Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    Let's take one at a time from that link.

     

    The headline: "Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime.

     

    The summation: "We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.

     

    My observation: One in 4 is NOT TYPICAL. And "appearing" to be not related is not quite the same as actually being not related.

    If this is what you want to hang your hat on, be my guest. But I highly doubt such flimsy evidence would convince many reasonable and unbiased persons.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Let's take one at a time from that link.

     

    The headline: "Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime.

     

    The summation: "We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.

     

    My observation: One in 4 is NOT TYPICAL. And "appearing" to be not related is not quite the same as actually being not related.

    If this is what you want to hang your hat on, be my guest. But I highly doubt such flimsy evidence would convince many reasonable and unbiased persons.



    You still don't quite get that an abstract is not the whole article, do you? 

    Aren't you also sure evolution is false?

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    The other thing, to point, out Babe, is you don't even understand what the abstract is saying.  All it says is that one in four was shot due to circumstances unrelated to their incarceration. The remainder would have been shot due to related circumstances.  From the abstract, it's hard to tell whether the authors are looking at the whole sample or just a part (likely the 75% who were shot during the commission of a crime).  That's why you need the whole article to even start to argue anything here. 

    All you're doing is pulling things out of your a r s e based on your preconceptions and some sketchy details of what the study says based on what's in a one-paragraph abstract. It's not even worth arguing becuase neither of us has enough data to make any truly informed conclusion.  The fact that you can't seem to recognize that does not speak highly about your ability to seriously critique anything.  I suggest just snuggling up with a beer in front of Fox news.  They'll tell you what you want to hear . . .

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    If you want to discuss the merits of a study, read this entire article and then we can debate the authors' methodology.  This, by the way, was a government funded study.  It was one of the last of those, because after it was published, the NRA lobbied congress (successfully) to prevent the government from funding more studies like this. Because of the NRA, it is now very difficult for medical researchers to get any government funding for research on gun violence.  That's one reason a lot of gun research is now funded by private foundations. 

     

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleBackground

     




    No shock the NRA lobbys against such a waste of taxpayer money as this when its only value is to deceptively undermine the right to bear arms.

     

    "Saltzman and colleagues recently found that assaults by family members or other intimate acquaintances with a gun are far more likely to end in death than those that involve knives or other weapons"

    This has no answer to the question of how many who did die from guns would have died if the assailant used a knife instead. Nor does it answer how many of those who did not die from other means of assault were because the assailant didn't desire to actually kill them.

     

    "Our data strongly suggest that the risk of homicide is markedly increased in homes where a person has previously been hit or hurt in a family fight."

    Even a damned fool can figure this out. We didn't need a study to determine what anybody with a whit of sense already knows. I have agreed that certain persons shouldn't have guns. A wife beater would be a very likely candidate for license removal. I'm just not ready to support federal laws to achieve this.


    "Previous case-control research has demonstrated a strong association between the ownership of firearms and suicide in the home"

    Another "duh" moment. But again, we have no indication that those incidents wouldn't have still resulted in suicide if no gun was present in the home.

     

    I could go on.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    All you did was make an assumption that information gathered from prisoners must be unreliable.

     




    Let's take a poll. We'll see how many folks think that CRIMINALS are reliable providers of information. Let's crap on the 2nd Amendment because CRIMINALS have been the completely honest guys that I'm sure you think they are.

    But you could be on to something in noting the author's "methodology" might have been effective. Maybe he asked the CRIMINALS "pretty please" to be honest. LMAO

    Just keep digging your own hole pro.



    Polls are always the best way to determine the truth, I'm sure. 

     




    I'm sure if you're looking for the truth the best place to ask for that is from a CRIMINAL. LMAO

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Let's take one at a time from that link.

     

    The headline: "Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime.

     

    The summation: "We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.

     

    My observation: One in 4 is NOT TYPICAL. And "appearing" to be not related is not quite the same as actually being not related.

    If this is what you want to hang your hat on, be my guest. But I highly doubt such flimsy evidence would convince many reasonable and unbiased persons.



    You still don't quite get that an abstract is not the whole article, do you? 

    Aren't you also sure evolution is false?

     




    I get that the abstract of the article is BS. And unless they are completely misrepresenting the article, the article must be BS as well.

    I believe the theory of evolution has not been proven and is full of holes. That there could have been some form of evolution is a possibility.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

     

    Okay then . . . 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    The other thing, to point, out Babe, is you don't even understand what the abstract is saying.  All it says is that one in four was shot due to circumstances unrelated to their incarceration. The remainder would have been shot due to related circumstances.  From the abstract, it's hard to tell whether the authors are looking at the whole sample or just a part (likely the 75% who were shot during the commission of a crime).  That's why you need the whole article to even start to argue anything here. 

    All you're doing is pulling things out of your a r s e based on your preconceptions and some sketchy details of what the study says based on what's in a one-paragraph abstract. It's not even worth arguing becuase neither of us has enough data to make any truly informed conclusion.  The fact that you can't seem to recognize that does not speak highly about your ability to seriously critique anything.  I suggest just snuggling up with a beer in front of Fox news.  They'll tell you what you want to hear . . .

     




    I don't need to pull anything out of my  a r s e  to note that they use the word TYPICAL and go on to say it is one in four, which is not TYPICAL.

    Now you can keep on trying to imply I am somehow too stupid to understand that I must see the complexity of their intricate study to realize the truth of it all, but really, doing that just makes you look like what you are implying I am. I don't need to see the article to be able to see that the summary is BS. And the summary is what was linked. But I suspect the article itself is pure BS as well. That's what you get from those types, much the same as you are doing here.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    Have you considered the possibility that the abstract (which you are misreading anyway) may not have even been written by the authors?  It may have been written by the editor of that website. 

    You're drawing your conclusions from sketchy untested assumptions . . . 

     

    Well, off to work . . . we can pick this up later if you'd like

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Have you considered the possibility that the abstract (which you are misreading anyway) may not have even been written by the authors?  It may have been written by the editor of that website. 

    You're drawing your conclusions from sketchy untested assumptions . . . 

     

    Well, off to work . . . we can pick this up later if you'd like




    But the website is HARVARD. Weren't you just touting them? How could such an auspicious entity as them mess up the summary?

     

    Can't wait to see how I'm "misreading" it. And even if their meaning is different than the obvious, the effect gained from the obvious understanding still contributes to their known agenda.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    Okay, let's explain how the English language works. 

    Let's start with the title.  It says:

    8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

    What this means is that criminals are typically shot by other criminals . . . this would imply that typically they aren't shot by innocent people defending themselves.  Typical is an imprecise word, but let's assume it means a substantial majority.

    Now let's move on to the text in the paragraph that you are struggling with.  The first line you are struggling with says: 

    We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.

    This means that 25% of the criminals were wounded in events that weren't related to their crime--this means they were wounded for some other reason and maybe were not victims of a crime. 

    Now we go on to the next sentence which says:

    Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires.

    What this means is that the majority of the criminals studied were wounded by other criminals either robbing them, attacking them, or shooting at other people.  The abstract is not clear whether 3 out of 4 (i.e., all those not included in the 1 out of 4 mentioned in the prior sentence) were victims of crime or whether just some portion of those were.  For that, you'd have to read the actual study. (As a general recommendation, it's always worthwhile reading what you're critiquing).  What it does say is "most"were shot by other criminals--and if most were shot in this way, then saying this is "typical" is reasonable, at least for the level of detail included in an abstract.  (An abstract is merely intended to give researchers an idea if the article covers a topic they are interested in--it isn't intended to rigourously present any results.)

    Finally, it says:

    Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

    Well, you'll have to go back to the full study to get percentages and clarify whether the "none" is none of the whole sample or none of some portion of the sample.  The abstract isn't clear (but it doesn't need to be, because it's an abstract, not the study).  Someone who was really interested in the topic described in the abstract would then read the study to evaluate the claims of the study.  Arguing with an abstract is a silly exercise, since an abstract is not a study, but merely a very high-level description of the study.

    One other point . . . this web entry is probably not even the actual abstract of the article that was included in the publishing journal, it's probably just a brief summary of that abstract assembled by an editor in the School of Public Health's communication or PR department.  Arguing about it is about as sensible as arguing about whether a movie is good or bad based on what's on the poster advertising the movie.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Assault/military style weapons - what we can do to control them

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Okay, let's explain how the English language works. 

    Let's start with the title.  It says:

    8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

    What this means is that criminals are typically shot by other criminals . . . this would imply that typically they aren't shot by innocent people defending themselves.  Typical is an imprecise word, but let's assume it means a substantial majority.

    Now let's move on to the text in the paragraph that you are struggling with.  The first line you are struggling with says: 

    We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.

    This means that 25% of the criminals were wounded in events that weren't related to their crime--this means they were wounded for some other reason and maybe were not victims of a crime. 

    Now we go on to the next sentence which says:

    Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires.

    What this means is that the majority of the criminals studied were wounded by other criminals either robbing them, attacking them, or shooting at other people.  The abstract is not clear whether 3 out of 4 (i.e., all those not included in the 1 out of 4 mentioned in the prior sentence) were victims of crime or whether just some portion of those were.  For that, you'd have to read the actual study. (As a general recommendation, it's always worthwhile reading what you're critiquing).  What it does say is "most"were shot by other criminals--and if most were shot in this way, then saying this is "typical" is reasonable, at least for the level of detail included in an abstract.  (An abstract is merely intended to give researchers an idea if the article covers a topic they are interested in--it isn't intended to rigourously present any results.)

    Finally, it says:

    Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

    Well, you'll have to go back to the full study to get percentages and clarify whether the "none" is none of the whole sample or none of some portion of the sample.  The abstract isn't clear (but it doesn't need to be, because it's an abstract, not the study).  Someone who was really interested in the topic described in the abstract would then read the study to evaluate the claims of the study.  Arguing with an abstract is a silly exercise, since an abstract is not a study, but merely a very high-level description of the study.

    One other point . . . this web entry is probably not even the actual abstract of the article that was included in the publishing journal, it's probably just a brief summary of that abstract assembled by an editor in the School of Public Health's communication or PR department.  Arguing about it is about as sensible as arguing about whether a movie is good or bad based on what's on the poster advertising the movie.

     

     




    If you look at my original point on the matter...

    "One in four is "typical"? And we are to take the criminal's word for it that their being shot was done by some "bad guy" acting as a criminal toward them? LMAO"

     

    They claim that 1 in 4 shootings occurred when the person was not in the act of committing a crime. Therefore, only those 1 in 4 can be construed as typically being the victim of a crime since the 3 out of 4 were actually committing a crime when they were shot. My point is that the headline is misleading and probably so because of an inherent agenda by the publisher.

    I did not disagree with the thrust of the summary, that these shootings were not done by law abiding citizens. I do note however that additionally, the detainees in the sample were not dead, but rather wounded, so the headline is also misleading since drawing such a conclusion ignores a large sample that was not apparently included in the study.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share