Re: Myths about Myths About Gun Control

Jammer Six wrote:
> In article <1136908182.069777.209490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Okay, I guess I'll have to go read that specific one -- which is it?
> > And where can I find it?
> >
> > Are you sure he claimed this just like that? Or perhaps it was just
> > what his model showed. Such a thing is not ridiculous at all but
> > typical if there are *extreme indications* in the data. And that would
> > likely be his point for mentioning it.
> >
> > Even if he said this somewhere, so what?
>
> I'm sorry, did you just ask me for a cite, and then say that such a cite
> wouldn't matter?
>
> Which is it?
>

What I am doing is responding directly to your claim that Lott is an
idiot, now if you want to carry that argument, then you really should
explain the specific case you are talking about in more detail and in
such a manner that makes your point. Some sort of one-liner like "He
said crime would decrease 105%, so anyone can see he's an idiot," is
obviously being met with both skepticism and criticism on my part. If
you are really confident that I will think he's an idiot, then yes --
give me the cite. I assure you I will definitely read it -- I just
ordered his two books. I am very interested in just how much of an
idiot he may or may not be as well as the legitimacy of his methods
and/or data.

I simply don't know what you are referring to, and you are obviously
referring to something very specific. Much like many of the pro gun
rights people out there, I haven't ever invoked Lott's work as the
corner-stone of my views, either. Only recently have I really come
across all this invective and bullshit aimed at him. Obviously this
has been going on for years, but I do have a day job.

At this point I have more than amply researched that particular matter
-- the Lott-bashing -- to see who is saying what and what independent
sources have to say. As far as I can tell, this Lott-bashing is all
bullshit started by rabid anti-gun people and perpetuated by the
pro-gun people simply because they don't want to have to deal with the
rabid anti-gunners.

> If I provide this cite, is it your position that Lott's research on gun
> violence is useless due to obvious error?
>
> If not, why not?
>

Even if this one cite is indeed an "obvious error" (which I have yet
to see it and you would think that if it was such a bombshell as you
suggest it to be it would have appeared prominently on Tim Lambert's
site by now) that certainly does not invalidate every other thing he
has done.

Look. He used a large set of data that he has made publicly available
and used a standard statistical package to analyze it. Other people
-- even his opponents use his data.

-rant snipped-

Jammer Six wrote:
> In article <1136908182.069777.209490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Okay, I guess I'll have to go read that specific one -- which is it?
> > And where can I find it?
> >
> > Are you sure he claimed this just like that? Or perhaps it was just
> > what his model showed. Such a thing is not ridiculous at all but
> > typical if there are *extreme indications* in the data. And that would
> > likely be his point for mentioning it.
> >
> > Even if he said this somewhere, so what?
>
> I'm sorry, did you just ask me for a cite, and then say that such a cite
> wouldn't matter?
>
> Which is it?
>

What I am doing is responding directly to your claim that Lott is an
idiot, now if you want to carry that argument, then you really should
explain the specific case you are talking about in more detail and in
such a manner that makes your point. Some sort of one-liner like "He
said crime would decrease 105%, so anyone can see he's an idiot," is
obviously being met with both skepticism and criticism on my part. If
you are really confident that I will think he's an idiot, then yes --
give me the cite. I assure you I will definitely read it -- I just
ordered his two books. I am very interested in just how much of an
idiot he may or may not be as well as the legitimacy of his methods
and/or data.

I simply don't know what you are referring to, and you are obviously
referring to something very specific. Much like many of the pro gun
rights people out there, I haven't ever invoked Lott's work as the
corner-stone of my views, either. Only recently have I really come
across all this invective and bullshit aimed at him. Obviously this
has been going on for years, but I do have a day job.

At this point I have more than amply researched that particular matter
-- the Lott-bashing -- to see who is saying what and what independent
sources have to say. As far as I can tell, this Lott-bashing is all
bullshit started by rabid anti-gun people and perpetuated by the
pro-gun people simply because they don't want to have to deal with the
rabid anti-gunners.

> If I provide this cite, is it your position that Lott's research on gun
> violence is useless due to obvious error?
>
> If not, why not?
>

Even if this one cite is indeed an "obvious error" (which I have yet
to see it and you would think that if it was such a bombshell as you
suggest it to be it would have appeared prominently on Tim Lambert's
site by now) that certainly does not invalidate every other thing he
has done.

Look. He used a large set of data that he has made publicly available
and used a standard statistical package to analyze it. Other people
-- even his opponents use his data.

-rant snipped-

In article <of3ds19q97kuv36htl6io4ndr3qj5gd448@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Even if this one cite is indeed an "obvious error" (which I have yet
> to see it and you would think that if it was such a bombshell as you
> suggest it to be it would have appeared prominently on Tim Lambert's
> site by now) that certainly does not invalidate every other thing he
> has done.

Yup. That's what I thought.

No point. If the cite isn't there, I'm wrong.

If the cite is there, it doesn't invalidate anything, it's just an
"obvious error", and I'm still wrong.

You're not doing any good for gunners, all you're doing is giving the
left more ammo.

When you assume the result before you see the data, you loose all
credibility. You just lost yours. You're not willing to reject Lott's
work and conclusions, even if he makes logical and obvious errors.

Your case boils down to if Lott is right, he's right, and if he's wrong,
he's still right, because he simply made an isolated error.

The only reasons we're discussing Lott is because he's supposed to have
credibility, and he's pro-gun.

HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE "OBVIOUS ERRORS".

That's the difference between him and our favorite fisherman. Oh, that's
supposed to be the difference between him, and, say, YOU, too.

We're supposed to look to him, and his work, and we're supposed to be
able to rely on his expertise, his use of the scientific method, and
therefore, his conclusions.

That's what a professional reputation IS.

Make an error, publish it, loose your credibility and your reputation.

If you don't understand that, the left is going to love you. You're
doing their work for them.

Every time you make an excuse for Lott, you sacrifice the scientific,
logical and reasonable high ground.

Move to San Francisco. That way, you can be surrounded by those who will
support your "work".

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

In article <of3ds19q97kuv36htl6io4ndr3qj5gd448@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Even if this one cite is indeed an "obvious error" (which I have yet
> to see it and you would think that if it was such a bombshell as you
> suggest it to be it would have appeared prominently on Tim Lambert's
> site by now) that certainly does not invalidate every other thing he
> has done.

Yup. That's what I thought.

No point. If the cite isn't there, I'm wrong.

If the cite is there, it doesn't invalidate anything, it's just an
"obvious error", and I'm still wrong.

You're not doing any good for gunners, all you're doing is giving the
left more ammo.

When you assume the result before you see the data, you loose all
credibility. You just lost yours. You're not willing to reject Lott's
work and conclusions, even if he makes logical and obvious errors.

Your case boils down to if Lott is right, he's right, and if he's wrong,
he's still right, because he simply made an isolated error.

The only reasons we're discussing Lott is because he's supposed to have
credibility, and he's pro-gun.

HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE "OBVIOUS ERRORS".

That's the difference between him and our favorite fisherman. Oh, that's
supposed to be the difference between him, and, say, YOU, too.

We're supposed to look to him, and his work, and we're supposed to be
able to rely on his expertise, his use of the scientific method, and
therefore, his conclusions.

That's what a professional reputation IS.

Make an error, publish it, loose your credibility and your reputation.

If you don't understand that, the left is going to love you. You're
doing their work for them.

Every time you make an excuse for Lott, you sacrifice the scientific,
logical and reasonable high ground.

Move to San Francisco. That way, you can be surrounded by those who will
support your "work".

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

Jammer Six wrote:
>In article <of3ds19q97kuv36htl6io4ndr3qj5gd448@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even if this one cite is indeed an "obvious error" (which I have yet
> > to see it and you would think that if it was such a bombshell as you
> > suggest it to be it would have appeared prominently on Tim Lambert's
> > site by now) that certainly does not invalidate every other thing he
> > has done.
>
>Yup. That's what I thought.
>
>No point. If the cite isn't there, I'm wrong.
>
>If the cite is there, it doesn't invalidate anything, it's just an "obvious
>error", and I'm still wrong.
>

Yes -- that's right. You barely have any sort of argument at all
regardless of whether you have successfully nit-picked him or not. Now
why don't you cite it or at least defend it in some fashion rather
than all this bullshit posturing.

-snip-

Jammer Six wrote:
>In article <of3ds19q97kuv36htl6io4ndr3qj5gd448@4ax.com>,
> Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even if this one cite is indeed an "obvious error" (which I have yet
> > to see it and you would think that if it was such a bombshell as you
> > suggest it to be it would have appeared prominently on Tim Lambert's
> > site by now) that certainly does not invalidate every other thing he
> > has done.
>
>Yup. That's what I thought.
>
>No point. If the cite isn't there, I'm wrong.
>
>If the cite is there, it doesn't invalidate anything, it's just an "obvious
>error", and I'm still wrong.
>

Yes -- that's right. You barely have any sort of argument at all
regardless of whether you have successfully nit-picked him or not. Now
why don't you cite it or at least defend it in some fashion rather
than all this bullshit posturing.

-snip-

In article <lumgs1pb2811did2ai0gdbsdql9dovlb5m@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes -- that's right. You barely have any sort of argument at all
> regardless of whether you have successfully nit-picked him or not. Now
> why don't you cite it or at least defend it in some fashion rather
> than all this bullshit posturing.

Say it. Make it matter.

[snicker]

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

In article <lumgs1pb2811did2ai0gdbsdql9dovlb5m@4ax.com>,
Adrian <adriansdurham@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes -- that's right. You barely have any sort of argument at all
> regardless of whether you have successfully nit-picked him or not. Now
> why don't you cite it or at least defend it in some fashion rather
> than all this bullshit posturing.

Say it. Make it matter.

[snicker]

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

In article <1136908182.069777.209490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:

> Okay, I guess I'll have to go read that specific one -- which is it?
> And where can I find it?
>
> Are you sure he claimed this just like that? Or perhaps it was just
> what his model showed. Such a thing is not ridiculous at all but
> typical if there are *extreme indications* in the data. And that would
> likely be his point for mentioning it.
>
> Even if he said this somewhere, so what?

I'm sorry, did you just ask me for a cite, and then say that such a cite
wouldn't matter?

Which is it?

If I provide this cite, is it your position that Lott's research on gun
violence is useless due to obvious error?

If not, why not?

If so, what does the rest of your post mean? You can't have it both
ways, honey.

Which are we to believe, that you want the cite, because it has meaning,
that you don't want the cite, because it doesn't, or that there is some
bullshit about "extreme indications"?

Are you ready?

Are you really here, are you ready to state that Lott is wrong, if I
cite this fact?

Or should we go with "...so what?"

Did you come to fuck or did you come to kiss?

Alchemy doesn't have anything to do with calculus. Get a fucking grip.

Newbies. Jesus...

--
"A bunch of us went down to Gettysburg.
Some of us didn't come back.
If you weren't there, you'll never understand." --Unknown Infantryman

Jammer Six wrote:
> In article <1136908182.069777.209490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> adriansdurham@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Okay, I guess I'll have to go read that specific one -- which is it?
> > And where can I find it?
> >
> > Are you sure he claimed this just like that? Or perhaps it was just
> > what his model showed. Such a thing is not ridiculous at all but
> > typical if there are *extreme indications* in the data. And that would
> > likely be his point for mentioning it.
> >
> > Even if he said this somewhere, so what?
>
> I'm sorry, did you just ask me for a cite, and then say that such a cite
> wouldn't matter?
>
> Which is it?
>

What I am doing is responding directly to your claim that Lott is an
idiot, now if you want to carry that argument, then you really should
explain the specific case you are talking about in more detail and in
such a manner that makes your point. Some sort of one-liner like "He
said crime would decrease 105%, so anyone can see he's an idiot," is
obviously being met with both skepticism and criticism on my part. If
you are really confident that I will think he's an idiot, then yes --
give me the cite. I assure you I will definitely read it -- I just
ordered his two books. I am very interested in just how much of an
idiot he may or may not be as well as the legitimacy of his methods
and/or data.

I simply don't know what you are referring to, and you are obviously
referring to something very specific. Much like many of the pro gun
rights people out there, I haven't ever invoked Lott's work as the
corner-stone of my views, either. Only recently have I really come
across all this invective and bullshit aimed at him. Obviously this
has been going on for years, but I do have a day job.

At this point I have more than amply researched that particular matter
-- the Lott-bashing -- to see who is saying what and what independent
sources have to say. As far as I can tell, this Lott-bashing is all
bullshit started by rabid anti-gun people and perpetuated by the
pro-gun people simply because they don't want to have to deal with the
rabid anti-gunners.

> If I provide this cite, is it your position that Lott's research on gun
> violence is useless due to obvious error?
>
> If not, why not?
>

Even if this one cite is indeed an "obvious error" (which I have yet
to see it and you would think that if it was such a bombshell as you
suggest it to be it would have appeared prominently on Tim Lambert's
site by now) that certainly does not invalidate every other thing he
has done.

Look. He used a large set of data that he has made publicly available
and used a standard statistical package to analyze it. Other people
-- even his opponents use his data.

-rant snipped-