What Gun Controllers Don't Want You to Know

[Bowline]

I used to support gun control, meaning civilian disarmament. There was no reason, the rationale went, for a private citizen to own a gun. The only ones who wanted guns had small genitalia, were paranoid crazies, and criminals.

All this was assumed, without any empirical or statistical research to base it upon. Due to the influence of one of my clients who is a person of great honor, I began to research the issue of gun control on my own. Having been a college boy who loved library research, I knew how to ferret out fact from fiction. It was interesting to find that the claims of the NRA, John Lott, et al., were easy to verify from neutral or even slightly pro-gun control sources.

More ominously, I found that the gun control groups consistently lied or twisted minor factoids taken out of context in their articles. This begged the question: if they are lying to advance their agenda, can we really trust the utopian outcome they promote as true?

---

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7862

[meegbear]

1. Is this Mary Rosh?

C'mon. Confess.

[Bowline]

3. Who's Mary Rosh?

[LibLabUK]

6. ...

They seek quote him her here, they seek quote him her there
Those Frenchies gun nuts seek quote him her everywhere!

[iverglas]

16. Is she Sporty?

Is she Posh?
That demmed infernal Mary Rosh!

[LibLabUK]

18. Thanks!

I had a serious problem finishing that off...

[cheezus]

2. trolls

are little creatures that live under bridges. How do you protect against them if you don't have a gun?

that's an oversimplification, of course, but it really is that simple.

[Bowline]

4. Is the article inaccurate?

If so, please point out to me where.

[cheezus]

7. I don't think so

I was agreeing with you. There are evils that, on occasion, people need to shoot. How can you shoot something without a gun?

It's that simple

[FeebMaster]

34. Can't argue with that.

It really is that simple.




Blatantly off topic:

So what did you think of the results of our Gun Control Policy Polls?

[F.Gordon]

10. The "article" is grouped with some funky company.....

Not that any of the other "articles" are right wing bullshit or anything like that :sarcasm:

Monday, June 14, 2004
An Open Letter to the President by Jim Rath

The Domestic Terrorism of the Animals Rights Movement by Alan Caruba

France: The Great American Migraine by Barbara Stock

Israel's Sharon Disengagement Plan by Raphael Israeli

Sunday, June 13, 2004
An Exit Strategy for the Bush Administration in Iraq: Independent Kurdistan by Anthony Stahelski

How the Media Try to Minimize Reagan's Accomplishments by Joe Mariani

My Generation: We Are Reagan's Children by Hans Zeiger

What to Read This Summer: A Professor's Recommendations by Mike S. Adams

Saturday, June 12, 2004
Three Americans: Ronald Reagan, George Soros, and Aurel deHollan by John Armor

Reagan's Legacy, As I See It by the Black Shadow

From Mourning to Morning by Leo Lacayo

Friday, June 11, 2004
My Encounters With President Ronald Reagan by Herbert London

Those Negative Democratic Campaigners by Frank Salvato

What Gun Controllers Don't Want You to Know by Howard Nemerov

Lori Haigh: The Girl Who Cried Wolf, Again? (A ChronWatch Analysis) by Ira Simmons

Thursday, June 10, 2004
Smarty Jones Speaks Up for America and Israel by Jack Engelhard

The Moral Component of American Wars by Alan Caruba

USDA Policy: Ticking Electorial Time Bomb in the Heartland by Christopher Adamo

Reagan: What His Own Words Tell Us by Bob Chandra

The Legacy of Ronald Reagan: Freedom Man by Judson Cox

Wednesday, June 09, 2004
This Is Not a Good Time for Liberal Pollsters by Leo Lacayo

Voting Democratic Can Be a Bad Habit by Robert Klein Engler

Tuesday, June 08, 2004
The Liberal Computer Virus by Roger Burdick

Ronald Reagan: Like a Death in the Family by Vincent Fiore

Then Along Came Reagan by John Hawkins

What D-Day Means to Me by Gary Waltrip

Monday, June 07, 2004
Ronald Reagan: The Passing of a Great American by Barbara Stock

Let's Put Ronald Reagan on Mt. Rushmore by Doc Farmer

Could Kerry Pick Bill Clinton as His Veep Running Mate? by Jan Ireland

Overcoming National Despair by Herbert London

Sunday, June 06, 2004
Our Shinging Light--Ronald Reagan by Jan Ireland

As We Say Goodbye to Ronald Reagan by Frank Salvato

God Bless President Reagan! God Bless America! by Leo Lacayo

What Does the World War II Memorial Tell Us About Today? by John Armor

Saturday, June 05, 2004
Governor Admits California ''No Easy Task'' to Administer by Marvin Howell

English for Lesbians, Feminists, Queers, and Communists by Mike S. Adams

The War in Iraq. What It's All About by Matt Grills

Thoughts on D-Day, June 6, 1944, 60 Years Later by Alan Caruba

Friday, June 04, 2004
Will We Allow an Overthrow of Our Election Process? by Frank Salvato

One of the Best Times to Be Had in the Golden State by Joe Guzzardi

Election Analysis: Why George Bush Is Vulnerable by Christopher Adamo

Mainstream Media Robbing Us of Iraqi War Heroes by Joe Mariani

Thursday, June 03, 2004
Amid Liberal Screams, Iraqi Democracy Gleams by Isaiah Sterrett

A Tenured Faculty Member Reveals University Hiring Biases by Mike S. Adams

Islamic Fundamentalists: They Want Us Dead by Alan Caruba

Liberal Bias in Academia by Bob Parks

Wednesday, June 02, 2004
The Normandy Invasion: A Tragic Quagmire by Edward L. Daley

Besides Nixon, Who Else Was Zonked? by Jack Engelhard

Blow Up Southtown Mall, Mayor Richard! by Doc Farmer

Leftist Traitors: Calling a Spade a Spade by Minnie Hanover

Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Abu Ghraib Reality Television by Jeremy Robb

Memorial Day: What It Means to Me by Roger Burdick

Never Thought I'd See the Day by Arlene Peck

''Mississippi Is Not a State--It's a Club'' by Vincent Fiore

Monday, May 31, 2004
Memorial Day: A Time to Remember by Sharon Hughes

Spiritual Viagra by Hans Zeiger

Liberal Bias Against Campus Conservatives by John T. Plecnik

Dude, Here's Your Country--Wounded and Bleeding by Jack L. Patterson

Sunday, May 30, 2004
Nicolas Berg and the Continuing Search for Answers by Ira Simmons

Can We Ever Repay the Greatest Generation? by Barbara Stock

The Left--Strangely Silent About Iraq's WMD Discovery by Joe Mariani

Kerry Is Like Gen. McClellan, Bush Like Gen. Grant by Gordon Bloyer

Saturday, May 29, 2004
Bush and Kerry: The Visionary Versus the Reactionary by Vincent Fiore

ChronWatch Sports, for May 29 by Ira Simmons

Remembering Some Notable Pigskin Patriots on Memorial Day by Michael Nevin, Jr.

Anti-Semitism on This Side of the Atlantic by Herbert London

Friday, May 28, 2004
President Bush's Wildly Successful War on Terrorism by John Hawkins

Why Bush's War College Speech Fell Flat by John Armor

Tough Love From Bill Cosby. Can We Handle His Truth? by Jack Engelhard

Transgenders at Curves? Get Used to It, Ladies by Cinnamon Stillwell

Thursday, May 27, 2004
Iraq and Vietnam: A Dangerous Comparison by Christopher Adamo

Liberal Lollygagging on Iraq by Isaiah Sterrett

Mandated Diversity in Athletics: An Idea Whose Time Has Come by Dennis Campbell

''The Embracer'' -- A Book Review by David Huntwork

Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Another Look at Campaign Finance Reform by Frank Salvato

A Call for Impeachment by Doc Farmer

Illegal Immigration and Black America by Robert Klein Engler

Has the Iraq War Been Successfully ''Vietnamized'' by Media and the Left? by Chris Long

Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Comparisons of Wars by Roger Burdick

On Mercy for the Wicked, and Grandma by Jack Engelhard

Play That Record Again: Merle Haggard's ''The Fightin' Side of Me'' by Judson Cox

A Libertarian View on the War Against Tobacco by Chuck Muth

Monday, May 24, 2004
Behold the Face of Islam by Barbara Stock

Even the Pope Tells Me I Should Be Shocked and Outraged by Gordon Bloyer

Arab Anti-Semitism: It's Getting Personal by Cinnamon Stillwell

Sunday, May 23, 2004
Homosexuality and Traditional Marriage by Jack L. Patterson

How About ''The No Bullsh*t News''? by John Armor

Abolishing America: The Spread of the Spanish Language by Joe Guzzardi

Remembering Vietnam, and Saying a Prayer for Iraq by Marv Essary

Saturday, May 22, 2004
The Wit and Wisdom of America's Hoi Polloi by Joan Marie Nagy

Doling Out Kindness to Those Who Would Kill Us by Frank Salvato

All About Global Warming by Joe Mariani

Friday, May 21, 2004
Avenging the Death of Nicholas Berg by Frank Salvato

Melancholy Democrats Queasy Over Kerry by Isaiah Sterrett

Judges Making Our Laws: How Did We Ever Come to This? by Christopher Adamo

Abu Ghraib Vs. History's Top Ten Abuse Scandals by Gordon Bloyer

Thursday, May 20, 2004
So It Wasn't Jailhouse Rock at Abu Ghraib, But... by Jack Engelhard

What Makes Liberals Tick? by Edward L. Daley

A Frank Look at Generation C by Bob Parks

Ya' Think We Are Fi-nal-ly Getting It? by Arlene Peck

Wednesday, May 19, 2004
The Supreme Court and Congress Need Our Votes on Gay Marriage by Jan Ireland

Something Despicable About Activists Using Their Children to Score Political Points by David Katz

Speaking Ill of the Dead--The Media Treatment of Nick Berg and Pat Tillman by Doc Farmer

How to Make Teddy Bears More Regulated Than Guns by Howard Nemerov

Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Politics: Sometimes Like a Game of Monopoly by Roger Burdick

''Brown'' Disappointments an Indictment of Public Schools. Vouchers Anyone? by Chris Long

The Strange Case of Michael Berg by Judson Cox

Desperately Seeking McCain by Vincent Fiore

Monday, May 17, 2004
America, Don't Go Wobbly on Iraq! by John Hawkins

Must We Loose the Dogs of War? by Barbara Stock

Update: Iraqi Troops in Action; Too Early to Judge Berg by Chris Long

The Nature of the Enemy in Our War on Terrorism by David Huntwork

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/categories.asp?catcode=13

[OpSomBlood]

11. I don't believe he was referencing any of those articles.

But I guess guilt by association is easier than critical analysis.

[F.Gordon]

12. Critical Analysis?

Using "statistical analysis" in one country to make the case for another?

Bottom line is...the United States is one fucking violent country. You can beat that old tired dog all you want. 1 1/2 million PLUS violent crimes per year and 16,000 PLUS murders a year in this country seems a bit excessive to me.

But I'm sure if we return to the "old west" and everyone carried a gun it wouldn't be so violent here in the U.S. :sarcasm:

[OpSomBlood]

21. Nobody here is arguing that the U.S. isn't violent.

The argument is whether or not disarming law-abiding citizens is the solution to the violence problem.

[F.Gordon]

29. A question we'll never have the answer to.....

The argument is whether or not disarming law-abiding citizens is the solution to the violence problem.

So, why even argue the point? It seems to me that the point of the "article" was to prove the opposite. That more guns means less crime.....and I aint buying it. Sorry. At least here in the good ole' US of A....

If you agree that we are a VIOLENT country then how can you suggest or even promote the idea that more guns is the answer to our violence problem?

[OpSomBlood]

31. More guns in the right hands DOES equal less crime.

If you agree that we are a VIOLENT country then how can you suggest or even promote the idea that more guns is the answer to our violence problem?

Because I know that the guns I own do not contribute to the violence problem. Confiscating my personal property based on the actions of a small minority of criminals is unjust. Plus, bans don't even affect these criminals, only people who seek to acquire guns legally.

As someone who has experienced the terror of being in a small town with a serial killer on the loose in it, I can tell you first-hand that law-abiding citizens with guns does make us safer as a society.

[F.Gordon]

35. I don't advocate taking your personal property

The serial killer still entered your small town. He/She apparently wasn't put off by all the law-abiding citizens with guns. And more guns wouldn't have prevented this person from becoming a "serial killer".

I understand your point and I (reluctantly) support your right to own gun(s??). All I'm asking is for a little compromise on your part so that you can see my point. Fair enough?

Peace.

[F.Gordon]

14. The company you keep.....

If one set of facts doesn't suit your purpose, well....damn it...use another... (quote from this "article")..

Question: Why is the British Crime Survey is at odds with the International Crime Victimization Survey of 2002 and your own article at Reason.com (14), which indicate that the UK is indeed increasingly more crime-ridden in many categories than the U.S.?

Professor Malcolm: ''I think the international crime victimization study released in 2002 is more reliable and offers a comparison of how England and Wales are doing compared to other industrial countries. Sadly, England has many times the violent crime of most European countries. But their methods of fighting crime by disarming and prosecuting victims is so counter-productive that the results do not surprise me. Unfortunately it is in the government’s interest to demonstrate that its crime-fighting initiative is successful, which makes its assertions doubtful.''

[CO Liberal]

25. I Judge a Source By The Links They Recommend

These are the links recommended by your source:

Men's News Daily

Documenting the Politically Absurd

Benador Associates

AnnCoulter.Org

WildJew.com

Rough & Tumble

American Patrol

Toogood Reports

Pacific Justice Institute

Calnews.com

Ron Unz site: Cal. Education K-12

Ward Connerly

News That's Unfit

Capital Hill Blue

Media Research Center

Davis Whistle-Blowers

Berkeley Boycott

* * * * *

As far as I'm concerned, any site that links to and recommends both Ann Coulter AND The Media Research Center is an unfit source.

And quite frankly, I don't give a damn whether or not the article is accurate. It's from an unfir source - therefore, the article is unfit.

[OpSomBlood]

33. "I don't give a damn whether or not the article is accurate."

Telling.

[CO Liberal]

37. Look At It This Way

There may be something of value in a sewer, but you'd have to go through a lot of shit to find it. That's how I feel about some of the sources that pro-gunners use on this board from time to time.

[OpSomBlood]

39. Nobody asked you to "wade through the sewer"....

A direct link was provided to the article in question. Nobody said, "go read every article on that site."

And I'm defending this guy because of the flack I took over the image of Dianne Feinstein I linked to that was hosted at that Stentorian website. According to some people, the fact that the image is hosted at a right-wing website somehow discredits it. But nobody ever claimed that the photo was a hoax or doctored...in fact, the event is well documented.

I don't agree with the all of the conclusions of the article, but I find it disturbing when people spend more time criticizing the source than the article itself.

[CO Liberal]

41. I've Said It Before, and I'll Say it Again

Any time someone has to go to a right-wing wacko site to defend their position, perhaps this is an indication that their position is not in keeping with a progressive Democratic philosophy.

Just MHO.

[CO Liberal]

38. And Another Thought

Every hit a site gets can mean money in the site owner's pocket. Why should progressive Democrats dsirect people to sites that actually work against us??

:shrug:

[OpSomBlood]

40. I guess you don't host a website.

Bandwidth costs far exceed per-hit advertising revenue.

[CO Liberal]

42. No, I Don't Host a Web Site

But hits add up, and I try whenever possible to avoid financially aiding my political enemies.

[billbuckhead]

5. Do you know what "Astroturf" is?

:spank: At least you could be a little more discreet.

[NewHampshireDem]

8. Member 2 days and posts linking to a conservative "news" site ...

:lol:

Bad, bad troll ... no cookie for you.

[Bowline]

20. Is the article wrong,...

or do you just wish to dismiss it because you don't agree with the politics of the website from which it came?

[OpSomBlood]

9. Is anyone here going to actually contradict the research in the article?

Or are you just going to call this guy a troll?

[billbuckhead]

19. Notice the co-ordination, one lies and the other swears to it

John Lott/Mary Rosh is one of the most thoroughly discredited academics in any debate. The liberal think tank Brooking Institute has made target practice of most his of tainted studies. John Lott is now out of academia and works for the dubious American Enterprise Institute. This rightwing hack actually claimed he could prove tobacco lowered the nations healthcare costs by killing poeple off at an earlier age before they could run up the higher medical costs of old age. A true compassionate conservative. Lott's latest lie was his use of a fake women poster on websites to cheerlead for him on the internet. It turned out his supporter was none other than himself in internet drag. The ultimate in rightwing astroturf.

This is NRA Astroturf 101. Next we will have some member of those imfamous "Pink Pistols" or "Second Amendment Sisters" sticking up for this B.S.

[OpSomBlood]

23. I didn't swear to anything.

I merely observed that nobody here had yet bothered to actually address the content of the article...they just called the guy who posted the link a troll and discredited the website it was found on.

But yeah, this is "Astroturfing" all right. Because we all know that it is impossible for a Democrat to be pro-gun.

[billbuckhead]

27. Anything from the American Enterprise Insitute is obvious

propaganda. You might as well say the Bush misadministration said it.

[Bowline]

22. I must be a troll...

I posted something with which others disagree. God forbid we actually engage in reasoned debate. Article I don't like = troll???

[F.Gordon]

32. Then engage in a "reasoned debate"

There are several posts here that do just that, but I don't see any response from you. I'll start.....why did the "Professor" suggest that the reason the UK numbers were "distorted" was because the UK wanted to prove their system was working and they were lying?

He has no facts to back this up, or quotes from the UK police system. He just makes that huge leap based on his own personal bias.

Care to explain that?

[meatloaf]

13. Lott and his research have become suspect.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html

http://www.moregunsmorecrime.com/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078084/

[iverglas]

15. danger, will robinson

I used to support gun control, meaning civilian disarmament.

(a) Maybe it means that to you. So?

(b) Did you really?

There was no reason, the rationale went, for a private citizen to own a gun.

I can think of loads of reasons -- some of them quite good. Were you really incapable of thinking of them? Did you take a smart pill?

The only ones who wanted guns had small genitalia, were paranoid crazies, and criminals.

Huh. And here I thought that the reason some people I know (and a whole lot of people I don't know) own firearms is to hunt for food, just to mention one reason. I only have intimate knowledge of one such person I can think of, and I don't recall him having small genitalia.

All this was assumed, without any empirical or statistical research to base it upon.

Some would say assumed ... some would say dreamt up ...

It was interesting to find that the claims of the NRA, John Lott, et al., were easy to verify from neutral or even slightly pro-gun control sources.

Oops. Was somebody thinking he'd learned it is best not to make sweeping generalizations ... let alone to state them in public without offering anything to back them up?

More ominously, I found that the gun control groups consistently lied or twisted minor factoids taken out of context in their articles. This begged the question: if they are lying to advance their agenda, can we really trust the utopian outcome they promote as true?

Actually, it didn't beg that question at all. It (the allegation you have made but offered nothing to substantiate, but appear to be quite happy to believe) might have prompted the question in your mind, sure.

The only one who might be begging questions here might be you, I'd say. Stating a premise as if it were a conclusion, and all that, eh?

[NorthernSpy]

17. questionable thesis, perhaps?

From the article:

In her book ''Guns and Violence,'' Joyce Lee Malcolm discusses the same substitution effect was active historically as well. In the first part of the book, she does an overview of the earlier eras in Britain and concludes:

''...this era in which firearms first came into common use in everyday life as well as for the citizen militia, the century in which an Englishman’s right to have 'arms for his defence' was proclaimed, also witnessed a sharp decline in violent homicide.''


I haven't read Joyce Lee Malcolm's book, but I did read the H-Net review, and one thing leapt out at me right away:


There are other considerations which might have influenced the incidence of violent crime. Although those persons who were transported to the colonies were mostly petty criminals who had committed crimes against property and were not murderers, so the increasing use of transportation is unlikely to have contributed to the continuing decline in violent crime during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

( http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=249801058802449 )


Oh yeah? First, don't property crimes vastly outnumber homicides in pretty much every society on earth? Even if Britain had transported ALL lawbreakers, including murderers, MOST of those transported would have been sentenced for crimes against property in any case.

Second: pray tell, from what social milieu would most convicted murderers have come? Any connection between membership in the general lumpen population and eventual conviction for homicide? Why shouldn't we suspect that a program of transporting thieves, burglars, and other criminals might also get rid of a disproportionate percentage of those Britons who would have gone on to commit murder in the future?

The problem is, if she's wrong about the effect of transportation -- and emigration to the colonies in general -- then her thesis would seem to collapse. As a supporter of the rkba, I'd rather not risk getting trapped in the wreckage of someone else's flimsy argument.


Oh, and here's the last bit of that review I cited:

(...)she also believes that "armed civilians ... do reduce crime" (p. 250). But she also admits that the whole controversy is so emotionally charged that anyone saying so can expect to be widely castigated.


Awww. Poor martyr. Sucks to be disagreed with. :eyes:



Mary

[iverglas]

24. transportation/emigration

The British Isles were, from time to time, a crowded, small, problem-ridden place in need of a release valve. Potato famine in, enclosure, depression -- if people had someplace else to go, it was less likely that disorder (whether criminal or political) would become widespread. The US and "the colonies" provided that valve, for the starving Irish peasants, the ousted Scots sheep farmers, the unemployed urban English industrial workers. When there wasn't a good war handy, of course.

So I'm agreeing with you, just expanding a bit: the thesis is weak.

A Cdn immigration official once told me how Fiji's domestic stability depended to a significant extent on Canada's immigration policies. As long as the ethnic group that was a minority, but controlled disproportionate wealth and power, was able to keep emigrating to Canada, the tenuous equilibrium in Fiji could be kept going.

[Wickerman]

26. After reading through the article, I proudly award this article

the coveted, and I thought ready for retirement:



a "highlight"

In general, the research shows that violent crime rates were lower in the UK than the United States in 1992. (Rated in percent of those interviewed responding ''yes'' to being victimized.)

Burglary with entry:...................UK – 2.5%...U.S. – 3.5%
Robbery:...............................UK – .9%....U.S. – 1.7%
Sexual assault of women:...............UK – .3%....U.S. – 1.5%
Assault with force:....................UK – 1.1%...U.S. – 2.2%


In the 2000 survey the researchers combined the three violent crimes of robbery, rape, and assault into one category entitled ''Selected Contact Crime.'' Here is what they report (post-ban for UK.)

Burglary with entry:..................UK – 2.8%....U.S. – 1.8%
Selected contact crime:...............UK – 3.6%....U.S. – 1.9%


These two reports were done with essentially the same criteria and methods, and they clearly show that while selected violent crime rates rose 100% in the UK, they fell 65 % in the U.S.

Uh, so, not sure of this, but it would appear that in the UK report you have to make some changes to your 1992 data. You lump Robbery, sex assault and assault w/ force together for a rate (averaged) of .77 per. Compared to 3.6 per 8 years later means a 100% gain? Hah, this guy can't even do basic math.

Lets see, then the comparison numbers are looked at with no rigor. We wouldn't want to discuss such things (as we never do account) as the gigantic prison industry in the US; the "war" on drugs increasing numbers in prison (1 in 20 males in the US - 1 in 5 African American males?).

No examination from a sociological perspective - changing mores, less employment opportunities in the UK, absolutely no examination of economy, blah.

And here's a great number that makes me take this "scientist" seriously:

Total Violent Crime rose 219%.

219%? Shut the fuck up. Remember when you used to call the coach a moron because he said, "And Friday night, leave it all on the field, give it your all, give it 110%?" That's right, boys and girls - this guy is 300% a bigger moron the coach who took you to that glorious 1-11 season.

and finally, just to make sure we know its from a right wing source, we have this gem....

As victims are more available due to the loss of self-defense capabilities, criminals see no need to spend the extra effort to plan burglary in order to avoid their victims; it is far easier to confront them and wave a gun in their face, demanding loot and sex.

Demanding sex? Its called rape. It isn't sex - that someone would confuse the two amplifies the rhetorical and call to arms piece of crap article this is.

[OpSomBlood]

28. Thank you.

Agree or disagree with the article's conclusions, I was waiting for someone to actually address the article itself.

For that, I was accused of consipiring with a troll to further the NRA's Astroturfing campaign.

[Wickerman]

30. Thanks Op - you actually provoked me to read it

I have enough to do monitoring this forum :nopity:.

I'd rather not jump into the fray, but anytime I see something jump 219% and folks not challenge it I gotta go to work.

:sigh:

[NewHampshireDem]

36. I dismissed it out of hand due to the unreasonably small

number of statistics actually cited. Furthermore, whenever the stats are that small and are based on self-reporting data gathering methodology ... well, then you know it's suspect at best and bullshit at worst.

(Reminds me of the drug stats showing cocaine use by middle schoolers "skyrocketed" during the Clinton administration. Until you actually looked at the numbers which showed that the drug use rates were so small as to be below--not within--the margin of error of the survey! As my math teacher friend says often, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." In his gentler moods, he says "Numbers don't lie; we just don't always know what they are telling us.")

[Wickerman]

43. I'm locking this flamebait

Nothing pisses me off more than someone coming in with a low post count and a "I've been converted" theory, a post to a website with a preponderance of Right Wing spew and then NOT sticking around to defend the crap. Well, actually, maybe if they were red-headed - that would piss me off more.

Don't ask.


on edit -= had to add the NOT.