On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:32:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

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?

But it doesn's say anything about the majority who do own a gun and
never commit a crime with it and that is the point.
A lot of those people may not admit owning a gun to an anonymous
person on the phone. You understand that. You won't even tell us your
first name because of your paranoia..

It's Kevin.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

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?

But it doesn's say anything about the majority who do own a gun and
never commit a crime with it and that is the point.
A lot of those people may not admit owning a gun to an anonymous
person on the phone. You understand that. You won't even tell us your
first name because of your paranoia..

I won't tell someone my first name on usenet because it's just plain
stupid to do so. Please show me ONE cite that says that it's an
intelligent and prudent thing to do so, and no one should worry about
doing so.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:32:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

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?

But it doesn's say anything about the majority who do own a gun and
never commit a crime with it and that is the point.
A lot of those people may not admit owning a gun to an anonymous
person on the phone. You understand that. You won't even tell us your
first name because of your paranoia..

It's Kevin.

Oh, so YOU'RE kevin, got it....

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:44:06 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

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?

But it doesn's say anything about the majority who do own a gun and
never commit a crime with it and that is the point.
A lot of those people may not admit owning a gun to an anonymous
person on the phone. You understand that. You won't even tell us your
first name because of your paranoia..

I won't tell someone my first name on usenet because it's just plain
stupid to do so. Please show me ONE cite that says that it's an
intelligent and prudent thing to do so, and no one should worry about
doing so.

Yet you think you can trust what someone would tell a stranger on the
phone about a prime theft item they might have when they probably have
your name and address.

Nobody has a clue about how many people own guns and any phone survey
is simply bogus information gathered by people who usually have an
agenda anyway.

Right...... Prove the information wrong then.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:47:07 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:44:06 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

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?

But it doesn's say anything about the majority who do own a gun and
never commit a crime with it and that is the point.
A lot of those people may not admit owning a gun to an anonymous
person on the phone. You understand that. You won't even tell us your
first name because of your paranoia..

I won't tell someone my first name on usenet because it's just plain
stupid to do so. Please show me ONE cite that says that it's an
intelligent and prudent thing to do so, and no one should worry about
doing so.

Yet you think you can trust what someone would tell a stranger on the
phone about a prime theft item they might have when they probably have
your name and address.

Nobody has a clue about how many people own guns and any phone survey
is simply bogus information gathered by people who usually have an
agenda anyway.

Right...... Prove the information wrong then.

Impossible to "prove" anything if the only data you have is what
someone might tell a pollster on the phone GIGO.

You are taking a CDC data set and trying to use it to justify a study
done with garbage data generated by a bunch of grad students trying to
bull**** a professor into a degree

Got it, you have nothing to base your position on that the data is
wrong, you just don't like the data.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:03:31 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Impossible to "prove" anything if the only data you have is what
someone might tell a pollster on the phone GIGO.

You are taking a CDC data set and trying to use it to justify a study
done with garbage data generated by a bunch of grad students trying to
bull**** a professor into a degree

Got it, you have nothing to base your position on that the data is
wrong, you just don't like the data.

The data does not reflect reality.
They sold almost 17 million new guns last year and your data says gun
ownership has gone down.
Yes, I don't like the data

You don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:19:17 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:03:31 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Impossible to "prove" anything if the only data you have is what
someone might tell a pollster on the phone GIGO.

You are taking a CDC data set and trying to use it to justify a study
done with garbage data generated by a bunch of grad students trying to
bull**** a professor into a degree

Got it, you have nothing to base your position on that the data is
wrong, you just don't like the data.

The data does not reflect reality.
They sold almost 17 million new guns last year and your data says gun
ownership has gone down.
Yes, I don't like the data

You don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

You wishing it was so doesn't make it right either.

I've asked before, if it's wrong, that's fine, prove to me that it is,
and I'll believe it.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:30:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:19:17 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:03:31 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Impossible to "prove" anything if the only data you have is what
someone might tell a pollster on the phone GIGO.

You are taking a CDC data set and trying to use it to justify a study
done with garbage data generated by a bunch of grad students trying to
bull**** a professor into a degree

Got it, you have nothing to base your position on that the data is
wrong, you just don't like the data.

The data does not reflect reality.
They sold almost 17 million new guns last year and your data says gun
ownership has gone down.
Yes, I don't like the data

You don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

You wishing it was so doesn't make it right either.

I've asked before, if it's wrong, that's fine, prove to me that it is,
and I'll believe it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to prove yours is correct? Or, is it correct because you found it on the
internet.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:22:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:56:55 -0400, John H
wrote:


I've asked before, if it's wrong, that's fine, prove to me that it is,
and I'll believe it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to prove yours is correct? Or, is it correct because you found it on the
internet.

At this point I think I have lost track of what Kevin is trying to
prove, other than that he is right about something, whatever it is.

Well, whatever it is, Kevin thinks he's right about it, unless he's left.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:30:17 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:19:17 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:03:31 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Impossible to "prove" anything if the only data you have is what
someone might tell a pollster on the phone GIGO.

You are taking a CDC data set and trying to use it to justify a study
done with garbage data generated by a bunch of grad students trying to
bull**** a professor into a degree

Got it, you have nothing to base your position on that the data is
wrong, you just don't like the data.

The data does not reflect reality.
They sold almost 17 million new guns last year and your data says gun
ownership has gone down.
Yes, I don't like the data

You don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

You wishing it was so doesn't make it right either.

I've asked before, if it's wrong, that's fine, prove to me that it is,
and I'll believe it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to prove yours is correct? Or, is it correct because you found it on the
internet.

No, it wouldn't.