|
|
|
homicide statistics "More guns, less crime? Are you positive?"
|
|
To satisfy your demand, and against my better judgement, I published statistics (both US and UK) that should be reasonably independent. Naturally you do not like them as they do not support your agenda. I missed them. And as one of those who have complained about your lack beief in truth, I would like to see your data. Can you repost it to me (I know, you get Scot and Scout confused) Scot, Scott, Scout (scratches head in confusion). Sorry about that- all you cyberyanks look the same to me  Be consistent. Do you want statistics, or do you, like me, believe that there are Lies, damn lies and statistics and that there is no irrefutable proof for any of the arguments, just subjective opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
homicide statistics "More guns, less crime? Are you positive?"
|
|
|
In article <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, Scot <scotgd@post From _The Logic of Causal Order_ by James A. Davis. Variable X is a cause of Variable Y when
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
homicide statistics "More guns, less crime? Are you positive?"
|
|
To satisfy your demand, and against my better judgement, I published statistics (both US and UK) that should be reasonably independent. Naturally you do not like them as they do not support your agenda. I missed them. And as one of those who have complained about your lack beief in truth, I would like to see your data. Can you repost it to me (I know, you get Scot and Scout confused) Scot, Scott, Scout (scratches head in confusion). Sorry about that- all you cyberyanks look the same to me Be consistent. Do you want statistics, or do you, like me, believe that there are Lies, damn lies and statistics and that there is no irrefutable proof for any of the arguments, just subjective opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
homicide statistics "More guns, less crime? Are you positive?"
|
|
|
John <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote in message In article <GfEX3.37445$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, Scout <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
writes in response to Erich's statistics: Because when I research the few that have the details available the questions asked do NOT support the conclusion that was drawn from it. Note the example above. As such given the history I would tend to doubt them until shown otherwise. 761, That certainly is a massive number. In what area was this done? Local calls to DC area? Or was it nationwide? How many did not respond when called. Were the people called evenly distrubuted among races, sex, and urban/suburban/rural? What is the exent of the other errors admitted? 10% 20% 50% 95%? Please note that how you conduct the poll can greatly alter the accuracy, yet as you see they don't have to admit to any specific level of error. IOW you know that the statistical error is 4%, however the other errors could be....well anything. What exactly is an assult weapon ? Is this _base_d on the definition by HCI, The press, The Congress, or what the people think it means? Please note the disclaimer above about the error, specifically that portion about conducting and/or bias. Do we know what that error is? No. Heaven forbid that you are doubting statistics , Scout. Surely they indicate truth to you, or do only the ones opposing gun control has that attribute? Nope, I don't doubt the statistics, I doubt the manner in which they were collected reflects reality. I doubt this because _base_d on my research results such as these are normally the result of biased sampling and/or erronious methodology. I posted the results of two different surveys from well respected orginizations. The included URL's had details on how the polls were done and confirmed that standard polling techniques were indeed followed. The Washington Post/ ABC poll even included the exact questions asked. Both surveys showed there is overwelming popular support for background checks at gun shows. That two different surveys returned almost the same numbers further confirms the data. For Scout to refute the results he needs to to present his own data here where we can all evaluate it. Simply alluding to his research proves nothing. For those that missed it, the Washington Post poll showing 89% support for background checks at gun shows is here: <http://elections98.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/sto... The Gallup poll showing 87% support is here: <http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990713.asp ... Erich
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
homicide statistics "More guns, less crime? Are you positive?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
homicide statistics "More guns, less crime? Are you positive?"
|
|
|
: On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:55:22 -0800, W. E. Woods : <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
carefully left the following thoughtprints : where they could be seen: [armed society = fearful society?...] :Incorrect. They trust each other with power. : That's True Believer rhetorical spin-doctoring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
Australian has a truly epic feat. Michael Williams miraculously crossed by swimming through the sea filled with sharks, saving himself and allowing teams to emergency rescue his companion, who spent 30 hours clinging to a piece of the boat overturned.
