In comments to my post about the 20 questions, JadeGold decides to weigh in. Goodness.
To begin with, I’d like to thank JadeGold for making my point concerning question number eight, in which Janet Peterson of the Brady Group asks:
“Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?”
Notice, do, that JadeGold — who apparently vehemently disagrees with me — asserts that I “want criminals and other violent types to have access to firearms“. I am also “profoundly ignorant” and obviously have “the need to fondle a firearm daily“.
There you go, Ms. Peterson, the answer to your question # 8.
So, without further ado, let us take a whack at this one.
Jeebus. There are so many contradictions, misrepresentations and lies in your responses that it’s hard to list ’em all.
Goodness.
First, you can’t even answer the first question. Why is that? I think it’s because you want criminals and other violent types to have access to firearms.
I did answer the question. Just because you lack the critical thinking skills to process my answer — or, as is more likely, you lack the desire to process my answer — doesn’t negate the fact that it was answered.
As for the rest of your statement: of course I, as a seventeen-year law enforcement type, profoundly wish to make my job harder than it already is.
And since it is I — not you — who has made it my life’s purpose to deal with criminals and other violent types every time I sign in on shift, I can see why you would think I would wish to endanger my life that much more.
The above was sarcasm, by-the-by. Just in case you do lack the ability to think critically, I thought I should make that point clear.
Second, your comment about statistics is profoundly ignorant. Whenever you see a doctor, ride on an airliner, etc.–your very life depends on those statistics you claim are all hogwash.
Nope. When I ride in an aeroliner, my life depends upon the ability of the wings to provide lift, and the ability of the pilot to keep the number of landings equal to the number of take-offs. Neither the presence, nor lack of, statistics has the slightest effect upon the physics of flight.
Trust me when I say that we could take every statistic concerning flight in the world, burn them, and aeroplanes will not fall out of the sky.
May I take this moment to say that your touching faith in statistics as a means of flight … concerns me?
Third, gun deaths are not “miniscule” when compared to traffic fatalities. Unless you seriously believe 30,000 gun deaths is miniscule compared to 34,000 traffic deaths. And when one considers the fact that almost all of us ride in a car almost every day as compared to the small number of folks who feel the need to fondle a firearm daily–your ‘miniscule’ claim kind of implodes.
Actually, you have a point. As I was typing that part of my answer, I was looking at accidental traffic fatalities (~46,000) compared to accidental gun fatalities (~600)— CDC data from 2007 — which is miniscule. However, I understand that the comparison is supposed to be motor vehicle accidents versus all firearms deaths (accidental, justified — law enforcement, justified — citizen, suicides and homicides).
In which case, all gun deaths still rank below 1)traffic accidents, 2)poisonings, 3)falls, 4)drownings, 5)fires/burns/smoke, 6)medical/surgical complications and 7)forces of nature.
The number of gun deaths are bad, but there’s about 7 other things which kill more people than guns every year. If you’re basing your “guns are BAD!” argument on body-count — and you are — you’ve got about seven other things far worse than guns out there.
Fourth, guns were never banned in Chicago, DC or NYC. The gun laws may not have been to your liking but guns were never banned.
Snerk. That’s cute.
However, the United States Supreme Court disagreed with you in District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago, striking down the handgun bans in both cities.
As far as I know, Evil Black Rifles are still banned in all three cities.
LawDog
Agreed, LD.
Here's one for your ststs.
I worked a grant at a spinal cord injury rehabilitation hospital out here. Sadly & statistically, more folks were admitted with spinal cord injuries (SCI) due to gunshot wounds than traffic fatalities. HOWEVER, the reason isn't that we're more trigger-happy out here, necessarily. Most of the SCI cases HAD NO INSURANCE & were therefore shipped to my hospital from the trauma center.
We had a good mix of inpatient victims & perpetrators. Having worked with both, I fully support a person's God Given Right to defend himself/herself against "critters", as you call them.
Good Luck, Law Dog.
Ulises from CA
106°F
In September!
accidents, i meant traffic accidents!!!
Ulises from CA
I wish to disagree with the statement you used, "As far as I know, Evil Black Rifles are still banned in all three cities."
That is a racist comment. I know many Black Rifles, and consider some close friends, and none of them are evil.
I believe you're seeing how Black Rifles are shown on TV, mainly from fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, and extrapolating evilness from that stereotype.
Oddly none of my comments made it there and I'm not a gun owner.
We are dealing with a person that has a fixed enemy, it is a gun. All commentary other than that which supports guns are the cause of all things bad will at most be ignored or go unaccepted.
You cannot reason/discuss/argue with with an irrational person. I also suspect you have dealt with people that qualify as irrational more often than I.
Eck!
It'd be nice to include in the statistics the ones about how many crimes / deaths / injuries the legal use of a firearm by a law-abiding citizen prevented. But, as you so rightly pointed out, statistics in a political venue are pretty meaningless since they just get twisted around to support whatever position the quoter of the number likes.
I'm a missionary pilot in Africa, and I've flown a number of people with gun-shots, and helped save their lives, in fact, by getting them to competent medical help. One individual was part of a diplomatic security detail, and managed to shoot himself three times in each leg by jumping out of a truck, MP5 in hand, and -with his finger on the trigger!- Keep up the educating of people in how to properly handle firearms.
Jay..how the hell did Darwin miss THAT one. *headshake*
I think one of the points your poster is missing is that we may have diffrent definitions of gun ban. The person who said those cities never banned guns may be thinking that as long as the police and military can have guns they are not banned?
You're still wrong WRT statistics. Using the airliner example, that aircraft is maintained and repaired nearly completely on the basis of statistics. If an aircraft isn't serviced or improperly serviced—the physics you are enamored with will conspire against you. The parts and materials used in the construction of that aircraft are checked for quality based on statistics. Having substandard parts or components will render the most skilled pilot's experience irrelevant.
Similarly, when you visit a doctor–that doctor make a diagnosis based largely on statistics. If the doctor gives you medication, that is based on statistics.
So there! *snort*
It's apparent you're still unable to answer the first question. Your response to whether or not criminals and domestic abusers should be able to purchase guns without a background check has been, so far: 1. Criminals are going to get them anyway and domestic abusers are just misunderstood. 2. Let me climb on mu LEO soapbox to once again evade the question.
To my mind, the answer to question #1 is a simple "no." You and I may disagree as to how this happens or the efficacy of existing laws–but the answer should be criminals and domestic abusers should be required to undergo a background check before attempting to purchase firearms. The fact you engage in such evasion in answering cannot help lead one to the conclusion you support criminals and abusers getting guns.
Actually, on the efficacy of background checks, we may share some common ground. Thanks to the NRA, the background check really only catches the criminally stupid. If we actually had a background check with some teeth–along with actual oversight of all those crooked FFLs—the check would actually be quite effective.
Jadegold aka Guy Cabot,
I don't know what doctors you go to but my doctors diagnose me based on my symptoms, not statistics.
Your version "Hmm, Mr. S, it seems you are a 40 something year old man with a sedentary lifestyle, statistics say you must have heart disease".
My Version "Hm, Mr. S, based on your symptoms and tests which confirms it, you seem to be suffering from Asthma".
Guess this is just another of the many, many, many times you are wrong
Lawdog-having been born and raised in DC, I can most assuredly vouch for the fact that handguns were banned in DC. Luckily I managed to make my escape and get to Georgia as quick as I could.
From a former LEO. Well spoken Law Dog, Well spoken. Applause.
Jadegold: Your scheme for requiring tougher background checks for firearms purchases has merit.
Not only can we prevent criminals from getting guns, but we can also use it to keep hippies and leftists disarmed.
Only Republicans should ever have firearms. We can declare registered Republicans to be all be LEOs, and then they can buy post '86 MGs as "issue" arms on a Form 10.
It will make it much easier for us to execute all of the Hippies, leftists, and registered Democrats, once we get control of Congress and the office of President again.
( this is a bit of extreme sarcasm by the way … and a lesson in why giving up your RTKBA may be a bad plan )
Ooh…the "fondling guns" bit reminds me that I haven't touched the 1911 today. I'd better go remedy that before it gets its widdle feewings hurt and starts floating around the room, busting caps in my ass. Rotten, evil gun with a mind of its own, always doing terrible things. *sigh* I knew that I should have bought a Glock, but it's hard to understand its demands, what with its thick accent and all.
It's unfortunate that the auto accident stats cited don't separate out the number of single vehicle "accident"/fatalities which are actually murder/suicides. If they did, maybe we'd also have to deal with the Brady Center for CAR Violence, and if they were intellectually honest, they'd most assuredly want to ban cars.
You're still wrong WRT statistics. Using the airliner example, that aircraft is maintained and repaired nearly completely on the basis of statistics.
And we can add "statistics" and "physics" to things you don't know, Guy.
but the answer should be criminals and domestic abusers (Which is criminal, thus redundant) should be required to undergo a background check before attempting to purchase firearms.
Really.
So, how do you plan to force criminals to be required to check with the government before they purchase a gun?
Please be complete with your answer.
Jadegold,
First, nongunny here, mostly because MA is a minefield. The draconian laws are so tangled that simple owning for the purpose of hunting or target at a controlled range is fraught with risk for being arrested despite all efforts to be legal. Here I can be jailed for having a spent bullet casing.
Your question one has a NO for an answer. A background check makes it impossible for a felon to legally purchase a firearm. Felons are not allowed to buy guns. However, that does not stop them as they will obtain them by other means also illegal. The point here is there are things laws control and then things they cannot change.
Here in MA nothing happens without that background check, there are no loopholes, a FA10(registration) must be filed for every firearm transfer. There are all manner of hurdles to obtain a basic FID (which been denied no reason at all) for a hunting class rifle, handguns have far more restrictions and certain firearms are outright banned. You cannot even buy or carry mace or pepper spray without a FID (also may issue). Guess what we still have criminals running round Boston shooting each other and civilians. When they don't have guns it's knives, machetes (really) and cars(as weapon). All used illegally as part of crimes.
You have made it easier for criminals to have an advantage over me, I cannot even buy a non-lethal defense without going through a background check. Why? They are criminals and do not observe the law. Stop them not me.
You and your kind have taken self defense away from me and made it the responsibility of a bureaucratic entity that is understaffed and slow to respond.
Eck!
Had to post twice for space reasons.
Jadegold:
Statistics are historical data. They are the result of things That happened and includes things like planes that crashed due to NOT doing something that statistics said should never happen. If you interpret them correctly the plane is available to fly as a result of presumably correct maintenance. If you don't things break and your day gets interesting. Example the 737 that had the midsection cabin skin failure.
As a pilot I can repeat the number of times I've been told aircraft have dual ignition systems because two will never fail at the same time and you can fly home on one. Well I was flying a new (89 hours old) airplane that had a dual magneto failure. I didn't die because physics make the plane fly or in that case glide. Our host was right, physics make the plane fly not statistics which are used to maintain and keep it flyable.
The commercial aviation industry flies on statistics because it saves them money. But, have faith that the 1% item well down the curve exists and your life depends on it. Just like the pilot that landed in the Hudson river after birds killed his engines.
If you don't know the difference do not comment.
Eck!
My LawDog,
I correct myself from my last comment on your last post. NOW you are my hero…for the month. Thank you for being articulate in a blog-o-sphere of middle school level arguments. JadeGold, in her ever so intelligent argument about your "lack of answer" to the first question (which, by the way, I found great), has proven to me why, instead of licensing who can own a gun, it might be a better use of our time to license who can own a blog. If you haven't passed a certain critical thinking level, you may not own a blog. Period.
As for statistics–did you know that there are more black males in prison than in college? That's shocking until you consider the fact that prison incorporates all ages where as college is generally for those 18-25ers within a specific income bracket. See? Even I can twist statistics as I see fit…and I can't say that I'm the brightest bulb in the pack, necessarily.
"Using the airliner example, that aircraft is maintained and repaired nearly completely on the basis of statistics"
If I recall correctly, back in 1903, statistics said that a heavier than air machine built by a couple of bicycle repairmen had no chance in earth to fly.
Jadegold….your simplistic view of physics and chemistry is frankly insulting.
You wrote: Similarly, when you visit a doctor–that doctor make a diagnosis based largely on statistics. If the doctor gives you medication, that is based on statistics.
Ok, let me say that with my BS in Biochem I may know a thing or two about pharmacology.
Double blind clinical trials to establish safety and efficacy for new drugs are THE VERY LAST STEP in bringing a drug to market.
First you have to identify a molecule, then you have to identify WHAT IT DOES, and finally you have to determine if it is better than a placebo for human use.
Those "statistics" you blather on about are nothing more than the final step in a long chain of hard science.
Statistics are a useful tool in both Chemistry and Physics (and any other hard science). Statistics are hardly a useful tool when talking about death. Ten out of ten people die, get it?
If you ban ALL guns, and magically made them all disappear, YOU STILL WOULDN'T STOP A SINGLE DEATH from happening. Death comes for us all.
So the question becomes, why do you want to live powerless to defend yourself? Are you too morally weak to believe you can responsibly handle lethal force?
I was 8 when I got my first shotgun. I have yet to shoot anyone with it. I was 12 when I got my first rifle. Haven't shot anyone with that yet, either. I was 14 when I got my first pistol. Regrettably, I haven't capped anyone with that, either, although I admit to having threatened a couple of times. House invaders and the police at least half an hour away, don't you know?
Oh, yeah, and I've shot a few rattlesnakes from time to time, of the slithery variety, and a rabid skunk or two, a javalina, a wart hog, etc. all of which represented an immediate threat.
I bought Dog his first pistol when he was about 12. So far as I know, he hasn't offed anyone with it. Nor with several other pistols, a couple of shotguns, and a few rifles. The same can be said for his brother.
We are equally proficient with bows and arrows, crossbows, and assorted other weapons, although neither Dog nor I can claim his brother's awesome expertise with any weapon to hand, including a blowpipe.
Now, if we really wanted to kill someone, do you imagine that not having a gun would deter us?
They're just generally handier and quicker, and have a longer reach. However, we can make do.
If a critter bashes in my door waving a gun, do you really think I have time to call 9-1-1, convince the operator that I really do have a problem, that I really do need help, make sure she spells my name right, and confirms the address, and THEN wait for law enforcement to arrive?
No, I'm going to pull my handy dandy .38 out off the computer shelf inches from my hand, and do my damndest to put this guy out of circulation permanently.
If that makes me a radical, racist, frothing-at-the mouth nutcase, so be it.
And by the way, Jadegold, statistics never defended me or my family, nor, come to think of it, at instant need, neither has law enforcement in any country in the world I've inhabited.
So, you know what? You are an ill-informed, inexperienced impractical idiot.
LM
Lawdog, has anyone ever told you that your mom is really, really cool?!! :thumb:
Jadegold, face it. You've been pwned.
Law Mom,
Your post made me miss my own Mother, gone these two years.
Thanks.
Ulises from CA
Here's the problem with the criminals / critters buying guns without a background check problem. On the assumption that the purpose of jail and punishment in addition to removing a harmful element from society is repayment of debt to society and rehabilitation, when we release an individual from prison, they have served their punishment and should therefore have all the rights and privileges of being a citizen restored.
"But," you say, "what about the danger they still pose to society." The answer my dear Watson is, as they say, elementary. If said individual still poses a danger to society, such that you feel it is necessary to restrict him of his rights, then said individual has no business being free and should be in jail.
"But," says you, "they weren't sentenced to a longer term, they were paroled or some other aspect of the judicial system has let them out of prison while they are still a danger to society."
The answer is still just as simple. If that is the case, the problem is not that guns are available without a background check, but that our justice system is not performing its duty of removing harmful elements from society. You should spend your effort fixing the justice system, not taking rights away from others.
Jade, Jade, Jade….
Such a grasp of statistics you have….not!
Statistics do not keep a plane in the air. Yes, statistics do help drive the maintenance programs. Statistics are used to rank the risk of a particular part or system failing on the craft. Inspection programs use risk to prioritize what inspections or maintenance needs to be performed and how often.
But guess what, even if every rivet, flap and valve on the aircraft were serviced yesterday, it may still fail in flight tomorrow. A clean inspection report is not going to restart a stalled engine or de-ice a wing at 35000 feet. Statistics only suggest what can happen (or not happen), they cannot predict events with any certainty at all. In the case of airplanes, there are only 2 types: those that have not crashed (yet) and those that have. How do those statistics work for you?
I can speak to this subject with some authority, having managed (and written API-sponsored software solutions for) Risk-Based Inspection programs for the chemical industry for many years. We've been surprised many times by things that failed that statistically should not have. All statistics do is keep the insurance companies happy until the inevitable claims are filed.
Strongbow
Goodness. Touched a nerve, did I? It seems I've issued a dog whistle call to all of the innumerate. It's like addressing the flat-earthers.
It's pretty odd that there so many gunloons that believe statistics are alchemy; especially when all the top-end gun manufacturers use statistics in their design and manufacturing processes.
(next)
"You're still wrong WRT statistics. Using the airliner example, that aircraft is maintained and repaired nearly completely on the basis of statistics."
Wrong again Jadegold. They are maintained on the basis of specifications (e.g., does this hose still meet specifications). Statistics are used to set a maintenance schedule in such a way that it is cost effective.
As for the doctor, he bases your diagnosis on these things called "symptoms". He prioritizes the order of treatments based on statistics (i.e., if three things give the same symptoms, treat the most likely first).
Bob S: I understand your wife is ill (my best wishes)–but I guarantee her physicians use statistics to determine not just a treatment course but dosages. And the same is true for anyone seeing an MD in all but the simplest cases. You don't have to believe me, you can ask them.
Eck!: Actually, not all statistics are historical. In the QA process, it would be impossible to test all, say, fasteners for several reasons. One is it's prohibitively expensive. Two, how do you test something like yield loads without actually destroying the fastener?
Regardless, all aviation (and really anything involving engines and rotating machinery) maintenance and repair is statistically-based. As a pilot, I'm surprised you don't understand this.
Physics work both ways–they explain why things can fly; it also explains why they don't. If your aircraft is improperly maintained/serviced–bad things can and will happen. Physics will see to that. The commercial airline industry uses them–so does aviation in the military.
AM: I realize you're eager to show off your BA from Evergreen that you don't use–but you're simply wrong.
LD: And how are specs developed? Why–that old black magic of statistics. And when we manufacture a hose–how do we tell that the hose meets specs? Statistics.
WRT to the doctor example, doctors take your symptoms and your vitals (BP, temp, age, etc) and other factors as datapoints. The doctor's diagnosis then uses statistics to use those datapoints to make an informed decsion as to what ails you. If the doctor prescribes medicine–stats are employed to indicate what will best work for you and your affliction.
I'm rather shocked that you claim to work for API and have such low regard for statistics. After all, the oil companies use statistics extensively to locate oil.
Addison: Physics and statistics I do know.
For example, I know carrying around 100 lbs of excess lard places stress and loads on the back, hips, knees, ankles and feet. It also places a strain on the cardiovascular system. That's physics.
Statistically, it doesn't bode well.
Staist
You know, LawDog, one of my fellow lieutenants had an expression that comes to mind in this situation:
Never get into battles of wits with the unarmed.
Jade… The only statistic I can prove puts your little anti gun wishes to bed once and for all…
The number one cause of death is BIRTH!!! It has even the gun and auto fatalities, combined, beat hands down. And that is also the only statistic that cannot be twisted by any sane person or even yourself!
Brent
Let's take Jadegold's arguments and fanaticisms to the other side of the fence. What if, for instance, she/he were, oh, let's say, a sociopath.
Imagine what a swath she/he would cut for guns then. Hm?
Physics has little to do with physicians, apart from the undergraduate requirement to take a couple of course. Given your mouth, perhaps you meant physic?
No responsible physician uses statistics to the exclusion of diagnoses. No doubt you voted for Obama?
LM
AM: I realize you're eager to show off your BA from Evergreen that you don't use–but you're simply wrong.
Oh jeebus…
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha….
We have achieved "reasoned discourse"!
First one to get jadegold to pull the full Godwin wins!
I can't count the times at Evergreen where a hippy would say "your simply wrong" and then be unable to tell me how and why.
JadeGold, declaring me simply wrong is well, childish and once again, frankly insulting.
JadeGold, declaring me simply wrong is well, childish and once again, frankly insulting.
Hate to break it to you, but being 'frankly' insulting was rather my objective.
You're wrong in that statistics are used in every facet of both laboratory testing and clinical trials. But to the larger point, stats are used not just by researchers and drug developers but by virtually every physician.
Merely mouthing that 'ten out of ten people die' demonstrates you either never had statistics or you didn't understand the material.
The whole point behind statistics is statistical inference; that is, we wish to make informed decisions or accurate interpretations about a population without having to investigate and examine every part of that population.
Never bring lies to a fact fight.
One statistic can show two diametrically opposed points of data … and mean all three!
Ulises from CA
Now really, Jadegold, must you resort to namecalling and ad hominum attacks in your comments? If you can't make your argument without trying to insult your opponents into silence first, it starts to sound as if your argument can't stand on its own merits unless everybody else in the conversation is ignorant or evil. But then, I suppose you believe it's okay to call people with whom you disagree demeaning names.
This comment has been removed by the author.
JadeGold, I'll type slow so you can keep up.
Merely mouthing that 'ten out of ten people die' demonstrates you either never had statistics or you didn't understand the material.
You fail to understand that preventing "gun death" does not reduce "death". If you could meaningfully point out that the rate of death would be reduced by reduction in guns THEN WE COULD TALK STATISTICS. Unfortunately YOU HAVE NO DATA. Every place that has banned guns has not found a statistically significant link between gun laws and reduction in gun violence. And you can quote the CDC on that.
The whole point behind statistics is statistical inference; that is, we wish to make informed decisions or accurate interpretations about a population without having to investigate and examine every part of that population.
Statistics give you numbers, BUT THEY DO NOT GIVE CAUSATION. 10 percent of the population is left handed. More than 25% of the population on death row is left handed. OMG left handed people are killers! Unfortunately what the "statistics" fail to tell you is that humans have two known pathways for left handedness, one purely genetic, and the other purely somatic (if for some reason the default right handed state is blocked by some sort of trauma in utero). So the statistics don't tell you which population of left handed people are on death row, the genetic or the somatic.
You seem to believe that statistics, which can only show correlation are to be viewed as an authority on cause and effect.
So call me "simply wrong", insult me all you want. But show me cause and effect not correlation.
And don't try some "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" crap. Absence of evidence in the realm of Gun Control is not a good argument. Even the CDC couldn't find the evidence to show that Gun Control has any efficacy.
And do you want me to quantify this with a P value?
AM: Bingo! You were the first to darg out the "correlation doesn't mean causation" excuse.
Do you know, after all these years, scientists and researchers still can't produce a study showing smoking causes cancer or other ailments? OTOH, they can produce reams of studies that there is a very strong correlation between smoking and cancer and other illnesses.
Now, I guarantee you'll be hard-pressed to find a doctor who thinks it's ok for you to take up or continue smoking. I guarantee you won't finfd any insurance companies who do.
So what's up? Are all the MDs and insurance companies just a bunch of dupes who don't understand the numbers like you do?
JadeGold,
I dealt with someone like you once. Then I started high school and that person failed 8th grade.
Is that a statistic? By your logic, it is. Therefore, I conclude, based on your faulty logic, that all people who use ad homminum arguments have failed 8th grade. Wow–seems stastically accurate to me. You're an idiot.
By the way–if you hate guns so much, why the hell are you on this blog to begin with? Shouldn't you be burning an SUV, or saving a baby whale, or doing something of no interest to us who read this blog regularly.
Us "gunloons" are actually vast in number about the U.S. Believe it or not, we are educated (I have a Master's degree, actually, and am working on my PhD.), intelligent, and most of us are actually financially stable–in contrast to that image I'm sure you have in your head, of toothless rednecks toting 15 shotguns to their kid's PTA meeting. We can see right through the glaring holes in your so-called logic that seem to evade you, for some reason. If you were really as smart as you say you are, you would take a step back, actually evaluate WHY you believe things, and at least listen to another's point of view. However, your semi-retarded, witless rants about "statistics" basically show us all one very simple thing: you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Only a moron results to statistics that he/she cannot explain or calculate (which, by the by, some of us actually can, which is why we don't believe any statistical "evidence" before evaluating it)–OR EVEN CITE– to "prove" his/her point. Explain to me where you got your "statistics" education, then, please. Because you are on here arguing with statisticians and people who have actually used real statistics on a practical basis and THEY are telling you that you're wrong.
"Do you know, after all these years, scientists and researchers still can't produce a study showing smoking causes cancer or other ailments?" Really? Well, by that standard, did you know that plenty of studies have shown that old age causes plenty of ailments? By your logic, then, let's kill all people before they get to that "statistical" age of illness. Also, since obviously the 1st Amendment allows people to speak their mind and it clearly offends you, let's get rid of that as well.
When you speak of these wonderful doctors who use statistics, I am not denying that they use them–but they use them in a careful and general manner–and we still have thousands of people dying each year because of medical malpractice. Clearly all your precious "statistics" don't work well enough to save thousands of people.
I can load a gun, cock it, and set it on a table. As long as nobody touches that gun, it will never harm anybody. That is not a number, that is a fact. I agree with LM–you are an ignorant idiot. You have gotten in way over your head here, honey. You are not as intelligent as you would like to think you are, and when you continue to talk, we all just continue to laugh at you–just as a side note.
Have you ever even held a gun? Why do you hate guns so much? I'll bet it's because, with all your "intelligence," your parents claimed that guns were evil and you just believed them without ever thinking for yourself. Way to go! So now, of course, you assume you are right because, obviously, anybody who own a gun is a back-hills, Bible beating, wife-slapping, uneducated, fool. *sarcasm intended*
My father used to have a saying as well: "We don't let people drive a car without a test, we don't let people fly planes without a test–we shouldn't let people have children without a test." I believe it was self-righteous, entitled, ignorant meat heads like yourself to which he was referring. Go back to your left-wing club meeting and leave the rest of us alone.
Jadegold,
Are you honestly trying to say that it was 'statistics' and not the diagnostic imaging that the doctors used to determine my wife had breast cancer?
Are you honestly trying to say it was 'statistics' and not the biopsy of the tissue that the doctors used to determine that the tumor was cancerous?
Yes, the doctors used statistics to determine dosage levels but those levels are adjusted based on her individual response to the chemo drugs.
You are confusing actuarial data, 1 in 3 women get breast cancer, with sound medical diagnostic practices.
Now, given the extremely low statistical chance of you dying today;
are you going to walk out in front of traffic?
are you going to not put on your seat belt?
are you going to cancel your life insurance because you won't need it today?
jadegold:
<quote
Goodness. Touched a nerve, did I? It seems I've issued a dog whistle call to all of the innumerate. It's like addressing the flat-earthers.
<end quote
Lessee, not a gunny, I don't own!
I am an electronics engineer, I design systems and even evaluate failure rates and probabilities. Oh and those are use for medical applications where reliability is important.
As to QA having set up a few programs.. Statistics aree used but if the program is to work validation is required. That means destroying or otherwise testing a sample of that part or assembly to see that it conforms to design. the combined result is a statistical picture of the likely hood of failure assuming the process is controlled. If for some reason the process is uncontrolled due to another vendors process and QA failure the results you relay on have no validity. For bag of rivets it's simple a whole airplane of parts are have interactions. If you analyze the interactions the picture is far more complex. In the end we rely on history. We test the rivet samples and they worked there is no guarantee
without continual evaluation that the next batch will pass. Historical statistics tell us that too.
People are however unreliable each is an individual. If you apply statistics to individuals you will always fail as the database of statistics for humans are only valid for large groups and with some statistical variability.
If your going to reply make it complete and factual. If you do not show your work I cannot evaluate your conclusions as anything other than a,
gut feel, wild guess or faith. those things may cause me to investigate but, as a pilot I will not bet my life on that or fly on that.
Eck!
This comment has been removed by the author.
jadegold:
<quote
Eck!: Actually, not all statistics are historical. In the QA process, it would be impossible to test all, say, fasteners for several reasons. One is it's prohibitively expensive. Two, how do you test something like yield loads without actually destroying the fastener?
<end quote
Yes they are. You test a sample based on that you declare all of that lot good. You say they were tested. That does not means every one is good for certain and it's based on history prior lots being good and the most current testing completed being successful. it does not however mean the next lot will be good.
As to testing every one, in same cases no and others yes. When it's a life supporting issue you bet its all tested and you find ways to do it. For simple rivets they are used in large numbers so based on testing and analysis you can say that some number can fail without unacceptable risk.
I've reached four decades in engineering and it was NOT by guess and by golly. When someone hits me with gut feel, faith, or wild guesses If they are compelling I will investigate. However I will no do, fly or otherwise proceed betting my life on flimsy or unchecked data.
Eck!
Jadegold,
Personal attacks don't fly, don't go there.
You make claims without support or accuracy or sufficient detail to allow understanding or show your understanding.
Statistics are history. The database
for engines, rivets and humans do not contain imaginary items that have not yet existed. Statistical predictions are all based on that history. If you do not test and validate the data you have (destroy a few rivets) you data is theory or prediction and not fact.
As an engineer with four decades of experience things like faith based, gut feel, or wild speculation never do more than maybe cause investigation. I will not as a pilot bet my life on them.
Eck!
AM: Bingo! You were the first to darg out the "correlation doesn't mean causation" excuse.
Do you know, after all these years, scientists and researchers still can't produce a study showing smoking causes cancer or other ailments? OTOH, they can produce reams of studies that there is a very strong correlation between smoking and cancer and other illnesses.
Now, I guarantee you'll be hard-pressed to find a doctor who thinks it's ok for you to take up or continue smoking. I guarantee you won't finfd any insurance companies who do.
So what's up? Are all the MDs and insurance companies just a bunch of dupes who don't understand the numbers like you do?
Trying to change the subject?
Remember what I wrote earlier about finding a correlation and then finding a mechanism of action? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637371/
So research continues, and multiple mechanisms are being found. After all, 5000 different chemicals in tobacco smoke means lots of investigation.
That is how you use statistics as a tool. You don't find a strong correlation and stop there. You investigate for mechanism of action.
But back to gun control, can you show us statistics that support your position? Can you build on that to sho a causal relationship?
Or are you just going to call me "simply wrong" and engage in "reasoned discourse"?
The gun laws may not have been to your liking but guns were never banned.
And if you were African-American in the South after Reconstruction, the voting laws may not have been to your liking but voting by African-Americans wasn't actually banned.
Pemberley said…
You know, LawDog, one of my fellow lieutenants had an expression that comes to mind in this situation:
Never get into battles of wits with the unarmed.
I liken it to trying to reason with a rabid dog. All it'll get you is bitten and the aggravation of having to get those damn injections.
"LD: And how are specs developed? "
Well, there are these things called force vectors. You should also bear in the mind that "data" does not equal "statistics".
You are treating all data analysis as though it were "statistics". The latter deals with probabilities. If you test a bolt 1000 times, it never breaks with less than 500 pounds of force, and you design around a maximum force of 250 (2.0 factor of safety), that's not statistics.
If you plug in the entire set of data, and work out the standard deviations to limit the bolt to a predicted failure rate of 0.001%, then you're dealing with statistics.
If you had taken actual classes in statistics, you would understand the difference. Or maybe you did take one, and just slept through it. No telling with you, Guy.
Damn, it's like watching a group of adults trying to reason with an illiterate eight year old. He isn't even smart enough to know how ignorant he is.
Jadegold is another alias for MikeB302000. He is an articulate troll. He is not interested in a discussion, he is a true believer in the anit-gun cause and is only here to cause what harm and disruption he can.
Don't waste your keystrokes, your thoughts, or your good will. I have seen him in action on many sites. You could spend your life leaving him logical, meaningful comments and ideas and get absolutely nowhere.
Here's his primary blog, judge for yourselves: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/
YoelB,
Your absolutely correct.
I as the state just increased the cost of your drivers license to 500 dollars, and good for 1 year. You must apply for it and you can be denied no reason. You cannot apply for it if you have any traffic infractions.
You cannot purchase a car without a valid license and if for any reason your license becomes invalid you must return the car to an authorized holder or dealer. You cannot sell your car to anyone that does not present a license. A license check is required to buy gasoline. You must be register to the car you are driving and the car must not be on any prohibited list created by the energy conservation enforcement people. Oh, in a big cities since there is mass transit you must prove you need a license as you have no need to drive.
See I didn't ban cars either. I am reasonable.
Eck!
Jadegold is another alias for MikeB302000.
Unfortunately, that is not true.
JadeGold has been around for many more years than MikeB302000, to the point of Erols (anyone remember them?) cutting off his service due to repeatedly and vociferously claiming someone was a murderer when they clearly were not (a violation of their Terms of Use). See: http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/09/05/why_reasoned_discoursetm_matters/#comment-180457 and http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.sport.nascar/browse_thread/thread/42bde91e087e450c/a03691f37c321368?lnk=st&q=Wayne+mann+Erol&rnum=1&pli=1 .
MikeB302000 is a relative newcomer to the blogging and gunblogger scene, and their styles are sufficiently different to support the "separate persons" hypothesis. Granted, JadeGold writes at MikeB302000's weblog now, but that is probably nothing more than "birds of a feather" doing their thing.
More information on this particular troll is available here: http://whoisjadegold.blogspot.com/
Eck!: Perhaps you can get your money back or refund because your engineering degree is somewhat lacking.
As for you being a pilot–uh huh. Tell me another.
Brian: No, data is not statistics. But statistics involves the collection, organization, and interpretation of that data. Sadly, your community college instructor probably didn't cover that.
Jadegold
<quote
Eck!: Perhaps you can get your money back or refund because your engineering degree is somewhat lacking.
As for you being a pilot–uh huh. Tell me another.
<unquote
I warned you nicely.
The pilot thing. Not only true but also an owner of a [gasp] single engine Cessna a 150L. Without details more than a few hours of time in a few other birds.
As to the other, Well, you went for the bottom. Can't win call ladies names. Not stylish at all.
Eck!
Here is a stat for you Jadegold, my gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car. Let me map this out for you. My gun=0; Ted's car=1.
Chris
Really? JadeGold–are you even employed? Or are you one of those "idealistic" unemployed loser sitting home and collecting my tax money? You are on here way too much. Because, honestly, you may sound intelligent, but I doubt your community college professor covered anything beyond basic "you're wrong, I'm right" arguments. (Before you go insulting my intelligence, please note that I completed 2 Bachelor's degrees in 3 years (in non-accelerated programs), and a 3 year Masters in 18 months. ALL WHILE WORKING FULL TIME. No matter how amazing you think you are, you didn't do that.)
Secondly, it should be clear by now that a majority of readers of this site deem you to be a semi-retarded blowhard who couldn't tell your a** from a hole in the ground. So please, spread your nonsense elsewhere–you know, with other uneducated, ignorant, intolerant, hatemongers who refuse to see themselves for what they really are. Facades with a big hollow hole inside where a conscience and morality should reside.
Well, technically, Lawdog, you DO fondle a firearm just about daily.
It's kinda hard to properly care for your service weapon if you don't touch it, after all… =)
Gentlemen…..your letting Jadegold get your goat. Remember, name calling is the last act of desperation, and the point where the antagonizer wins: he made you lose your temper.
The hole in Jadegolds argument is that he seems to actually believe he can live his life based on statistics, yet is willing to only looking at those statistics that match his worldview.
For example, if we all want to be fair, data has shown that in those reported violent crime cases where the victim produced a firearm, preventing the crime, the vast majority of these cases never had a shot fired.
Whereas, when the victim has no means of defense, personal injury and/or death was a frequent result.
Statistically then, you are far safer carrying a firearm (that you will statistically never fire) than not.
See…you can prove ANYTHING with statistics.
Jadegold is either living in a liberal/progressive dream world, buttressed by a reliance on cherry picked data, or he's just trying to piss-off those who believe in personal responsibility and self-reliance.
In any case, I doubt seriously that anyone can change his mind.
Jade has claimed that filing down the FIRING pin could make a semi-auto AK into a full auto.
His grasp on reality is wanting.
Similarly, when you visit a doctor–that doctor make a diagnosis based largely on statistics. If the doctor gives you medication, that is based on statistics.
…
But to the larger point, stats are used not just by researchers and drug developers but by virtually every physician.
They are also routinely and correctly discounted on the basis of something called "clinical judgment" which is medically and legally prepotent over applying inferential statistics to an individual.
To make it easier for a loudmouth lay simpleton like you: You can discuss number needed to treat, positive and negative predictive values and evidence-based medicine all day long — but when your patient sits down in front of you, all of that takes a back seat to correctly individualizing diagnosis and treatment. Patients have suffered adverse outcomes, costs have increased and lawsuits have been lost through incautious adherence to statistics in medicine.
Shorter yet: You don't know what you're talking about. Shut up before you make a worse fool of yourself.
Does everyone understand that this "jadegold" person once got tossed by his ISP for accusing, in Usenet, a completely innocent man of being wanted for murder? He *knew* the man was innocent and did it anyway.
That's who you're dealing with: a stone liar who will stop at nothing for a rhetorical point online.
To The Creep: don't make me dig through the archives, fool. I'll burn you down with the evidence. Just shut up. I told you that I would haunt you for the rest of your life with this, and I meant it. That's because you're despicable.