kelpdiver 2 #26 July 14, 2008 QuoteWhoa. So much for getting along. Who pissed in your cornflakes? tired of relativistic arguments with regard to civil and human rights. Rights aren't given by the majority opinion. Usually quite the opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 July 14, 2008 Nobody else in the thread has mis-understood what I said to be a "relativistic argument." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 July 14, 2008 QuoteNobody else in the thread has mis-understood what I said to be a "relativistic argument." It's not about misunderstanding it. It's about rejecting it as pointless. And that's why I gave the similar argument about voting rights. Far more people have died, on the knees begging for their lives, made defenseless by law, than were killed in the civil rights movement. EDIT: modern civil rights movement - ie - 50s on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #29 July 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteYes, the opinion of Prof. Gary Kleck, whose other opinions and extrapolations on self-defense are taken as gospel truth by the gun-o-philes. So his opinions are not to be trusted? Or are his conclusions not to be trusted? Or are his data not to be trusted? Please, expound. I think he way overestimated (let's not forget that his numbers are just ESTIMATES based on a number of assumptions that are not bulletproof (pun intended)). When we look at numbers of "crimes" people bothered to report to the police, the numbers are way way smaller than Kleck's. And his numbers for prevented rapes are just absurd. And that is my OPINION, OK?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 July 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteYes, the opinion of Prof. Gary Kleck, whose other opinions and extrapolations on self-defense are taken as gospel truth by the gun-o-philes. So his opinions are not to be trusted? Or are his conclusions not to be trusted? Or are his data not to be trusted? Please, expound. I think he way overestimated (let's not forget that his numbers are just ESTIMATES based on a number of assumptions that are not bulletproof (pun intended)). When we look at numbers of "crimes" people bothered to report to the police, the numbers are way way smaller than Kleck's. And his numbers for prevented rapes are just absurd. And that is my OPINION, OK? So, because they were never reported to the police, they never happened? How many law-abiding people in, say, Chicago or DC do you think are going to call the police to tell them about how they just chased someone away from their door with their (illegal) handgun? Defensive gun usage isn't a DOJ crime reporting stat. To the best of my knowledge, there are no questions on NCVS survey about defensive gun use, either. Kleck's survey had multiple (IIRC, up to 20) sub-questions designed to weed out false positives. All ambiguous responses were dropped as possible false positives. Kleck's survey and subsequent book have been lauded as the 'gold standard' for how to conduct criminological surveys, both by Criminology and also by anti-gun advocates such as the late Marvin Wolfgang: "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook can help me find fault with the Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research." And "Nonetheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it." And "The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 July 14, 2008 Okay. Opinions are fine. Nothing wrong with them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 July 15, 2008 I'm glad we can all have a sensible, mature discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #33 July 15, 2008 Nyeah, nyeah; you're a poopie-head. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 July 15, 2008 QuoteNyeah, nyeah; you're a poopie-head. Yo, Greenies! Smite this fool. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #35 July 15, 2008 ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 July 15, 2008 Quote I'm glad we can all have a sensible, mature discussion. We can't all do that, Andy. For all of you out there, please note: Lawyers are more likely to be peacemakers than warmongers. Look at Andy. He's a peaceful-type guy. Of course, I make a nice foil. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 July 15, 2008 Quote Lawyers are more likely to be peacemakers than warmongers. Only when they see their chances at 60% or worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
