"Ken Brewer" <kenbrewer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:MPG.226717576c8dd4e0989c6e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
intelligent uneducated, mentally ill, demented and senile old
socialist cock sucker SaPeIsMa <SaPeIsMa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Of Europe, Switzerland has the highest gun homicide rates next to the
> > former
> > eastern Soviet Bloc **** holes; and that's because they have the most
> > liberal
> > gun laws in what has been known as "Western Europe".
> >
>
> BULL****
>
>
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
> Too bad that you're so ignorant
#
# Your stats just proved yourself wrong and him right. Moron. Do you
ever
# think before you post?
#
Cant' read ?
Let's see what the site says
#1 South Africa: 74.5748
#2 Colombia: 51.7683
#3 Thailand: 33.0016
#4 Guatemala: 18.5
#5 Paraguay: 7.3508
#6 Zimbabwe: 4.746
#7 Mexico: 3.6622
#8 United States: 3.6
#9 Belarus: 3.31
#10 Barbados: 2.9963
#11 Uruguay: 2.5172
#12 Lithuania: 2.2463
#13 Slovakia: 2.1659
#14 Côte d'Ivoire: 2.068
#15 Estonia: 1.534
#16 Macedonia, Republic of: 1.2802
#17 Latvia: 1.2648
#18 ****tugal: 0.8488
#19 Bulgaria: 0.7714
#20 Slovenia: 0.6036
#21 Germany: 0.4672
#22 Moldova: 0.4671
#23 Hungary: 0.44
#24 Poland: 0.4289
#25 Ukraine: 0.3495
#26 Australia: 0.3073
#27 Czech Republic: 0.2624
#28 Spain: 0.2456
#29 Azerbaijan: 0.2236
#30 New Zealand: 0.1827
#31 Chile: 0.1776
#32 Singa****e:
Let's see
#18 ****tugal: 0.8488
#21 Germany: 0.4672
#28 Spain: 0.2456
And Switzerland doesn't even make it into the top 30.
Guess you're just an idiot who cant read
>
>
>
> > These days? They're looking at more stringent gun legislation.
> >
>
> Yeah, because even they have a problem with ignorant morons like you
>
Too bad that you must be talking of yourself when you say "ignorant" and
"moron" in the same breath
(As demonstrated above)
>
> >
> > The more guns that flow, the more gun crime there is.
> >
> > It's a fact.
> >
>
> OK
> PROVE IT.
#
# How odd. A pathetic and known liar like you, who spouts unadulterated
****
# out of every orifice, demanding proof of someone else!
#
# Add hypocrisy to the long list of your personal shortcomings.
#
So you can't prove what you claim
What a NON-surprise
>
> Take as many screens as you need
> And don't forget to read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"
> Which just happens to be a very complete work that demonstrates the
> opposite
#
# Lott's bull**** has been discredited.
#
Not in your lifetime
But feel free to cite the alleged discredit
Again, take as many screens as you need
#
# First of all, we see that his study was funded by the John. M. Olin
# Foundation. Now, how did this foundation come into existence? Well, it
# was created by the personal fortune of the late John M. Olin. And who is
# he, you might ask? Well, think Olin Corp. And what does Olin Corp do?
# One of it's stated main products is ammunitions for firearms, aka
# bullets.
#
BZZZZT
Wrong again
Don't you morons even have the abitlity to get past the superficial ****
you
have been spoon-fed by the Brady Bunch ?
This From the VPC
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/lottlink.htm
1) Olin was a CONGLOMERATE (do look it up).
It manufactured a LOT of things, which included "skis, carpets,
cigarette paper, and copper for the US Mint."
"The July/August 1983 issue of Foundation News, in describing one
critic's concerns about the Olin Foundation, stated, "Turning to the Olin
Foundation, [Alfred] Kazin informed his readers that the parent
cor****ation
last year took in $2.2 billion in revenues, chiefly from the manufacture
of
chemicals, rifles, ammunition, skis, carpet padding, copper for the U.S.
Mint, brass, cellophane and cigarette paper." [emphasis added] "
#
# Gee, no bias there, huh?
#
Nope
The ONLY ignorant bias is in the mind of idiot hoplophobes like you
1) John Lott worked under a "fellow****p"
The Foundation supplied the MONEY, but NOT the subject of the work
of the "fellow".
2) The original intent of the study by Lott was CONTRARY to what you
and
the other hoplophobe ignorati want to believe
He intended to demonstrate the OPPOSITE of his results.
He wanted to demonstrate the thesis that MORE guns = MORE
crime
And he was very surprised when he got EXACTLY the OPPOSITE results
that he expected to get.
(But that's one of those details that ignorati such as you like
to... "ignore".)
#
#
# When we look at the propaganda itself, which Lott tries to dress up as a
# legitimate study, we find numerous people poking holes into it so easily
# that it can be likened to putting your finger through wet toilet paper.
I
# make that analogy so that you can understand the concept easier, as it
# may well fit into your daily experience.
#
Feel free to cite the people who have allegedly "poked holes" in the study
Take as many screens as you need
#
# We see here his data source, and how he drops data that doesn't meet his
# pre-planned outcome:
#
Sure bub,
Feel free to sup****t your claims with DATA...
#
# Lott?s foundational claim that gun owner****p is on the rise in the
United
# States is based on the 1988 CBS News General Election Exit Poll and the
# 1996 Voter News Service National General Election Exit Poll, which
# collected data that year for CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, and the Associated
# Press. According to Lott, both voter exit polls contained a question on
# whether a person owned a gun, as well as information on the person?s
age,
# ***, race, income, place of residence and political views. The 1992
voter
# exit poll was not used, as it did not contain any questions on gun
# owner****p.
#
Problems with the Data
The UCR
Most of the analysis done by Lott and Mustard was done on data garnered
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation?s Uniform Crime Re****ts. The
findings of the study are vulnerable to weaknesses in the data on which
they were based. Problems with FBI data are widely acknowledged. The UCR
is compiled from information coming out of police departments; its main
feature is the arrest rate. Lott uses the arrest rate as a proxy for the
crime rate, a substitution that arguably results in an under-
representation of the actual crime rate, as not all crimes result in
arrests; some estimates of the percentage of crimes ?solved? with an
arrest run as low as ten percent. Because of this, one cannot assume that
those [crimes] that are solved by an arrest are a representative sample
of all those committed.
Should All Counties be Counted?
One problem faced by Lott in his analysis was how to deal with small
counties with minimal crime rates. While county crime rate changes were
weighted in pro****tion to their population, the concern is that in small
counties, only one or two crimes might result in a huge percentage change
in the crime rate, whereas the same crimes would have a virtually
nonexistent effect in counties with higher crime rates. To control for
this, Lott introduces the arrest ratio into his analysis, which is the
number of re****ted arrests per crime. The inclusion of this variable in
the model specification materially affects the size and composition of
the estimation data set. If a county has no re****ted crime of a
particular category for a given year, its arrest rate for that category
is divided by zero, and the county is dropped from the sample for that
year. According to Black and Nagin, in their reworking of Lott and
Mustard?s data, Lott?s technique here results in frequencies of missing
data of 46.6 percent for homicide, 30.5 percent for rape, 12.2 percent
for aggravated assault, and 29.5 percent for robbery. The missing data
would not necessarily be a problem in and of itself if it simply resulted
in a smaller, but still representative, sample. Black and Nagin charge,
however, that because this model excludes observations based on the
realization of the dependent variable, i.e., crime, it may potentially
create a substantial selection bias.
Black and Nagin?s proposed solution for dealing with the small county
problem and Lott?s selection bias is to exclude from the sample all
counties with populations of less than 100,000, thus ensuring that that
the sample is selected based on the realization of an exogenous variable
(population), not on the realization of the dependent variable; and any
selection bias is thus eliminated. This technique results in a sample
size of only 393 counties, 86 of which had adopted RTC laws by the end of
Lott and Mustard?s study.40 What is more relevant than the number of
counties included, however, is that while this new sample includes only
69% of the population covered by Lott and Mustard?s analysis, 80% of the
crimes are included. Moreover, Lott himself states in More Guns, Less
Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws that the new [RTC] laws
induce the greatest changes in the largest counties. If this is true,
then Black and Nagin?s sample should produce evidence of an even more
pronounced drop in the crime rate after passage of RTC laws than Lott and
Mustard?s does.
This is not, however, the case. Black and Nagin measure state-specific
changes after the adoption of RTC laws in their new sample, and conclude
that the passage of the laws is correlated with increases in crime rates
in some states, and decreases in others. Adoption of nondiscretionary
concealed-handgun laws reduced aggravated assault 67% in Maine but
increased murders 105% in West Virginia. Such widely varying estimates
are indicative not, Black and Nagin argue, of a crime reduction affect
from the adoption of RTC laws, but rather that Lott and Mustard?s model
is misspecified.
[end excerpt]
Ok, so you say well, that's just one (what is it you gun freaks call
people that disagree with you?) "fascists's" point of view.
# Well, let's look at some others, shall we?
#
# Dezhbakhsh, Hashem. "First Person: More Guns, Less Crime? Hashem
# Dezhbakhsh Disagrees." Emory Re****t. September 27, 1999; Volume 52,
# Number 6.
# http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_RE****T/erarchive/1999/September/erseptembe...
# /9 _27_99dezhbakhsh.html
Emory
Wait a sec
That was also the place where BellesIsles was when he published his pack
of
lies about Guns in America
Oh yeah
A reputable source
#
# Handgun Control, Inc: Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. "John Lott's
# More Guns, Less Crime ? An Alternative Q & A."
# http://www.handguncontrol.org/lott.htm
LOL
This is the crowd that claims that 21 year-old gangbangers should be
classified as children in their propaganda about children and gun crtime.
#
#
# Hemenway, David. "Book Review: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding
Crime
# and Gun Control Laws By John R. Lott." The New England Journal of
# Medicine. December 31, 1998; Volume 339, Number 27.
# http://www.nejm.org/content/1998/0339/0027/2029.asp
LOL
Hemmenway, is the guy who also came out with the bogus articles in the
Lancet about how many people died in Iraw
Oh yeah
Another reputables source
#
# Ratnesar, Romesh. "Should You Carry a Gun?" Time. July 6, 1998; Volume
# 152, Number 1.
# http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980706/box2.html
#
# Time.com. Transcript: "More Guns, Less Crime? A Debate Between John
Lott,
# author of More Guns, Less Crime, and Douglas Weil, Research Director of
# Handgun Control, Inc." July 1, 1998.
# http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
LOL
Time magazine who has ALWAYS been for gun-control
A definitely UNbiased source <snicker>
That was irony, if you're too stupid to get it
#
# Webster, Daniel W. "The Claims That Right-to-Carry Laws Reduce Violent
# Crime are Unsubstantiated." Pacific Center for Violence Prevention: The
# Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
# http://pcvp.org/pcvp/firearms/pubs/mustard3.shtml
#
# Webster, Daniel W. "The Claims That Right-to-Carry Laws Reduce Violent
# Crime are Unsubstantiated: Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime."
# Pacific Center for Violence Prevention: The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun
# Policy and Research.
# http://pcvp.org/pcvp/firearms/pubs/summary3.shtml
#
More of the crowd that claims that guns are a CAUSE of violence, instead
of
simply a tool to execute it.
> And while you're at it, don't ignore the TWO INDEPENDENT re****ts put
> out
> by the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the NAS (US National Academy
> of
> Science), a couple of summers ago which ALSO clearly state that your
claim
> is bogus
#
# Another lie. Are lies and fabrications by Lott all you have?
#
Funny how you are ignorant of those studies
About the CDC study, here's the source
From the Summary on Page 1
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the
effectiveness
of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on
violent outcomes. "
About the NAS study
Here's a reference to the source
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167
And here's the horse's mouth, you horse's ass...
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=2
Consider this game set and match
You have been spanked, you ignorant punk
|
