’s enough for a start. I have an exam at 8:30 tomorrow morning, so I’ll have to revisit this after that.
Thanks, Max… you managed to be more eloquent with what I told Dufuz several pages ago (and to which, may I add, he simply responded to with haughty derision, thus proving my notion that he cannot comprehend the accuracy of a viewpoint opposing his own).
I’m not that far, yet, but since deduction drawn from information doesn’t work on you guys, well…you know, you rise or sink to the level of the competition.
Strange indeed, this sort of thing from a fellow who, only a few lines ago, derided “I know you are but what am I?” as a rhetorical device.
If you’re having trouble with pink elephants I suggest AA. Now, tell me how natural rights are different from pink elephants, since neither are really visible or tangible, and you can’t prove their existence beyond “well, I see them.”
Oh, hey, you guys want me to find quotes from Madison and Hamilton showing how they didn’t trust the average person, either, and were big fans of strong central government? In fact, that’s the whole premise of federalism.
“In a government framed for durable liberty, not less regard must be paid to giving the magistrate a proper degree of authority, to make and execute the laws with rigour, than to guarding against encroachments upon the rights of the community. As too much power leads to despotism, too little leads to anarchy, and both eventually to the ruin of the people. These are maxims well known, but never sufficiently attended to, in adjusting the frames of governments. …” -Alexander Hamilton, the Continentalist #1.
“If it be possible. . . to construct a Federal Government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquillity, . . . it must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legislations; but must itself be empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be manifested through the medium of the Courts of Justice.” The Federalist #16
“… An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized, as the off-spring of a temper fond of Despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. . . . It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of violent love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is too apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten, that the vegour of government is essential to the security of liberty:…” Federalist #1.
.
From this might we infer you’ve never spoken to a person with knowledge when you were asked a question you didn’t have an answer to right away?
I’d actually only asked Tim about Kellerman’s methodology, since I know he’s examined the matter at some length. Tim chose, freely and of his own will, to participate. He apparently enjoys taking part in debates on the efficacy of gun control.
No, I didn’t think you had any good answers or were otherwise able to support your position, and can now focus on a side show. Stick to the topic, Max.
I think its pretty obvious which position you accept a priori.
It does, however, demonstrate that guns aren’t effective at preventing homicide, at least in the home.
Study didn’t control for “was he an asshole?” or “how long before the body was found,” I would assume. Otherwise, it seems like this is something that merits more study, rather than pointing to how there’s something wrong with the study.
Why? Kellerman controlled for the factors he controlled for. Variables can’t just emerge from thin air, Max.
Even without neighborhood controls, the subjects are matched by age, race, sex, income, prior criminality, drug use, and domestic violence, which are also good predictors of crime risk. I suppose it might be that crime rates change dramatically within a block or two, but it now devolves to the person making an extraordinary claim, you, to show that this is often the case. Then, you have to show Kellerman cherry picked his cases- they certainly present a large enough sample of the available data that he would’ve have to be very selective indeed.
You found a page on the website where someone fudges things and makes things up so he can say research about guns is flawed or biased without really demonstrating anything because he doesn’t like what it strongly implies? If you’re going to claim Kellerman doesn’t release his data, a claim I saw at various pro-gun and anti-innoculation and libertarian agitprop cites, please describe the NEJM or CDC process of peer review, so we know you’re not accepting an extraordinary claim without proof. Go ahead, I’m waiting. I won’t even think less of you if you contact someone you’re sure knows the answer. Use a lifeline, as it were.
[quote:
What are the flaws with Kellerman’s other study? be specific, too, no speculation.
As with the present study, the greatest flaw is that Kellermann decided to count only encounters where a death occurred. As such, his studies don’t give a reliable measure of actual defensive gun uses. [/quote]
Here’s a reference I found to another Kellerman study.
"Case control methods permit the detection of protective benefits as readily as risk effects. I did a study of the ratio of “self-defense” killings to home suicides, accidents and homicides. It was 43:1. A later study that examined both fatal and non-fatal self-defense shootings versus fatal and non-fatal suicide attempts, assaults and accidental shootings in the home yielded a somewhat lower number - 22:1 (J. Trauma, 1998;45:263-267.) "
It’s a peer reviewed public health journal that publishes studies. Here’s the title of some of their articles. " Maintaining Survivors’ Values of Left Ventricular Power Output during Shock Resuscitation: A Prospective Pilot Study
Michael C. Chang, MD; J. Wayne Meredith, MD; Edward H. Kincaid, MD; Preston R. Miller, MD
(77.8 K)
(136. K)
P. 38 Alterations in Glucose-6-Phosphatase Gene Expression in Sepsis
Subir R. Maitra, PhD, DSc; Shiying Wang, MD; Collin E. M. Brathwaite, MD; M. Raafat El-Maghrabi, PhD
"
Right, apparently the number goes down to 22:1 when you take into account discharging a weapon without killing a burglar or whoever versus attempted suicide, attempted homicide, etc. I suppose you could argue that a successful defense without killing is a strong positive, and an unsuccessful negative use is about a wash. Only an actual suicide or murder balances driving a criminal away. Well, maybe so. If you’re going to advance that position you can compare kellermans first data set with his second. That might even be statistically valid. No, probably not, unless you had really good demographic controls. Huh. Oh, well, I think that’s on you either way.
A suicide would certainly be a negative gun use, excluding some tiny fraction of people no one cares about…how do you suppose we control for those? Other studies I can cite show again, people who own guns are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners, to die in their attempts, etc.
From now on I would like you to cite all factual claims, or at least as often as I do.
“using the analysis in ways it isn’t designed, and making up datasets, especially in the hands of a person actively interested in debunking, proves that appropriate uses of these methods on real numbers produces phony results, or so I read on the internet.”
Memo to Justwanano: The purple crayon howls at dawn
Joe Cool’s Histo-facts: On this day in history, 1886, Lee Harvey Oswald shot John Wilkes Boothe, and that’s why Nazi Germany prevailed in the second Cuban missle crisis, fifty years earlier. Believe it or Don’t!
I think it is fairly easy to verify that Kellermann did not just control by matching, but used a multivariate regression to control for factors like family violence.
Because that other risk factor was not directly measured.
And have you actually read Kellermann’s previous work?
Crimson why are you going through all of this nonscence.
A simple yes or no is all I asked for.
Don’t you know what you think ?Or can’t you decide?
I’ll recap what you said again if you want me to.
I would think someone who perceives himself as brilliant as you apparently do would not have a problem answering a simple yes no question about what he himself has said.
I said you could have a rifle. I’m arguing for some gun control, not a ban. I addressed the “so what?” question much earlier.
Screwtape, this is not necessarily directed at you, but it amazes me that so many self-centered, “kill anything that comes near me or my family” Americans actually have the gall to espouse Christianity as their foundation. It’s freakin’ sickening. Apologies for the temporary hijack.
Damn.It would scare the hell out of me if I knew anyone with the Kill anything that moves atitude. Thing is almost everyone that I know owns a firearm and none(repeat) NONE has that attitude.