Guns in the U.S need to go away now (or in a few years :))

[DinoDoc]

How does licensing doctors, lawyers, cars, etc. violate the right to privacy?

[David Floyd]

I have a problem with being required to give out and update information to the federal government, as well as adhere to a myriad of federal guidelines and regulations, many of which are written by bureaucrats to achieve political ends.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dino, I'm trying to find that out myself.

What, to you is the right to privacy then, if its not the right to your own personal information, and the right to be secure in your person, job,roperty without the government seizing and regulating such things at will?

So to you the census is unconstitutional?

[David Floyd]

The census in its current form certainly is.

[Dr Strangelove]

OK, I read Kleck's paper (I didn't see the blue highlighted link at first) and I've concluded that his obvious bias utterly corrupts his ability to make sound judgement on the issue. I was particularily tickled when he wrote that medical researchers, when considering the differing fatality rate between victims of gunshots and victims of attacks by other weapons failed to consider that the difference in fatality rates might be due to the difference in the intent of attackers using the different types of weapons. Anyone over the age of 6 should be able to understand the difference between the destructive effects of a bullet and a knife.

Nothing he said in the paper was substantiated.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The census in its current form certainly is.

We just got socked with filling out the long form (of the census). I'm not crying. In fact I packed it with trumped up proof that guns kill people.

[Wraith]

--"What is needed is good study design and doctors are quite able to manage that."

As he points out, no they aren't, not for this. He is biased, sure, but so are the doctors. Feel free to critize Kleck's methedology, but it doesn't change the fact that the ones done by doctors are, by and large, so poorly done as to be worthless.

--"So to you the census is unconstitutional?"

Everything other than "how many people live in this building" is. You have no obligation to answer any other question.

--"Nothing he said in the paper was substantiated."

Like I said (and like it says at the top), this was not the full report. Go check out his book for that, libraries should have them available.
His points do stand. Citing studies that do not claim what you say they do is a big no-no, no matter what kind of study you do. There is a medical journal published "study" that lumps 0-24 years olds as children (and is much cited in the media). Every claim he's made there that I've had time/energy/ability to check has stood up.
Feel free to look up any of the studies he provides citations for in that article (or, better yet, in the book) and post any errors.

Wraith
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
-- Charles Austin Beard

[David Floyd]

We just got socked with filling out the long form (of the census). I'm not crying.

So you willingly submit to coercion and tyranny. They're still unconstitutional. My friend got the long form last year - he wrote his name, the number of people in his house, and put a huge X over the rest with some smartass remark.

[David Floyd]

By the way, the reason the census in the form of "how many people in this building", and that only, is because of Congressional representation.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


So you willingly submit to coercion and tyranny. They're still unconstitutional. My friend got the long form last year - he wrote his name, the number of people in his house, and put a huge X over the rest with some smartass remark.

Yep. It's called good citizenship. We here would be more than happy for your Congressional district to be under-counted and under-represented, it just leaves more for us.

[David Floyd]

Yep. It's called good citizenship. We here would be more than happy for your Congressional district to be under-counted and under-represented, it just leaves more for us.

I already addressed Congressional representation one post up

Asking how many people live in the household is the only valid question - the rest is generally used for PC, bureaucratic, unconstitutional bull****.

Finally, "good-citizenship" is a loaded buzzword that's pretty meaningless, so let's not use it

[Dr Strangelove]

So now you're telling me what words I may use? That sounds pretty tyrannical to me!

[David Floyd]

Certainly not, I'm just urging you not to use loaded phrases in your arguments in an attempt to make me look bad - I mean gosh, who wants to be a bad citizen?

[korn469]

i am a member of the NRA and they called me this morning, so after hearing a message from Wayne i donated a lil, so guess what i voted?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"What is needed is good study design and doctors are quite able to manage that."

As he points out, no they aren't, not for this. He is biased, sure, but so are the doctors. Feel free to critize Kleck's methedology, but it doesn't change the fact that the ones done by doctors are, by and large, so poorly done as to be worthless.
.

--"Nothing he said in the paper was substantiated."

Like I said (and like it says at the top), this was not the full report. Go check out his book for that, libraries should have them available.
His points do stand. Citing studies that do not claim what you say they do is a big no-no, no matter what kind of study you do. There is a medical journal published "study" that lumps 0-24 years olds as children (and is much cited in the media). Every claim he's made there that I've had time/energy/ability to check has stood up.
Feel free to look up any of the studies he provides citations for in that article (or, better yet, in the book) and post any errors.

Ohhhh! THAT Gary Kleck! Yeah, this guy criticizing someone elses research methods is very much the pot calling the kettle black. He did a so called random phone survey calling about 4900 people and reached the conclusion that about 1.44% of the adult population used a gun in self defense yielding a grand total of 2.7 million crimes prevented. A couple of things are wrong with this study. First, a telephone study is no more applicable to the population at large than any of the papers he flamed as having poor sampling. Less than 80% of the popuation owns phones, so right off the bat a sizeable segment of the popuklation was excluded form the survey. He failed to mention what his source of phone numbers was. In the medical literature that would be a big no - no. You wouldn't find anyone to publish your results. I find his assertion that 1.44% of the adult population using a gun to defend themselves translates into 2.7 million crimes prevented a little curious too. In that year there were about 2 million crimes total reported in the US. This includes not only violent crimes and personal robbery, but also burglary, drug possesion and etc. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the number of crimes supposedly prevented by people brandishing guns actually exceeds the total number of crimes committed in the country? In my experience, personal and among people I know including patients, this just doesn't seem possible. It defies credulity, and in fact no other researcher has ever come close to duplicating Kleck's results. I would like to see Kleck repeat his study using paper or some other durable form of recording respondant's answers.

No. I'm not going to waste my time reading this man's book. I don't give money to the Scientologists either.