|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:56:20 -0700 (PDT), 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. You really should go back and read some of your posts, Don. I think you'd be surprised at the antics you've performed to keep Harry happy. -- John H. Hope you're having a great day! |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
On Friday, 20 September 2013 09:48:31 UTC-3, John H wrote:
snip.... You really should go back and read some of your posts, Don. I think you'd be surprised at the antics you've performed to keep Harry happy. -- John H. Wow, Johnny. Harry seems to dominate your every waking hour. You're starting to remind me of Skipper (RIP) as he slipped near the end. Read the following lyrics of a popular song and see if anything applies to you. "When I look up to the skies I see your eyes a funny kind of yellow I rush home to bed I soak my head I see your face underneath my pillow I wake next morning, tired, still yawning See your face come peeping through my window Pictures of matchstick men and you Mirages of matchstick men and you All I ever see is them and you Windows echo your reflection When I look in their direction now When will this haunting stop? Your face it just won't leave me alone Pictures of matchstick men and you Mirages of matchstick men and you All I ever see is them and you You're in the sky and with the sky You make men cry, you lie You're in the sky and with the sky You make men cry, you lie Pictures of matchstick men and Pictures of matchstick men and you Pictures of matchstick men ...." |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... 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." Sorry Harry. You are wrong on this one. I've booted people out of the guitar shop who weren't violating any laws but were being total asses. Not many, but a handful over the 4 plus years I had the shop. After the first experience I checked the legality of my actions with a lawyer. Perfectly legal, and within my rights as the owner of the business. I've also seen professionals banned from places of business .... in this case not mine, but one I worked for. Again, perfectly legal and within the rights of the business owner. I've refused my business services just because I knew the person's reputation and didn't want to get involved. Simple as that! |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
In article ,
says... On 9/19/13 2:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... 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." Sorry Harry. You are wrong on this one. I've booted people out of the guitar shop who weren't violating any laws but were being total asses. Not many, but a handful over the 4 plus years I had the shop. After the first experience I checked the legality of my actions with a lawyer. Perfectly legal, and within my rights as the owner of the business. I've also seen professionals banned from places of business .... in this case not mine, but one I worked for. Again, perfectly legal and within the rights of the business owner. I said you couldn't discriminate for reasons that violated the law and, also, I doubt your guitar show came under the umbrella of a public accommodation. Words are important. I said that a business could refuse service to anybody they choose. That is the statement to which you replied "uh, no". |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
In article 1691729774401306250.609265bmckeenospam-
, says... 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. No they don't! You would still see Whites Only signs in Maryland. OH, ****. I didn't say that could discriminate based on race. But I can certainly refuse service to anyone I choose. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
In article ,
says... On 9/19/13 9:21 PM, wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:34:32 -0400, BAR wrote: How is a diner involved in interstate commerce? I suppose someone could take the 1964 civil rights act to the SCOTUS but it hasn't happened yet. Restaurants are covered under the Public Accommodations section of the Civil Rights Law of 1964. That would be the law that drove the southern white Democratic racists out of that party and into the waiting arms of the GOP, where they and their descendents still reside. Again, I can still refuse service to anyone I choose. I just can't do it in violation of the Civil Rights laws. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
In article ,
says... 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? You stupid old fool, can you not read: "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"???? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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 |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:39:33 -0500, Califbill wrote: The parking lot for my insurance agent, is listed as private parking. No ADA spots. Reason. Some guy was suing insurance agents all over the state if no handicapped parking. Even if they had a lot with only 2-3 spaces. If he did get into court, he would lose If there are only 3 spaces now, you will end up with 2. One will be a van accessible space with an 8' access aisle next to it and you can use the rest for (probably only one) regular parking spot. If you only have 2 now, guess what? You only have one and it is handicap only with an access aisle where the other spot used to be. No regular spots at all. http://www.ada.gov/restripe.htm BTW there is a way to move the handicapped spot away from the door. Put the wheel chair ramp at the other end of the building.. I have to go to ADA training every other year. This year I took a break from parking lots and wheel chair accessible toilets. I did the "recreational facility" class Most of the boat docks you see are illegal, simply waiting for a complaint. Same with swimming pools. Campgrounds are next. The DoJ is still working on those regulations but they are coming. They call it. Employee parking only. Not for public use. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:32:36 -0500, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:39:33 -0500, Califbill wrote: The parking lot for my insurance agent, is listed as private parking. No ADA spots. Reason. Some guy was suing insurance agents all over the state if no handicapped parking. Even if they had a lot with only 2-3 spaces. If he did get into court, he would lose If there are only 3 spaces now, you will end up with 2. One will be a van accessible space with an 8' access aisle next to it and you can use the rest for (probably only one) regular parking spot. If you only have 2 now, guess what? You only have one and it is handicap only with an access aisle where the other spot used to be. No regular spots at all. http://www.ada.gov/restripe.htm BTW there is a way to move the handicapped spot away from the door. Put the wheel chair ramp at the other end of the building.. I have to go to ADA training every other year. This year I took a break from parking lots and wheel chair accessible toilets. I did the "recreational facility" class Most of the boat docks you see are illegal, simply waiting for a complaint. Same with swimming pools. Campgrounds are next. The DoJ is still working on those regulations but they are coming. They call it. Employee parking only. Not for public use. You should go to one of those classes. The ADA guy would say "does that mean you would not hire a handicapped person"? That opens up a whole other can of worms. (and another class"workplace law") That is another required CEU course for me. These ADA classes are increasingly being taught by lawyers, not the typical builder/architect types who used to do it. This has gone beyond "reasonable accommodation" into a situation where there are people who make a living suing people. The code enforcement officials are caught on the middle and they tend to err on the side of caution, lest their city be named in the suit too. They would install a handicapped spot if there was a handicapped employee. Basically the suing person was not allowed in the parking lot, so would not have a right to park there from what I understand. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
In article ,
says... On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:18:24 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: 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? You stupid old fool, can you not read: "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"???? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm That just demonstrates people are lazy. Take away the guns and they will find another way. Asked for a cite, cite given. Of course you'll put a narrow minded spin on it! |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. Can't extrapolate the data? |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
In article ,
says... On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:23:46 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: 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. 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? |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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". |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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?? |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
"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 |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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? |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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? |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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! |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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.... |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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. |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
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! |
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com