A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

And much higher rates of self-defense use of arms to PREVENT
crime victimization. Estimates of the lawful use of firearms for
self-defense vary from the FBI approved number of more than
80,000 per year (which is almost twice the incidence of violent
assaults) to more than two million per year by Kleck, Lott et
al.

Kleck's DGU research is suspect because his estimate produces a
rate of DGU woundings far in excess of what is actually observed.

Prove it.

I take it you haven't actually read Kleck's DGU research.

Yes, I have.


Kleck even notes that the DGU research produces wounding rates far in excess
from what
actually occurs.

And, he explains why this does not impeach his conclusions as well.



Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent.

Sez

The Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science. Says the NAS Firearms and Violence
Panel.

Notorious anti-gun polemicists. They have yet to disprove his work.



you...and HCI. Unfortunately for you, both authors have been
extensively peer-reviewed and their methodology, data and
conclusions are sound.

snicker

"extensively peer-reviewed"

That's a quote from an idiot who doesn't have a clue.

Lott's gun research was exhaustively reviewed by a panel of experts from the
National
Academy of Sciences.

Who are all exceedingly biased on the issue of guns.


They found that his results don't hold up, that the data contains errors, and
that the statistical
methods he used contain significant flaws.

All of which claims he has authoritatively refuted in his subsequent
editions.


It's always funny to find an ignorant gun-nut fool like you.


It's not funny at all to find anti-gun nut fools like you. You're dangerous
and you get people killed.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

"BCITORGB" wrote:

Why are North
American natives significantly over-represented in Canada's prison
population?

It's hard for them to afford a decent lawyer.

Or, they commit more crimes.

Prove it.

Not interested. It's Canada's problem.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser:
===========
Um, because they choose to?
===========

Why?

frtzw906

Nisarel asks of Weiser:
============
So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered,
you'd go along with it?
================

Nice one! LOL

frtzw906

Nisarel says:
============
But their research and position on marijuana was quite atypical. They
support the legalization of it.
==============

One of the few times I agreed with them. The paranoid in me asks: "What
corporate interests are lurking behind that recommendation?" LOL

frtzw906

Several years trouble free. Had to call support about 4 times in about
as many years. Good service. Can't complain.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'd guess it's for much the same reason that there so many Zulus in
South African prisons.

So it's settled then: it's the dialect.

No. Van Diemen's Land has simply gotten too expensive.

Wolfgang

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Tink, I'm fairly sure you didn't read this one:
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf


Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait
times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it?
Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation...

here, I give you another from utoronto
"...An Ontario study reviewed the experience for 8,517
consecutive
coronary bypass patients following the establishment of a
provincial patient registry in 1991. While in the queue 31
patients (0.4%) died and 3 had surgery deferred after non-fatal
myocardial infarction (88)..."

"...Waiting lists are a source of frustration to physicians who
feel themselves
deprived of the ability to deliver clinical care in an optimal
fashion (95), a
situation which may also raise issues of medico-legal liability
(30). Moreover, physicians are uncomfortable with the ethically
ambivalent role into which, as a profession, they have
unwittingly been cast. On the one handm they are required to act
as the patient’s advocate, while on the other, they are expected
to ration scarce health resources on behalf of a constrained
system..."

So, despite the american paper above that says doctors are
indendent, that conclusion isn't entirely supported by reality as
the resources they must use are not under their control.

http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Shortt.pdf



"...There were 141 deaths (0.48%) among 29,293 patients.
Adjusting for age, sex, and waiting time, patients waiting for
valve surgery had a significantly increased risk of death
compared with patients waiting for CABG alone..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9616340



"...Based on data from tens of thousands of patients, it is now
clear that queuing
according to this system limits the risk of death for patients
awaiting surgery.
Currently about one in 200 to 250 patients will die while
awaiting isolated
coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) in Ontario..."
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/atrevised3.pdf


kman also claimed that no one in Canada waits for treatment, yet
another lie
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...anbacklog.html








I quote: "In short, patients get on wait lists in Canada
through a
poorly understood, haphazard, unaudited, entirely private
process
largely controlled by individual physicians."

The authors tell us that the notion of a waiting list and the
notions
of waiting and waiting times are hard to define. For example,
when
"exactly" does a patient (and, in this case, I don't care if
it's in
Canada, the USA, the UK, or whereever) get "on" a waiting list?
Tink,
when you call your family doctor, and the receptionist informs
you that
you can come in on Thursday, you're on a waiting list (if this
is a day
other than Thursday).

But what is particularly interesting in the statement in
question is
the part about it being an "entirely private process largely
controlled by individual physicians." So, no big bad
government
determining who gets to wait. It is the physician, using
his/her best
knowledge, who determines the nature of our wait. I think this
is
exactly what KMAN, Michael, and I have been trying to say.
Doctors in
Canada operate privately.

Tink, your source goes on to say: "Wait times tend to be, in
statistical jargon, highly skewed. This means that very long
waits are
the exception. A few long waits can have the same misleading
effect on
wait time statistics as a few palatial mansions on average
housing
prices." NOTE: "very long waits are the exception"

To complete that thought, the authors say: "But in the world of
selling
papers and tv advertising spots, the exception often makes the
story.
This gets an unassuming public understandably concerned,
playing nicely
into the hands of those seeking to get more money into the
system."

Is that not EXACTLY what KMAN has been saying? This is hype!

NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY (IT TAKES THE CANADIAN PULSE): "Some
recent
Canadian research has found that not all patients are unhappy
about
waiting. Very
few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see
additional public funds used to reduce wait times (although
this may be
related to the procedures they were waiting for and may also
now be
changing, as Canadians seem increasingly concerned about access
to
care). Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out extra
money
personally to reduce their wait time."

NOTE CAREFULLY: "Fewer still seemed interested in shelling out
extra
money personally to reduce their wait time." That's us, cheap
Canadians
(just ask the folks in Florida)!

Anyway, Tink, thanks for the link. It goes on, and on, and on,
supporting KMAN's points.
=====================
No, it does not.


frtzw906

Wolfgang:
==============
Van Diemen's Land has simply gotten too expensive.
============

Walloons in jail? Zulus in jail? Van Diemen's Land? I sense a common
thread. Lowlandic languages!!!! The Walloons wouldn't speak Nederlands.
The Zulus balked at Afrikaans. But van Dieman got his`man Tasman to lay
a bit of Hollans on the natives south of Oz...

Cool. After all that, it's still in the dialect.

frtzw906

rick says:
===============
Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait
times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it?
Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation...
==============

No. The gist of the article is that the media hype about wait times is
exaggerated. Hence the comment about skewed statistics, etc. The entire
article says pretty much everything KMAN has been saying.

NOTE: "very long waits are the exception"

NOTE: "Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted to see
additional public funds used to reduce wait times"

And, central to their argument, because they preface the article with
it, is the notion that wait lists and wait times are difficult to
define.

And I didn't bother citing the condemnation they have of the American
system because, as you keep saying, you're certanly no advocate for the
market system in health care either.

frtzw906