Sometimes stupid loses

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:20:02 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Apr 7, 5:34 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
tony cooper wrote:


Sane gun users shouldn't mind going through a reasonable process.

No disagreement about that, but we surely disagree about what is
reasonable. The Suffolk County laws as described appear designed
mostly to harass law-abiding citizens who choose to own guns than
to prevent any sort of crime.



In today's paper, two more incidents of gunshots. An estranged
husband shot his wife and a killing outside of a club.

Unfortunately the far more numerous occasions when guns prevent
crimes do not generally appear "in today's paper." Mostly they do
only when the intended victim has to shoot someone to protect
himself, and this is a very small minority of cases.

How can you get data on this as these incidents aren't recorded well
no more recorded
than the fisherman's tail of one that got away.

One has to wonder how many of these incidents are actually cases of
some nut visiting what they think is a "scary" neighborhood and
frightening off some innocent bystander who was walking their way.

Or cats rattling the trash cans prompting someone to poke call out "I
have a gun!" and frighten the cat away.

The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the
night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from
one
or more human beings. Events involving defense against animals (including
large, wild, dangerous ones) were excluded. Kleck is a professor at
Florida
State's school of criminology, remember. He knows what he's doing.

I supplied links to equally well-qualified university-affiliated
detractors of Kleck's survey. One was by a Professor at Northwestern
University School of Law. Despite living in Florida, I give more
weight to Northwestern than I do to FSU. I went to graduate school
(but not law school) at Northwestern.

FSU is in Tallahassee, our state's capital, and is too cozy with the
legislators who control the funding and - in turn - are too cozy with
the NRA who funds them. The only loss by the NRA in Tallahassee was
when an open-carry bill was amended to take out language that would
have allowed open-carry on a college campus, and that was because of
the recent shooting in a FSU fraternity house when a kid's AK-47
accidently went off killing the twin sister of the guy's girlfriend.
http://tinyurl.com/67yjx7q

Kleck had nothing to do with the NRA. You anti-gun people are a riot.
Tirades against the NRA seem to be your first response to anything and
everything gun-related that irks you. I have seen this again and again.



You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university
professor are always without flaw?

In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best
they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are
highly subject to the respondent's biases.

I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys
were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or
similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one
or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a
survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology.

Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier
surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years
since I read his comments on this.

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:45:23 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:20:02 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

John A. wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Apr 7, 5:34 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
tony cooper wrote:


Sane gun users shouldn't mind going through a reasonable process.

No disagreement about that, but we surely disagree about what is
reasonable. The Suffolk County laws as described appear designed
mostly to harass law-abiding citizens who choose to own guns than
to prevent any sort of crime.



In today's paper, two more incidents of gunshots. An estranged
husband shot his wife and a killing outside of a club.

Unfortunately the far more numerous occasions when guns prevent
crimes do not generally appear "in today's paper." Mostly they do
only when the intended victim has to shoot someone to protect
himself, and this is a very small minority of cases.

How can you get data on this as these incidents aren't recorded well
no more recorded
than the fisherman's tail of one that got away.

One has to wonder how many of these incidents are actually cases of
some nut visiting what they think is a "scary" neighborhood and
frightening off some innocent bystander who was walking their way.

Or cats rattling the trash cans prompting someone to poke call out "I
have a gun!" and frighten the cat away.

The Kleck surveys were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the
night" or similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from
one
or more human beings. Events involving defense against animals (including
large, wild, dangerous ones) were excluded. Kleck is a professor at
Florida
State's school of criminology, remember. He knows what he's doing.

I supplied links to equally well-qualified university-affiliated
detractors of Kleck's survey. One was by a Professor at Northwestern
University School of Law. Despite living in Florida, I give more
weight to Northwestern than I do to FSU. I went to graduate school
(but not law school) at Northwestern.

FSU is in Tallahassee, our state's capital, and is too cozy with the
legislators who control the funding and - in turn - are too cozy with
the NRA who funds them. The only loss by the NRA in Tallahassee was
when an open-carry bill was amended to take out language that would
have allowed open-carry on a college campus, and that was because of
the recent shooting in a FSU fraternity house when a kid's AK-47
accidently went off killing the twin sister of the guy's girlfriend.
http://tinyurl.com/67yjx7q

Kleck had nothing to do with the NRA.

I know that. He's never been a member of the NRA, has not donated to
the NRA, and is a member of Amnesty International, the ACLU, and
Common Cause. He's a registered Democrat. I do my homework.

Now go back - above - and point out where I said anything different.

What I said and implied was that the legislators in Tallahassee are
substantially funded by NRA lobbyists and that the legislators
determine the funding of the university.

At some time, Kleck and Gertz had to apply to the university for
funding for their project. A project like this would have a budget in
the millions. I think I read somewhere that the cost was about $5
million, but I can't cite this.

Every project by every professor at the university is competitive for
funding with other project by other professors. Now what do you think
the attitude of the university would be about cutting those funds to a
project near-and-dear to the hear of the NRA? Would they be more
likely to fund this project, or some study by science professor on the
mating habits of mosquitos?

Relationships are not always direct. If you know Florida politics,
though, you instinctively look for the money.

You anti-gun people are a riot.
Tirades against the NRA seem to be your first response to anything and
everything gun-related that irks you. I have seen this again and again.

This may be above your pay grade, but try to understand the difference
between "anti-gun" and "pro gun controls". I am not in the former
group, but I do lean to the latter. What amuses me about the pro-gun
people is that any comments that are not slavishly in favor of
uncontrolled purchase or possession get one labeled as anti-gun.

You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university
professor are always without flaw?

In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best
they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are
highly subject to the respondent's biases.

I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys
were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or
similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one
or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a
survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology.

Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier
surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years
since I read his comments on this.


It doesn't take much effort to find an interview with Kleck.
http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:45:23 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
. ..


You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university
professor are always without flaw?

In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best
they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are
highly subject to the respondent's biases.

I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys
were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or
similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one
or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a
survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology.

Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier
surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years
since I read his comments on this.


It doesn't take much effort to find an interview with Kleck.
http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm

Why would I want to? Skimming that just now I see it says essentially what
I'd already told you.
You have (AGAIN) the answer to your question which, as you say yourself, was
easy to find online. Sheesh.

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:20:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:45:23 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
...


You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university
professor are always without flaw?

In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best
they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are
highly subject to the respondent's biases.

I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys
were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or
similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one
or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a
survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology.

Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier
surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years
since I read his comments on this.


It doesn't take much effort to find an interview with Kleck.
http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm

Why would I want to?

If you have to ask "Why", when you are trying to make claims about
what Keck did, your interest in presenting factual discourse has to be
discounted.

Skimming that just now I see it says essentially what
I'd already told you.
You have (AGAIN) the answer to your question which, as you say yourself, was
easy to find online. Sheesh.

So the answer to my question about "Why are you sure?" is that the
author and designer of the survey says the survey was designed
properly?

That's like saying that you are sure that used car is in good shape
because the seller says it is.

I'm sure the editor who approved the _Chicago Tribune_ headline of
November 3, 1948 felt that the Tribune's election results poll was
carefully designed.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 4/10/2011 9:25 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:20:41 -0400, "Neil
wrote:


"tony wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 16:45:23 -0400, "Neil
wrote:


"tony wrote in message
...


You really feel that a survey under the auspices of a university
professor are always without flaw?

In this case, I'm sure Kleck and Gertz designed the survey as best
they could, but oral reports of incidents in telephone interviews are
highly subject to the respondent's biases.

I am curious, though, how you know for sure that "The Kleck surveys
were carefully designed to eliminate any "bump in the night" or
similar incidents where there was no clear actual threat from one
or more human beings". Normally, we know the published results of a
survey, but not the specifics of the questions or methodology.

Kleck did go into this at some length, since he felt that his earlier
surveys may have been vulnerable to just these sorts of errors. It's years
since I read his comments on this.


It doesn't take much effort to find an interview with Kleck.
http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm

Why would I want to?

If you have to ask "Why", when you are trying to make claims about
what Keck did, your interest in presenting factual discourse has to be
discounted.

Skimming that just now I see it says essentially what
I'd already told you.
You have (AGAIN) the answer to your question which, as you say yourself, was
easy to find online. Sheesh.

So the answer to my question about "Why are you sure?" is that the
author and designer of the survey says the survey was designed
properly?

That's like saying that you are sure that used car is in good shape
because the seller says it is.

I'm sure the editor who approved the _Chicago Tribune_ headline of
November 3, 1948 felt that the Tribune's election results poll was
carefully designed.


An even worse example: The Literary Digest up until November 1936 was a
respected and widely read American magazine. Then they posted their
since-infamous poll re the Presidential election showing that Alf Landon
was going to defeat FDR. One result of that election was that the
long-standing rule "As Maine Goes, So Goes the Nation" was changed to
"As Maine Goes, So Goes Vermont". The big problem was that they had done
a telephone survey; perhaps the race would have been much closer if only
those with telephones had been allowed to vote, but the less fortunate
were also admitted to the polling places. And the Literary Digest, with
its long and respected reputation, folded within a few months and took
its place in the Hall of Infamy of Statistics.