In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:35:33 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:



No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?


No, I don't choose to "extrapolate," since that yields an opinion or
attempts expand known data into an area not known so as to arrive at a
conjectural position.

No it doesn't. I didn't ask you to make an opinon, I asked you to
extrapolate. You yourself said it was "raw data".

In other words, I'm not going to perpetuate rumor or attempt to divine
tea leaves, so as to support a predisposed position.

No rumors involved. It's "raw data".

Besides, researchers have already crunched the existing data and found
it to support the following position:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

That's because there are no fewer guns. No one made anybody get rid of
what they have. You do realize, don't you, that most gun crimes are
committed with guns that were either stolen or borrowed from a legal
owner, don't you?

"The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent."

THAT is raw data.

But finding correlation and drawing a final conclusion, without
establishing causation is sophomoric, at best.

I suggest you review the following paragraph on cause and effect:
http://www.vassarstats.net/textbook/ch3pt2.html

I suggest you read the whole thing instead of just cherry picking one
paragraph. THAT is "sophomoric, at best".

True North wrote:
On Thursday, 19 September 2013 22:40:18 UTC-3, Earl wrote:
iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...
On 9/19/13 10:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 9/19/13 8:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...
On 9/19/13 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
Perhaps the NRA doesn't give a **** one way or the other.
Just don't seem right letting NRA members, and honest, upright gun-
owners be treated like smokers.
Just don't seem right.
If the NRA won't stand up for the right for a legal and upright gun
owner to have a cup of coffee with his legal gun on his hip, who will?
Treating a gun-owner like you would a smoker! Disgraceful!
It ain't right, I'm telling you, it just ain't right.
What if somebody comes in to shoot the place up, and kill everybody?
Hell, that just happened in that DC Navy yard.
But I'm willing to give the NRA a chance here. It's still early.
Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they want.
Uh, no.
Uh, yes, as long as it's not in violation of any specific Civil Rights
law, i.e. racial discrimination, etc. Anyone can be determined to be
persona non grata at the discretion of the business owner if he/she
feels that person is or may be disruptive to the business.
That's right...you can't legally discriminate and therefore private
businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone they want
without a reason that doesn't violate the law.
So, the answer remains, "Uh, no."
As a business person, I can refuse to do business with a person no
matter what. I don't have to take ANY job if I don't want to.
You have to think a bit wider than your immediate surrounding or
personal business.
As one example, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in
hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public
accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.
So, if you ran a diner, you could not legally refuse to serve blacks,
Jews, Armenians, et cetera, because they were black, Jewish, or
Armenian. You might be able to refuse service to PsychoSnotty because he
is an asshole, but I am not sure about that.
I can refuse them service if I so choose. I can't however refuse service
because of their ethnicity, etc. BUT, again, I can refuse them service,
as can any business refuse anyone service.
You don't own your business, Kevin. Do they let you choose who you can

service? Harry's best buddy Donnie posted your personal information and

tried to get people to call your firm so we know you have an employer.

Liar..I never encouraged anyone to call another's employer, although I thought often about reporting your nasty antics to Margaret.
Liar. You specifically named his company with contact information. As
far as Margret it concerned, contact her. I have no idea who she is and
I don't work for anyone.

Is that right Ditzy?
I recall reading her name on Elite Contractor Supply documentation.
Maybe you gave the Florida gov't false info for some reason??

"True North" wrote in message
...

Is that right Ditzy?
I recall reading her name on Elite Contractor Supply documentation.
Maybe you gave the Florida gov't false info for some reason??


--------------------------------

Does that Blackberry reply to emails without any reference or quotes
to the original message in the same manner it replies here? If so,
it's no wonder they are soon to be out of business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/technology/blackberry-plans-to-cut-4500-jobs.html?_r=0

On 9/22/13 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"True North" wrote in message
...

Is that right Ditzy?
I recall reading her name on Elite Contractor Supply documentation.
Maybe you gave the Florida gov't false info for some reason??


--------------------------------

Does that Blackberry reply to emails without any reference or quotes to
the original message in the same manner it replies here? If so, it's
no wonder they are soon to be out of business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/technology/blackberry-plans-to-cut-4500-jobs.html?_r=0







It's the software, or lack of it. Android and IOS have apps that allow
quoting and posting in usenet.

On 9/22/2013 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"True North" wrote in message
...

Is that right Ditzy?
I recall reading her name on Elite Contractor Supply documentation.
Maybe you gave the Florida gov't false info for some reason??


--------------------------------

Does that Blackberry reply to emails without any reference or quotes to
the original message in the same manner it replies here? If so, it's
no wonder they are soon to be out of business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/technology/blackberry-plans-to-cut-4500-jobs.html?_r=0






What will Donnie do when that POS craps out. Is internet tv still in
business? Or maybe Harry will donate one of his lightly used Apples to him.

On 9/22/2013 9:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/22/13 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"True North" wrote in message
...

Is that right Ditzy?
I recall reading her name on Elite Contractor Supply documentation.
Maybe you gave the Florida gov't false info for some reason??


--------------------------------

Does that Blackberry reply to emails without any reference or quotes to
the original message in the same manner it replies here? If so, it's
no wonder they are soon to be out of business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/technology/blackberry-plans-to-cut-4500-jobs.html?_r=0








It's the software, or lack of it. Android and IOS have apps that allow
quoting and posting in usenet.


What is IOS?

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:12:07 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:35:33 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:



No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?


No, I don't choose to "extrapolate," since that yields an opinion or
attempts expand known data into an area not known so as to arrive at a
conjectural position.

No it doesn't. I didn't ask you to make an opinon, I asked you to
extrapolate. You yourself said it was "raw data".

In other words, I'm not going to perpetuate rumor or attempt to divine
tea leaves, so as to support a predisposed position.

No rumors involved. It's "raw data".

Besides, researchers have already crunched the existing data and found
it to support the following position:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

That's because there are no fewer guns. No one made anybody get rid of
what they have. You do realize, don't you, that most gun crimes are
committed with guns that were either stolen or borrowed from a legal
owner, don't you?

"The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent."

THAT is raw data.

But finding correlation and drawing a final conclusion, without
establishing causation is sophomoric, at best.

I suggest you review the following paragraph on cause and effect:
http://www.vassarstats.net/textbook/ch3pt2.html

I suggest you read the whole thing instead of just cherry picking one
paragraph. THAT is "sophomoric, at best".

Have it your way, you are going to believe what the DNC tells you to
believe, anyway.

I'm sorry, please show where the DNC was involved in the above study, I
must have missed it.

In article , says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:18:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:50 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

At least you can look at the raw data and interpret it yourself. Maybe you can even find the
rise in the data.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

At least you can look at the raw data and interpret it yourself. Maybe you can even find the
rise in the data.

The data does not address the original premise of the thread.
They talk about the weapons used in the homicides/suicides but they do
not link it to firearm ownership overall.

Wait, if a person didn't "own" a firearm, how would he use it to commit
the crime?