If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:20:02 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: John A. wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave wrote: On Apr 7, 5:34 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote: tony cooper wrote: Sane gun users shouldn't mind going through a reasonable process. No disagreement about that, but we surely disagree about what is reasonable. The Suffolk County laws as described appear designed mostly to harass law-abiding citizens who choose to own guns than to prevent any sort of crime. In today's paper, two more incidents of gunshots. An estranged husband shot his wife and a killing outside of a club. Unfortunately the far more numerous occasions when guns prevent crimes do not generally appear "in today's paper." Mostly they do only when the intended victim has to shoot someone to protect himself, and this is a very small minority of cases. How can you get data on this as these incidents aren't recorded well no more recorded than the fisherman's tail of one that got away. One has to wonder how many of these incidents are actually cases of some nut visiting what they think is a "scary" neighborhood and frightening off some innocent bystander who was walking their way. Or cats rattling the trash cans prompting someone to poke call out "I have a gun!" and frighten the cat away. The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one or more human beings. Events involving defense against animals (including large, wild, dangerous ones) were excluded. Kleck is a professor at Florida State's school of criminology, remember. He knows what he's doing. I supplied links to equally well-qualified university-affiliated detractors of Kleck's survey. One was by a Professor at Northwestern University School of Law. Despite living in Florida, I give more weight to Northwestern than I do to FSU. I went to graduate school (but not law school) at Northwestern. FSU is in Tallahassee, our state's capital, and is too cozy with the legislators who control the funding and - in turn - are too cozy with the NRA who funds them. The only loss by the NRA in Tallahassee was when an open-carry bill was amended to take out language that would have allowed open-carry on a college campus, and that was because of the recent shooting in a FSU fraternity house when a kid's AK-47 accidently went off killing the twin sister of the guy's girlfriend. http://tinyurl.com/67yjx7q Kleck had nothing to do with the NRA. You anti-gun people are a riot. Tirades against the NRA seem to be your first response to anything and everything gun-related that irks you. I have seen this again and again. You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university professor are always without flaw? In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are highly subject to the respondent's biases. I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology. Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years since I read his comments on this. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:45:23 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "tony cooper" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:20:02 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: John A. wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave wrote: On Apr 7, 5:34 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote: tony cooper wrote: Sane gun users shouldn't mind going through a reasonable process. No disagreement about that, but we surely disagree about what is reasonable. The Suffolk County laws as described appear designed mostly to harass law-abiding citizens who choose to own guns than to prevent any sort of crime. In today's paper, two more incidents of gunshots. An estranged husband shot his wife and a killing outside of a club. Unfortunately the far more numerous occasions when guns prevent crimes do not generally appear "in today's paper." Mostly they do only when the intended victim has to shoot someone to protect himself, and this is a very small minority of cases. How can you get data on this as these incidents aren't recorded well no more recorded than the fisherman's tail of one that got away. One has to wonder how many of these incidents are actually cases of some nut visiting what they think is a "scary" neighborhood and frightening off some innocent bystander who was walking their way. Or cats rattling the trash cans prompting someone to poke call out "I have a gun!" and frighten the cat away. The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one or more human beings. Events involving defense against animals (including large, wild, dangerous ones) were excluded. Kleck is a professor at Florida State's school of criminology, remember. He knows what he's doing. I supplied links to equally well-qualified university-affiliated detractors of Kleck's survey. One was by a Professor at Northwestern University School of Law. Despite living in Florida, I give more weight to Northwestern than I do to FSU. I went to graduate school (but not law school) at Northwestern. FSU is in Tallahassee, our state's capital, and is too cozy with the legislators who control the funding and - in turn - are too cozy with the NRA who funds them. The only loss by the NRA in Tallahassee was when an open-carry bill was amended to take out language that would have allowed open-carry on a college campus, and that was because of the recent shooting in a FSU fraternity house when a kid's AK-47 accidently went off killing the twin sister of the guy's girlfriend. http://tinyurl.com/67yjx7q Kleck had nothing to do with the NRA. I know that. He's never been a member of the NRA, has not donated to the NRA, and is a member of Amnesty International, the ACLU, and Common Cause. He's a registered Democrat. I do my homework. Now go back - above - and point out where I said anything different. What I said and implied was that the legislators in Tallahassee are substantially funded by NRA lobbyists and that the legislators determine the funding of the university. At some time, Kleck and Gertz had to apply to the university for funding for their project. A project like this would have a budget in the millions. I think I read somewhere that the cost was about $5 million, but I can't cite this. Every project by every professor at the university is competitive for funding with other project by other professors. Now what do you think the attitude of the university would be about cutting those funds to a project near-and-dear to the hear of the NRA? Would they be more likely to fund this project, or some study by science professor on the mating habits of mosquitos? Relationships are not always direct. If you know Florida politics, though, you instinctively look for the money. You anti-gun people are a riot. Tirades against the NRA seem to be your first response to anything and everything gun-related that irks you. I have seen this again and again. This may be above your pay grade, but try to understand the difference between "anti-gun" and "pro gun controls". I am not in the former group, but I do lean to the latter. What amuses me about the pro-gun people is that any comments that are not slavishly in favor of uncontrolled purchase or possession get one labeled as anti-gun. You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university professor are always without flaw? In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are highly subject to the respondent's biases. I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology. Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years since I read his comments on this. It doesn't take much effort to find an interview with Kleck. http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:45:23 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "tony cooper" wrote in message . .. You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university professor are always without flaw? In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are highly subject to the respondent's biases. I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology. Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years since I read his comments on this. It doesn't take much effort to find an interview with Kleck. http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm Why would I want to? Skimming that just now I see it says essentially what I'd already told you. You have (AGAIN) the answer to your question which, as you say yourself, was easy to find online. Sheesh. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:20:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "tony cooper" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:45:23 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "tony cooper" wrote in message ... You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university professor are always without flaw? In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are highly subject to the respondent's biases. I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology. Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years since I read his comments on this. It doesn't take much effort to find an interview with Kleck. http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm Why would I want to? If you have to ask "Why", when you are trying to make claims about what Keck did, your interest in presenting factual discourse has to be discounted. Skimming that just now I see it says essentially what I'd already told you. You have (AGAIN) the answer to your question which, as you say yourself, was easy to find online. Sheesh. So the answer to my question about "Why are you sure?" is that the author and designer of the survey says the survey was designed properly? That's like saying that you are sure that used car is in good shape because the seller says it is. I'm sure the editor who approved the _Chicago Tribune_ headline of November 3, 1948 felt that the Tribune's election results poll was carefully designed. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
On 4/10/2011 9:25 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:20:41 -0400, "Neil wrote: "tony wrote in message ... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:45:23 -0400, "Neil wrote: "tony wrote in message ... You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university professor are always without flaw? In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are highly subject to the respondent's biases. I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology. Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years since I read his comments on this. It doesn't take much effort to find an interview with Kleck. http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm Why would I want to? If you have to ask "Why", when you are trying to make claims about what Keck did, your interest in presenting factual discourse has to be discounted. Skimming that just now I see it says essentially what I'd already told you. You have (AGAIN) the answer to your question which, as you say yourself, was easy to find online. Sheesh. So the answer to my question about "Why are you sure?" is that the author and designer of the survey says the survey was designed properly? That's like saying that you are sure that used car is in good shape because the seller says it is. I'm sure the editor who approved the _Chicago Tribune_ headline of November 3, 1948 felt that the Tribune's election results poll was carefully designed. An even worse example: The Literary Digest up until November 1936 was a respected and widely read American magazine. Then they posted their since-infamous poll re the Presidential election showing that Alf Landon was going to defeat FDR. One result of that election was that the long-standing rule "As Maine Goes, So Goes the Nation" was changed to "As Maine Goes, So Goes Vermont". The big problem was that they had done a telephone survey; perhaps the race would have been much closer if only those with telephones had been allowed to vote, but the less fortunate were also admitted to the polling places. And the Literary Digest, with its long and respected reputation, folded within a few months and took its place in the Hall of Infamy of Statistics. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sometimes stupid loses | Peter N[_4_] | Digital Photography | 7 | April 10th 11 02:54 PM |
Sometimes stupid loses | Neil Harrington[_6_] | Digital Photography | 4 | April 10th 11 03:55 AM |
Sometimes stupid loses | Neil Harrington[_6_] | Digital Photography | 1 | April 10th 11 03:40 AM |
Sometimes stupid loses | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | April 1st 11 06:10 AM |
Sometimes stupid loses | Bill Graham | Digital Photography | 0 | April 1st 11 04:01 AM |