golf-forums.net Promoting golf discussion.

Main Date: 18 Apr 2007 19:05:52 From: annika1980 Subject: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! At least 183 people were killed in Baghdad today by a number of car bombs. Boy, I'm glad that recent troop surge is making such a difference. Gee, I wonder if the "Liberal Media" will cut into their non-stop coverage of the VT shooting to report that?   Date: 26 Apr 2007 22:59:59 From: Dene Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 26, 10:56 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net > wrote: > In article <1177564539.420923.122...@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Apr 24, 2:58 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > > In article <1177356620.986522.120...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com= >, > > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages, > > > > > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't= appear > > > > > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy= was > > > > > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once r= uled. > > > > > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have su= rprised > > > > > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting > > > > > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America = in the > > > > > last century is there for all to see. > > > > > Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were > > > > trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. B= ut > > > > since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have playe= d a > > > > part in that. > > > > The US government is widely hated throughout the region for its massi= ve > > > support of terror operations, brutal dictators, coups against democra= tic > > > governments - not to mention outright invasions - over the decades. Y= ou > > > can see how much the US loves democracy by the speed with which it > > > embraced the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > The evidence that the US "embraced the coup against Chavez" lies > > where???? > > > -Greg > > It was hilariously obvious at the time. Various heads of state in Latin > America immediately condemned the coup. Not so Bush, who blamed it all > on Chavez, pretended that Chavez had resigned, etc. We know now Bush > knew about the coup plans ahead of time. Two years after the coup Jorge > Castaneda, the then Foreign Minister of Mexico under President Vicente > Fox, said in an interview =B3Effectively, there was a proposition made by > the United States and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil, > Argentina and France recognizing the government of Pedro Carmona." > (Carmona was the businessman installed by the Venezuelan military junta > as head of state after Chavez and his ministers were arrested; he lasted > one day.) > > The following articles from Reuters, Newsday, and the Chicago Tribune > are archived at Common Dreams: > > Reuters > U.S. Regrets Hasty Embrace of Chavez Coup - Experts > > http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0416-03.htm > > Newsday > CIA Knew of Plot Against Venezuela's Chavez > > http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1124-02.htm > > Chicago Tribune > Bush's Response to Coup Criticized > > http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0417-01.htm- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Interesting....thanks! -Greg   Date: 27 Apr 2007 04:19:59 From: Carbon Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:37:43 -0500, MnMikew wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:462ff1dd$0$9913$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:20:22 -0500, MnMikew wrote: >> >>> If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts. >> >> If you think Iraq Body Count doesnt (sic) have an agenda your (sic) >> nuts. > > Pssst, everyone has an agenda. I see. One group, lets call them statisticians, says 2+3=5. Another group, lets call them laymen, says 2+3=4.   Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:16:48 From: Dene Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 23, 1:43 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote: > > What part have we played? I know of nothing tangible the US did to > promote democracy in Latin America, which was never in danger of > "turning into another Cuba."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Aid. Sometimes to the wrong set of fellas. -Greg   Date: 25 Apr 2007 22:15:39 From: Dene Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 24, 2:58 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net > wrote: > In article <1177356620.986522.120...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages, > > > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear > > > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was > > > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled. > > > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised > > > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting > > > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the > > > last century is there for all to see. > > > Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were > > trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But > > since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a > > part in that. > > The US government is widely hated throughout the region for its massive > support of terror operations, brutal dictators, coups against democratic > governments - not to mention outright invasions - over the decades. You > can see how much the US loves democracy by the speed with which it > embraced the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The evidence that the US "embraced the coup against Chavez" lies where???? -Greg     Date: 26 Apr 2007 22:56:35 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! In article <1177564539.420923.122930@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com >, Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 24, 2:58 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net> > wrote: > > In article <1177356620.986522.120...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net> > > > wrote: > > > > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages, > > > > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear > > > > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was > > > > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled. > > > > > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised > > > > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting > > > > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the > > > > last century is there for all to see. > > > > > Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were > > > trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But > > > since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a > > > part in that. > > > > The US government is widely hated throughout the region for its massive > > support of terror operations, brutal dictators, coups against democratic > > governments - not to mention outright invasions - over the decades. You > > can see how much the US loves democracy by the speed with which it > > embraced the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > The evidence that the US "embraced the coup against Chavez" lies > where???? > > -Greg It was hilariously obvious at the time. Various heads of state in Latin America immediately condemned the coup. Not so Bush, who blamed it all on Chavez, pretended that Chavez had resigned, etc. We know now Bush knew about the coup plans ahead of time. Two years after the coup Jorge Castaneda, the then Foreign Minister of Mexico under President Vicente Fox, said in an interview ³Effectively, there was a proposition made by the United States and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and France recognizing the government of Pedro Carmona." (Carmona was the businessman installed by the Venezuelan military junta as head of state after Chavez and his ministers were arrested; he lasted one day.) The following articles from Reuters, Newsday, and the Chicago Tribune are archived at Common Dreams: Reuters U.S. Regrets Hasty Embrace of Chavez Coup - Experts http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0416-03.htm Newsday CIA Knew of Plot Against Venezuela's Chavez http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1124-02.htm Chicago Tribune Bush's Response to Coup Criticized http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0417-01.htm   Date: 26 Apr 2007 00:27:09 From: Carbon Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:20:22 -0500, MnMikew wrote: > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> >> wrote: >> >>> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php >> >> You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns >> Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an >> agenda, the other doesn't. >> > If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts. If you think Iraq Body Count doesnt (sic) have an agenda your (sic) nuts.     Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:37:43 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message news:462ff1dd$0$9913$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:20:22 -0500, MnMikew wrote: >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >>> On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php >>> >>> You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns >>> Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an >>> agenda, the other doesn't. >>> >> If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts. > > If you think Iraq Body Count doesnt (sic) have an agenda your (sic) nuts. Pssst, everyone has an agenda.   Date: 25 Apr 2007 13:49:09 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in messagenews:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx... > > > > > Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I researched > > it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are > > questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen any > > credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to post a > > site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean they > > aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side and we > > know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been accepted > and > > proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them without > > evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient? > > There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand. > > http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an agenda, the other doesn't.     Date: 25 Apr 2007 14:51:19 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/wsj_response.html This is a response to one critic of John's Hopkins study. I'm not sure if it is the same group of musicans and librarians.     Date: 25 Apr 2007 16:20:22 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> > wrote: >> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in >> messagenews:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx... >> >> >> >> > Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I >> > researched >> > it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are >> > questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen any >> > credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to post >> > a >> > site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean >> > they >> > aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side and >> > we >> > know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been >> > accepted >> and >> > proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them >> > without >> > evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient? >> >> There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand. >> >> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php > > You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns > Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an > agenda, the other doesn't. > If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts.       Date: 25 Apr 2007 14:49:45 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message news:599v0nF2ir8mcU1@mid.individual.net... > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1177534149.078072.202510@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 24, 9:53 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> >> wrote: >>> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in >>> messagenews:sU5Xh.3875$OJ1.1297@newsfe13.phx... >>> >>> >>> >>> > Do you think you can say "The numbers don't match the facts." I >>> > researched >>> > it and I think that if you do the same thing about the people who are >>> > questioning the study, you will find the same thing. I haven't seen >>> > any >>> > credible refutations of the Johns Hopkins' study. If you'd like to >>> > post a >>> > site, I'd read it. The numbers seem high to me, but that doesn't mean >>> > they >>> > aren't true. The numbers in Vietnam were phony on the military side >>> > and we >>> > know that, now. So far, all of Johns Hopkins' numbers have been >>> > accepted >>> and >>> > proven true through decades of work. Why would anyone reject them >>> > without >>> > evidence, other than it is not poliltically expedient? >>> >>> There is ample evidence. Get your head out of the sand. >>> >>> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php >> >> You really want to lend more credence to Iraq Body Count than to Johns >> Hopkins? Aside from their relative scholarly credentials, one has an >> agenda, the other doesn't. >> > If you think Johns Hopkins dosent have an agenda your nuts. And where did you get the idea that JH has an agenda? Just make a statement ... any statement ... because you don't really care about the issue and this is only a newsgroup.         Date: 25 Apr 2007 15:11:12 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! http://www.jhu.edu/jhumag/0207web/number.html Another response by Johns Hopkins People realize that the 600,000+ deaths was from all sources, not just violent deaths, right? All deaths that occurred because of the many consequences of the war. I assume that means lack of water, disease, lack of hospital care, no electricity ... etc. If you don't give a shit, just dont' respond. OK?   Date: 24 Apr 2007 00:59:26 From: Carbon Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:50:23 -0500, the Moderator wrote: > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message > news:XkeWh.149776$g24.73538@newsfe12.phx... >> >> I didn't see any serious challenges of their methodology. You're taling >> about Johns Hopkins, whose work in similar questions in other parts of the >> world, using the same methodology, were accepted without question. If you >> read their methodology, you'll find that they put themselves at great risk >> and apparently did everything they could and way beyond to get accurate >> numbers. Their only mistake may have been to report the truth that no one >> wants to hear. > > The numbers don't match the facts. How do you explain that there are no > records for the number of wounded the study cites ever being treated by a > physician? They would have to have lost 80-90% of hospital records. The > number of death certificates actually issued is off by 1000%. > > A more realistic number is between 40,000 - 60,000. :%s/realistic/convenient/g     Date: 01 May 2007 08:13:47 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On May 1, 10:56 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1178029506.733502.7420@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > I see. If you don't know about it, it can't be true, right? It does > > get reported in the news. That's how I know. Most recently: NPR this > > morning. Don't bother with your usual diatribe about the liberal > > press. I've heard it all before. > > Oh, well if the deaths are being reported then there is no way the death > toll can equal the numbers of the Lancet Report. The numbers published in > even the most liberal press don't come close to the Lancet study. > > Thanks for playing. Whatever you say, Mod.     Date: 01 May 2007 07:25:06 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On May 1, 10:02 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1178025529.978063.33220@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > I think people tend to think that the big suicide bombs and car bombs > > that take out dozens or scores of people account for all the violent > > deaths in Iraq. The fact is that individual people are murdered by the > > dozens every day in Baghdad. > > Sure and nobody notices and it never gets reported in the news. How do you > come up with this if nobody else knows about it? I see. If you don't know about it, it can't be true, right? It does get reported in the news. That's how I know. Most recently: NPR this morning. Don't bother with your usual diatribe about the liberal press. I've heard it all before.       Date: 01 May 2007 09:56:19 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1178029506.733502.7420@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > I see. If you don't know about it, it can't be true, right? It does > get reported in the news. That's how I know. Most recently: NPR this > morning. Don't bother with your usual diatribe about the liberal > press. I've heard it all before. Oh, well if the deaths are being reported then there is no way the death toll can equal the numbers of the Lancet Report. The numbers published in even the most liberal press don't come close to the Lancet study. Thanks for playing.     Date: 01 May 2007 06:18:50 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 30, 6:18 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, Alan Murphy wrote: > > You don't have much imagination, do you? It says that 650,000 deaths > > over 4 years in Iraq is not an unreasonable number when there are > > 200,000 violent deaths over the same period in a country at peace, > > albeit with a larger population. > > > Look at it in another way. There have been about 3,500 deaths and about > > 27,000 serious injuries to coalition forces in Iraq. Many of the > > injuries would have resulted in death had it not been for the body > > armour worn. These troops are heavily armed and protected and yet there > > have been 30,000 deaths or serious casualties, a huge number for a > > protected force. Consider the civil war in which Shias are pitted > > against Sunnis as well as against coalition forces. Shooting and suicide > > bombing each other must be like shooting fish in a barrel compared to > > injuring coalition forces. 25 Iraqi deaths for each coalition casualty > > is by no means an unreasonable number. > > > The Lancet/JH study viewed death certificates in 92% cases. The > > methodology used is accepted by all authorities on the subject as being > > the most suitable for the purpose. Why do you continue to deny the > > findings? > > Because the numbers are inconvenient.- Hide quoted text - I think people tend to think that the big suicide bombs and car bombs that take out dozens or scores of people account for all the violent deaths in Iraq. The fact is that individual people are murdered by the dozens every day in Baghdad.       Date: 01 May 2007 09:02:49 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1178025529.978063.33220@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > I think people tend to think that the big suicide bombs and car bombs > that take out dozens or scores of people account for all the violent > deaths in Iraq. The fact is that individual people are murdered by the > dozens every day in Baghdad. Sure and nobody notices and it never gets reported in the news. How do you come up with this if nobody else knows about it?         Date: 01 May 2007 17:55:13 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message news:mNWdnSR0OKgX1arbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@centurytel.net... > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1178025529.978063.33220@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> I think people tend to think that the big suicide bombs and car bombs >> that take out dozens or scores of people account for all the violent >> deaths in Iraq. The fact is that individual people are murdered by the >> dozens every day in Baghdad. > > Sure and nobody notices and it never gets reported in the news. How do > you > come up with this if nobody else knows about it? > What a fucking prat! He read the Lancet/JH report, of course :-)     Date: 30 Apr 2007 22:18:34 From: Carbon Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, Alan Murphy wrote: > You don't have much imagination, do you? It says that 650,000 deaths > over 4 years in Iraq is not an unreasonable number when there are > 200,000 violent deaths over the same period in a country at peace, > albeit with a larger population. > > Look at it in another way. There have been about 3,500 deaths and about > 27,000 serious injuries to coalition forces in Iraq. Many of the > injuries would have resulted in death had it not been for the body > armour worn. These troops are heavily armed and protected and yet there > have been 30,000 deaths or serious casualties, a huge number for a > protected force. Consider the civil war in which Shias are pitted > against Sunnis as well as against coalition forces. Shooting and suicide > bombing each other must be like shooting fish in a barrel compared to > injuring coalition forces. 25 Iraqi deaths for each coalition casualty > is by no means an unreasonable number. > > The Lancet/JH study viewed death certificates in 92% cases. The > methodology used is accepted by all authorities on the subject as being > the most suitable for the purpose. Why do you continue to deny the > findings? Because the numbers are inconvenient.     Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:39:38 From: Carbon Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:52:19 -0400, sfb wrote: > "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:Uu6dnSj2JryE06_bRVnyvgA@bt.com... >> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message >> news:ULOdne1nSKtAgq_bnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net... >> >>> I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent >>> people over from the University to do the study. You are trying to >>> make martyrs out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet >>> study, you are full bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction >>> from someone who realizes they have supported a lie. >>> >> We do know for certain that there are about 50,000 violent >> deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United States every year. >> 200,000 over a 4 year period which is the duration of the Iraqi war. >> Conditions in Iraq are unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose >> that a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is >> unreasonable? > > Yes. Iraq population is 26M, US is 300M. I guess you haven't heard. Our failed invasion has ignited a civil war in Iraq. p.s. I fixed your top post.     Date: 27 Apr 2007 09:59:06 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 27, 12:07 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in messagenews:rr8Yh.8862$Fk2.3402@newsfe08.phx... > > > > > > > Okay, Moderator posted that the UN finds different figures ... > > > Here are the first 3 paragraphs: > > > BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 - The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than > 34,000 > > Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the > first > > comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the > > failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security. > > > Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the > > trajectory of the war and are extremely sensitive for both Iraqi and > > American officials. Both track the tallies but neither will release them. > > > This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual > deaths > > for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues, > > hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three times > > higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by > The > > Associated Press earlier this month. > > > 1. It was for one year > > 2. It only includes violent deaths > > 3. It was done by body counts "attempt" from local morgues, hospitals, and > > *municipal authorities* etc. which are under control of either Shia or > > Sunni. > > 4. The US and Iraq don't release their own figures > > 5. It was 3 time higher than previously reported by AP > > > You can't argue with someone who doesn't care because they don't care if > > they are wrong. It's just a bunch of people at a University who risked > their > > lives to go into Iraq and go to individual houses to ask about who died. > And > > why? To discredit who, Bush? That seems to have been done sufficiently to > > not risk lives and the reputation of the most prestigious school of > medicine > > in the United States. The Red Cross is wrong, The Nobel Prizes are wrong, > > John Hopkins is wrong. But George Bush, the intellectual giant who would > > rather be knocking down weeds on his ranch and can't tell that his simple > > minded loyalty for loosers is hurting the country ... Bush isn't to blame. > > It's the Republican Party. Not Reagan Republicans, Not Eisenhower > > Republicans, but Rove Cheney and the like. It's disgusting. > > You left off number six. > > 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable. > > I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people > over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs > out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full > bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes > they have supported a lie. A study you disagree with is not only wrong but "a lie"? Neither you nor I nor anyone else here is competent to judge any of these studies. I have no idea who's right and neither do you. If I said that, studies aside, it's obvious that thousands, maybe tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the war, would you accuse me of lying?     Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:56:04 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message news:462d566e$0$4907$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > :%s/realistic/convenient/g I know you conspiracy theorists are convinced you are right all the time.       Date: 24 Apr 2007 19:22:13 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! I saw your url and thought that there was some other source other than the one I posted about before that is mostly musicians. It is the same group. Their credentials (from their website) is below. If you have any other sources, I 'd like to see them. The "Iraq Body Count" : 1 freelance researcher/authors with no degree, apparently (1) 1 research psychologist (2) 1 retired librarian (3) 5 musicians (4, 6, 7, 13, 14) 2 computer experts (5, 11) 7 professors in fields non-closely related fields (8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18) 1 lawyer (16 0 professors or graduate degreed individuals in closely related fields ( ) 01 HAMIT DARDAGAN (Co-founder, principal researcher and site manager) is a freelance researcher. 02 JOHN SLOBODA (Co-founder and press spokesperson) Professor of Psychology 03 KAY WILLIAMS a retired librarian 04 SCOTT LIPSCOMB, Associate Professor in the School of Music at Northwestern 05 PETER BAGNALL, student studying computer science 06 JOSHUA DOUGHERTY, guitarist and private instructor 07 CHARLIE FORD, doctorate for his holistic critique of Mozart's Cosi fan tutte in 1989 08 BÜLENT GÖKAY, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Keele University 09 MARC HEROLD, Professor of Economic Development 10GLEN RANGWALA, doctorate, from Cambridge University, was in political and legal rhetoric in the Arab Middle East 11 DAVID FLANAGAN, author of JavaScript: The Definitive Guide 12 JAMES KEMP, researcher on nuclear terrorism 13 ERIC CLARKE, professor of music 14 NIKKI DIBBEN, lecturer in music at Sheffield University 15 MARIANNE FILLENZ, senior research fellow in neuroscience 16 JORDANA LIPSCOMB, retired litigation attorney 17 DARELL WHITMAN, student in School of Politics 18 DROSILY HAMOURTZIADOU, doctorate on Nationalism in Bosnia HAMIT DARDAGAN (Co-founder, principal researcher and site manager) is a freelance researcher currently working in London. He has made an in-depth study of the research methods of Professor Marc Herold, who pioneered a media-based methodology for estimating civilian deaths in the Afghan war of 2001-2. He has written for Counterpunch, and has undertaken research for a number of organisations, including Greenpeace. He has been chair of "Kalayaan" a human rights campaign for overseas domestic workers in the UK, which led to significant enhancement in their legal rights. JOHN SLOBODA (Co-founder and press spokesperson) trained as a research psychologist and is Professor of Psychology at the University of Keele, UK, and an honorary research fellow in its School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment (SPIRE). In 1999-2000 he worked with the Committee for Peace in the Balkans, and researched effects on the civilian population of the NATO bombing campaign. He is a founder member of the Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations (Naspir). He is currently Executive Director of Oxford Research Group, a long-established peace and security NGO, promoting non-military approaches to conflict resolution.. KAY WILLIAMS (Senior researcher and archivist) is a recently retired librarian, who worked most recently as Head of Acquisitions in Keele University Library. SCOTT LIPSCOMB (Assistant researcher) is a co-founder of Musicians Opposing War, a collective of Northwestern University faculty, staff, & students in the United States who came together for the purpose of expressing opposition to the War on Iraq, who believe that U.S. military aggression is likely to increase - not deter - terrorism on American shores, and who advocate seeking non-violent solutions to the world's problems through a consensus of peace-minded nations. Scott is an Associate Professor in the School of Music at Northwestern, where he teaches in the Music Education and Music Cognition programs and carries out research related to the processes involved in music listening and their affect upon the listener. He is also co-author of "Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development" (2003, 4th edition, Prentice-Hall) and has been extremely concerned about the lack of response to this issue from the musical community. The recent appearance of organizations like Musicians United to Win Without War (Russell Simmons, Rosanne Cash, Michael Stipe, Dave Matthews, Peter Gabriel, Suzanne Vega, and others) is a welcome occurrence and hopefully only the first of many more that will follow. PETER BAGNALL (Technical consultant) is currently a doctoral student at Lancaster University studying computer science. He spent two years working as a software design consultant in Silicon Valley, and before that four years as a network research engineer for British Telecom. His professional interest is using technology to provide real benefit to society, rather than just to develop flashy gadgets. His thoughts on ethics, politics and technology can be found on his website. JOSHUA DOUGHERTY (Associate researcher) is a guitarist and private instructor. He received his Masters Degree in Jazz Studies from the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, PA, USA in 2004. His website can be found here. CHARLIE FORD (Associate researcher) was awarded a doctorate for his holistic critique of Mozart's Cosi fan tutte in 1989 and has since published on popular music. He is an active member of Amnesty International and an occasional contributor to peaceuk mailings. BÜLENT GÖKAY (Project consultant) is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Keele University. He is co-founder and core researcher of the Keele Southeast Europe Unit. He has authored many books and articles on global politics, the Middle East, Balkans and Central Asia, including A Clash of Empires: Turkey between Russian Bolshevism and British Imperialism (1997), The Politics of Caspian Oil (2001), Eastern Europe Since 1970 (2002), and The Most Dangerous Game in the World: Oil, War, and US Global Hegemony (2002), and is co-editor of the book, War, Terror and Judgement: 11 September 2001 (Feb 2003). MARC HEROLD (Research consultant) is an Associate Professor of Economic Development, International Affairs and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire, USA, where he has taught since 1975. He holds a Master's degree in international business and finance and a Ph.D in Economics from the University of California in Berkeley, as well as an engineering degree in electronics from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic University. He has focused his writings upon social and economic changes in the Second and Third Worlds and his current research interests are on Brazil and Afghanistan, including the latter country's post-war situation. In December 2001 he released a widely cited study of the human costs of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan "A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting"), updates to which may be found at: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold. GLEN RANGWALA (Legal consultant) is a lecturer in politics at Newnham and Trinity Colleges, Cambridge University. He is trained in political theory and international law. His doctorate, from Cambridge University, was in political and legal rhetoric in the Arab Middle East. He is also published on a number of other themes, including international humanitarian law, comparative human rights law, Iraq and nuclear weapons. DAVID FLANAGAN (Technical consultant) is author of JavaScript: The Definitive Guide (among other standard works) and wrote the JavaScript code for Iraq Body Count that keeps our Web Counters updated while making them easy for webmasters to install. JAMES KEMP (Fundraising Adviser) is the Oxford Research Group's Research & Fundraising Officer. Since joining ORG in 2001, James has undertaken research on nuclear terrorism, MoD spending in the UK, government subsidies to UK arms exporters, and funding for conflict prevention. He is currently working on the security of civil nuclear power, and the evolution of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. James has a BSc. (Hons.) in Politics & Anthropology and an MA in Human Rights. ERIC CLARKE (Assistant researcher) is professor of music at the University of Sheffield, where he does research and teaching in the psychology of music. He was an active member of Camden CND in the 1980s, and is a member of Amnesty International. NIKKI DIBBEN (Assistant researcher) is a lecturer in music at Sheffield University where she carries out research into music perception, and gender representations in popular music. MARIANNE FILLENZ (Assistant researcher) is senior research fellow in neuroscience at St Anne's College Oxford and retired University lecturer in Physiology. She was a member of the national committee of Scientists against Nuclear Arms (SANA) and is a present member of Scientists for Global Responsibility. JORDANA LIPSCOMB (Assistant researcher) is a retired litigation attorney and mother of two. Supporting member and event coordinator of Musicians Opposing War (MOW). She received her Bachelors of Arts degree from New York University in Russian Language and her Juris Doctorate Degree from Southwestern University School of Law. She is currently researching the legalities and criminal implications of this war and welcomes information and sources on this subject. DARELL WHITMAN (Assistant researcher) is a post-graduate student with the School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment at Keele University. He holds a Master's degree in Government from California State University, Sacramento, a Master's degree in Political Sociology from Southern Oregon University, and a Juris Doctorate in law from the University of Santa Clara. He is an attorney licensed to practice law in California and U.S. federal courts. He has been a long-time peace and environmental in the U.S., and served on the national organizing committee of the Emergency Committee to Stop the War (Gulf War I) from 1991-1992. DROSILY HAMOURTZIADOU (Assistant Researcher) is a Keele University graduate, holding a doctorate on Nationalism in Bosnia. She worked part-time as a tutor and lecturer before becoming a mother. Since 1998 she has published several papers in books and journals, including 'Rational Fear; Real and Suspected Threats to National Security: The Case of Bosnia', The South Slav Journal, vol 22, Spring-Summer 2001 and 'The Bosniaks: From Nation to Threat', Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, vol 4, November 2002.         Date: 01 May 2007 11:04:19 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On May 1, 12:20 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, "Alan Murphy" > > <afm...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >You don't have much imagination, do you? > >It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq > >is not an unreasonable number when there are > >200,000 violent deaths over the same period in > >a country at peace, albeit with a larger population. > > What nonsense. The study is rubbish. As you continue to remind us, ad nauseum.         Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:59:32 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message news:QYyXh.179106$115.81191@newsfe10.phx... > I saw your url and thought that there was some other source other than the > one I posted about before that is mostly musicians. It is the same group. > Their credentials (from their website) is below. If you have any other > sources, I 'd like to see them. > So you are saying that you can refute their claims? How many death certificates have been issued in Iraq? How many hospital admissions have there been?           Date: 25 Apr 2007 13:09:47 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message news:UpSdnTUNXtxI8bLbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@centurytel.net... > > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message > news:QYyXh.179106$115.81191@newsfe10.phx... >> I saw your url and thought that there was some other source other than >> the >> one I posted about before that is mostly musicians. It is the same group. >> Their credentials (from their website) is below. If you have any other >> sources, I 'd like to see them. >> > So you are saying that you can refute their claims? How many death > certificates have been issued in Iraq? How many hospital admissions have > there been? List O n e other cite. George Bush quoted a bunch of musicans and one credible academic to refute John's Hopkins University. Go with it. Believe what suits your purpose. It seems to be the case. Or find another source ... I'm not holding my breath.             Date: 26 Apr 2007 09:30:45 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message news:IBOXh.179161$115.48854@newsfe10.phx... > > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message > news:UpSdnTUNXtxI8bLbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@centurytel.net... > > > > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message > > news:QYyXh.179106$115.81191@newsfe10.phx... > >> I saw your url and thought that there was some other source other than > >> the > >> one I posted about before that is mostly musicians. It is the same group. > >> Their credentials (from their website) is below. If you have any other > >> sources, I 'd like to see them. > >> > > So you are saying that you can refute their claims? How many death > > certificates have been issued in Iraq? How many hospital admissions have > > there been? > > List O n e other cite. George Bush quoted a bunch of musicans and one > credible academic to refute John's Hopkins University. Go with it. Believe > what suits your purpose. It seems to be the case. Or find another source ... > I'm not holding my breath. > How about the United Nations? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/world/middleeast/16cnd-iraq.html?ex=1326603600&en=abe1dc4a8eb40533&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss               Date: 26 Apr 2007 14:00:35 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! Okay, Moderator posted that the UN finds different figures ... Here are the first 3 paragraphs: BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 - The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security. Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the trajectory of the war and are extremely sensitive for both Iraqi and American officials. Both track the tallies but neither will release them. This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three times higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The Associated Press earlier this month. 1. It was for one year 2. It only includes violent deaths 3. It was done by body counts "attempt" from local morgues, hospitals, and *municipal authorities* etc. which are under control of either Shia or Sunni. 4. The US and Iraq don't release their own figures 5. It was 3 time higher than previously reported by AP You can't argue with someone who doesn't care because they don't care if they are wrong. It's just a bunch of people at a University who risked their lives to go into Iraq and go to individual houses to ask about who died. And why? To discredit who, Bush? That seems to have been done sufficiently to not risk lives and the reputation of the most prestigious school of medicine in the United States. The Red Cross is wrong, The Nobel Prizes are wrong, John Hopkins is wrong. But George Bush, the intellectual giant who would rather be knocking down weeds on his ranch and can't tell that his simple minded loyalty for loosers is hurting the country ... Bush isn't to blame. It's the Republican Party. Not Reagan Republicans, Not Eisenhower Republicans, but Rove Cheney and the like. It's disgusting.                 Date: 02 May 2007 01:31:01 From: Carbon Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:05:52 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:55:10 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > >>> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish. >>> >>> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you are the other >>> village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics can publish a refutation. >> >>It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the >>strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them, >>can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori. >> >>We are dealing with a major intellect here. > > This is coming from someone who posted data on differences in IQ scores > by state. Surely an oversight, but you seem not to have addressed William's comment in your off-topic reply. On the other hand, maybe your response has proven him right. You care more rejecting everything that doesn't conform to your Neocon political agenda than you do about facts.                   Date: 02 May 2007 06:49:54 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! In article <4637e9d5$0$16688$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 20:05:52 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > > On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:55:10 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > > >>> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish. > >>> > >>> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you are the other > >>> village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics can publish a refutation. > >> > >>It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the > >>strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them, > >>can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori. > >> > >>We are dealing with a major intellect here. > > > > This is coming from someone who posted data on differences in IQ scores > > by state. > > Surely an oversight, but you seem not to have addressed William's comment > in your off-topic reply. > > On the other hand, maybe your response has proven him right. You care more > rejecting everything that doesn't conform to your Neocon political agenda > than you do about facts. He never does address content, he simply goes after the messenger. That is his style of "discussion". Son of Karl Rove, I think. Or maybe father. William Clark                 Date: 27 Apr 2007 11:07:56 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message news:rr8Yh.8862$Fk2.3402@newsfe08.phx... > Okay, Moderator posted that the UN finds different figures ... > > Here are the first 3 paragraphs: > > BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 - The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000 > Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first > comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the > failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security. > > Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the > trajectory of the war and are extremely sensitive for both Iraqi and > American officials. Both track the tallies but neither will release them. > > This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths > for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues, > hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three times > higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The > Associated Press earlier this month. > > 1. It was for one year > 2. It only includes violent deaths > 3. It was done by body counts "attempt" from local morgues, hospitals, and > *municipal authorities* etc. which are under control of either Shia or > Sunni. > 4. The US and Iraq don't release their own figures > 5. It was 3 time higher than previously reported by AP > > You can't argue with someone who doesn't care because they don't care if > they are wrong. It's just a bunch of people at a University who risked their > lives to go into Iraq and go to individual houses to ask about who died. And > why? To discredit who, Bush? That seems to have been done sufficiently to > not risk lives and the reputation of the most prestigious school of medicine > in the United States. The Red Cross is wrong, The Nobel Prizes are wrong, > John Hopkins is wrong. But George Bush, the intellectual giant who would > rather be knocking down weeds on his ranch and can't tell that his simple > minded loyalty for loosers is hurting the country ... Bush isn't to blame. > It's the Republican Party. Not Reagan Republicans, Not Eisenhower > Republicans, but Rove Cheney and the like. It's disgusting. You left off number six. 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable. I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes they have supported a lie.                   Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:19:54 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message news:ULOdne1nSKtAgq_bnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net... > > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message > news:rr8Yh.8862$Fk2.3402@newsfe08.phx... >> Okay, Moderator posted that the UN finds different figures ... >> >> Here are the first 3 paragraphs: >> >> BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 - The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than > 34,000 >> Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the > first >> comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the >> failure the Iraqi government and American military to provide security. >> >> Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the >> trajectory of the war and are extremely sensitive for both Iraqi and >> American officials. Both track the tallies but neither will release them. >> >> This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual > deaths >> for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues, >> hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three >> times >> higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by > The >> Associated Press earlier this month. >> >> 1. It was for one year >> 2. It only includes violent deaths >> 3. It was done by body counts "attempt" from local morgues, hospitals, >> and >> *municipal authorities* etc. which are under control of either Shia or >> Sunni. >> 4. The US and Iraq don't release their own figures >> 5. It was 3 time higher than previously reported by AP >> >> You can't argue with someone who doesn't care because they don't care if >> they are wrong. It's just a bunch of people at a University who risked > their >> lives to go into Iraq and go to individual houses to ask about who died. > And >> why? To discredit who, Bush? That seems to have been done sufficiently to >> not risk lives and the reputation of the most prestigious school of > medicine >> in the United States. The Red Cross is wrong, The Nobel Prizes are wrong, >> John Hopkins is wrong. But George Bush, the intellectual giant who would >> rather be knocking down weeds on his ranch and can't tell that his simple >> minded loyalty for loosers is hurting the country ... Bush isn't to >> blame. >> It's the Republican Party. Not Reagan Republicans, Not Eisenhower >> Republicans, but Rove Cheney and the like. It's disgusting. > > You left off number six. > > 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable. > > I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people > over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs > out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full > bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes > they have supported a lie. Johns Hopkins did send people over. Martyrs are people who are killed and none of them were killed. You say that the UN thing makes the Lancet study improbable but even the UN study says that 34,000 were killed in one year and doesn't include a large part of the figures by design. I don't know for sure that the Lancet study is right but it doesn't have any real detractors, imo. And we know the Bush administration lies. I guess they justify it as the work of God. I don't blame anyone for disliking liberals. But couldn't they find someone better than a guy who really doesn't understand the job of president or really want to be doing it? His statement that the next administration would get stuck with the war is probably a good statement of his frustration and lack of engagement with the actual realities of the war.                     Date: 30 Apr 2007 08:41:39 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message news:qXsYh.236561$JN6.204992@newsfe17.phx... > > Johns Hopkins did send people over. Martyrs are people who are killed and > none of them were killed. You say that the UN thing makes the Lancet study > improbable but even the UN study says that 34,000 were killed in one year > and doesn't include a large part of the figures by design. I don't know for > sure that the Lancet study is right but it doesn't have any real detractors, > imo. And we know the Bush administration lies. I guess they justify it as > the work of God. > > I don't blame anyone for disliking liberals. But couldn't they find someone > better than a guy who really doesn't understand the job of president or > really want to be doing it? His statement that the next administration would > get stuck with the war is probably a good statement of his frustration and > lack of engagement with the actual realities of the war. Who did John Hopkins send? So now you don't know if the Lancet study is correct, but last week you wanted to bet $1,000 that it was correct.                       Date: 30 Apr 2007 13:07:16 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message news:_4adnR-zRJKJb6jbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@centurytel.net... > > "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message > news:qXsYh.236561$JN6.204992@newsfe17.phx... >> >> Johns Hopkins did send people over. Martyrs are people who are killed and >> none of them were killed. You say that the UN thing makes the Lancet >> study >> improbable but even the UN study says that 34,000 were killed in one year >> and doesn't include a large part of the figures by design. I don't know > for >> sure that the Lancet study is right but it doesn't have any real > detractors, >> imo. And we know the Bush administration lies. I guess they justify it as >> the work of God. >> >> I don't blame anyone for disliking liberals. But couldn't they find > someone >> better than a guy who really doesn't understand the job of president or >> really want to be doing it? His statement that the next administration > would >> get stuck with the war is probably a good statement of his frustration >> and >> lack of engagement with the actual realities of the war. > > Who did John Hopkins send? > > So now you don't know if the Lancet study is correct, but last week you > wanted to bet $1,000 that it was correct. It was 100 - 1000 and I'm still willing to bet. Probability. It's a good bet. Lancet doesn't "know". I'll get back to you on who they sent. I don't have a dog in this fight. I wish the numbers were lower. I wouldn't mind if Guiliani or Mc Cain or Tommy Thompson got elected, although Rudy is sounding kind of flakey lately. And I wish the "surge" would work. I've never voted for a democrat for president or a Republican either, only Perot because I thought he was outside the political game. If that makes me a nut, ok but Perot was the one who got the deficit into the debates and he said we should have a strong militiary because there were always going to be wars among other things that were 99% right, including health care and NAFTA and the WTO. If you remember Perot got his people out of Iran when the US government wouldn't or couldn't. Didn't he go to Iran himself? I think he did. Anyway, George Bush is an idiot or at least not suited for the job of president, but he is a perfect puppet for people who seem to hell bent on some religious or other mission that is destructive to the US. I believe that there may be some or a lot of insanity behind this. Our vice president voted against a resolution commending Nelson Mandela, one of 3 or 4 people in the house or senate ... ? ... Doesn't that bother you? (when he was either a representative or senator). You Republicans had better get your act together and get someone like Reagan to run and get rid of the stupid taz cuts for the top 1% of the rich. That's as stupid as supporting partial birth abortion on the other side. I don't know if K street isn't an addiction that the Republicans will die from. Maybe. When the left gets religion and the religious right realizes that the "conservatives" have no interest in supporting real Christian principles and the left realizes that gay marriage is a stupid issue to put in their platform, there may be a huge change. I'll get back with you on what Americans went to Iraq to help with the Lancet study.                         Date: 01 May 2007 09:00:27 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message news:Y1sZh.20155$Fk2.19497@newsfe08.phx... > > > It was 100 - 1000 and I'm still willing to bet. Probability. It's a good > bet. Lancet doesn't "know". I'll get back to you on who they sent. I don't > have a dog in this fight. I wish the numbers were lower. I wouldn't mind if > Guiliani or Mc Cain or Tommy Thompson got elected, although Rudy is sounding > kind of flakey lately. And I wish the "surge" would work. I've never voted > for a democrat for president or a Republican either, only Perot because I > thought he was outside the political game. If that makes me a nut, ok but > Perot was the one who got the deficit into the debates and he said we should > have a strong militiary because there were always going to be wars among > other things that were 99% right, including health care and NAFTA and the > WTO. > > If you remember Perot got his people out of Iran when the US government > wouldn't or couldn't. Didn't he go to Iran himself? I think he did. Anyway, > George Bush is an idiot or at least not suited for the job of president, but > he is a perfect puppet for people who seem to hell bent on some religious or > other mission that is destructive to the US. I believe that there may be > some or a lot of insanity behind this. Our vice president voted against a > resolution commending Nelson Mandela, one of 3 or 4 people in the house or > senate ... ? ... Doesn't that bother you? (when he was either a > representative or senator). You Republicans had better get your act together > and get someone like Reagan to run and get rid of the stupid taz cuts for > the top 1% of the rich. That's as stupid as supporting partial birth > abortion on the other side. I don't know if K street isn't an addiction that > the Republicans will die from. Maybe. When the left gets religion and the > religious right realizes that the "conservatives" have no interest in > supporting real Christian principles and the left realizes that gay marriage > is a stupid issue to put in their platform, there may be a huge change. > > I'll get back with you on what Americans went to Iraq to help with the > Lancet study. After that bizarre rant I can see why you have put all your trust in the Lancet study.                   Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:25:17 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message news:ULOdne1nSKtAgq_bnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net... > > You left off number six. > > 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable. > > I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people > over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs > out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full > bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes > they have supported a lie. > We do know for certain that there are about 50,000 violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United States every year. 200,000 over a 4 year period which is the duration of the Iraqi war. Conditions in Iraq are unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is unreasonable?                     Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:15:10 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:25:17 +0100, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote: >We do know for certain that there are about 50,000 >violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United >States every year. There were about 17,000 homicides in the US in 2005. >200,000 over a 4 year period which >is the duration of the Iraqi war. 70,000 is a more accurate figure. >Conditions in Iraq are >unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that >a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is >unreasonable? The Population of the US is almost 300 million. The population of Iraq is around 27 million. So much for your analysis Alan.                       Date: 28 Apr 2007 04:32:00 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:48m433hgf5ifkmnpqr83ibdr6fai180o0c@4ax.com... > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:25:17 +0100, "Alan Murphy" > <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>We do know for certain that there are about 50,000 >>violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United >>States every year. > > There were about 17,000 homicides in the US in 2005. > >>200,000 over a 4 year period which >>is the duration of the Iraqi war. > > 70,000 is a more accurate figure. > >>Conditions in Iraq are >>unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that >>a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is >>unreasonable? > > > The Population of the US is almost 300 million. The population of > Iraq is around 27 million. > > So much for your analysis Alan. US Government statistics from the Centre for Disease Control state that there were 49,639 violent deaths in the US in 2003. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5526a1.htm This supports my figure of 200,000 violent deaths in the US over a 4 year period. We are all well aware that the population of the US is about 10x that of Iraq but some of us are also aware that, whilst the US is at peace, Iraq is in the midst of an exceedingly violent and bloody civil war visited upon it by the US. Killing methods, apart from those inflicted by the military, range from suicide bombings to ethnic cleansing carried out by heavily armed death squads. On-the-ground media cover of this conflict is negligible due to the hostile environment. Lancet/JH, on the other hand, sent in researchers using standard statistical methods and their findings were supported in 92% of the cases by the actual death certificates. These were similar to the methods used to estimate the death tolls in Darfur and the Holocaust. Why do you even attempt to obfuscate in the face of these undeniable facts?                         Date: 28 Apr 2007 10:57:00 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:32:00 +0100, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote: >Why do you even attempt to obfuscate in the face of >these undeniable facts? Counting suicide, what nonsense. In any case, this has nothing relevant to say about the Lancet study one way or the other.                           Date: 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:43o6331dsq0rl3pbt77br0ft4kqtfhoaiv@4ax.com... > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:32:00 +0100, "Alan Murphy" > <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>Why do you even attempt to obfuscate in the face of >>these undeniable facts? > > Counting suicide, what nonsense. > Violent deaths include suicides. WTF do you think happens to suicide bombers after the detonation. > In any case, this has nothing relevant to say about the Lancet study > one way or the other. You don't have much imagination, do you? It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq is not an unreasonable number when there are 200,000 violent deaths over the same period in a country at peace, albeit with a larger population. Look at it in another way. There have been about 3,500 deaths and about 27,000 serious injuries to coalition forces in Iraq. Many of the injuries would have resulted in death had it not been for the body armour worn. These troops are heavily armed and protected and yet there have been 30,000 deaths or serious casualties, a huge number for a protected force. Consider the civil war in which Shias are pitted against Sunnis as well as against coalition forces. Shooting and suicide bombing each other must be like shooting fish in a barrel compared to injuring coalition forces. 25 Iraqi deaths for each coalition casualty is by no means an unreasonable number. The Lancet/JH study viewed death certificates in 92% cases. The methodology used is accepted by all authorities on the subject as being the most suitable for the purpose. Why do you continue to deny the findings?                             Date: 01 May 2007 12:20:44 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote: >You don't have much imagination, do you? >It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq >is not an unreasonable number when there are >200,000 violent deaths over the same period in >a country at peace, albeit with a larger population. What nonsense. The study is rubbish.                               Date: 01 May 2007 17:59:01 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:36qe339tj7clm6pq2dgp0m101hlh6cg4ek@4ax.com... > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, "Alan Murphy" > <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote: > >>You don't have much imagination, do you? >>It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq >>is not an unreasonable number when there are >>200,000 violent deaths over the same period in >>a country at peace, albeit with a larger population. > > What nonsense. The study is rubbish. That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you are the other village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics can publish a refutation.                                 Date: 01 May 2007 17:55:10 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! In article <dZmdnS6kH4lI7KrbRVnyiwA@bt.com >, "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote: > "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message > news:36qe339tj7clm6pq2dgp0m101hlh6cg4ek@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:37:10 +0100, "Alan Murphy" > > <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > >>You don't have much imagination, do you? > >>It says that 650,000 deaths over 4 years in Iraq > >>is not an unreasonable number when there are > >>200,000 violent deaths over the same period in > >>a country at peace, albeit with a larger population. > > > > What nonsense. The study is rubbish. > > That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you > are the other village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics > can publish a refutation. It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them, can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori. We are dealing with a major intellect here. William Clark                                   Date: 01 May 2007 20:05:52 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:55:10 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish. >> >> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you >> are the other village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics >> can publish a refutation. > >It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the >strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them, >can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori. > >We are dealing with a major intellect here. This is coming from someone who posted data on differences in IQ scores by state.                                     Date: 01 May 2007 22:18:27 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! In article <palf33ha3opbbviaverh6j29bd0iuciho6@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:55:10 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> > What nonsense. The study is rubbish. > >> > >> That reply is worthy of Llllarry. But then again you > >> are the other village idiot. Perhaps Popular Mechanics > >> can publish a refutation. > > > >It must be remembered that all studies that show ANYTHING other than the > >strict WH, neocon, line are "rubbish" to Jack. He hasn't read them, > >can't reference them, but he just KNOWS they are rubbish a priori. > > > >We are dealing with a major intellect here. > > This is coming from someone who posted data on differences in IQ > scores by state. Oh, dear, Jack. Caught out by your own lack of a sense of humor, I see. Tut, tut. William Clark                         Date: 27 Apr 2007 22:23:55 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! This guy said things I was afraid to think ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA snip (sorry)                     Date: 27 Apr 2007 19:59:47 From: Chuck Davis Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message news:Uu6dnSj2JryE06_bRVnyvgA@bt.com... > .... > We do know for certain that there are about 50,000 > violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United > States every year. 200,000 over a 4 year period which > is the duration of the Iraqi war. Conditions in Iraq are > unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that > a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is > unreasonable? > Since the Iraq population is a little over 8% of the U.S. population, an equivalent number to 200,000 would be about 17,000 violent deaths in the 4 years. All of Iraq may be 40 times as dangerous as the U.S., I don't know, but the number seems awfully high. Good luck to everyone in resolving this. Chuck Davis                       Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:22:59 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "Chuck Davis" <Newsgroup@hiscastle.net > wrote in message news:TCsYh.7378$B25.5545@news01.roc.ny... > > "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:Uu6dnSj2JryE06_bRVnyvgA@bt.com... >> .... >> We do know for certain that there are about 50,000 >> violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United >> States every year. 200,000 over a 4 year period which >> is the duration of the Iraqi war. Conditions in Iraq are >> unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that >> a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is >> unreasonable? >> > Since the Iraq population is a little over 8% of the U.S. population, an > equivalent number to 200,000 would be about 17,000 violent deaths in the 4 > years. All of Iraq may be 40 times as dangerous as the U.S., I don't > know, but the number seems awfully high. > > Good luck to everyone in resolving this. > > Chuck Davis The range is from 300,00+ - 900,000+ 600,000+ is the most likely number according to their study. It's a bell shaped curve for the probability, so there is a 50-50 chance that the number is higher.                     Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:52:19 From: sfb Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! Yes. Iraq population is 26M, US is 300M. "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message news:Uu6dnSj2JryE06_bRVnyvgA@bt.com... > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message > news:ULOdne1nSKtAgq_bnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net... >> >> You left off number six. >> >> 6. It shows the lancet study to be very, very improbable. >> >> I read the original Lancet study. It does not state that the sent people >> over from the University to do the study. You are trying to make martyrs >> out of them. I can tell you are doubting the Lancet study, you are full >> bore on the petty insults. A telling reaction from someone who realizes >> they have supported a lie. >> > We do know for certain that there are about 50,000 > violent deaths(homicides and suicides), in the United > States every year. 200,000 over a 4 year period which > is the duration of the Iraqi war. Conditions in Iraq are > unimaginably more dangerous. Why do you suppose that > a death toll of 650,000 in Iraq over a four year period is > unreasonable? > > > >   Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:43:03 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 23, 3:30 pm, Dene <gdst...@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net> > wrote: > > > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages, > > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear > > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was > > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled. > > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised > > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting > > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the > > last century is there for all to see. > > Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were > trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But > since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a > part in that. > What part have we played? I know of nothing tangible the US did to promote democracy in Latin America, which was never in danger of "turning into another Cuba."   Date: 23 Apr 2007 12:30:21 From: Dene Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net > wrote: > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages, > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled. > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the > last century is there for all to see. Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a part in that. -Greg     Date: 24 Apr 2007 14:58:58 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! In article <1177356620.986522.120870@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 22, 2:27 pm, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net> > wrote: > > In article <1177036991.892102.120...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > > > We promote democracy by using economic and political leverages, > > > preferably with the cooperation of other nations, so it doesn't appear > > > that the lone superpower is being imperialistic. This strategy was > > > successful in Central and South America, where dictators once ruled. > > > > This is a marvel of brainwashing and ignorance that would have surprised > > even Orwell. The US record of demolishing democracy and supporting > > murderous thugs and death squad governments in S. and C. America in the > > last century is there for all to see. > > Last century....yes, particularily during the Cold War when we were > trying to keep a whole continent from turning into another Cuba. But > since the Cold War, the SA has become democratic, and we have played a > part in that. The US government is widely hated throughout the region for its massive support of terror operations, brutal dictators, coups against democratic governments - not to mention outright invasions - over the decades. You can see how much the US loves democracy by the speed with which it embraced the coup against Chavez in Venezuela.   Date: 21 Apr 2007 21:51:23 From: dsc Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 20, 10:00 pm, "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com > wrote: > "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Apr 19, 10:19 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote: > >> > Better > >> > their blood than that of your son or daughter. > > >> That is partly why I'm less concerned about civilian casualties than > >> many people are... better that than our troops. > > > Unless you're an Iraqi, of course. > > > BTW, what is the current conversion rate? > > 1 American life = how many Iraqis? Let me put it this way... if we were under fire from a building containing insurgents and non-insurgents... the answer would be however many are in that building.   Date: 21 Apr 2007 10:24:20 From: Miss Anne Thrope Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! Crap. The over/under was 185.   Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:38:27 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 20, 1:12 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > > > BTW, what is the current conversion rate? > > > 1 American life = how many Iraqis? > > > According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there > > were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. > The Lancet study is not accurate at all. I would not quote it until you do > some research OK, so what are the correct numbers?   Date: 19 Apr 2007 22:17:32 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 19, 10:19 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote: > > Better > > their blood than that of your son or daughter. > > That is partly why I'm less concerned about civilian casualties than > many people are... better that than our troops. Unless you're an Iraqi, of course. BTW, what is the current conversion rate? 1 American life = how many Iraqis?     Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:35:10 From: Carbon Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:12:10 -0700, AKA gray asphalt wrote: > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1177683956.611363.228240@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, John B. wrote: >>> > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete >>> >> rubbish. >>> >>> > How the hell do you know? >>> >>> He doesn't, of course. Like all the other neocons here, Jack prefers >>> the study with more convenient numbers. Even if it was written by >>> musicians and librarians. >> >> This idea that conservatives have - that all public policy research >> conducted at US universties is suspect because of the liberal >> tendencies of academia - is incredibly stupid. It shows they have run >> out of any intelligent arguments for their president and his policies. > > ... especially since the same people used the same methods in Darfur and > other places and the statistics were accepted by the administration > without question. They obviously have -0- idea what the true numbers are. What a joke.     Date: 27 Apr 2007 07:25:56 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, John B. wrote: > > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: > >> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a > >> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness, > >> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and > >> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it? > > >> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish. > > > How the hell do you know? > > He doesn't, of course. Like all the other neocons here, Jack prefers the > study with more convenient numbers. Even if it was written by musicians > and librarians. This idea that conservatives have - that all public policy research conducted at US universties is suspect because of the liberal tendencies of academia - is incredibly stupid. It shows they have run out of any intelligent arguments for their president and his policies.       Date: 27 Apr 2007 13:12:10 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1177683956.611363.228240@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, John B. wrote: >> > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a >> >> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness, >> >> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and >> >> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it? >> >> >> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish. >> >> > How the hell do you know? >> >> He doesn't, of course. Like all the other neocons here, Jack prefers the >> study with more convenient numbers. Even if it was written by musicians >> and librarians. > > This idea that conservatives have - that all public policy research > conducted at US universties is suspect because of the liberal > tendencies of academia - is incredibly stupid. It shows they have run > out of any intelligent arguments for their president and his policies. ... especially since the same people used the same methods in Darfur and other places and the statistics were accepted by the administration without question.     Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:16:21 From: Carbon Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, John B. wrote: > On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: >> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a >> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness, >> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and >> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it? >> >> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish. > > How the hell do you know? He doesn't, of course. Like all the other neocons here, Jack prefers the study with more convenient numbers. Even if it was written by musicians and librarians.     Date: 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 From: John B. Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote: > On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a > >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness, > >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and > >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it? > > You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish. How the hell do you know?       Date: 27 Apr 2007 10:50:09 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: >> On 26 Apr 2007 11:08:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >OK, what's their agenda? Wait, don't tell me, let me guess. JH is a >> >university and universities are hot-beds of far left subversiveness, >> >so JH could only be interested in dicrediting the war effort and >> >embarrassing the Bush Administration. Is that it? >> >> You hit the nail right on the head. The JH study is complete rubbish. > >How the hell do you know? Here is the response to the article from the anti-war group Iraqi Body Count which collects data on the same issue. "Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 October 2006 Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty Summary A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that: 1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; 2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; 3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; 4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; 5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja. If these assertions are true, they further imply: * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy." http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php In addition, the UN also collects data on deaths and casualties that is nowhere near the figure quoted by the Lancet. The study is rubbish.         Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:55:53 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:50:09 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: >On 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: <clip > > >The study is rubbish. My question to you is: How the fuck do you know? No one knows for sure about anything in Iraq, and you certainly aren't the expert. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to at least add "in my opinion"? That's all this is you know. bk           Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:57:20 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:55:53 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:50:09 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> >wrote: > >>On 27 Apr 2007 06:01:50 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: ><clip> >> >>The study is rubbish. > > My question to you is: >How the fuck do you know? No one knows for sure about anything in >Iraq, and you certainly aren't the expert. Wouldn't it be more >reasonable to at least add "in my opinion"? That's all this is you >know. >bk There are a number of groups that collect this data. The UN (certainly no friend of the US) has a figure that were about 15% of the Lancet figure. The IBC group has a figure that is around 10% of the Lancet figure. One month before the Lancet study was released, the Institute for Policy Studies, a left wing group, published their update on casualty figures and their top range was 100K. "U.S. military killed in Iraq: 2,656 Number of U.S. troops wounded in combat since the war began: 19,773 Iraqi police and military deaths: 5,323 Iraqi civilians killed: Estimates range from 41,639 - 100,000" http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/cow9-06.pdf So, when you see one study that is so far out of the range of every other group that is doing the same work, you have to smell a rat. I say again, the Lancet study is rubbish. BTW, the Lancet also released a civilian casualties study in Oct 2004 one month before the election. It was rubbish as well.     Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:00:47 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 19, 10:19 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote: >> > Better >> > their blood than that of your son or daughter. >> >> That is partly why I'm less concerned about civilian casualties than >> many people are... better that than our troops. > > Unless you're an Iraqi, of course. > > BTW, what is the current conversion rate? > 1 American life = how many Iraqis? How many Sudanese (Darfur) = 1 Iranian? How many Sudanese = 1 Iranian if they didn't have oil?     Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:55:18 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > BTW, what is the current conversion rate? > 1 American life = how many Iraqis? > According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. About 3,500 American casualties to date. I'm so sickened by the unbelievable nightmare that everyone in Iraq is living through that I can't bring myself to do the math. BTW not a mention of oil in this thread, not even by Carbon. That's like discussing the Israel/Palestinian situation without mentioning Zionism. Or Victorians writing novels without mentioning sex - if you prefer the late Kurt Vonnegut's take.       Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:47:47 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: >> William Clark > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun? I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data.         Date: 21 Apr 2007 16:52:01 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator" > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > >> William Clark > > > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun? > > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data. Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it? William Clark           Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: What's Really Important. "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator" > > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > > >> William Clark > > > > > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun? > > > > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data. > > Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose > data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as > one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it? > > William Clark I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken.             Date: 23 Apr 2007 15:50:34 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0500, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message >news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>, >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator" >> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> William Clark >> > > >> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun? >> > >> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data. >> >> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose >> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as >> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it? >> >> William Clark > >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken. I can't find it either.               Date: 27 Apr 2007 07:57:07 From: John B. Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Apr 26, 6:52 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> > wrote: > > >On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy > ><p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > > >>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled > >>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's > >>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year. > > >There is no SSTF. > > Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not > Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding > that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the > general fund) that is collected for SS. > > Larry Dead wrong. How unlike you. Anybody with even a passing interest in the federal budget and who knows how to read has always known that there is no discrete SS trust fund. How could you hide something like that? It was not, as you claim, a secret until GW Bush came along and proclaimed it. He didn't even know what SS was when he came to office. He said during a debate w/Gore in 2000 that people talk about SS "as if it were some kind of government program."                 Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:04:42 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On 27 Apr 2007 07:57:07 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >Dead wrong. How unlike you. Anybody with even a passing interest in >the federal budget and who knows how to read has always known that >there is no discrete SS trust fund. How could you hide something like >that? It was not, as you claim, a secret until GW Bush came along and >proclaimed it. It's true that anyone who took the time to study the issue would soon realize that there is no money in the SSTF. The government has been taking the money from the SSTF from day one. However, GWB was the first President who sent out people to tell the public that this is the case. All his predecessors were not willing to be so open about the mythical SSTF.               Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:41:58 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <lf3q23lihq1kp6hht31mguu69aneagevqb@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0500, "the Moderator" > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > >news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>, > >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator" > >> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> William Clark > >> > > > >> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun? > >> > > >> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data. > >> > >> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose > >> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as > >> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it? > >> > >> William Clark > > > >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken. > > I can't find it either. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991. Thank you. William Clark                 Date: 24 Apr 2007 15:39:07 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:41:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >> >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken. >> >> I can't find it either. > >Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News >Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991. > >Thank you. > >William Clark I still don't see it Bill. Could you please post a hyperlink to the original article, or perhaps to the article that you saw the 29% figure. Hopefully, it wasn't this piece of crap from an anti gun group. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm You will see the 29% rate but it's not an ATF figure.                   Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:31:31 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <hgms23h0vo8pe8u3rlhttej7ih0rejtit2@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:41:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >> >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken. > >> > >> I can't find it either. > > > >Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News > >Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991. > > > >Thank you. > > > >William Clark > > I still don't see it Bill. Could you please post a hyperlink to the > original article, or perhaps to the article that you saw the 29% > figure. > > Hopefully, it wasn't this piece of crap from an anti gun group. > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm > > You will see the 29% rate but it's not an ATF figure. You know, not everything published has to be on the web. We have such things as libraries (remember those?), so go get some exercise. I'm not going to do it all for you. Of course, you could also look at the figures in the current issue of Newsweek, but then you wouldn't want to trust a "lefty" publication like that, now would you? William Clark                     Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:28:10 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:31:31 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> Hopefully, it wasn't this piece of crap from an anti gun group. >> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm >> >> You will see the 29% rate but it's not an ATF figure. > >You know, not everything published has to be on the web. We have such >things as libraries (remember those?), so go get some exercise. I'm not >going to do it all for you. > >Of course, you could also look at the figures in the current issue of >Newsweek, but then you wouldn't want to trust a "lefty" publication like >that, now would you? > >William Clark I waiting to see anything, from anywhere. However, if you're taking the web site run by Tom Huppi seriously, then you need to reevaluate your analytical abilities. You know Bill, when I quote you crime statistcs, they come from the UK Home Office and the UN. Then I get Tom Huppi in return.                       Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <v7lu23hi5sk97f1skgsq57uuhoeltiab25@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:31:31 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> Hopefully, it wasn't this piece of crap from an anti gun group. > >> > >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm > >> > >> You will see the 29% rate but it's not an ATF figure. > > > >You know, not everything published has to be on the web. We have such > >things as libraries (remember those?), so go get some exercise. I'm not > >going to do it all for you. > > > >Of course, you could also look at the figures in the current issue of > >Newsweek, but then you wouldn't want to trust a "lefty" publication like > >that, now would you? > > > >William Clark > > I waiting to see anything, from anywhere. However, if you're taking > the web site run by Tom Huppi seriously, then you need to reevaluate > your analytical abilities. > > You know Bill, when I quote you crime statistcs, they come from the UK > Home Office and the UN. Then I get Tom Huppi in return. Sorry - where did this Huppi notion come from? I gave you two hard copy data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek. I can give you a whole lot more, but you already have three sources to read, and you still keep bleating that you are "waiting to see anything". Pathetic. There are none so blind as those that will not see, or who are too lazy to stir out of their comfortable neocon cocoon and look at the world for what it is. All you do in return is quote figures from the UK Govt. (which surprises me, since it clearly falls in the dangerous "liberal" category). Until you can actually do a little homework and come up with something (anything) that constitutes a point of discussion supported by verifiable data, I have no more time to waste on your thread. Childish attempts at put downs are really getting boring. William Clark                         Date: 25 Apr 2007 21:47:42 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >I gave you two hard copy >data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a >fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek. I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from the book "Where We Stand." I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything.                           Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >I gave you two hard copy > >data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a > >fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek. > > I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking > about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only > source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from > the book "Where We Stand." > > I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. William Clark                             Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:22:41 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the >> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > >For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember >those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > >Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > >William Clark If I give you my fax number will you fax it to me?                               Date: 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <te2233d705tjqs2e4uda2bocfc5llv947a@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > >> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > > > >For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember > >those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > > > >Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > > > >William Clark > > If I give you my fax number will you fax it to me? Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you good. In the meantime, please don't be so childish as to think that my refusal to wet nurse you implies I do not have the articles. That's just too Karl Roveian to be credible. William Clark                                 Date: 27 Apr 2007 18:30:22 From: BAR Subject: Re: What's Really Important. William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <te2233d705tjqs2e4uda2bocfc5llv947a@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >> >>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the >>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. >>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember >>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. >>> >>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. >>> >>> William Clark >> If I give you my fax number will you fax it to me? > > Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red > building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to > get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you > good. > > In the meantime, please don't be so childish as to think that my refusal > to wet nurse you implies I do not have the articles. That's just too > Karl Roveian to be credible. Hey Billy give the guy a bone and go to Kinko's and fax him a page or two.                                   Date: 28 Apr 2007 10:51:01 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <R4edncZpFZYc5K_bnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@comcast.com >, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <te2233d705tjqs2e4uda2bocfc5llv947a@4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:17:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >> > >>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > >>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > >>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember > >>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > >>> > >>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > >>> > >>> William Clark > >> If I give you my fax number will you fax it to me? > > > > Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red > > building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to > > get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you > > good. > > > > In the meantime, please don't be so childish as to think that my refusal > > to wet nurse you implies I do not have the articles. That's just too > > Karl Roveian to be credible. > > Hey Billy give the guy a bone and go to Kinko's and fax him a page or two. No, it's much more fun to leave him twisting in the wind. William Clark                                     Date: 28 Apr 2007 11:13:51 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:51:01 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >No, it's much more fun to leave him twisting in the wind. > >William Clark It's not me who's twisting Bill.                                   Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:43:09 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:30:22 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote: >> In the meantime, please don't be so childish as to think that my refusal >> to wet nurse you implies I do not have the articles. That's just too >> Karl Roveian to be credible. > >Hey Billy give the guy a bone and go to Kinko's and fax him a page or two. Hopefully he wouldn't have to go that far.                                 Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:32:25 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red >building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to >get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you >good. LOL, I knew you didn't have it.                                   Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:12:23 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <cdg433legog78a242k6r4vjp9q22pdq0ue@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red > >building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to > >get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you > >good. > > LOL, I knew you didn't have it. There you go - typical Rovian sneering smear. You know, I would go to the trouble of Xeroxing and faxing the article to you if I believed for one second that you were actually interested in the content, but you aren't. All you care about doing is protecting the neocon line, and trashing anyone and anything that doesn't agree with it. That is what you do in every discusision. Thus you are simply not worth the time of day or the cost of a copy. You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the world the kind of person you really are. William Clark                                     Date: 27 Apr 2007 20:55:44 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:12:23 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the >world the kind of person you really are. > >William Clark I'm the kind of person who knows when a person's been caught with his pants down and tries to bullshit his way out of it. BTW, Bill you posted this a few days back: >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source?                                       Date: 30 Apr 2007 13:59:41 From: John B. Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > > <clark...@osu.edu> wrote: > >> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way > >> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide > >> rate. > > >That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking > >your ball and going home. > > >Fine with me. > > >William Clark > > The game is going fine. You're not even in the ball park. > > Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate > is higher in Switzerland than the UK. My God, Jack, do you really have nothing better to do than this? I'm starting to think you're in prison and using the computer in the library.                                         Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:43:33 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <1177966780.976819.47460@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > > > > <clark...@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way > > >> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide > > >> rate. > > > > >That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking > > >your ball and going home. > > > > >Fine with me. > > > > >William Clark > > > > The game is going fine. You're not even in the ball park. > > > > Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate > > is higher in Switzerland than the UK. > > My God, Jack, do you really have nothing better to do than this? I'm > starting to think you're in prison and using the computer in the > library. Yup, it's pretty pathetic, isn't it? Actually, prison sounds like a good guess, seeing as he is apparently unable to get to any of the data references I keep giving him. I wonder what he's there for? William Clark                                       Date: 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <ne653392v3jmb7rmtqtmirb555pb0el3nq@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:12:23 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the > >world the kind of person you really are. > > > >William Clark > > I'm the kind of person who knows when a person's been caught with his > pants down and tries to bullshit his way out of it. Oh, you are, are you. Well, I'm the kind of person who knows who it is worth spending time to exchange views with, and who isn't. Guess which category you drop into? > > > BTW, Bill you posted this a few days back: > > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. > > I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs > from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but > never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source? And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did you look at those? William Clark                                         Date: 28 Apr 2007 11:18:02 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. >> >> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs >> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but >> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source? > >And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did >you look at those? > >William Clark So you're telling me that Newsweek reported that "Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, and Switzerland at 2.25." I seriously doubt that. Let me see them? Post a hyperlink. Until you do that you're just posting unsubstantiated data. Credibility means being able to back up what you say.                                           Date: 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <a6p633ti5p0kfp4cevc0pq9h6g09e2f1nq@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. > >> > >> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs > >> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but > >> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source? > > > >And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did > >you look at those? > > > >William Clark > > So you're telling me that Newsweek reported that "Overall murder rates > shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, and Switzerland at > 2.25." > > I seriously doubt that. > > Let me see them? Post a hyperlink. Until you do that you're just > posting unsubstantiated data. Credibility means being able to back up > what you say. No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at 6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 (11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? You can only hyperlink if you subscribe to Newsweek (xtra.Newsweek.com), but you can toddle off to your local bookstore and buy a copy of the magazine (April 30 edition) for $4.95. The numbers are on page 44 and 45. Now whose credibility is sorely lacking? William Clark                                             Date: 28 Apr 2007 21:52:33 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 >per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at >6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 >(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most >recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? Different cultures will have different murder rates irrespective of what tools they use. Hutus only needed machetes to wipe out the Tutsis. The problem is criminality, not what tool each culture or society chooses to use.                                               Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:46:00 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:52:33 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote: >On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" ><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: >>No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 >>per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at >>6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 >>(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most >>recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? > >Different cultures will have different murder rates irrespective of >what tools they use. Hutus only needed machetes to wipe out the >Tutsis. The problem is criminality, not what tool each culture or >society chooses to use. Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue.                                                 Date: 29 Apr 2007 17:01:51 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:52:33 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov> > wrote: > >>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: >>>No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 >>>per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at >>>6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 >>>(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most >>>recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? >> >>Different cultures will have different murder rates irrespective of >>what tools they use. Hutus only needed machetes to wipe out the >>Tutsis. The problem is criminality, not what tool each culture or >>society chooses to use. > > Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue. I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing to be considered. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                                   Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:22:57 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <2T4257q7Ilg5N34@redshark.goodshow.net >, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:52:33 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov> > > wrote: > > > >>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > >>>No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 > >>>per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at > >>>6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 > >>>(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most > >>>recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? > >> > >>Different cultures will have different murder rates irrespective of > >>what tools they use. Hutus only needed machetes to wipe out the > >>Tutsis. The problem is criminality, not what tool each culture or > >>society chooses to use. > > > > Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue. > > I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where > none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue > even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing > to be considered. It isn't if you are a right wing neocon, whose only intent is to maintain the party/NRA line, regardless of the evidence. That's what we have here. It's called "being in denial". William Clark                                                     Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:00:04 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:22:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >It isn't if you are a right wing neocon, whose only intent is to >maintain the party/NRA line, regardless of the evidence. > >That's what we have here. It's called "being in denial". > >William Clark The only denial around here is your denial to provide sources for what you post.                                                       Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:23:13 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <g9ca3391rf9naaikgqiukt3dn12ohv7ps9@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:22:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >It isn't if you are a right wing neocon, whose only intent is to > >maintain the party/NRA line, regardless of the evidence. > > > >That's what we have here. It's called "being in denial". > > > >William Clark > > The only denial around here is your denial to provide sources for what > you post. I have given you multiple sources for the information. You try to bury those in this tissue of smears. Whatever. William Clark                                                         Date: 30 Apr 2007 16:06:30 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:23:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> The only denial around here is your denial to provide sources for what >> you post. > >I have given you multiple sources for the information. You try to bury >those in this tissue of smears. Give me a specific reference. If you had the data you should know where it came from beyond just the DoJ or ATF.                                                           Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:11:48 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <psic33t150unt1voq9cdk7sh5in1aube9a@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:23:13 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> The only denial around here is your denial to provide sources for what > >> you post. > > > >I have given you multiple sources for the information. You try to bury > >those in this tissue of smears. > > Give me a specific reference. If you had the data you should know > where it came from beyond just the DoJ or ATF. There you go, trying to fudge the issue again. Which "source" are you after for which data? I have read so many dishonest claims from you, that I have forgotten which particular source you are trying to smear - you have so many. William Clark                                                   Date: 29 Apr 2007 13:27:38 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:01:51 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >> Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue. > >I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where >none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue >even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing >to be considered. The issue is to compare overall homicide rate. The per capita homicide rate for the UK is almost double that of Switzerland. Now, we know that gun ownership in Switzerland is very high and gun ownership in the UK is very low. To point out that there are a greater number of per capita homicides committed by guns in Switzerland is irrelevant. Obviously, it's hard to commit a homicide by gun in the UK because very few people have access to guns. As has already been pointed out, the method of homicide is irrelevant to the issue. It's the overall homicide arte that's important. The UK versus Swiss comparison is often used by opponents of gun control. The anti-gun groups can't deny the fact that overall homicide rates are higher in the UK, so they present irrelevant data to try to cloud the issue. I'm sure that some of them are aware of their dishonesty and others are probably unable to discern that the data is irrelevant.                                                     Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:55:25 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <iik933pabte8kom415pfu9konea2dv8n04@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:01:51 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > > >> Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue. > > > >I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where > >none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue > >even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing > >to be considered. > > > The issue is to compare overall homicide rate. The per capita > homicide rate for the UK is almost double that of Switzerland. Now, > we know that gun ownership in Switzerland is very high and gun > ownership in the UK is very low. To point out that there are a > greater number of per capita homicides committed by guns in > Switzerland is irrelevant. Obviously, it's hard to commit a homicide > by gun in the UK because very few people have access to guns. As has > already been pointed out, the method of homicide is irrelevant to the > issue. It's the overall homicide arte that's important. Well, if you want to change the goal posts at this stage, what is then even more glaring is the fact that the Swiss, whose homicide is not "double that of the UK", but actually almost exactly the same as England and Wales at ~0.012 per 1,000 population, have a firearm homicide rate so much higher than England & Wales. Seems to point out that the presence of a much larger number of handguns in Switzerland (we will assume the rifles are safely locked up, as Swiss law requires) leads to a disproportionately high firearm homicide rate in an otherwise peaceful country. Doesn't really help your case. > > The UK versus Swiss comparison is often used by opponents of gun > control. The anti-gun groups can't deny the fact that overall > homicide rates are higher in the UK, so they present irrelevant data > to try to cloud the issue. I'm sure that some of them are aware of > their dishonesty and others are probably unable to discern that the > data is irrelevant. Not true - as pointed out above homicide rates in the two countries are almost identical, at about 0.012 per 1,000 (roughly one fifth of that in the US). If you don't believe me, check the Department of Justice's own study. The pro-gun lobby also uses Switzerland to try to make a case that guns are safe in the house - the data suggests otherwise, even when under much stricter controls than in the US. Look at the data, and then tell us all that it is "dishonest" and "irrelevant". William Clark                                                       Date: 30 Apr 2007 15:55:12 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:55:25 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Well, if you want to change the goal posts at this stage, what is then >even more glaring is the fact that the Swiss, whose homicide is not >"double that of the UK", but actually almost exactly the same as England >and Wales at ~0.012 per 1,000 population First, I said that the overall homicide rate of the UK is almost double that of Switzerland. Second, the UK is not England and Wales. Both Scotland and NI have to be included in the UK statistics and both have a higher homicide rate that England and Wales (nice try, it didn't work.). Even so, the England and Wales homicide rate is higher than Switzerland and if you look at the whole UK it's almost double.                                                         Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <s8hc33tjcd84ubqlitvpubd5sro63crjjp@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:55:25 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Well, if you want to change the goal posts at this stage, what is then > >even more glaring is the fact that the Swiss, whose homicide is not > >"double that of the UK", but actually almost exactly the same as England > >and Wales at ~0.012 per 1,000 population > > First, I said that the overall homicide rate of the UK is almost > double that of Switzerland. Second, the UK is not England and Wales. > Both Scotland and NI have to be included in the UK statistics and both > have a higher homicide rate that England and Wales (nice try, it > didn't work.). Even so, the England and Wales homicide rate is higher > than Switzerland and if you look at the whole UK it's almost double. The homicide rate in NI is about 30 per year in a population of 1.67M. The latest rate in Scotland is 108 in a population of 5M. If you combine these with the figures for England & Wales, you get a total of just under 900 homicides in a total population of just under 60,000,000. That gives a rate of ~0.014 per 1,000, compared to the rate for E&W alone of ~0.012 per 1,000. Hardly any change, because of the relative sizes of the populations of E&W, compared with Scotland and NI. So, I don't know where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work. So once again the simple fact is that the most recent DoJ data shows that the homicide rates in Switzerland and E&W are essentially identical, at about 0.012 per 1,000 population. You continue to deny this, but you still have not produced any source to back up your claim. Until you do, you are just blowing (rather dishonest) hot air. William Clark                                                           Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:34:19 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >So, I don't know >where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual >numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me >otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work. UN study look it up.                                                             Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:38:59 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <h5oc331f4j411c5jqdjjri87ncol9rtstl@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >So, I don't know > >where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual > >numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me > >otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work. > > UN study look it up. Naughty, naughty, Jack. That's not a reference. For one who bleats so loud and long about others and their sources, you'd better give a FULL reference to yours if not to show yourself to be a charlatan. I don't believe you can actually produce it, can you? In any event, I would hold the DoJ "Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice" to be a more reliable source of this information that the "UN study". William Clark                                                               Date: 01 May 2007 12:25:40 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:38:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >In article <h5oc331f4j411c5jqdjjri87ncol9rtstl@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >> >> >So, I don't know >> >where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual >> >numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me >> >otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work. >> >> UN study look it up. > >Naughty, naughty, Jack. That's not a reference. For one who bleats so >loud and long about others and their sources, you'd better give a FULL >reference to yours if not to show yourself to be a charlatan. I don't >believe you can actually produce it, can you? LOL. Perhaps you should look up the word sarcasm.                                                                 Date: 01 May 2007 15:51:44 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <cdqe335sk5v68gl9mtkmonhm5gamnpr1ni@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:38:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >In article <h5oc331f4j411c5jqdjjri87ncol9rtstl@4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:03:32 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >> > >> >So, I don't know > >> >where you get your "figures" from, since you give no sources or actual > >> >numbers (tut, tut, shame on you!), but they are wrong. Prove me > >> >otherwise with real, recent, data if you can. Nice try, it didn't work. > >> > >> UN study look it up. > > > >Naughty, naughty, Jack. That's not a reference. For one who bleats so > >loud and long about others and their sources, you'd better give a FULL > >reference to yours if not to show yourself to be a charlatan. I don't > >believe you can actually produce it, can you? > > LOL. Perhaps you should look up the word sarcasm. LOL, perhaps you should look up the word "evasive". Once again, you refuse to give references or numbers to back up your ludicrous claims. Why? Because you don't have any. I'm calling you out on your data, Jack. Produce it, reference it, or else just butt out. William Clark                                                     Date: 29 Apr 2007 17:55:35 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:01:51 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >>> Exactly. The overall firearms rate is irrelevant to the issue. >> >>I think both of you are making a binary either/or assumption where >>none is warranted. Clearly firearms rate *is* relevant to the issue >>even if it's not the only thing or even the most important thing >>to be considered. > > The issue is to compare overall homicide rate. The per capita > homicide rate for the UK is almost double that of Switzerland. UK: 1.97/100,000 Swiss: 2.25/100,000 Huh? > Now, > we know that gun ownership in Switzerland is very high and gun > ownership in the UK is very low. To point out that there are a > greater number of per capita homicides committed by guns in > Switzerland is irrelevant. Oh. The above numbers were handguns only. Got it. > Obviously, it's hard to commit a homicide > by gun in the UK because very few people have access to guns. As has > already been pointed out, the method of homicide is irrelevant to the > issue. It's the overall homicide arte that's important. What if it's mass random homicide you're trying to address? I'm actually probably in agreement with you on this because I think that technology let that horse out of the barn and there are lots of ways of killing lots of people that don't involve firearms. However. I also think that the high rate of gun ownership in this country is completely enmeshed with its historically astronomical homicide rate. But I also think that the cause/effect relationship isn't nearly as clear as gun control advocates like to consider or admit. Probably, though, if Americans were to collectively reach a point where they were *willingly* ready to lay down their arms (as it were), that would be part of a decline in the homicide rate both as a cause and as an effect. I can't think of a way that this could possibly be legislated, though. See? I side with the conservatives about something, even though I abhor handguns and would never own one myself. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                             Date: 28 Apr 2007 19:46:43 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, >> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. >> >> >> >> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs >> >> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but >> >> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source? >> > >> >And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did >> >you look at those? >> > >> >William Clark >> >> So you're telling me that Newsweek reported that "Overall murder rates >> shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, and Switzerland at >> 2.25." >> >> I seriously doubt that. >> >> Let me see them? Post a hyperlink. Until you do that you're just >> posting unsubstantiated data. Credibility means being able to back up >> what you say. > >No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 >per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at >6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 >(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most >recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? > >You can only hyperlink if you subscribe to Newsweek (xtra.Newsweek.com), >but you can toddle off to your local bookstore and buy a copy of the >magazine (April 30 edition) for $4.95. The numbers are on page 44 and 45. > >Now whose credibility is sorely lacking? > >William Clark Thanks for the reference. However, I don't see the data on overall homicide rate that you posted. >> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, >> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. Where did this come from? I don't see it above? In any case the relationship between overall homicide rate and gun ownership is not addressed by data on firearm death rate. Overall, there are more per capita homicides in the UK than Switzerland. I would expect that in a country with lots of guns that the percent of homicides committed by guns would be higher that a country with very few guns. This is basically a way for gun control people to cloud the issue with data that looks good but is meaningless. If you know this then you're being dishonest if you don't then you need to reach a deeper understanding of the issue. Either way, you're looking bad.                                               Date: 28 Apr 2007 22:43:04 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <qim733pqred55sk2qnksb7hl8nujrvjc6h@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:32:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > >> > >> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. > >> >> > >> >> I posted some data from the UK Home Office and the UN that differs > >> >> from this. I asked you once for the source of this information but > >> >> never got an answer. Could you provide me with the source? > >> > > >> >And I referred you to more recent figures in this week's Newsweek. Did > >> >you look at those? > >> > > >> >William Clark > >> > >> So you're telling me that Newsweek reported that "Overall murder rates > >> shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, and Switzerland at > >> 2.25." > >> > >> I seriously doubt that. > >> > >> Let me see them? Post a hyperlink. Until you do that you're just > >> posting unsubstantiated data. Credibility means being able to back up > >> what you say. > > > >No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 > >per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at > >6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 > >(11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most > >recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? > > > >You can only hyperlink if you subscribe to Newsweek (xtra.Newsweek.com), > >but you can toddle off to your local bookstore and buy a copy of the > >magazine (April 30 edition) for $4.95. The numbers are on page 44 and 45. > > > >Now whose credibility is sorely lacking? > > > >William Clark > > Thanks for the reference. However, I don't see the data on overall > homicide rate that you posted. > > >> >> >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >> >> > and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. > > Where did this come from? I don't see it above? > > > In any case the relationship between overall homicide rate and gun > ownership is not addressed by data on firearm death rate. Overall, > there are more per capita homicides in the UK than Switzerland. I > would expect that in a country with lots of guns that the percent of > homicides committed by guns would be higher that a country with very > few guns. Numbers? Sources? > > This is basically a way for gun control people to cloud the issue with > data that looks good but is meaningless. If you know this then you're > being dishonest if you don't then you need to reach a deeper > understanding of the issue. Either way, you're looking bad. Very good, Jack. Right on your usual mark - "I don't like what the data tell me, so I will simply smear it any way I can so that I don't have to bother with it". And you wonder why I can't be bothered to fax you manuscripts? And, seriously, there is only one of us looking bad right now, and it isn't me. Your final paragraph is truly pathetic. William Clark                                                 Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:48:29 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:43:04 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> This is basically a way for gun control people to cloud the issue with >> data that looks good but is meaningless. If you know this then you're >> being dishonest if you don't then you need to reach a deeper >> understanding of the issue. Either way, you're looking bad. > >Very good, Jack. Right on your usual mark - "I don't like what the data >tell me, so I will simply smear it any way I can so that I don't have to >bother with it". I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide rate.                                                   Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <tef933h9a43l43ttlmb6pgk6hvo76t1ppi@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:43:04 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> This is basically a way for gun control people to cloud the issue with > >> data that looks good but is meaningless. If you know this then you're > >> being dishonest if you don't then you need to reach a deeper > >> understanding of the issue. Either way, you're looking bad. > > > >Very good, Jack. Right on your usual mark - "I don't like what the data > >tell me, so I will simply smear it any way I can so that I don't have to > >bother with it". > > I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way > or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide > rate. That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking your ball and going home. Fine with me. William Clark                                                     Date: 30 Apr 2007 15:58:31 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way >> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide >> rate. > >That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking >your ball and going home. > >Fine with me. > >William Clark The game is going fine. You're not even in the ball park. Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate is higher in Switzerland than the UK.                                                       Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <kfic33huahvggh3lsmgk1ocp848bnvdg8g@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:08:00 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> I don't dispute the data. In fact I don't care about the data one way > >> or the other, because it's irrelevant to the issue of overall homicide > >> rate. > > > >That's good - you don;t like the way the game is going, so you're taking > >your ball and going home. > > > >Fine with me. > > > >William Clark > > The game is going fine. You're not even in the ball park. > > Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate > is higher in Switzerland than the UK. They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's "Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice", from the US DoJ, and under the auspices of one of your pin-up boys, John Ashcroft. The homicide charts are fig. 2f for each country. Let me know what you find, but don't make me give you the reference a third time. William Clark                                                         Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:36:21 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate >> is higher in Switzerland than the UK. > >They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's Doesen't thics contradict the data that you posted? > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >and Switzerland at 2.25." Which one is it. Are they the same or is Switzerland higher?                                                           Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:41:58 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <q7oc339j3295kih13uer4scrh7cuufv51d@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate > >> is higher in Switzerland than the UK. > > > >They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's > > Doesen't thics contradict the data that you posted? > > > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > > >and Switzerland at 2.25." > > > Which one is it. Are they the same or is Switzerland higher? Aaaah, same old tactic. The latter figures are from a 1992 reference, the data at the top is from the more recent DoJ's 2004, "Cross National . . . . ", but you know the rest. I would be inclined to move to the 2004 figures - there, that gives you E&W and Switzerland at parity. Next excuse for not reading either? William Clark                                                             Date: 01 May 2007 12:27:00 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:41:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >In article <q7oc339j3295kih13uer4scrh7cuufv51d@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >> >> >> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate >> >> is higher in Switzerland than the UK. >> > >> >They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's >> >> Doesen't thics contradict the data that you posted? >> >> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, >> > >and Switzerland at 2.25." >> >> >> Which one is it. Are they the same or is Switzerland higher? > >Aaaah, same old tactic. The latter figures are from a 1992 reference, What reference? I still haven't seen it.                                                               Date: 01 May 2007 15:56:14 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <shqe33hratv8nmsu4fvj742uefnq4n3jkm@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:41:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >In article <q7oc339j3295kih13uer4scrh7cuufv51d@4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:09:02 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >> > >> >> Show me any data that shows that the overall per capita homicide rate > >> >> is higher in Switzerland than the UK. > >> > > >> >They are essentially the same. I already gave you the source, it's > >> > >> Doesen't thics contradict the data that you posted? > >> > >> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >> > >and Switzerland at 2.25." > >> > >> > >> Which one is it. Are they the same or is Switzerland higher? > > > >Aaaah, same old tactic. The latter figures are from a 1992 reference, > > What reference? I still haven't seen it. Yes you have - I gave it to you yesterday, it's Wolff et al that you sneered at. You know, the pretty pictures. Now I'm calling you out. Produce one set of reliable, referenced, data that show that homicide rates in Switzerland and England&Wales (or the UK, for that matter) are not essentially identical. In other words, that is more valid than the DoJ "National Cross. . ." study of 2004 that I keep trying to get you to admit exists. I dare you. If not, then you will show everyone in the ng exactly what you are. William Clark                                                                 Date: 01 May 2007 19:05:08 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:56:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >Now I'm calling you out. Produce one set of reliable, referenced, data >that show that homicide rates in Switzerland and England&Wales (or the >UK, for that matter) are not essentially identical. In other words, that >is more valid than the DoJ "National Cross. . ." study of 2004 that I >keep trying to get you to admit exists. I dare you. Already done. Actually I did that a few days ago but you missed it. Probably too busy reading Wolff's book.                                                                   Date: 01 May 2007 21:08:43 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <krhf33l0s1pfp33r20ghoeobt840r3pkom@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:56:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >Now I'm calling you out. Produce one set of reliable, referenced, data > >that show that homicide rates in Switzerland and England&Wales (or the > >UK, for that matter) are not essentially identical. In other words, that > >is more valid than the DoJ "National Cross. . ." study of 2004 that I > >keep trying to get you to admit exists. I dare you. > > Already done. Actually I did that a few days ago but you missed it. > Probably too busy reading Wolff's book. No you did not. You waffled on some vague item, but you NEVER provided either hard data or a traceable reference. I am calling your bluff here - you have a chance to clear yourself by simply giving them again. How about it - or can we all see that you never really had a single thing? Fine person to accuse others of poor data. No frat house sneers this time, Jack. Any shred of credibility you have is on the line. William Clark                                                                 Date: 01 May 2007 19:04:06 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:56:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >> What reference? I still haven't seen it. > >Yes you have - I gave it to you yesterday, it's Wolff et al that you >sneered at. You know, the pretty pictures. Who is this Wolf? What are his credentials. Where did he get his data. Why haven't you hyper linked it so everyone can see it? Posting an unsubstantiated reference from a book doesn't make it. Again, I'd be happy to send you my fax number and you can send me the information. That would clear this matter up.                                                                   Date: 01 May 2007 21:10:55 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <ljhf339hetgbrie3dpr4cj8d5dd2vrdk9f@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:56:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >> What reference? I still haven't seen it. > > > >Yes you have - I gave it to you yesterday, it's Wolff et al that you > >sneered at. You know, the pretty pictures. > > Who is this Wolf? What are his credentials. Where did he get his > data. Why haven't you hyper linked it so everyone can see it? Posting > an unsubstantiated reference from a book doesn't make it. Again, I'd > be happy to send you my fax number and you can send me the > information. That would clear this matter up. Smoke, smoke, smoke. If you could get off your rear end, you could go check for yourself, and "substantiate" the reference at any library (or online inter-library loan service). Or do you have trouble reading? The game's up - you are nothing but hot air. William Clark                                             Date: 28 Apr 2007 17:47:46 From: Otto Subject: Re: What's Really Important. "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-91686F.16325728042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 > per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at > 6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 > (11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most > recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source? Otto                                               Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:09:35 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <EhPYh.2123$F11.1498@bignews1.bellsouth.net >, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-91686F.16325728042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 > > per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at > > 6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 > > (11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most > > recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? > > > > Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source? > > Otto They cite a variety of sources. Go read for yourself. William Clark                                               Date: 28 Apr 2007 18:17:53 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <EhPYh.2123$F11.1498@bignews1.bellsouth.net >, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-91686F.16325728042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > No, actually Newsweek has overall firearm death rates in the UK at 0.31 > > per 100,000 (23 firearm murders, 159 firearm deaths), Switzerland at > > 6.40 (40 firearm murders, 459 firearm deaths), and the US at 10.08 > > (11,920 firearm murders, 29,645 firearm deaths), based on the most > > recent data. Rather bleaker than you thought, eh? > > > > Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source? > > Otto A whole range of sources, actually. Do you really think they made them up? You're getting as bad as Jack. William Clark                                                 Date: 30 Apr 2007 06:07:10 From: bill-o Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On 28-Apr-2007, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: > A whole range of sources, actually. Do you really think they made them > up? Jason Blair on line 3 -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                                                 Date: 28 Apr 2007 18:27:19 From: Otto Subject: Re: What's Really Important. "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-D0C00F.18175328042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source? > > > > Otto > A whole range of sources, actually. Do you really think they made them > up? And the sources are? I figured you were so intimately familiar with the article that you would have that information at your fingertips. No--I'm not interested in buying a copy of Newsweek. I would rather buy a golf ball. Otto                                                   Date: 28 Apr 2007 22:45:14 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <JSPYh.18841$qB4.11456@bignews3.bellsouth.net >, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-D0C00F.18175328042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Are these Newsweek numbers or do they cite a source? > > > > > > Otto > > > > A whole range of sources, actually. Do you really think they made them > > up? > > > And the sources are? > > I figured you were so intimately familiar with the article that you would > have that information at your fingertips. They are listed in the article. Go read for yourself. > > No--I'm not interested in buying a copy of Newsweek. > > I would rather buy a golf ball. As I thought. You would hate to read anything that might conflict with your preconceived prejudices. Surprise, surprise. > > Otto Go talk to Jack. The two of you belong in the same intellectual backwater. William Clark                                                     Date: 29 Apr 2007 11:55:04 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:45:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Go talk to Jack. The two of you belong in the same intellectual >backwater. > >William Clark Talking about backwater, I've been wondering where you got this data from for a few days now and haven't gotten an answer. > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. You posted this and never referenced where it came from. I have posted data from the UK Home Office and the UN Crime Report that differs from this and I just want to know where it came from? It's normal practice when you post some data in a NG that you provide some reference for it. You, Bill, as an academic, should understand the necessity to reference material.                                                       Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:57:33 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <9jf933dsj0rlarphk4d6s1qgltvp1h4h1p@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:45:14 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Go talk to Jack. The two of you belong in the same intellectual > >backwater. > > > >William Clark > > > Talking about backwater, I've been wondering where you got this data > from for a few days now and haven't gotten an answer. > > > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > > >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. > > You posted this and never referenced where it came from. I have > posted data from the UK Home Office and the UN Crime Report that > differs from this and I just want to know where it came from? > > It's normal practice when you post some data in a NG that you provide > some reference for it. You, Bill, as an academic, should understand > the necessity to reference material. Well, go check out The Department of Justice's own published data. Let us know what you find. William Clark                                                         Date: 29 Apr 2007 19:58:11 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:57:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, >> > >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. >> >> You posted this and never referenced where it came from. I have >> posted data from the UK Home Office and the UN Crime Report that >> differs from this and I just want to know where it came from? >> >> It's normal practice when you post some data in a NG that you provide >> some reference for it. You, Bill, as an academic, should understand >> the necessity to reference material. > >Well, go check out The Department of Justice's own published data. Let >us know what you find. > >William Clark Obviously you can't back up what you posted. It should be a simple matter to provide the hyperlink to where you got this data. You're looking like a fool Bill, someone who can't back up what he says. You posted it so you should back it up.                                                           Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:28:41 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <a0ca3390hgghkvvleti9t5ptj59mhjr6ji@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:57:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >> > >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. > >> > >> You posted this and never referenced where it came from. I have > >> posted data from the UK Home Office and the UN Crime Report that > >> differs from this and I just want to know where it came from? > >> > >> It's normal practice when you post some data in a NG that you provide > >> some reference for it. You, Bill, as an academic, should understand > >> the necessity to reference material. > > > >Well, go check out The Department of Justice's own published data. Let > >us know what you find. > > > >William Clark > > Obviously you can't back up what you posted. It should be a simple > matter to provide the hyperlink to where you got this data. You're > looking like a fool Bill, someone who can't back up what he says. You > posted it so you should back it up. Already posted, Jack, even you should be able to find it. Now it does have rather a lot of tables and charts in, so if you have trouble figuring it out (as you clearly do with finding sources on the web), just let me know and I'll be happy to help you out. So you need to try something else other than the lame smear attempts - they make you look really foolish. You might not like the data, though. William Clark                                                     Date: 28 Apr 2007 23:26:11 From: Otto Subject: Re: What's Really Important. "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-F14B32.22451428042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > They are listed in the article. Go read for yourself. I'd rather spend my money on a 32 oz big gulp or a golf ball. > > No--I'm not interested in buying a copy of Newsweek. > > > > I would rather buy a golf ball. > > As I thought. You would hate to read anything that might conflict with > your preconceived prejudices. Surprise, surprise. I'll read anything for free. Conflict or not. I'm not spending my life energy(after tax money) on any of it. The real problem is you can't cite your sources. The dogs bark and the caravan passes by. Otto                                                       Date: 29 Apr 2007 14:58:40 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <UeUYh.15330$XU4.10854@bignews8.bellsouth.net >, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-F14B32.22451428042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > They are listed in the article. Go read for yourself. > > I'd rather spend my money on a 32 oz big gulp or a golf ball. > > > > > No--I'm not interested in buying a copy of Newsweek. > > > > > > I would rather buy a golf ball. > > > > As I thought. You would hate to read anything that might conflict with > > your preconceived prejudices. Surprise, surprise. > > > I'll read anything for free. Conflict or not. > > I'm not spending my life energy(after tax money) on any of it. > > The real problem is you can't cite your sources. > > The dogs bark and the caravan passes by. > > Otto Sources are cited everywhere. If you what Newsweek's - ask them. Also, go look at the Department of Justice's own published studies - you can get that for free. William Clark                                                         Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:13:46 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:58:40 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> The real problem is you can't cite your sources. >> >> The dogs bark and the caravan passes by. >> >> Otto > >Sources are cited everywhere. If you what Newsweek's - ask them. Also, >go look at the Department of Justice's own published studies - you can >get that for free. > >William Clark He's out on a limb and he can't get off it. Bill, all you have to do is cite the exact DoJ study. Obviously, if it was a source for your information, you must have the reference. Why is it so difficult to post a link to it. Also how about the ATF reference for the percent of households who own handguns in the US, I haven't seen that yet either. Or did you admit that the number was not from the ATF but from the 1991 book you cited. I'm confused.                                                           Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:26:05 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <6qca3395jk3539r1leqcbnalm6e1ope89l@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:58:40 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> The real problem is you can't cite your sources. > >> > >> The dogs bark and the caravan passes by. > >> > >> Otto > > > >Sources are cited everywhere. If you what Newsweek's - ask them. Also, > >go look at the Department of Justice's own published studies - you can > >get that for free. > > > >William Clark > > > He's out on a limb and he can't get off it. Bill, all you have to do > is cite the exact DoJ study. Obviously, if it was a source for your > information, you must have the reference. Why is it so difficult to > post a link to it. > Yes, I knew it would be too hard for you to find it. Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics September 2004. Gosh, it is even signed off on by your poster boy, John Ashcroft. Must be gold standard then, unless he didn't read it. William Clark                                                             Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:28:34 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:26:05 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Yes, I knew it would be too hard for you to find it. > >Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice >Bureau of Justice Statistics >September 2004. Looked at it. Don't see that data that you posted. > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >and Switzerland at 2.25." In fact, there's no data for the UK at all. Perhaps you made a mistake.                                                               Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <qonc33lahiarb99s9h00apbsft8a6vloq5@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:26:05 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Yes, I knew it would be too hard for you to find it. > > > >Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice > >Bureau of Justice Statistics > >September 2004. > > > Looked at it. Don't see that data that you posted. > > > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > > >and Switzerland at 2.25." > > > In fact, there's no data for the UK at all. > > Perhaps you made a mistake. Good try again, Jack, but as pathetic as ever. Look up page 289 of Wolff et als "Where We Stand", published in 1992. That is where the latter sentence you so cunningly cut and pasted out of context is from. The data is on a pretty picture graph, so even you should be able to read it. However, that is old data compared to the "Cross National Studies . . ", so I would move to the latter. See, I am happy that the data moves closer to your point of view - it's integrity that counts. Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong - I dare you. William Clark                                                                 Date: 01 May 2007 12:31:31 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong >- I dare you. > >William Clark I already did. Both the UK Home Office data and the UN study show UK homicide rate as considerable higher that Switzerland. You loose again. I already referenced both for you.                                                                   Date: 01 May 2007 16:00:35 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <hnqe33d2u0jimpsdopttpn18c7eavc5r7r@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong > >- I dare you. > > > >William Clark > > I already did. Both the UK Home Office data and the UN study show UK > homicide rate as considerable higher that Switzerland. You loose > again. > > I already referenced both for you. No you did not. Which UK Home Office Study is that? I have the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Crime in England & Wales" dated April 27, 2007, that carries figures up to and including December 2006, and it shows no such thing as you claim. You know, I simply don't believe you have any "UK Home Office data", I think you are just blowing a smokescreen. Same with the "UN Study". Give me a reference to a page in an actual document, or we will will all have to believe you are just lying again. William Clark                                                                     Date: 01 May 2007 19:08:48 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 01 May 2007 16:00:35 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >In article <hnqe33d2u0jimpsdopttpn18c7eavc5r7r@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: >> >> >Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong >> >- I dare you. >> > >> >William Clark >> >> I already did. Both the UK Home Office data and the UN study show UK >> homicide rate as considerable higher that Switzerland. You loose >> again. >> >> I already referenced both for you. > >No you did not. Yes I did. You're looking a bit foolish Prefessor. Path: be02.lga!hwmnpeer02.lga!hw-filter.lga!newsfe12.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Message-ID: <29qi23to104k5khskr885af79ojpghlaq2@4ax.com > References: <dspa23dftjrou43cvv91a3pb8ilp6g84q1@4ax.com > <1176859480.324611.25090@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com > <1176859897.900093.305150@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com > <911b231d46t17t51b5eudg9ibkrm6k8jcg@4ax.com > <1176953807.399570.5610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com > <aPGdnav4uIPs07rbnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com > <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com > <dvsh23hmtsifajvoje1jf7c6bu44b3g1up@4ax.com > <clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:45:55 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.112.234.43 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net X-Trace: newsfe12.lga 1177119913 69.112.234.43 (Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST Organization: Optimum Online Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.sport.golf:298624 X-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST (be02.lga) On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:09:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. I'd like to see the source of this data. It is at variance with what I've seen. From the Home Office Three year average homicides per 100,000 population (1999 - 2001) England & Wales - 1.61 NI - 2.84 Scotland - 2.11 Switzerland 1.12 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf Here's some data from the UN Survey on crime 1998 to 2000 which also shows the per capita homicide rate in the UK as higher than. Switzerland. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita                                                                       Date: 01 May 2007 21:56:15 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <m0if331k61kppl5euhd3p9qvdd59ordh9c@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 16:00:35 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >In article <hnqe33d2u0jimpsdopttpn18c7eavc5r7r@4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > >> > >> >Still shows E&W (or even the UK) the same as Switzerland. Prove me wrong > >> >- I dare you. > >> > > >> >William Clark > >> > >> I already did. Both the UK Home Office data and the UN study show UK > >> homicide rate as considerable higher that Switzerland. You loose > >> again. > >> > >> I already referenced both for you. > > > >No you did not. > > Yes I did. You're looking a bit foolish Prefessor. > > Path: > be02.lga!hwmnpeer02.lga!hw-filter.lga!newsfe12.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mai > l > From: Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> > Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf > Subject: Re: What's Really Important. > Message-ID: <29qi23to104k5khskr885af79ojpghlaq2@4ax.com> > References: <dspa23dftjrou43cvv91a3pb8ilp6g84q1@4ax.com> > <1176859480.324611.25090@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> > <1176859897.900093.305150@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > <911b231d46t17t51b5eudg9ibkrm6k8jcg@4ax.com> > <1176953807.399570.5610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> > <aPGdnav4uIPs07rbnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com> > <ss4g235891fmqcke7i1chjavnih5mpok3v@4ax.com> > <dvsh23hmtsifajvoje1jf7c6bu44b3g1up@4ax.com> > <clark.31-A76551.14094320042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lines: 28 > Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:45:55 -0400 > NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.112.234.43 > X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net > X-Trace: newsfe12.lga 1177119913 69.112.234.43 (Fri, 20 Apr 2007 > 18:45:13 MST) > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST > Organization: Optimum Online > Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.sport.golf:298624 > X-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:45:13 MST (be02.lga) > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:09:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >and Switzerland at 2.25." First point deflated. > > > I'd like to see the source of this data. It is at variance with what > I've seen. > > From the Home Office > > Three year average homicides per 100,000 population (1999 - 2001) > > England & Wales - 1.61 > NI - 2.84 > Scotland - 2.11 > > Switzerland 1.12 > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf > > > Here's some data from the UN Survey on crime 1998 to 2000 which also > shows the per capita homicide rate in the UK as higher than. > Switzerland. > > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita Oh good, five year old data. And let me quote from page 24 of this gold standard. It reads: "The Home Office has been collecting and publishing data from other countries on the number of crimes recorded by the police and the prison population since 1993. The number of countries covered and the incomparability of the data received has improved since then due to closer liaison with foreign organisations. Although the information received in double-checked with the countries supplying the data, the Home Office cannot guarantee that the data presented is completely accurate of comparable." Pretty shaky at best. The most recent homicide figures (2005/2006) for Scotland, for example are the lowest in 15 years, and show the homicide rate to be 1.86 per 1,000,000, not the 2.11 you give. In England and Wales the number is 820, for 1.54 per 100,000, not the out of date 1.61 you quote. Check them for yourself in: "Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/05" http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf However, the DoJ study is a) three years more recent, and more comprehensive. It contains no such caveats about the quality of the data. Nothing in any of these show the murder rate in England & Wales to be "twice that of Switzerland". Other studies from about that time show the rate in England&Wales at 1.41 per 100,000 (firearm homicide at 0.11), and in Switzerland at 1.32 (firearm homicide at 0.58, over 5 times that of E&W), again essentially identical and certainly not a factor of two different. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf So you produce a single, old, set of data, whose authors clearly warn about its accuracy (or lack of). Spectacular. And is the murder rate in England & Wales still "twice that of Switzerland"? Not one shred of evidence for that in any of this. William Clark                                                                 Date: 01 May 2007 12:29:15 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Good try again, Jack, but as pathetic as ever. Look up page 289 of Wolff >et als "Where We Stand", published in 1992. Don't have the book, will you fax it to me? BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data from?                                                                   Date: 01 May 2007 17:53:12 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <njqe33hfrm35tmu0l6qodc7kolrssad5q2@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Good try again, Jack, but as pathetic as ever. Look up page 289 of Wolff > >et als "Where We Stand", published in 1992. > > Don't have the book, will you fax it to me? > > BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me > that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data > from? OK Jack, the homicide data come from The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, International Crime Statistics (International Criminal Police Organization), Statistical Abstract of the United States, "Experiences of Crime Across the World", (Key findings from the 1989 international crime survey). The gun data is from "Experiences . . . " again, The New York Times. But why am I bothering - you can't read, you can only try to sneer. Remember, I am still waiting for even ONE real reference from you (but I am not holding my breath). William Clark                                                                     Date: 01 May 2007 19:18:15 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:53:12 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >OK Jack, the homicide data come from The Wall Street Journal, Business >Week, International Crime Statistics (International Criminal Police >Organization), Statistical Abstract of the United States, "Experiences >of Crime Across the World", (Key findings from the 1989 international >crime survey). > >The gun data is from "Experiences . . . " again, The New York Times. > >But why am I bothering - you can't read, you can only try to sneer. > >Remember, I am still waiting for even ONE real reference from you (but I >am not holding my breath). > >William Clark LOL the WSJ from 1989. Have you read the original articles? Provide some hyperlinks to any of this stuff. Until then you're credibility is zero quoting from some left-wing loon's 1991 book that's out of print. Come up with some decent data with hyperlinks. My opinion of Ohio State, not that it was very high to begin with, is dropping fast.                                                                       Date: 01 May 2007 21:14:47 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <scif33hrqrtqr8pbd6mhlvqqr851gldjei@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 17:53:12 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >OK Jack, the homicide data come from The Wall Street Journal, Business > >Week, International Crime Statistics (International Criminal Police > >Organization), Statistical Abstract of the United States, "Experiences > >of Crime Across the World", (Key findings from the 1989 international > >crime survey). > > > >The gun data is from "Experiences . . . " again, The New York Times. > > > >But why am I bothering - you can't read, you can only try to sneer. > > > >Remember, I am still waiting for even ONE real reference from you (but I > >am not holding my breath). > > > >William Clark > > > LOL the WSJ from 1989. Have you read the original articles? > > Provide some hyperlinks to any of this stuff. Until then you're > credibility is zero quoting from some left-wing loon's 1991 book > that's out of print. Come up with some decent data with hyperlinks. > > My opinion of Ohio State, not that it was very high to begin with, is > dropping fast. More BS, Jack. You haven't (can't) read thing, can you? What about the more recent data from the 2004 DoJ "Cross-National Studies in Crime & Justice"? I have already said that is more up to date and more exhaustive. You have been stone quiet on that one. What, can't think of a silly jibe to throw at its authors? Dear. dear, Jack is lost for insults, whatever next? Oh, and Ohio State will be a far better institution for not being endorsed by an embarrassment like you. Your lack of a decent education is being demonstrated hourly. William Clark                                                                   Date: 01 May 2007 16:04:17 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <njqe33hfrm35tmu0l6qodc7kolrssad5q2@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:47:59 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Good try again, Jack, but as pathetic as ever. Look up page 289 of Wolff > >et als "Where We Stand", published in 1992. > > Don't have the book, will you fax it to me? > > BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me > that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data > from? Fax you a book? You must be joking - get off your a*** and walk to the library. It might help clear your brain of the fog you are in on this topic. I have the book at home, but I will pass his listed data sources later this evening. Also glad to know that you can tell a person's character simply by where they publish. How very grown up and open minded. Do you operate the same way with blacks and hispanics, like Larry does? William Clark                                                                     Date: 01 May 2007 19:12:35 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 01 May 2007 16:04:17 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >> Don't have the book, will you fax it to me? >> >> BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me >> that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data >> from? > >Fax you a book? You must be joking - get off your a*** and walk to the >library. It might help clear your brain of the fog you are in on this >topic. I have the book at home, but I will pass his listed data sources >later this evening. Just the pertinent pages to support your data will be enough. I always provide hyperlinks for the convenience of other members. BTW, where id Wolff get the data on homicide rates which showed Switzerland higher than the UK? That's seriously suspect because I've never seen any data like that.                                                                       Date: 01 May 2007 21:17:26 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <l4if33t58qjsdgfbkvnbppdhqgihc5ca1f@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 16:04:17 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >> Don't have the book, will you fax it to me? > >> > >> BTW, the author is a regular contributor to the Guardian which tell me > >> that the book is rubbish. BTW, where did the author get his data > >> from? > > > >Fax you a book? You must be joking - get off your a*** and walk to the > >library. It might help clear your brain of the fog you are in on this > >topic. I have the book at home, but I will pass his listed data sources > >later this evening. > > > Just the pertinent pages to support your data will be enough. I > always provide hyperlinks for the convenience of other members. > > BTW, where id Wolff get the data on homicide rates which showed > Switzerland higher than the UK? That's seriously suspect because I've > never seen any data like that. Well, just because it doesn't ahow the the homicide rate in the UK is "twice that of Switzerland" doesn't mean its wrong. However, the more recent "Cross-National . . (you know the rest by now)" show the two rates as essentially identical. Now disprove that with a single, traceable, reference to data that does, or else admit once and for all that you were simply lying. Choice is yours. William Clark                                     Date: 27 Apr 2007 15:14:21 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: What's Really Important. "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-47D46B.15122327042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <cdg433legog78a242k6r4vjp9q22pdq0ue@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > > > >Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big red > > >building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to > > >get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you > > >good. > > > > LOL, I knew you didn't have it. > > There you go - typical Rovian sneering smear. You know, I would go to > the trouble of Xeroxing and faxing the article to you if I believed for > one second that you were actually interested in the content, but you > aren't. All you care about doing is protecting the neocon line, and > trashing anyone and anything that doesn't agree with it. That is what > you do in every discusision. Thus you are simply not worth the time of > day or the cost of a copy. > > You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the > world the kind of person you really are. > > William Clark You could have Xeroxed it and faxed it in the time it took you to reply. Well if you actually have a copy I mean. I expect it would actually take you much longer.                                       Date: 28 Apr 2007 10:54:08 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <-YedneZA7tICxK_bnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@centurytel.net >, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-47D46B.15122327042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <cdg433legog78a242k6r4vjp9q22pdq0ue@4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:53:39 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > > > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > > > > > >Get real. Get off your rear end and go to the Library. It's that big > red > > > >building that has lots of books in it. I am sure they will be happy to > > > >get you a copy on Inter Library loan. Besides, the exercise will do you > > > >good. > > > > > > LOL, I knew you didn't have it. > > > > There you go - typical Rovian sneering smear. You know, I would go to > > the trouble of Xeroxing and faxing the article to you if I believed for > > one second that you were actually interested in the content, but you > > aren't. All you care about doing is protecting the neocon line, and > > trashing anyone and anything that doesn't agree with it. That is what > > you do in every discusision. Thus you are simply not worth the time of > > day or the cost of a copy. > > > > You can go ahead and call me a liar if you choose. It merely shows the > > world the kind of person you really are. > > > > William Clark > > You could have Xeroxed it and faxed it in the time it took you to reply. > Well if you actually have a copy I mean. I expect it would actually take you > much longer. You've lost me here. William Clark                             Date: 26 Apr 2007 12:16:48 From: Joe Subject: Re: What's Really Important. William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >> >>> I gave you two hard copy >>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a >>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek. >> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking >> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only >> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from >> the book "Where We Stand." >> >> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the >> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > > For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember > those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > > Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > > William Clark See the following: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) USDOJ National Institute of Justice. Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 12 pages long easy read. :) Key findings: 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) 64% of the above owned a handgun Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) Joe                               Date: 29 Apr 2007 15:01:00 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >> > >>> I gave you two hard copy > >>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a > >>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek. > >> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking > >> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only > >> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from > >> the book "Where We Stand." > >> > >> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > >> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > > > > For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember > > those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > > > > Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > > > > William Clark > > See the following: > > http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf > 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) > > USDOJ National Institute of Justice. > > Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 > 12 pages long easy read. :) > > Key findings: > 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) > 64% of the above owned a handgun > Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) > > Joe Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual ownership, or right in the ~30% area. QED. William Clark                                 Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:08:08 From: Joe Subject: Re: What's Really Important. William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, >>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I gave you two hard copy >>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a >>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's Newsweek. >>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking >>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only >>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from >>>> the book "Where We Stand." >>>> >>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the >>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. >>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember >>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. >>> >>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. >>> >>> William Clark >> See the following: >> >> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf >> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) >> >> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. >> >> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 >> 12 pages long easy read. :) >> >> Key findings: >> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) >> 64% of the above owned a handgun >> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) >> >> Joe > > Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults > per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual > ownership, or right in the ~30% area. > > QED. > > William Clark You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study material. Do you really teach an Engineering course? Joe                                   Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:10:45 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, > >>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I gave you two hard copy > >>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a > >>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's > >>>>> Newsweek. > >>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking > >>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only > >>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from > >>>> the book "Where We Stand." > >>>> > >>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > >>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > >>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember > >>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > >>> > >>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > >>> > >>> William Clark > >> See the following: > >> > >> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf > >> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) > >> > >> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. > >> > >> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 > >> 12 pages long easy read. :) > >> > >> Key findings: > >> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) > >> 64% of the above owned a handgun > >> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) > >> > >> Joe > > > > Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults > > per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual > > ownership, or right in the ~30% area. > > > > QED. > > > > William Clark > > > You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study > material. > > Do you really teach an Engineering course? > > Joe Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not presumption) is wide of the mark. And you question MY competence? Holy smoke! William Clark                                     Date: 30 Apr 2007 16:02:17 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:10:45 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not >presumption) is wide of the mark. > >And you question MY competence? > >Holy smoke! > >William Clark Please show us any data that supports your position that 29% of households in the US own handguns. I'm not even saying that it's not true. It seems a bit high, but all I'd like to see is the source for you claim. Also havent seen the reference for: >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > >and Switzerland at 2.25."                                       Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:24:20 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:02:17 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: >Please show us any data that supports your position that 29% of >households in the US own handguns. > >I'm not even saying that it's not true. It seems a bit high, but all >I'd like to see is the source for you claim. Many studies I have seen have numbers much higher than that. I have seen estimates of firearms in 80 million homes. But since there is no National Gun Registry in USA; it's all just made up crap. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Study: Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm. a) The study states: “There are probably over 220 million guns in private hands in the U.S. and 47,600,000 homes with firearms. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Americans own 200,000,000 guns, of which approximately 70,000,000 are handguns. USATODAY - March 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GUN AVAILABILITY AND VIOLENT CRIME: RESEARCH EVIDENCE Note by the Crime and Criminal Justice Unit, Research and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office available online at http://www.dvc.org.uk/johnny/dunblane/homemain.html. Gun Ownership Rate per 100K citizens USA 85,000                                         Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:47:29 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <vj1d33tujfuanr7pijo533ji2llfbnj26g@4ax.com >, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:02:17 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> > wrote: > >Please show us any data that supports your position that 29% of > >households in the US own handguns. > > > >I'm not even saying that it's not true. It seems a bit high, but all > >I'd like to see is the source for you claim. > > Many studies I have seen have numbers much higher than that. I have > seen estimates of firearms in 80 million homes. But since there is no > National Gun Registry in USA; it's all just made up crap. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > > Study: Study: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature > of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of > Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), > 1995. Accessed at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm. > > a) The study states: “There are probably over 220 million guns in > private hands in the U.S. and 47,600,000 homes with firearms. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > > Americans own 200,000,000 guns, of which approximately 70,000,000 are > handguns. > > USATODAY - March 2001 Agreed. 70 million handguns spread among 114,000,000 households would put a handgun in 61% of households, if each household had just one handgun. However, clearly that is not the case, and if 29% of households only had handguns, that would mean they had 2.11 each. That seems not unrealistic, allowing for those that do have just one handgun, and those that have more than 2. William Clark                                       Date: 30 Apr 2007 19:50:22 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <9kic331n1seieolkr4e9q99e8t81r0pp5t@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:10:45 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not > >presumption) is wide of the mark. > > > >And you question MY competence? > > > >Holy smoke! > > > >William Clark > > Please show us any data that supports your position that 29% of > households in the US own handguns. > > I'm not even saying that it's not true. It seems a bit high, but all > I'd like to see is the source for you claim. > > Also havent seen the reference for: > > >"Overall murder rates shows the US at 8.4 per 100,000, the UK at 1.97, > > >and Switzerland at 2.25." Reference for both - "Where we Stand" by Wolff et al (1992), page 288-89 for the murder rates, and page 294 for the handgun figures. As I said, they are both set out as pretty graphics for the hard of thinking, but even so, let me know if you still have difficulty and I'll try to help. William Clark                                         Date: 01 May 2007 12:32:38 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:50:22 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Reference for both - "Where we Stand" by Wolff et al (1992), page 288-89 >for the murder rates, and page 294 for the handgun figures. As I said, >they are both set out as pretty graphics for the hard of thinking, but >even so, let me know if you still have difficulty and I'll try to help. > >William Clark That's not a reference it's an excuse. And the book is rubbish to boot.                                           Date: 01 May 2007 15:48:51 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <mrqe33t398rg3645jng6j2t2oo73qiksda@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:50:22 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Reference for both - "Where we Stand" by Wolff et al (1992), page 288-89 > >for the murder rates, and page 294 for the handgun figures. As I said, > >they are both set out as pretty graphics for the hard of thinking, but > >even so, let me know if you still have difficulty and I'll try to help. > > > >William Clark > > That's not a reference it's an excuse. And the book is rubbish to > boot. You've read it, of course? No, I thought not. Same old "trash the messenger" lame tactic. I would have thought you could come up with something new by now. In any case, I have said several times that the "National Cross . . . " survey is ten years more recent, and it appears to me more comprehensive. Let's see you try and trash taht data. Oh, and by the way, you are still mute on ANY of your sources that apparently disagree with the numbers I have given. Surprise, surprise. William Clark                                             Date: 01 May 2007 18:58:54 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:48:51 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >In any case, I have said several times that the "National Cross . . . " >survey is ten years more recent, and it appears to me more >comprehensive. Let's see you try and trash taht data. Oh, and by the >way, you are still mute on ANY of your sources that apparently disagree >with the numbers I have given. > >Surprise, surprise. Nonsense I already posted this but I'm feeling generous. From the Home Office Three year average homicides per 100,000 population (1999 - 2001) England & Wales - 1.61 NI - 2.84 Scotland - 2.11 Switzerland 1.12 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf Here's some data from the UN Survey on crime 1998 to 2000 which also shows the per capita homicide rate in the UK as higher than. Switzerland. UK - 0.0140633 per 1,000 people Switzerland - 0.00921351 per 1,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita Sorry you lose and you will also notice that I provide hyperlinks. Quoting data without hyperlinks is bad form and will usually raise red flags that someone is perhaps not being forthcoming.                                               Date: 01 May 2007 22:16:51 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <t1hf3317k1ibpb25ur3lhko3iev59sja5v@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:48:51 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >In any case, I have said several times that the "National Cross . . . " > >survey is ten years more recent, and it appears to me more > >comprehensive. Let's see you try and trash taht data. Oh, and by the > >way, you are still mute on ANY of your sources that apparently disagree > >with the numbers I have given. > > > >Surprise, surprise. > > Nonsense I already posted this but I'm feeling generous. > > From the Home Office > > Three year average homicides per 100,000 population (1999 - 2001) > > England & Wales - 1.61 > NI - 2.84 > Scotland - 2.11 > > Switzerland 1.12 > > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf And I have already shown you that this is a) out of date, b) by its own compilers admission, liable to inaccuracies. You can find 2006 versions of this data, and you can look at the "Cross-National . . " DoJ study that you refuse to acknowledge. > > > Here's some data from the UN Survey on crime 1998 to 2000 which also > shows the per capita homicide rate in the UK as higher than. > Switzerland. > > UK - 0.0140633 per 1,000 people > Switzerland - 0.00921351 per 1,000 people > > http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita > > > Sorry you lose and you will also notice that I provide hyperlinks. > Quoting data without hyperlinks is bad form and will usually raise red > flags that someone is perhaps not being forthcoming. Dimwit, you cannot give hyperlinks to data that is not on the web. Books in a library cannot be hyperlinked to - they have to be walked to. These figures are a two year window for which Switzerland is at 0.92 per 100,000 and the UK (note they include Northern Ireland) is at 1.4 per 100,000. Now the more recent figures (2005), and longer timescale averages, that I gave you in a previous post show the two to be almost the same. You took a snap shot and called it the norm - that's poor statistics when you are dealing with datasets that are small and whose numbers fluctuate significantly from sample to sample. However, it is interesting to not that the very same web site also gives "Murders with firearms" data. Once again, and consistent with all the other figures I have shown you, the rate in the UK for homicides with firearms is 0.102 per 100,000 (62 total), while that in Switzerland is 0.534 per 100,000 (40 total), a rate five times that of the UK. Seems as though Switzerland is not a very good exemplar for the value of domestic firearms. You might want to rethink your "sources". So, sorry, but I don't lose. And I do apologize for the lack of hyperlinks, but I mistook you for someone who was literate enough to find a book. William Clark                                     Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:27:40 From: Joe Subject: Re: What's Really Important. William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, >>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy >>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a >>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's >>>>>>> Newsweek. >>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking >>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only >>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from >>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." >>>>>> >>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the >>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. >>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies (remember >>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. >>>>> >>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. >>>>> >>>>> William Clark >>>> See the following: >>>> >>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf >>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) >>>> >>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. >>>> >>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 >>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) >>>> >>>> Key findings: >>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) >>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun >>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) >>>> >>>> Joe >>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults >>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual >>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. >>> >>> QED. >>> >>> William Clark >> >> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study >> material. >> >> Do you really teach an Engineering course? >> >> Joe > > Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't > like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not > presumption) is wide of the mark. > > And you question MY competence? > > Holy smoke! > > William Clark Billy, I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the money. Again, did you read the study? Joe                                       Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, > >>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy > >>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a > >>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's > >>>>>>> Newsweek. > >>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking > >>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only > >>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from > >>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > >>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > >>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies > >>>>> (remember > >>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > >>>>> > >>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > >>>>> > >>>>> William Clark > >>>> See the following: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf > >>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) > >>>> > >>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. > >>>> > >>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 > >>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) > >>>> > >>>> Key findings: > >>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) > >>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun > >>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) > >>>> > >>>> Joe > >>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults > >>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual > >>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. > >>> > >>> QED. > >>> > >>> William Clark > >> > >> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study > >> material. > >> > >> Do you really teach an Engineering course? > >> > >> Joe > > > > Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't > > like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not > > presumption) is wide of the mark. > > > > And you question MY competence? > > > > Holy smoke! > > > > William Clark > > Billy, > > I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements > based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. > > Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the money. > > Again, did you read the study? > > Joe Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and verified. So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do you have any? William Clark                                         Date: 29 Apr 2007 19:29:58 From: Joe Subject: Re: What's Really Important. William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, >>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy >>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a >>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's >>>>>>>>> Newsweek. >>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking >>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only >>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be from >>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the >>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. >>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies >>>>>>> (remember >>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>> See the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf >>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) >>>>>> >>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 >>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Key findings: >>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) >>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun >>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe >>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 adults >>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual >>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. >>>>> >>>>> QED. >>>>> >>>>> William Clark >>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study >>>> material. >>>> >>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course? >>>> >>>> Joe >>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't >>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not >>> presumption) is wide of the mark. >>> >>> And you question MY competence? >>> >>> Holy smoke! >>> >>> William Clark >> Billy, >> >> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements >> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. >> >> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the money. >> >> Again, did you read the study? >> >> Joe > > Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is > not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the > US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can > check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and > verified. > > So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do > you have any? > > William Clark The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data. Joe                                           Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:31:12 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, > >>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy > >>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a > >>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's > >>>>>>>>> Newsweek. > >>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking > >>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only > >>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > >>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > >>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies > >>>>>>> (remember > >>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> William Clark > >>>>>> See the following: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf > >>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 > >>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Key findings: > >>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) > >>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun > >>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joe > >>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 > >>>>> adults > >>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual > >>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. > >>>>> > >>>>> QED. > >>>>> > >>>>> William Clark > >>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study > >>>> material. > >>>> > >>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course? > >>>> > >>>> Joe > >>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't > >>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not > >>> presumption) is wide of the mark. > >>> > >>> And you question MY competence? > >>> > >>> Holy smoke! > >>> > >>> William Clark > >> Billy, > >> > >> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements > >> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. > >> > >> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the > >> money. > >> > >> Again, did you read the study? > >> > >> Joe > > > > Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is > > not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the > > US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can > > check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and > > verified. > > > > So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do > > you have any? > > > > William Clark > > The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data > 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data. > > Joe Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221 million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses. Why use out of date data? William Clark                                             Date: 30 Apr 2007 01:11:42 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:31:12 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221 >million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That >equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses. > >Why use out of date data? While that is more current data, it doesn't tell us much of import without further details. All countries have firearms that are used by the military, and states with military bases have more such firearms than otherwise comparable states without military bases. So what do those figures above include?                                               Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:36:27 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <3gga33prmoe4028cjb4klhtmao1qmleqh1@4ax.com >, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:31:12 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221 > >million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That > >equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses. > > > >Why use out of date data? > > While that is more current data, it doesn't tell us much of import > without further details. All countries have firearms that are used > by the military, and states with military bases have more such > firearms than otherwise comparable states without military bases. > > So what do those figures above include? These are personal firearms owned by the general public. The military arsenal is, I presume, logged separately by the Pentagon. William Clark                                                 Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:04:01 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:36:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >These are personal firearms owned by the general public. The military >arsenal is, I presume, logged separately by the Pentagon. There are no accurate numbers to reflect the number of gun owners or the amount of firearms in the USA in private posession. People publish bullshit numbers to serve their own purposes; but that's about it.                                                   Date: 01 May 2007 12:33:20 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:04:01 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote: > People >publish bullshit numbers to serve their own purposes; but that's >about it. Ain't that the truth and one of them is right here.                                                     Date: 01 May 2007 15:49:29 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <vtqe335jdui6d2m0er7obnj2g3n75cei43@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:04:01 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov> > wrote: > > > People > >publish bullshit numbers to serve their own purposes; but that's > >about it. > > Ain't that the truth and one of them is right here. Indeed, Jack, that does describe your contribution. William Clark                                                 Date: 30 Apr 2007 02:46:13 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:36:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >> So what do those figures above include? > >These are personal firearms owned by the general public. The military >arsenal is, I presume, logged separately by the Pentagon. How about police and guards?                                                   Date: 29 Apr 2007 23:02:44 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <t6ma33965ubli1seljs1h4lh92gdu20u77@4ax.com >, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:36:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >> So what do those figures above include? > > > >These are personal firearms owned by the general public. The military > >arsenal is, I presume, logged separately by the Pentagon. > > How about police and guards? Not counted in these figures - unless they own their own personal weapons. William Clark                                             Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:56:58 From: Joe Subject: Re: What's Really Important. William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy >>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other a >>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's >>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek. >>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking >>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The only >>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the >>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. >>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies >>>>>>>>> (remember >>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>>>> See the following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf >>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 >>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Key findings: >>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) >>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun >>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 >>>>>>> adults >>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual >>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> QED. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the study >>>>>> material. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course? >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe >>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't >>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not >>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark. >>>>> >>>>> And you question MY competence? >>>>> >>>>> Holy smoke! >>>>> >>>>> William Clark >>>> Billy, >>>> >>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements >>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. >>>> >>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the >>>> money. >>>> >>>> Again, did you read the study? >>>> >>>> Joe >>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is >>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the >>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can >>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and >>> verified. >>> >>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do >>> you have any? >>> >>> William Clark >> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data >> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data. >> >> Joe > > Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221 > million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That > equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses. > > Why use out of date data? > > William Clark Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided. Joe                                               Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:39:47 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <46353e1a$0$16707$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, > >>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy > >>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other > >>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's > >>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek. > >>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking > >>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The > >>>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be > >>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > >>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. > >>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies > >>>>>>>>> (remember > >>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> William Clark > >>>>>>>> See the following: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf > >>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 > >>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Key findings: > >>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) > >>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun > >>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Joe > >>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 > >>>>>>> adults > >>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual > >>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> QED. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> William Clark > >>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the > >>>>>> study > >>>>>> material. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joe > >>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't > >>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not > >>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark. > >>>>> > >>>>> And you question MY competence? > >>>>> > >>>>> Holy smoke! > >>>>> > >>>>> William Clark > >>>> Billy, > >>>> > >>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements > >>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. > >>>> > >>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the > >>>> money. > >>>> > >>>> Again, did you read the study? > >>>> > >>>> Joe > >>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is > >>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the > >>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can > >>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and > >>> verified. > >>> > >>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do > >>> you have any? > >>> > >>> William Clark > >> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data > >> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data. > >> > >> Joe > > > > Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221 > > million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That > > equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses. > > > > Why use out of date data? > > > > William Clark > > Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the > ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for > example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided. > > Joe Silly games again, Joe. Of course simple division gives a very good picture of the average number of firearms per household for such a huge sample. With a data set of this size, such abberrations as Headshot owning fifteen weapons, and me owning none, wash out in the overall numbers which converge on the average. Clearly you did not take Statistics 101 in college.                                                 Date: 29 Apr 2007 22:15:28 From: Joe Subject: Re: What's Really Important. William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <46353e1a$0$16707$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >>>>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy >>>>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the other >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's >>>>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek. >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're talking >>>>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The >>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be >>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the >>>>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. >>>>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies >>>>>>>>>>> (remember >>>>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>>>>>> See the following: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf >>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 >>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Key findings: >>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) >>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun >>>>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 >>>>>>>>> adults >>>>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% individual >>>>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> QED. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the >>>>>>>> study >>>>>>>> material. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't >>>>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not >>>>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you question MY competence? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Holy smoke! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>> Billy, >>>>>> >>>>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements >>>>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the >>>>>> money. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, did you read the study? >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe >>>>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is >>>>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the >>>>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can >>>>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and >>>>> verified. >>>>> >>>>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do >>>>> you have any? >>>>> >>>>> William Clark >>>> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data >>>> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data. >>>> >>>> Joe >>> Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221 >>> million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That >>> equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses. >>> >>> Why use out of date data? >>> >>> William Clark >> Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the >> ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for >> example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided. >> >> Joe > > Silly games again, Joe. Of course simple division gives a very good > picture of the average number of firearms per household for such a huge > sample. With a data set of this size, such abberrations as Headshot > owning fifteen weapons, and me owning none, wash out in the overall > numbers which converge on the average. > > Clearly you did not take Statistics 101 in college. Wrong on both counts. The curve is NOT a normal distribution. I already pointed that out to you above. "http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf >>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 >>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Key findings: >>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) >>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun" In addition there are other demographic difference, as an example, ownership is highest amongst middle aged males in the south. In fact, people with post high school education had the highest ownership rates. I am really starting to wonder how you managed to get that advanced degree. It is time for you to pony up and drop the hand waving. Joe                                                   Date: 29 Apr 2007 23:31:29 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <46355080$0$16689$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <46353e1a$0$16707$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>> In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >>>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, > >>>>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >>>>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're > >>>>>>>>>>>> talking > >>>>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The > >>>>>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be > >>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to > >>>>>>>>>>>> anything. > >>>>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies > >>>>>>>>>>> (remember > >>>>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> William Clark > >>>>>>>>>> See the following: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf > >>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 > >>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Key findings: > >>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) > >>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun > >>>>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Joe > >>>>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 > >>>>>>>>> adults > >>>>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% > >>>>>>>>> individual > >>>>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> QED. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> William Clark > >>>>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the > >>>>>>>> study > >>>>>>>> material. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Joe > >>>>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't > >>>>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not > >>>>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And you question MY competence? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Holy smoke! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> William Clark > >>>>>> Billy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements > >>>>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the > >>>>>> money. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again, did you read the study? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joe > >>>>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is > >>>>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the > >>>>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can > >>>>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and > >>>>> verified. > >>>>> > >>>>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do > >>>>> you have any? > >>>>> > >>>>> William Clark > >>>> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data > >>>> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data. > >>>> > >>>> Joe > >>> Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221 > >>> million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That > >>> equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses. > >>> > >>> Why use out of date data? > >>> > >>> William Clark > >> Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the > >> ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for > >> example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided. > >> > >> Joe > > > > Silly games again, Joe. Of course simple division gives a very good > > picture of the average number of firearms per household for such a huge > > sample. With a data set of this size, such abberrations as Headshot > > owning fifteen weapons, and me owning none, wash out in the overall > > numbers which converge on the average. > > > > Clearly you did not take Statistics 101 in college. > > Wrong on both counts. > > The curve is NOT a normal distribution. I already pointed that out to > you above. > > "http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf > >>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 > >>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Key findings: > >>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) > >>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun" > > In addition there are other demographic difference, as an example, > ownership is highest amongst middle aged males in the south. > > In fact, people with post high school education had the highest > ownership rates. > > I am really starting to wonder how you managed to get that advanced degree. > > It is time for you to pony up and drop the hand waving. > > Joe "Normal distribution" has nothing to do with it - fluctuations from the mean in a large data set do. This data is 2004 study, with data up to 1998. The numbers of guns in private hands have gone up since 1994. You might want to modernize your numbers. All the other points you try to obfuscate with are completely irrelevant. You might also want to try reading more than just the potted version on page 1 - for example, it makes a strong case that the value of privately owned firearms in the prevention of crime is overrated, in contrast to the claims of the pro-gun lobby. It also points out that this is a telephone survey of only some 2500 households (out of over 100,000,000 in the US). And we all know how good telephone surveys are at predicting, for example, the outcome of general elections. Worst of all the survey was carried out under contract by a Stanford University professor! Heavens, you tell us yourself over and over again that academics know nothing and can't be trusted. Hoist with your own petard, I would say. And you accuse me of hand waving? Wow. William Clark                                                     Date: 30 Apr 2007 00:26:23 From: Joe Subject: Re: What's Really Important. William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <46355080$0$16689$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> In article <46353e1a$0$16707$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>> In article <463529b6$0$15164$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>> In article <46351b1d$0$19093$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <4634fa68$0$1372$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <4630cfc0$0$4875$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>>>>>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <uq0033dsr9qcijj69391um8smv7dulluq8@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:44:16 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave you two hard copy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data sources - one from the US Govt. (via the ATF), and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly widely quoted book. In addition, I gave you this week's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newsweek. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen anything. Please hyperlink the data you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about. I want to see the ATF data that you talked about. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source for that 29% figure you quoted that I can see seems to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the book "Where We Stand." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>> For the fourth time, it isn't on the web - I have paper copies >>>>>>>>>>>>> (remember >>>>>>>>>>>>> those?) that I have had for years. I suggest you do likewise. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of us read things before the invention of the internet. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>>>>>>>> See the following: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 >>>>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Key findings: >>>>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) >>>>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun >>>>>>>>>>>> Handgun ownership in the US is then ~16% (household data) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>>>> Actually the data is handguns per household. With approximately 2 >>>>>>>>>>> adults >>>>>>>>>>> per household, this puts that at roughly double the ~16% >>>>>>>>>>> individual >>>>>>>>>>> ownership, or right in the ~30% area. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> QED. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>>>>>> You presume facts not in evidence. You obviously did NOT read the >>>>>>>>>> study >>>>>>>>>> material. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you really teach an Engineering course? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>> Oh, Jeez, another from the Karl Rove "smear whoever has data I don't >>>>>>>>> like" school". Please demonstrate how this extrapolation (not >>>>>>>>> presumption) is wide of the mark. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you question MY competence? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Holy smoke! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>>>> Billy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I simply reported the data. You made some assumptions and statements >>>>>>>> based on the assumptions. It is up to you to defend your assertions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me give a little hint, your 2 adults per household is WAY off the >>>>>>>> money. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, did you read the study? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> Not assumptions - extrapolations. Actually my 2 adults per household is >>>>>>> not far off the mary. There are approximately 114,000 households in the >>>>>>> US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can >>>>>>> check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and >>>>>>> verified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So where's your data that shows this to be "way off the money"? Or do >>>>>>> you have any? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> William Clark >>>>>> The data in the study is from 1996. 101 M households (US Census data >>>>>> 1997) 2.61 per household. Don't compare 2005 or 2006 data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe >>>>> Well, if you take the most recent Census and firearm data, there are 221 >>>>> million firearms in the US, of which 71 million are handguns. That >>>>> equates to 2 handguns for every 3 houses. >>>>> >>>>> Why use out of date data? >>>>> >>>>> William Clark >>>> Fast and loose again Billy. Simple division doesn't work given the >>>> ownership distribution. How many handguns does Headshot have, just for >>>> example? Clearly you did NOT read the material that I provided. >>>> >>>> Joe >>> Silly games again, Joe. Of course simple division gives a very good >>> picture of the average number of firearms per household for such a huge >>> sample. With a data set of this size, such abberrations as Headshot >>> owning fifteen weapons, and me owning none, wash out in the overall >>> numbers which converge on the average. >>> >>> Clearly you did not take Statistics 101 in college. >> Wrong on both counts. >> >> The curve is NOT a normal distribution. I already pointed that out to >> you above. >> >> "http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf >> >>>>>>>>>> 165476.pdf (application/pdf Object) >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> USDOJ National Institute of Justice. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Summary report publish 1997 data for 1994 >> >>>>>>>>>> 12 pages long easy read. :) >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Key findings: >> >>>>>>>>>> 44 million adults owned guns All types. (25%0 of population) >> >>>>>>>>>> 64% of the above owned a handgun" >> >> In addition there are other demographic difference, as an example, >> ownership is highest amongst middle aged males in the south. >> >> In fact, people with post high school education had the highest >> ownership rates. >> >> I am really starting to wonder how you managed to get that advanced degree. >> >> It is time for you to pony up and drop the hand waving. >> >> Joe > > "Normal distribution" has nothing to do with it - fluctuations from the > mean in a large data set do. > > This data is 2004 study, with data up to 1998. The numbers of guns in > private hands have gone up since 1994. You might want to modernize your > numbers. All the other points you try to obfuscate with are completely > irrelevant. You might also want to try reading more than just the potted > version on page 1 - for example, it makes a strong case that the value > of privately owned firearms in the prevention of crime is overrated, in > contrast to the claims of the pro-gun lobby. It also points out that > this is a telephone survey of only some 2500 households (out of over > 100,000,000 in the US). And we all know how good telephone surveys are > at predicting, for example, the outcome of general elections. Worst of > all the survey was carried out under contract by a Stanford University > professor! Heavens, you tell us yourself over and over again that > academics know nothing and can't be trusted. Hoist with your own petard, > I would say. > > And you accuse me of hand waving? > > Wow. > > William Clark                                         Date: 29 Apr 2007 18:58:51 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: > There are approximately 114,000 households in the >US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can >check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and >verified. There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there Magellan.                                           Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:32:33 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <jl8a339luuiso5m20127f3d0ebu251fmbq@4ax.com >, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > There are approximately 114,000 households in the > >US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can > >check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and > >verified. > > There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone > the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there > Magellan. Sorry, of course, I meant 114,000,000 households. At least you can point that out without questioning my parentage - unlike some, who have no other response to make. William Clark                                             Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:13:31 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:32:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >In article <jl8a339luuiso5m20127f3d0ebu251fmbq@4ax.com>, > Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov> wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: >> > There are approximately 114,000 households in the >> >US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can >> >check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and >> >verified. >> >> There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone >> the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there >> Magellan. > >Sorry, of course, I meant 114,000,000 households. > >At least you can point that out without questioning my parentage - >unlike some, who have no other response to make. Why would I question your parentage - I have great respect for you and have no doubt that you are doing an excellent job raising your kids. But I did not know you meant 114M - I suspected earlier you were perhaps talking about a specific city. With regard to knowing how many arms are in USA; nobody knows. NRA has one guess, and Brady has another. Each group picks a number that fits their needs. But even when they do come up with numbers; the feed to that is always some small poll of a group (and then some multiplication). For example, I own a Federal Firearms License (Type 07) and collect military weapons of many countries from WW I through Vietnam. I log them in my FFL book. BATFE has a right to see the book whenever they want; but have never asked. All they can be sure of is that I have 12 of the $200 Tax Stamps for automatic weapons; attached to my photo, a few page form, and my fingerprints (as well as a document signed by my local Sheriff). That's what they have for each of the 300,000 NFA firearms in the BATFE Registry. Anything else from the BATFE is just a guess. Also, any weapons that are not in the C&R List are not in my book; which is how BATFE wants it. Import controls did not exist back during WW I and WW II and lots of weapons were "bring backs". There are also firearms companies that went out of business without being required to give up their production records (Randall Firearms is an example of a great company that made 1911's back in the 70's). I have seen estimates from 220 million to 400 million not including illegal arms; but I would not be surprised if there were 500 million firearms or more.                                               Date: 30 Apr 2007 20:52:39 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <h11d33l0ejitdufe95h92967mlu5pkd0ll@4ax.com >, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:32:33 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > >In article <jl8a339luuiso5m20127f3d0ebu251fmbq@4ax.com>, > > Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > >> > There are approximately 114,000 households in the > >> >US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can > >> >check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and > >> >verified. > >> > >> There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone > >> the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there > >> Magellan. > > > >Sorry, of course, I meant 114,000,000 households. > > > >At least you can point that out without questioning my parentage - > >unlike some, who have no other response to make. > > Why would I question your parentage - I have great respect for you and > have no doubt that you are doing an excellent job raising your kids. > But I did not know you meant 114M - I suspected earlier you were > perhaps talking about a specific city. No offence meant - I was reaching the end of my tether dealing with Jack's intellectual dishonesty and name calling. I understand why you called my typo, but as I said, unlike Jack, you were able to do it with questioning my fitness to be on this planet. You also talked (and talk) actual numbers, another thing Jack seems to be allergic to. > > With regard to knowing how many arms are in USA; nobody knows. NRA > has one guess, and Brady has another. Each group picks a number that > fits their needs. But even when they do come up with numbers; the > feed to that is always some small poll of a group (and then some > multiplication). For example, I own a Federal Firearms License > (Type 07) and collect military weapons of many countries from WW I > through Vietnam. I log them in my FFL book. BATFE has a right to > see the book whenever they want; but have never asked. All they can > be sure of is that I have 12 of the $200 Tax Stamps for automatic > weapons; attached to my photo, a few page form, and my fingerprints > (as well as a document signed by my local Sheriff). That's what they > have for each of the 300,000 NFA firearms in the BATFE Registry. > Anything else from the BATFE is just a guess. Also, any weapons that > are not in the C&R List are not in my book; which is how BATFE wants > it. Import controls did not exist back during WW I and WW II and > lots of weapons were "bring backs". There are also firearms companies > that went out of business without being required to give up their > production records (Randall Firearms is an example of a great company > that made 1911's back in the 70's). I have seen estimates from 220 > million to 400 million not including illegal arms; but I would not be > surprised if there were 500 million firearms or more. Yes, it's hard to call, but there are supposedly statistically representative polls that try to get at these numbers. Most that I see converge around the 200-220 million total, with 70+ million of these handguns. That's enough for me. William Clark                                           Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:22:09 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:58:51 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov > wrote: >On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" ><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: >> There are approximately 114,000 households in the >>US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can >>check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and >>verified. > >There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone >the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there >Magellan. The hole just gets deeper and deeper.                                             Date: 29 Apr 2007 21:41:50 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <skda33pm0tj8dre4f61pqnjlnh044pm855@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:58:51 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@HeadShot.gov> > wrote: > > >On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:49:37 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > ><clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > >> There are approximately 114,000 households in the > >>US, and the average number of adults per household is 1.92. You can > >>check that for yourself with the US Census data. Data defended and > >>verified. > > > >There are more than 114K households in downtown Atlanta; let alone > >the USA. You might wanna double check those numbers again there > >Magellan. > > The hole just gets deeper and deeper. The evasion just gets sillier and sillier. Any idiot knows that this typo should read 114,000,000 households. But clutch onto any straw you can if it helps you avoid actually addressing the issue with real facts. William Clark                           Date: 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > I find it difficult to believe that you actually had a copy of the > book. In any case, I'm still waiting for a hyperlink to anything. Here's one. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's 2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                             Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled >benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's >2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year. There is no SSTF.                               Date: 26 Apr 2007 15:52:34 From: larry Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: >On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy ><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled >>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's >>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year. > >There is no SSTF. Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the general fund) that is collected for SS. Larry                                 Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:24:47 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:52:34 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote: >On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy >><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled >>>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's >>>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year. >> >>There is no SSTF. > >Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not >Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding >that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the >general fund) that is collected for SS. > >Larry And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless.                                   Date: 27 Apr 2007 18:51:20 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:52:34 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com> > wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy >>><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled >>>>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's >>>>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year. >>> >>>There is no SSTF. >> >>Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not >>Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding >>that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the >>general fund) that is collected for SS. >> >>Larry > > And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until > 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless. How old are you? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                     Date: 27 Apr 2007 16:16:46 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:51:20 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >> And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until >> 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless. > >How old are you? Eleven months away from collecting my first SS benefit.                                       Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:05:28 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:51:20 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >>> And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until >>> 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless. >> >>How old are you? > > Eleven months away from collecting my first SS benefit. Damn. Well, live to be old, Jack. I want you around to make fun of in 35 years. :) -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                         Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:36:56 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:05:28 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:51:20 -0000, Chris Bellomy >> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> And then they have the gall to tell people that SS if funded until >>>> 2041. Anyone who believes that is clueless. >>> >>>How old are you? >> >> Eleven months away from collecting my first SS benefit. > >Damn. Well, live to be old, Jack. I want you around to make fun >of in 35 years. :) By that time, they will have either reduced benefits in some way and/or increased SS tax. Hopefully, they wont touch the people already on SS, but I don't count on it. Luckily, I could do fine without SS, but I did pay into the system and I deserve my benefits. The beautiful thing is that I have three minor children. I'll get benefits for all of them. My daughter is six months old. She's a soon to be walking annuity until she's 18. Ironically, as it turned out, I'm going to get a pretty good return on investment. My oldest son is 12 and his brother is 10. I have to admit that I always hated SS, but now I'm starting to like it. BTW, Chris, here's an explanation of the SSTF from the Treasury Dept. "When a trust fund invests in U.S. Treasury securities, it has, in effect, loaned money to the rest of the government... The value of the securities held is recorded in the budget as "debt held by government accounts" and represents debt owed by one part of the government to another. Just as with marketable securities (securities sold to the public) a maturity date is set, interest is accrued at established rates and the securities count as part of the overall federal debt that is subject to a ceiling set by Congress. The interest earned on the internal loan is credited to the trust fund accounts in the form of additional Treasury securities. As such, the securities constitute a liability for the Treasury as the loan must be repaid when the trust funds need to redeem securities in order to make benefit payments. As with marketable bonds, these special Treasury securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government." http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/economic-policy/reports/budget_trust_fund_perspectives_2007.pdf Thus you see that the SSTF is nothing other than government debt.                                           Date: 28 Apr 2007 01:50:28 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > Thus you see that the SSTF is nothing other than government debt. ...which is already accounted for by the currency markets. That's about as real as money gets in our system. It all goes back to the definition of M. See you in 35 years, codger. :) -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                             Date: 27 Apr 2007 21:58:20 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:50:28 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >> Thus you see that the SSTF is nothing other than government debt. > >...which is already accounted for by the currency markets. That's >about as real as money gets in our system. It all goes back to >the definition of M. You're hopeless :) BTW Treasuries are only part of the money supply if they are held by banks as part of their reserve.                                               Date: 28 Apr 2007 07:28:42 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:50:28 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >>Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> Thus you see that the SSTF is nothing other than government debt. >> >>...which is already accounted for by the currency markets. That's >>about as real as money gets in our system. It all goes back to >>the definition of M. > > You're hopeless :) We're both hopeless. Ha! > BTW Treasuries are only part of the money supply if they are held by > banks as part of their reserve. I think I've already been over M3 here but it's a detail not even worth further explanation. The bottom line is that the worth of our currency is determined by the markets. The markets understand fully well what the situation with Social Security is and will be. It's all accounted for already. To maintain otherwise is essentially to insist that the currency markets are stupid. I don't think they are. Maybe you differ. If I were to try to draw a classic accounting analogy here, it would be that you are confusing cash flow with profitability. Yes, there will be a negative cash flow situation over the next generation. However, revenue has been deferred such that the bottom line will remain healthy indefinitely into the future. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                 Date: 27 Apr 2007 02:08:58 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:20:33 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> > wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy >><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled >>>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's >>>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year. >> >>There is no SSTF. > > Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not > Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding > that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the > general fund) that is collected for SS. See, Jack, you're in league with Larry! Congrats! -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                   Date: 27 Apr 2007 14:30:53 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:08:58 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >>>There is no SSTF. >> >> Guess which president was the first to admit that-- GW Bush. Not >> Clinton and NOT Lyndon Johnson, the first president to start hiding >> that the government was borrowing the money, (putting it in the >> general fund) that is collected for SS. > >See, Jack, you're in league with Larry! Congrats! I don't agree with everything he says, but the fact is that the SSTF has no money in it. Starting in 2017, when the shortfall starts, the money will have to come out of general revenues. The fact that the money will go to redeem T-Bills rather than directly to benefits is irrelevant.                               Date: 26 Apr 2007 21:19:56 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: What's Really Important. Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:07:35 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >>Last year they said Social Security could pay full scheduled >>benefits without any program changes through 2040. Now it's >>2041. Funny how that keeps happening every year. > > There is no SSTF. Of course. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                 Date: 24 Apr 2007 09:32:21 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: What's Really Important. "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-81EAEE.08415824042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <lf3q23lihq1kp6hht31mguu69aneagevqb@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0500, "the Moderator" > > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > > >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > > >news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > >> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>, > > >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator" > > >> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > >> William Clark > > >> > > > > >> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun? > > >> > > > >> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data. > > >> > > >> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose > > >> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as > > >> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it? > > >> > > >> William Clark > > > > > >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are mistaken. > > > > I can't find it either. > > Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News > Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991. > > Thank you. > > William Clark I found this: In 1991, there were 211 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., which then had a population of 252 million people. Of these firearms, about 71 million were handguns.(10) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm I own four handguns. A lot of people who own handguns own multiple handguns. It is a leap to suggest 29% of households have handguns. Does not look like it is supported by the source.                   Date: 24 Apr 2007 12:27:47 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <Vrudnbf27NdribPbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@centurytel.net >, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-81EAEE.08415824042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <lf3q23lihq1kp6hht31mguu69aneagevqb@4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0500, "the Moderator" > > > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > > > > >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > > > >news:clark.31-1021C0.16520121042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > >> In article <o7ri23ld25i0m6264ucm37k4ka0gampqqv@4ax.com>, > > > >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:25:35 -0500, "the Moderator" > > > >> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > >> William Clark > > > >> > > > > > >> > >What is your source that 29% of US households have a handgun? > > > >> > > > > >> > I think that Bill is coming up with some pretty dodgy data. > > > >> > > > >> Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose > > > >> data it is. But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as > > > >> one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it? > > > >> > > > >> William Clark > > > > > > > >I could not find this data on the ATF website. I think you are > mistaken. > > > > > > I can't find it either. > > > > Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), How Many Guns? ATF News > > Release FY-91-36, G.P.O., Washington, 1991. > > > > Thank you. > > > > William Clark > > I found this: > > In 1991, there were 211 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., which > then had a population of 252 million people. Of these firearms, about 71 > million were handguns.(10) > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm > > I own four handguns. A lot of people who own handguns own multiple > handguns. It is a leap to suggest 29% of households have handguns. Does > not look like it is supported by the source. Really? You have about 80 million households owning 71 million handguns. I'd say 29% is very reasonable - it allows for each household to own 2-3 handguns. Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289." William Clark                     Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:14:31 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: What's Really Important. "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-1DC375.12274724042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <Vrudnbf27NdribPbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@centurytel.net>, > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > > > I found this: > > > > In 1991, there were 211 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., which > > then had a population of 252 million people. Of these firearms, about 71 > > million were handguns.(10) > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm > > > > I own four handguns. A lot of people who own handguns own multiple > > handguns. It is a leap to suggest 29% of households have handguns. Does > > not look like it is supported by the source. > > Really? You have about 80 million households owning 71 million handguns. > I'd say 29% is very reasonable - it allows for each household to own 2-3 > handguns. > > Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff, > Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team > (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289." > > William Clark You said the source was the ATF. I knew you were grasping at straws. Credibility = zero.                       Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:35:56 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <WvydnYRl3KXF7bLbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@centurytel.net >, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-1DC375.12274724042007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <Vrudnbf27NdribPbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@centurytel.net>, > > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I found this: > > > > > > In 1991, there were 211 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., > which > > > then had a population of 252 million people. Of these firearms, about 71 > > > million were handguns.(10) > > > > > > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm > > > > > > I own four handguns. A lot of people who own handguns own multiple > > > handguns. It is a leap to suggest 29% of households have handguns. > Does > > > not look like it is supported by the source. > > > > Really? You have about 80 million households owning 71 million handguns. > > I'd say 29% is very reasonable - it allows for each household to own 2-3 > > handguns. > > > > Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff, > > Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team > > (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289." > > > > William Clark > > You said the source was the ATF. I knew you were grasping at straws. > Credibility = zero. No, there are two sources - one from the ATF that contains most of the homicide data, and the second one that contains a lot of demographic data. There is some overlap between the two, but since you haven't and won''t read either, that is irrelevant. Or don't you have more than one book in your library? Literacy = zero. William Clark                     Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:05:09 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:27:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote: >Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff, >Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team >(New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289." > >William Clark I thought you said the original source was the ATF?                       Date: 25 Apr 2007 11:37:12 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: What's Really Important. In article <ieku231dvmpk0c70lv9s2r8bqkpudj3i6o@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:27:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" > <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > > >Did you read the original the source? - "Where We Stand, Michael Wolff, > >Peter Rutten & Albert F. Bayers III and the World Rank Research Team > >(New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 297,289." > > > >William Clark > > I thought you said the original source was the ATF? Just read the previous response. God help us. William Clark PS: Why not just read either of them, and then you can actually make up your own mind based on data, rather than prejudice.           Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:36:49 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:52:01 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >But then that source could not possibly be as reliable as >one of those neocon think tanks you believe in, now could it? You mean like the Home Office or UN report that showed that the UK has a higher homicide rate than Switzerland. Where did you get your data from that said that the UK homicide rate was lower than Switzerland?           Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:34:13 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: What's Really Important. On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:52:01 -0400, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: >Well, go and check with your own Bureau of ATF, because that's whose >data it is. Send me the link.       Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:18:01 From: sfb Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! There were serious challenges to the Hopkins/Lancet methodology by experts in the field so the numbers might lack validity. "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message news:tIOdncW43vnzbbXbnZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d@bt.com... > "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1177046252.233236.115570@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> BTW, what is the current conversion rate? >> 1 American life = how many Iraqis? >> > According to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study there > were 650,000 Iraqi killed over six months ago. About > 3,500 American casualties to date. I'm so sickened by > the unbelievable nightmare that everyone in Iraq is > living through that I can't bring myself to do the math. > BTW not a mention of oil in this thread, not even by > Carbon. That's like discussing the Israel/Palestinian > situation without mentioning Zionism. Or Victorians > writing novels without mentioning sex - if you prefer > the late Kurt Vonnegut's take. > >         Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:05:37 From: AKA gray asphalt Subject: Re: 183 Dead in Baghdad Today ! I didn't see any serious challenges of their methodology. You're taling about Johns Hopkins, whose work in similar questions in other parts of the world, using the same methodology, were accepted without question. If you read their methodology, you'll find that they put