From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Anti-Self-Defense Fallacies, Fantasies and Lies Part II Date: 7 Nov 1994 07:15:23 -0500 ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE FALLACIES, FANTASIES, AND LIES: Part 2 Acknowledgment The writer hereby extends his thanks to the many individuals posting to talk.politics.guns who have made this project possible. Foremost among the anti-self-defense contributors is Mr. Pim van Meurs, who has shown time and time again that a shortage of facts and logic needn't interfere with the progress of the anti-self-defense movement toward its ultimate goal of complete victim disarmament. The following are yet more examples of Mr. van Meur's commitment and dedication to the role of steadfast soldier (a Dutch Officer, no less) in the War on Law-Abiding Gun Owners. Don't let his ignorance of things scientific and rational fool you - in the Marketplace of Ideas, he is the Artful Dodger, able to live by his wits despite a perpetual state of (intellectual) bankruptcy. Enjoy. A.T. ========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sun Aug 21 09:50:08 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 21 Aug 1994 07:21:48 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Causal direction [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In article <336j6e$[10 g] at [panix2.panix.com]> [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) writes: >>This may be true when they are on duty. Off-duty, however, the police are >>indistinguishable from civilians and face the same risks. Perhaps Pim can >>explain why off-duty law enforcement officers almost always insist upon >>carrying concealed handguns and keeping them in their homes. I happen to >I don't know Aldo, please tell me why they believe this to be useful. Well, seeing as they have to deal with criminals as part of their job, it seems that cops are in a great position to know what tools are good for self-defense. Almost all of them carry guns on duty, and many carry guns while off duty. This suggests that they believe guns are effective tools for self-defense. The experience of cops over the years provides more than enough evidence to support this conclusion. [...snip...] >>While Pim fails to see the value in people owning guns for self-defense, >>the vast majority of law enforcement officers readily subscribe to the >>contrary view that it is far better to be armed in the event of a criminal >>assault. No amount of histrionic hoplophobic rhetoric about "kids killing >Sure, I cannot argue against personal believes other than by addressing the >data on this issue which does not always seem to correlate with popular >belief. In other words, Pim prefers his own PimDrivel to the more expert opinion of many tens of thousands of cops who've been carrying and using guns for self-defense for much of this nation's history. >>kids" or pseudoscientific rubbish by frauds such as Cook, Loftin, Killias, >>Kellerman, et al. is likely to change their minds, either. >You start to sound like Mark. Aldo should take that as a high compliment. Everytime somebody makes you look like the rabidly hoplophobic fool that you are, you accuse them of sounding like or being related to me. I can't help it if I'm not the only person on the net who is far more rational and far less ignorant than you are--there are plenty of people who meet those qualifications. >>the same right to armed self-defense that the police insist upon for >>themselves and their families. Those, like Pim, who would disarm all but >Unless of course gun ownership does increase lethality of crimes they >are supposed to defend against. You've never provided any evidence that it does. On the other hand, I've shown that people who use guns in self-defense are typically much better off than those who don't. >Oh so now my motives are suddenly under attack. Iam really impressed by the >tactics used on this newsgroup to attack the character of people. Pim, nobody is attacking your character...you have no character to attack. >Sincerely >Pim van Meurs >>"Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson >Any supporting data ? I'm glad you asked, Pim! Table 4.4 Attack, Injury, and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery, and Assault Incidents, by Self Protection Method, U.S. 1979-1985 ROBBERY Method of % Completed % Attacked % Injured Num Times Self Protection Used(a) Used gun 30.9 25.2 17.4 89,009 Used Knife 35.2 55.6 40.3 59,813 Used other weapon 28.9 41.5 22.0 104,700 Used physical force 50.1 75.6 50.8 1,653,880 Tried to get help or frighten offender 63.9 73.5 48.9 1,516,141 Threatened or reasoned with offender 53.7 48.1 30.7 955,398 Nonviolent resistance, including evasion 50.8 54.7 34.9 1,539,895 Other measures 48.5 47.3 26.5 284,423 Any self-protection 52.1 60.8 38.2 4,603,671 No self-protection 88.5 41.5 24.7 2,686,960 Total 65.4 53.7 33.2 7,290,631 ASSAULT Method of % Attacked % Injured Num Times Self Protection Used(a) Used gun 23.2 12.1 386,083 Used Knife 46.4 29.5 123,062 Used other weapon 41.4 25.1 454,570 Used physical force 82.8 52.1 6,638,823 Tried to get help or frighten offender 55.2 40.1 4,383,117 Threatened or reasoned with offender 40.0 24.7 5,743,008 Nonviolent resistance, including evasion 40.0 25.5 8,935,738 Other measures 36.1 20.7 1,451,103 Any self-protection 49.5 30.7 21,801,957 No self-protection 39.9 27.3 6,154,763 Total 47.3 29.9 27,956,719 (Source: _Point Blank_ by Gary Kleck, page 149.) [Any typos are mine --TMG] >>"Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up >>any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> Hint. Hint. Try using (f)actual data sometime, Pim, but be sure to take your antihistamines first! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Gibson | The meek shall inherit the dearth. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not BMRL or UIUC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sun Aug 21 10:01:26 1994 From: Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> Date: 21 Aug 1994 13:30:07 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Causal direction In article <32vdla$[1 aj] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: > In <[9--01--7] at [hvbbs.com]>, [john grossbohlin] at [hvbbs.com] (John Grossbohlin) writes: > >PVM>>>>1. The 'direct' causal direction : Guns used in self defense reduce atta > > >>>>and injury when used in self defense against robbery. > > >> > > >>>>2. The 'reverse' causal direction: When attacked one is least likely to > > > >PVM>>>>gun in self defense. > > >Of course we cannot ignore the possibility that situation 2 may exist > >because those who are unarmed are more likely to attacked in the first > >place. Thus, it is not that one is "least likely to use a gun in self > > Those who are unarmed are more likely to be attacked ? Please explain this > somewhat peculiar remark. In areas where being armed is illegal, such as NYC and DC, folks are more likely to be attacked, than in areas where folks are permitted to carry arms for self-defense. > > >defense" when attacked, but rather that because one is armed they don't > >have to use it. That is, a deterrent effect for being armed. Wright & > > Oh I see, you are assuming that people who carry guns can somehow be identified > as such. Do you really believe this/ First, you make a claim about his assuming something he did not claim, then ask him defend YOUR assumption. Poor, and childish, Pim. Where it is legal to carry arms to defend yourself, the criminal will be more cautious about attacking anyone, since he cannot know they are disarmed. > > >Rossi's work strongly suggests criminals are as risk averse as anyone > > Rossi's data is about what criminals think other criminals would do. No such > thing as strong evidence from this source. Indirect evidence at most. > We use the best data available. Rossi's work is more respected than van Meurs. > > >else... Criminals carry guns to command compliance and thus lower the > >opportunity costs (risks) of committing crime... which makes the > >deterrent effect quite a plausible explanation. > > > Plausible does not mean (f)actual. > We are using Reason, here, Pim. Try to stay with us, I know it's unfamiliar territory for you. > > >Also, Kleck has suggested that those "using" a gun in self defense in > >public make up a small percentage of those attacked due to the extremely > >small number of civilians who can legally carry concealed weapons. > > And ? We are not talking about the absolute numbers but the relative numbers of > method of self defense used and attack/injury/completion rates. > What Kleck is saying is that if more folks could legally carry a gun, there would be even higher levels of them used in legal self-defense. > > >Despite the onerous gun regulations in NY (not NYC per se), we CAN get > >concealed carry permits... The same in not true of much of the country, > >particularly areas in which street crime is most likely to occur. This > >further lends support to the notion that criminals attack those they can > >most easily victimize--avoiding those most likely to be armed. The > >reverse causation suggestion looses its appeal in this light. > > > A shakey assumption, no supporting data ? Try again please. > Again, Pim, this is where you have to use your brain. I know it's hard, but give it a try. > >PVM>>>>1. and 2. are equally well supported by the available data. > > >Well, that's one set of interpretations... > > It surely is. > > >The risk of an encounter being lethal increases but the risk of being > >injured decreases significantly as a result of civilian armed defense > >(Kleck & Sayles, and Kleck & Delone). Also, it is not "general gun > > The risk of injury decreases though injury is more severe. Also lethality risk > increases. > > > >ownership," per se, that increases the likelihood of violent crime, it > >is gun ownership by a very small subset of our society. Viz, those with > > No, it is gun ownership which increases use of guns in robbery and assault. There is no evidence whatsoever that _my_ ownership of guns increases the use of guns in robbery and assault. Sorry, try again. Jim =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Mon Aug 22 09:25:57 1994 From: [s c c 3] at [news.delphi.com] ([S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]) Date: 18 Aug 1994 22:37:00 -0000 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: J.Neil Schulman responds to Pim's rebuttal (!) My apologies if this is a repost. I have no prior experience in posting articles this long on Usenet and believe my first attempt failed. What follows here is the result of an exchange this week which included myself, Pim van Meurs, and J.Neil Schulman (author of _Stopping Power_). It started when I read Pim's rebuttal of Mr. Schulman's "Overview of the Statistical Case" (pp. 69 - 84). Anti-control myself, I nonetheless found Pim's case compelling enough to make me wonder what Mr. Schulman might think of it. I suggested to Mr. van Meurs (via E-mail) that it might be possible to forward his rebuttal to Schulman, thereby giving the author the chance to defend his case. Pim graciously agreed that the author should indeed be presented with the rebuttal, that he might construct a defense if he so desired. Construct one Mr. Schulman did. I present here (#1) the relevent portions of Pim's rebuttal (for reference), followed by (#1 and #2) Mr. Schulman's two-part reply. Any further material forwarded to me from Mr. Schulman (I.e.-- incoming responses to prior queries made of his sources) will be posted as followups. My thanks to Mr. van Meurs for his cooperation in this matter. I must say I found our exchange most civil and pleasant. (#1): Pim's rebuttal as forwarded to J. Neil Schulman [My own introductory material deleted for brevity]. Pim van Meurs: Neil Schulman 15 Aug 1994 10:22 Let me quote you from a posting found on the cerebus ftp site: [....] >An answer by J. Neil Schulman to the statement, "The availability >of guns increases the crime rate". [Note: Schulman is responding here to a message from another modemer. This exchange is reprinted in _Stopping Power_. I have used a '>' character to set off Mr. Schulman's commentary. --Steve] [....] >No, I do not admit that guns increase the crime rate. Your >opinion is not in accordance with known facts. >Switzerland and Israel have two of the most heavily armed civilian >populations on Earth. Both have an extremely low rate of violent >crime and homicide -- some of the lowest anywhere. >According to \The Jewish Week\ for Dec. 11-17, 1992, the Israeli >homicide rate for 1992 was 1.96 per 100,000 persons. One in ten >Israeli civilians is armed. >In Switzerland, every male between 20 and 50 is required to keep >a fully-automatic assault rifle in his home, and the Swiss >regularly carry these full-auto rifles to ranges on public >transportation and on bicycles for practice. There are 4 million >weapons in private hands including 220,000 pistols which gives >Switzerland about 3,400 pistols/100,000 Swiss citizens, which works >out to about 220,000 pistols in a nation of 6.5 million people; and >there are 4 million weapons in private hands, for a ratio slightly >less than the ratio in the United States (61,500/100,000 in >Switzerland compared to 83,300/100,000 in the US). I don't have >the overall Swiss homicide rate handy, but they had 91 handgun >murders in 1990 -- for a population of 6.8 million, this works out >to a Swiss handgun-related homicide rate of .00014%. Pim responds=========================== More appropiately is to express this rate per 100,000. This would be 0.14/100,000, the number for 1983-1986 is 0.46/100,000. Tim Lambert: No, Schulman made another error. The percentage is .0014%, the rate is 1.4/100,000. This number is almost certainly incorrect - the total homicide rate for the year before was 1.4, and the with gun rate is unlikely to have tripled. End response=========================== >Let's look at the British now. Great Britain has had almost a >complete gun ban in effect for most of this century. This is >reflected in their extremely low gun homicide rate: Great Britain >had 22 handgun homicides in 1990. But that figure tells only part >of the story. Here are the British overall homicide rates: >homicide rates: > HOMICIDES IN GREAT BRITAIN, 1987-1988 > (Source: Interpol) > 1987 1988 > England & Wales: > Population: 49,923,500 50,424,900 > Homicides: 981 992 > Homicide Rate: 2 per 100K 1.97 per 100K > Scotland > Population: 5,112,129 5,094,001 > Homicides: 508 510* > Homicide Rate: 9.9 per 100K 10.0 per 100K > *excludes Pan Am 103 bombing > Northern Ireland > Population: 1,500,000 1,575,200 > Homicides: 401 563 > Homicide Rate: 26.7 per 100K 35.7 per 100K >Evidently, British gun control doesn't seem to work at keeping down >the overall homicide rate either in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Pim reponds============================================== Note that the source for these statistics is INTERPOL. INTERPOL includes attempted and completed homicides in their estimate of homicides. Not very polite to compare homicides in the US with attempted and completed homicides in the UK. End response============================================== > COMPARING BRITISH AND AMERICAN HOMICIDE RATES > (Source: FBI Unified Crime Reports) > For comparison, the United States Homicide Rate in > 1987: 8.3 per 100K (compare to 9.9 for Scotland, 26.7 for > Northern Ireland); and in 1988: 8.4 per 100K (compare to > 10.0 per 100K in Scotland and 35.7 per 100K in Northern > Ireland). Pim responds=============================================== Indeed the UCR does not include attempted homicides which would explain why the USA numbers compare so favourably with the UK numbers. What are the UK numbers ? Let's for an interesting comparisson look at 14 countries including the USA. Note that the rates are per *million* not per 100,000. Rates of homicide, suicide and household gun ownership in 14 countries. ============================================================ Rate per Million _______________________________________ Homicide Suicide with a with a % households Country Overall Gun Overall Gun with guns ______________________________________________________________ Australia 19.5 6.6 115.8 34.2 19.6 Belgium 18.5 8.7 231.5 24.5 16.6 Canada 26.0 8.4 139.4 44.4 29.1 England/ Wales 6.7 0.8 86.1 3.8 4.7 Finland 29.6 7.4 253.5 54.3 23.2 France 12.5 5.5 223.0 49.3 22.6 Holland 11.8 2.7 117.2 2.8 1.9 N. Ireland 46.6 35.5 82.7 11.8 8.4 Norway 12.1 3.6 142.7 38.7 32.0 Scotland 16.3 1.1 105.1 6.9 4.7 Spain 13.7 3.8 64.5 4.5 13.1 Switzerland 11.7 4.6 244.5 57.4 27.2 USA 75.9 44.6 124.0 72.8 48.0 West Germany 12.1 2.0 203.7 13.8 8.9 ______________________________________________________________ The homicide rates are obtained from the 1983-1986 World Health Organization. End response===================================== > Which refutes the claim that British-style gun control > produces a national homicide rate which is lower than > the United States. Pim responds===================================== Not really as we have seen above 7.59/100,000 for USA, 1.63/100,000 for Scotland and 0.67/100,000 for England and Wales and 4.66/100,000 for Northern Ireland. End response===================================== > Now, let's compare these homicide rates with the U.S., by > city (1990): > Washington D.C.: 78 per 100K > Miami: 39 per 100K > Houston: 35 per 100K > New York City: 31 per 100K > Los Angeles: 28 per 100K > Denver: 14 per 100K > Phoenix: 13 per 100K > Seattle: 10 per 100K > El Paso: 7 per 100K > Colorado Springs: 3 per 100K Pim responds====================================== Only Colorado Springs looks more favorable when compared to Northern Ireland. Of course, Northern Ireland is in a state of civil unrest. Still the homicide rates for Colorado Springs homicide rate is still higher than for England and Wales and Scotland. End response====================================== > And, U.S. by state (1990): > New York: 14.5 per 100K > Pennsylvania: 6.7 per 100K > Montana: 4.9 per 100K > Minnesota: 2.7 per 100K > South Dakota: 2.0 per 100K > New Hampshire: 1.9 per 100K > Iowa: 1.7 per 100K > North Dakota: .08 per 100K Pim responds====================================== Iowa gets close to Scotland's numbers and North Dakota seems to be the only one which manages to get below the rates in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. Tim Lambert: Except that the rate for ND is obviously incorrect. The population of ND is about half a million, so a rate of 0.08 is half a homicide in 1990. End response====================================== > Second, there are areas of the United States with a lower > homicide rate than England's, and these areas have little > or no gun control. Pim responds======================================= Exactly one such are, North Dakota. End response======================================= > Third, Colorado Springs, Colorado, with one of the lowest > homicide rates of any major U.S. city has virtually no > gun control laws; yet its homicide rate is only slightly > higher than England's, which has a virtual gun ban. Pim responds======================================= Slightly higher means almost 5 times higher. End response======================================= -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- (#2): First reply from Mr. Schulman 17-AUG-1994 03:35:44.55 NEWMAIL Dear Mr. Clark: Thanks for forwarding the "rebuttal." Since it's questioning source material, I need to go back and check sources. That may take a little time. One thing that sticks out in the "rebuttal" material is the stat that only 27.2% of Swiss households keep guns. I know this figure is far too low, which makes me instantly suspicious about the accuracy of the rest of the quoted stats. I am pretty sure that the Interpol figures I quoted are correct, but I will double check. I think I filtered out the attempted homicide figures before I used them. But let's assume, for a moment, that the international figures are correct. That still leaves us with Southern States with high gun saturation and high crime rates, Western States with high gun saturation and much lower crime rates, cities with gun bans and high crime rates and cities with easy availability of guns and low crime rates. The simple fact is that crime and violence in this country is much more linked to the availability of African Americans than the availability of guns. After the Civil War, Southern States passed the first gun control laws in this country to require licensing of firearms, so that they could be kept out of the hands of recently freed slaves. I am not willing to return to a two-tiered system of rights in this country in order to "solve" the crime problem. My solution is uniquely American: all decent and responsible people should be armed so that when indecent people attempt violence, they will be stopped quickly. If they are, coincidentally, stopped permanently while attempting their crimes, then the taxpayers won't have to feed them, which doesn't bother me a bit. I had a chapter in STOPPING POWER in which I proved, with statistics, that murder should be legalized since two-thirds of murder victims have a criminal record, therefore murder is eliminating twice as many criminals as non-criminals. The primary case for guns is the moral case, not the statistical case. So even if Europeans are less inclined to murder one another than Americans are, they are also more inclined to suffer tyrants without protest. J. Neil Schulman (#3); Second reply from Mr. Schulman 17-AUG-1994 16:57:32.51 NEWMAIL NOTE: The following is a retransmission, after correction of Item 4546497. I think I cancelled that message before it was transmitted to the Internet Gateway, but if you received it, please ignore it and use this one instead -- JNS. Dear Mr. Clark: Following up on my Internet message to you yesterday, in response to your message: Today I telephoned the British Information Services in New York, which faxed me 19 pages of statistics, from three different reference works, regarding crime in the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, figures corresponding to American homicide rates were only available for England and Wales; listings for Scotland and Northern Ireland either did not separate out homicides from "serious assaults," or only listed persons "proceeded against" -- that is, booked or indicted; I'm not sure which -- for homicide, which fails to tell us how many homicide victims, or un-prosecuted and unsolved homicides, there were; nor would this tell us about homicides from non-assault causes such as arson, poisoning, bombings, etc. I have faxed the Scottish Office Information Directorate for Scottish figures, if available, but have not yet located a corresponding phone number for Northern Ireland to inquire; when I do I will fax them also. The England/Wales homicide statistics I received today come in about halfway between the INTERPOL figures I used in STOPPING POWER, and the World Health Organization (WHO) figures quoted by Mr. van Meurs. WHO gave the England/Wales homicide rate from 1983-1986 as 6.7/million or --comparing apples to apples -- .67/100,000. This doesn't even come close to the England/Wales homicide rates for 1987-1988 I just received: HOMICIDES IN GREAT BRITAIN, 1987-1988 (Source: Criminal Statistics, England & Wales, 1992, published by the Home Office): 1987 1988 England & Wales: Population: 49,923,500 50,424,900 Homicides: 686 645 Homicide Rate: 1.37 per 100K 1.27 per 100K In other words, the British Home Office homicide statistics for England and Wales are twice as high as the WHO figures quoted by Mr. van Meurs. And, as you'll recall, these are the INTERPOL figures I used: 1987 1988 Homicides: 981 992 Homicide Rate: 2 per 100K 1.97 per 100K Which, admittedly, comes in higher than the Home Office figures, but with less of an overestimate than WHO's underestimate. In looking back at the original comments from Mr. van Meurs and Mr. Lambert, I note that in one instance Mr. Lambert is commenting that my quotation for Swiss homicide rates is too high. This would reinforce, rather than undercut, the thesis that my statistical case is attempting to support, which is that wide availability of firearms in Switzerland does not act as a factor to drive up its homicide rate. To quote an independent source (and, admittedly, not a primary one), "International Crime Rates" for 1988 published by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics gives the Swiss homicide rate as 1.1/100,000 -- lower than England/Wales. I forwarded your message and my reply to several people. The first response I got was from a Canadian criminologist, Rick Lowe. Here is his response: Item 8957073 94/08/17 03:35 ~From: R.LOWE1 Rick J. Lowe To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman Sub: Homicide stats Reply: Item #9046070 from SOFTSERV Neil; a few fast comments: Re numbers of firearms in the hands of Swiss citizens: there may be more firearms per capita in the US, but in terms of availability (ie at least one firearm in the home), the Swiss have much higher rates of availability than the U.S. Americans simply tend to own numerous firearms and this pushes the per capita rate up. In fact, it is often surmised that firearm availability is higher in Canada than in the US - a similar situation. > Indeed the UCR does not include attempted homicides which > would explain why the USA numbers compare so favourably with > the UK... You should note that the UCR's often include homicides which are not murder - homicide simply means "death caused by another human". I don't have any reference material here, but you should check this out. The "fudge factor" built into interpol exists in the UCR's as well (but in a different fashion), to the best of my memory. > Let's for an interesting comparisson look at 14 countries... First, I can tell you that Canada's murder rate is much higher than 2.6/100,000. Second, I can tell you that a hell of a lot more than 27% of Swiss homes contain firearms. Ditto for Norway. Finally, the WHO is a pretty questionable source of statistics. It is important to understand that it is rare indeed to be able to "prove" anything with statistics. Statistics are pointers which show us trends; the more studies which are in accordance, the bigger the sample, etc the more persuasive they are. But no study or statistic standing by itself proves anything one way or another. > Only Colorado Springs looks more favorable when compared to > Northern Ireland. This is a cross cultural comparison. Such comparisons are dangerous no matter what your position, because it is almost impossible to eliminate all possible confounding factors. But if you ARE going to do that, the logical comparison is country to country ie Switzerland to Scotland, England, Ireland, etc, not city to country. You're better off staying out of the cross cultural stuff, no matter what you're arguing. It is very difficult to make a valid comparison. You're much better off comparing states and states, cities and cities, etc. Even then, you have to deal with the reality that social factors are going to differ, and they have a significant impact. If someone else brings up cross cultural comparisons, I would tend to point out the problems with validity. If they must have them, then of course I would point to Switzerland, Israel, etc. But they really aren't too valid. The US is a unique social mixture; where else are you going to find a country that compares to it in social issues such as the homeless, ghettos, the drug problem, the operation of the justice system, etc. These all have a significant influence on crime that cannot be ignored. This is why the Seattle-Vancouver study to "prove" handgun accessability has a causal relationship with murder was invalid. Despite the fact they are both port cities on the Pacific only a couple of hundred miles apart, when you look at their demographics they are vastly different. =END= Since Mr. Lowe's experience in these matters far exceeds my own, I am happy to accept his cautions as my own. The Demographic Yearbook published by the United Nations (of which WHO is a sub-organization), giving homicide stats for 1990, rates Columbia the highest murder and non-negligent homicide rate with 49/100,000. El Salvador comes in at 40/100,000 and Mexico with 20/100,000. Note that Columbia has a drug war that exceeds even the homicide rates caused by urban drug gang wars in the United States. Also note that Mexico has gun control as strict or stricter than England. Those who would comment that El Salvador shouldn't be counted because of its civil war, or that Northern Ireland shouldn't be considered because of the long-lasting feud between Protestants and Catholics, need to explain to me why Los Angeles shouldn't also be excluded from these homicide comparisons because of the homicides caused by competing drug gangs, interracial feuds, and social disruption such as resulted in 1992's riots. While I am suspicious of the WHO figures on gun availability around the world because of its gross underestimate of gun availability in Switzerland, I note that WHO's figures shows France with a homicide rate 16% as high as the U.S. rate but with a "Percentage of Households with Guns" only about half as high as the United States. If availability of guns were a significant factor, then France's homicide rate should be 250 percent higher than it is. Likewise, Canada which WHO shows having a homicide rate 34 percent as high as the United States (which Canadian criminologist Rick Lowe tells us is an underestimate) has a "Percentage of Households with Guns" of about half that of the U.S. If more available guns mean more homicides, then Canadians are underachievers in the homicide department. As I said in my previous message (which you are, by the way, authorized to post on POLITICS.TALK.GUNS along with this message), the primary case for gun availability is moral rather than statistical. Even if it could be demonstrated to me that the higher availability of guns in the United States contributed to our higher homicide rate, I would argue that the solution is a better armed and trained public to fight against our obviously more violent and well-armed criminal class. I do not believe there is any rational moral or political case to be made for making innocent people less able to defend themselves from criminals -- ESPECIALLY if our criminals make us the victims of violent crimes more often than do criminals in Europe where guns are less available. Sincerely, J. Neil Schulman Reply to: J. Neil Schulman Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094 Voice Mail: (on AT&T) 0-700-22-JNEIL (1-800-CALL-ATT to access AT&T) Fax: (310) 839-7653 JNS BBS: 1-310-839-7653,,,,25 Internet: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com] "Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose." --CHARLTON HESTON STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns by J. Neil Schulman Foreword by Criminologist and Civil-Rights Lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr. Published by Synapse--CenturioN Price: $22.95 USA / $29.95 Canada ISBN: 1-882639-03-0 Hardcover, 288 pages PLEASE encourage all gun rights activists to ask the manager or assistant manager of their local chain bookstore -- B. Dalton, Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, Bookstar, Crown, etc. -- about when they are getting in STOPPING POWER. This will be an enormous help in getting the chains to order the book. "To deter crime, place a gun nut behind the dead bolt." -- JNS =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Mon Aug 22 09:31:32 1994 From: [s c c 3] at [news.delphi.com] ([S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]) Date: 19 Aug 1994 22:37:02 -0000 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: J.Neil Schulman responds to Pim's rebuttal (!) In addition to issuing his own response to Pim's rebuttal of the statistical case presented in _Stopping_Power_, the author, J. Neil Schulman, distributed a copy of the rebuttal to several individuals. One such was fellow author Dafydd ab Hugh, who's response is posted herein. [the rebuttal in question, along with Mr. Schulmam's own response, is posted elsewhere in this thread.] Here is Dafydd ab Hugh's reply (prefaced by Mr. Schulman): ------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Clark: I received the following message from Dafydd ab Hugh, a science fiction writer with a background in statistics. He's authorized posting this in TALK.POLITICS.GUNS: Item 3405658 94/08/18 03:37 ~From: D.ABHUGH1 Dafydd Ab hugh To: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman cc: [S C C 3] at [DELPHI.COM]@INTERNET# COMM INTERNET GWY Sub: Rebuttal of "Stopping Power" s Dear Neil and whomever else reads this: Well, perhaps Mr. Pim would get rather a more interesting comparison if he compared the homicide rate of Colorado Springs - a city - with the homicide rate of London, Belfast, and Edinborough, rather than with an entire country. City rates are quite often higher than the country-wide rates. In any event, the comparison of one country to another is fraught with peril no matter which side one takes... far more interesting is the comparison of comparable regions, such as the provinces of Canada with the US states they border (about half the US states have lower homicide rates than the adjoining Canadian provinces). One might also point out that the US has a combined homicide- suicide rate of about 20/100,000, even by the WHO's figures cited in the response... which is /lower/ than Switzerland's or Japan's combined homicide-suicide rate, despite the fact that the US is more gun-saturated than either Japan (obviously) or even Switzerland (perhaps surprisingly, we have more guns/person than does Switzerland). This means that the "violent death rate" of the US is lower than that of Japan, despite Japan's ban on guns, and lower than that of Switzerland, despite Switzerland's tradition of civic respect. Finally, the only real comparison to make is to compare a single country before and after the adoption of gun-control measures and see what happened. Doing so for Canada and Britain produces no good evidence that their gun-control laws did a damned thing to lower their violent crime rates, gun-crime rates, homicide rates, or gun-homicide rates. There is some evidence that Canada's or gun-homicide rates. There is some evidence that Canada's gun-suicide rate declined, but the overall suicide rate remained constant, implying a 1 for 1 substitution rate. Even if a US state or city has open borders, it is mathematically improbable that a gun-control measure that would be effective with controlled borders would be /completely ineffective/ with open borders: almost certainly, if the measure was an effective one discounting smuggling, then it would be partially effective even with smuggling, since the necessity to smuggle would make the crime more costly, thus less likely. However, even in those cities which have instituted draconian gun bans, such as Washington DC and New York, and those states such as California that have instituted broad controls such as lengthy waiting periods (fifteen days in the case of California), there is /no/ good evidence that there was any reduction in violent crime, etc. Colin Loftin claimed to have found such in DC and even published an article in (where else?) the NEJM, vol 325, num 23. However, subsequent analysis by myself indicates that there are such elementary errors in logic in Loftin's mathematical analysis that one wonders whether it was peer-reviewed /at all/... it is quite obvious that it was not peer-reviewed by any mathematicians. For example, Loftin's primary "proof" that the DC gun-ban produced the drop in homicides is the following: he took the mean for several years before the law was passed and compared it to the mean for several years after the law was passed and found that the second mean was lower than the first! This is certainly true. Of course, it would be true for /any decreasing function whatsoever,/ of any type... including a constant-slope decrease! Alas, what Loftin needs to show is a /sudden/ decrease shortly after the law goes into effect, and this he neither shows nor even claims to show. He does assume later that his "left mean is higher than the right mean" reasoning somehow translates to a sudden drop right where the law goes into effect... but that's preposterous nonsense. One also gets just such a "left mean is higher than the right mean" by drawing the dividing line a year before the law or a year after the law... thus the line itself is arbirtary. If he had any evidence of a sudden drop, he neglected to enlighten us in his article. The mathematics are so embarassing that I would demand someone revoke Loftin's "scientist" card, except he doesn't have one (his field is epidemiology, which is medicine, not science). And of course, Loftin's data cuts off the year before the massive increase in DC homicides that made it the "ichiban" murder capital among major cities for several years running... its gun-ban notwithstanding. Interestingly, during the period in which DC's homicide rate declined, a decline which Loftin loftily informs us must have resulted from the gun-ban, the homicide rate of both the United States as a whole and Canada likewise declined, by similar amounts, during the same years! Apparently, DC's gun-ban was so strong, it lowered homicide not only across America but even in the Great White North. That's some powerful effect for a local city council! (There was, of course, no nationwide US gun-control law enacted in the mid-seventies.) Thus, the case "fewer guns => fewer violent crimes" fails the most basic test: nobody has ever managed to lower his violent-crime rate by enacting gun-control measures. And yes, so long as you spell my name right, you have permission to post this all over the Internet, on computer bulletin boards, on company pegboards, or to print it up and mail it to the Hillary Clinton Sewing Circle. Dafydd ab Hugh Writer 8/17/94 =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Aug 25 00:11:47 1994 From: [c--am--r] at [optilink.dsccc.com] (Clayton Cramer) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 23:22:35 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Lies, damn lies, and Pim's lies. In article <32or2u$[3 vd] at [network.ucsd.edu]>, Pim van Meurs <[p--m] at [nepac.ucsd.edu]> wrote: >Mo Mark, you fail to address that the increase in crime and homicides took place >12 years after the ban and that the ban itself coincided in time with an abrupt >and statistically significant drop in homicide rates and gun homicide rates >which lasted for 12 years. As such my claim is that the gun ban did have a No, there was a drop in the homicides and suicides per month -- not in the homicide or suicide rates. The population fell at least 13% during the interval in question. Homicide rates felt <7%, and suicide rates fell 2.7%. Neither were statistically significant. It is true that GUN homicide and suicide *rates* fell dramatically -- but non-gun homicide and suicide rates rose almost as much, for a statistically insignificant gain. I'm using the data contained in Loftin's study for homicides and suicides per month, and population figures for DC from the Statistical Abstracts of the United States. >Pim van Meurs I've wondered for some time if you were just a fanatic intent on defending your position, perhaps deluding yourself in the process. But when you claim that Loftin examined RATES then I know that you are wrong, and probably lying. Loftin's article is a masterpiece of bad statistics, just because of the problem of not examining rates/100,000 people. -- Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine! Prohibiting law-abiding people from owning guns because they might be stolen by criminals is like prohibiting women from going out at night because they might be raped. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Aug 25 00:13:44 1994 From: [f t pam] at [aurora.alaska.edu] (Philip Munts) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 15:56:13 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Lies, damn lies, and Pim's lies. In article <3332o4$[t 9 e] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >From: [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) >Subject: Re: Lies, damn lies, and Pim's lies. >Date: 19 Aug 1994 19:55:48 GMT >In article <[Cur 7 Ln K s r] at [optilink.com]> [c--am--r] at [optilink.dsccc.com] (Clayton Cramer) writes: >>No, there was a drop in the homicides and suicides per month -- not in >>the homicide or suicide rates. The population fell at least 13% during >Sorry but the drop was in absolute numbers *and* rates. See the >original paper appendix A. Pim, this is a falsehood. Have you ever bothered to look at the UCR's? Washington, D.C. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter (Rev 2) UCR = "Crime in the United States --- Uniform Crime Reports", published after each year by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. Metro = Washington, D.C. Standard Statistical Metropolitan area murders and rate per 100,000 persons. (Copied from UCR) Histogram represents 30 murders with one *. D.C. = District of Columbia murders. Rate not published for early years. (Copied from UCR) Histogram represents 20 murders with one *. Year Metro D.C. D.C./Metro ---- ----- ---- ---------- 1970 326 11.4 *********** 221 *********** 0.678 1971 357 12.3 ************ 275 ************* 0.770 1972 367 12.4 ************* 245 ************ 0.668 1973 399 13.2 ************** 268 ************* 0.672 1974 408 13.4 ************** 277 ************* 0.679 1975 365 12.0 ************* 235 *********** 0.644 1976 309 10.1 *********** 188 ********* 0.608 1977 313 10.3 *********** 192 ********* 0.613 1978 295 9.7 ********** 189 ********* 0.641 1979 281 9.3 ********** 180 ********* 0.641 1980 326 10.7 *********** 200 ********** 0.613 1981 350 11.3 ************ 223 *********** 0.637 1982 334 10.8 ************ 194 ********* 0.581 1983 298 9.0 ********** 183 ********* 0.614 1984 285 8.4 ********** 175 ******** 0.614 1985 243 7.0 ********* 147 ******* 0.605 1986 298 8.5 ********** 194 ********* 0.651 1987 NO DATA AVAILABLE 1988 547 14.8 ******************* 369 ****************** 0.675 1989 640 17.0 ********************** 434 ********************* 0.678 1990 684 17.4 *********************** 472 *********************** 0.690 1991 719 18.1 ************************ 482 ************************ 0.670 Pim asserts that the 1976 (actually took effect in early 1977) handgun legislation in Washington, D.C. resulted in an abrupt decline in murders. Refutation #1: D.C. posted MORE murders in 1977 and 1978 than in 1976. Refutation #2: The D.C. portion of murders in the whole metropolitan area was HIGHER in all but two years (1982 and 1985) subsequent to 1976. (The ratio shows remarkably little variation over the course of time, however. This simultaneously weakens my refutation #2 AND Pim's assertion that the legislation had any effect!) =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Aug 25 00:23:36 1994 From: [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) Date: 18 Aug 1994 11:21:16 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim wants to disarm innocent victims In <32oj4v$[d--u] at [vixen.cso.uiuc.edu]>, [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: >You just ignore the data because you don't like them. Here they are again: Ignore the data ? What silly remark is this Mark. I post the data quite regularly ? *************************************************************************** Editor's note: if Mssrs. Gibson, De Arras, Shulman, Craymer, and Munts are any guide, Pim's definition of "data" is rather idiosyncratic indeed. *************************************************************************** >[For those new to t.p.g, Pim is quite likely to post a thoroughly >discredited piece of boilerplate that consists of smoke, mirrors, and >"wet pavement causes rain" illogic, because Pim is not honest enough to >admit that guns are very effective tools for self-defense.] For those new to this group. Mark is confusing correlation and causation. *************************************************************************** Editor's note: Pim's the one who habitually lies by posting correlational and/or quasi-experimental data (from Loftin and Cook, e.g.) as "proof" of causal propositions (e.g., "gun control causes a decrease in homicide" and "guns increase the lethality of crime.") This is a comically erroneous application of statistical logic, one which defies common sense and reflects Pim's well-known tendency to turn the laws of epistemology on their heads so he can score a point for the anti-self-defense nuts. See Anti-Self-Defense FFL Part 1 for a thorough explication of Pim's continual (and probably deliberate, as it is self-serving) "inability" to distinguish between correlation and causation. *************************************************************************** =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Aug 26 20:53:42 1994 From: [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) Date: 23 Aug 1994 02:07:39 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Marks problems with the truth was Re: Pim's aversion to the facts. Both Kleck, Cook and McDowall show that gun ownership increases use of guns in robbery. Kleck also shows this for assault so indeed you are right that Cook's paper does not show this. McDowall and Kleck however do not address the lethality of robbery, only Cook does this and shows that lethality of robbery increases. *************************************************************************** Editor's note: Here Mr. van Meurs repeats for the umpteenth time (and he's been corrected enumerable times for doing so) his bogus claims about the effects of gun ownership. Please note that he uses CORRELATIONAL/ QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DATA - i.e. he doesn't use true experimental data - to make sweeping CAUSAL assertions. This is outrageously inappropriate conduct from anyone claiming to be a scientist (Pim's a doctoral/post-doctoral student in ocean-something-or-other, depending on which day you ask him). This behavior would have earned him an F (and a letter to the Dean) in the undergrad course I taught on research methods. *************************************************************************** =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sat Sep 3 02:15:34 1994 From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) Date: 2 Sep 1994 23:04:35 -0400 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim: a friend of violent criminals In <3431nf$[8 kc] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In article <[33 i 52 rINN 8 qs] at [clem.handheld.com]> Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> writes: >>But Pim, possession of handguns is already illegal for criminals intent on >>using them for mischief. Why do we need a new law making it illegal for >>MaryAnn to carry one? >Yes, posession of handguns is illegal, yet for robbery and assault >gun ownership (legal) increases the use of guns in such crimes. Cook >has shown for robbery that this increases the lethality of these >crimes. >Do we need laws to make it illegal for Maryann to carry a gun, if >these findings hold ? As usual, Pim commits the cardinal (statistical) sin of presenting the results of a correlational study as proof of a *causal* hypopthesis. I.e., he has lied. Cook's research, like every single study ever cited by Pim, is incapable of proving that legal gun ownership "increases the lethality" of crime. That is because Cook's study is correlational - it is not a true experiment and therefore can't be used to prove a causal connection between variables. To claim otherwise, as Pim has done time and time again, is blatantly ignorant and/or dishonest. Pim has been informed of this on numerous occasions. He has been asked to provide evidence from true experiments to back up his anti-gun claims. He has never, ever been able to produce anything even remotely resembling the sort of evidence he would need to support his anti-gun assertions. Instead, he has resorted to ad hominem rhetoric, likening his critics to cigarette company lobbyists. Such arguments are no substitute for the kind of evidence Pim would need to substantiate his anti-gun claims, and they show him for what he is: a pretentious, dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt cheerleader for the cult of civilian disarmament. I will once again challenge Pim (and/or anyone who believes what Pim says about guns) to cite a SINGLE true experiment which supports one or more of Pim's anti-gun beliefs. [To those unfamiliar with Pim: expect to see one of 3 types of response to the above: a) obfuscatory rhetoric, b) a repost of the same non-experimental rubbish he has been polluting this group with all along, or c) no response at all.] ====================================================================== "Guns increase the lethality of crime." -------------- Pim van Meurs "Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson "Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> ====================================================================== =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sun Sep 4 00:11:19 1994 From: Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> Date: 3 Sep 1994 22:40:07 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Washington D.C. murders revisited In article <3431sr$[8 mb] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: > In article <[33 i 5 f 3 INN 8 r 3] at [clem.handheld.com]> Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> writes: > > >Loftin corrected the data to reach the conclusions he sought, Pim. It's > >really that simple. > > Is it Jim ? Age correcting of data is not that alien to data > analysis. If Loftin had not done this you would have complained that > he had not taken this into account. Nevertheless his findings for > the raw data are similar. How do you and Loftin define "Age correcting"? To me, in my simple world, dead is dead. And a murderer is a murderer. > > > >And as you well know, ONE study does not prove anything, and without > >supporting studies it does not even mean anything. > > > To say that such a study does not mean anything is a bit strong. I did not say "such a study", I said "ONE study". English comprehension still eludes you. And I stand by that statement, ONE study does not prove anything. And without supporting studies it does not even mean anything. > One > need more studies to support these findings, yes there are studies, > different in approach which show similar results. Well, then, name them and explain how they show "similar results". I am not aware of any such studies, and have not seen them here. The bottom line is, DC went from a slightly violent city (relative to other major USA cities) before the ban to one of the most violent cities in the USA shortly after it. That is not proof the ban caused the added violence, but it is certianly proof the ban did not reduce it, and hence, was useless at best. Jim =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sun Sep 4 13:47:35 1994 From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) Date: 2 Sep 1994 23:04:35 -0400 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim: a friend of violent criminals In <3431nf$[8 kc] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In article <[33 i 52 rINN 8 qs] at [clem.handheld.com]> Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> writes: >>But Pim, possession of handguns is already illegal for criminals intent on >>using them for mischief. Why do we need a new law making it illegal for >>MaryAnn to carry one? >Yes, posession of handguns is illegal, yet for robbery and assault >gun ownership (legal) increases the use of guns in such crimes. Cook >has shown for robbery that this increases the lethality of these >crimes. >Do we need laws to make it illegal for Maryann to carry a gun, if >these findings hold ? As usual, Pim commits the cardinal (statistical) sin of presenting the results of a correlational study as proof of a *causal* hypopthesis. I.e., he has lied. Cook's research, like every single study ever cited by Pim, is incapable of proving that legal gun ownership "increases the lethality" of crime. That is because Cook's study is correlational - it is not a true experiment and therefore can't be used to prove a causal connection between variables. To claim otherwise, as Pim has done time and time again, is blatantly ignorant and/or dishonest. Pim has been informed of this on numerous occasions. He has been asked to provide evidence from true experiments to back up his anti-gun claims. He has never, ever been able to produce anything even remotely resembling the sort of evidence he would need to support his anti-gun assertions. Instead, he has resorted to ad hominem rhetoric, likening his critics to cigarette company lobbyists. Such arguments are no substitute for the kind of evidence Pim would need to substantiate his anti-gun claims, and they show him for what he is: a pretentious, dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt cheerleader for the cult of civilian disarmament. I will once again challenge Pim (and/or anyone who believes what Pim says about guns) to cite a SINGLE true experiment which supports one or more of Pim's anti-gun beliefs. [To those unfamiliar with Pim: expect to see one of 3 types of response to the above: a) obfuscatory rhetoric, b) a repost of the same non-experimental rubbish he has been polluting this group with all along, or c) no response at all.] ====================================================================== "Guns increase the lethality of crime." -------------- Pim van Meurs "Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson "Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> ====================================================================== =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sun Sep 4 13:50:11 1994 From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) Date: 4 Sep 1994 13:42:55 -0400 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: The stats-quoting automaton is on CompuServe In <[LAMBERT 94 Sep 4092043] at [silver.cs.umanitoba.ca]> [l--b--t] at [silver.cs.umanitoba.ca] (Tim Lambert) writes: >In article <[34 auunINN 49 m] at [clem.handheld.com]> Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> writes: >> Pim, I find discussion with you impossible, because you lie. If you don't >> like the word "lie", pick another. Selective truth. Half-truth. Implying >> things. You name it. Your defense of Loftin's methods is the prime >> example. One a study has been shown to have flawed methods, such as the >> use of raw numbers instead of rates, then the rest of it must be suspect. >Jim, Loftin's study used raw numbers as well as rates. Since you seem >to be unaware of this, your criticism of this study must be suspect. >In any case, unless you have some evidence that Pim believes that >Loftin's study is worthless, it is incorrect to call him a liar. Do >you think that it is impossible for someone to honestly hold a >different opinion to yours about Loftin's work? Mr. Lambert is apparently unaware of Pim's regrettable tendency to misuse Loftin's study as unequivocal proof of a causal connection between the 1976 D.C. gun ban and a subsequent temporary decrease in the homicide rate. Despite being shown time and time again that Loftin's study, being quasi-experimental/correlational in design, cannot possibly be used to make the claim that variable X (D.C. gun ban) *caused* a change in variable Y (homicide rate), Pim has continued to act as if Loftin's work does indeed prove such a causal connection. This behavior, for which Pim has been repeatedly assailed in this newsgroup, is a manifestation of Pim's ignorance of research and statistical methodology and/or his dishonesty with regard to the topic of civilian gun ownership. The fact that Pim will not cease posting what have been clearly identified as lies is an indication of his arrogance and contempt for those who take discussion of gun-related topics seriously. That Mr. Lambert and Pim have a cute habit of acting as one another's apologists and defenders in this forum indicates that they share the same level of ignorance/dishonesty in their views about guns. They are also equally arrogant and contemptuous of those who read and post here to increase their understanding of gun-related issues. Like the ignoramuses who post sexist drivel in soc.women, Pim/Tim are here to provoke angry responses from those who care deeply about the matters under discussion. When asked for scientifically sound evidence to back up their ludicrous anti-gun claims, this pair has never, EVER been able to rise to the challenge, preferring instead to engage in obfuscatory rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. No one who had read this newsgroup for more than a few days or weeks can doubt that Pim/Tim are here merely to incite and deceive, perhaps in the hopes of converting one or two souls into supporters of the statist jihad against civilian gun ownership. Unlike Tim, who has urged people to killfile me, I hope people will continue to read Pim/Tim and their ilk as examples of the kind of mind set the gun rights movement is up against. Hopefully the anti-gunners here will emulate the ignorance, lies, deception and unreason typified by folks like Pim/Tim. This will help to confirm the impression that such traits are the hallmarks of gun-control zealots everywhere. ====================================================================== "Guns increase the lethality of crime." -------------- Pim van Meurs "Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson "Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> ====================================================================== =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Mon Sep 5 23:18:05 1994 From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) Date: 5 Sep 1994 22:56:58 -0400 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim: a friend of violent criminals In <34gert$[h g c] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In article <34g6mf$[c 4 s] at [panix2.panix.com]> [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) writes: >>In <34g21k$[ar 8] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >>>>To Pim.. :) >>>>Pimster.. "can the USA turn tyranical?" Please explain. >>>There is always such a possibility. >>One can almost hear the sound of Pim giggling and rubbing his hands in >>glee at the prospect.... >Why do you say this Aldo ? Are we now to the point of putting words into >other people's mouths Aldo ? Anyone who has followed this newsgroup for a while knows that the notion of Pim being a fan of totalitarianism is not that far-fetched. >Regards >Pim van Meurs >>"Guns increase the lethality of crime." -------------- Pim van Meurs >>"Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson >>"Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up >>any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> >Aldo seems to ignore other scientific methods by restricting himself to >true experiments. True experiments are the only sort that can prove that variable X CAUSES - I repeat - CAUSES changes in variable Y. The voodoo "science" that Pim and his ilk like to spout can't prove diddly. >Of course given the outcome of such research one should >not be too surprised at this Garbage in, garbage out. Pim's voodoo science proves nothing about anything. If he had any integrity, he'd simply admit that no true experiments have ever shown that gun control has any value whatsoever. >Similar to the arguments from the tobacco >industry that there is no 'proof' that smoking causes cancer, Aldo's >remarks sound a bit 'hollow' ? As always, Pim has to use the bogus guns :: cigarettes conceit that is as idiotic as it is unimaginative. In doing so, he has allied himself with intellectual giants like Kellerman, the 43:1 man who has brought us so much amusement in recent years. Unfortunately for folks like Pim and Kellerman, guns are not pathogens and violence is not a disease. Oh, and Pim is the guy who keeps insisting that the 1976 D.C. gun ban actually worked to reduce gun-related violence, yet his only evidence is a completely worthless study by Loftin (who has never even seen fit to replicate his own work). About the only thing Pim can prove is that the mental midgets of the civilian disarmament cult just keep getting smaller and smaller. ====================================================================== "Guns increase the lethality of crime." -------------- Pim van Meurs "Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson "Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> ====================================================================== =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Wed Sep 7 23:50:02 1994 From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) Date: 7 Sep 1994 20:39:27 -0400 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim: a friend of violent criminals In <34h1rn$[33 b] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [drifter.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In article <34glpq$[7 pn] at [panix2.panix.com]> [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) writes: >> >>>In article <34g6mf$[c 4 s] at [panix2.panix.com]> [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) writes: >>>>>>Pimster.. "can the USA turn tyranical?" Please explain. >>>>>There is always such a possibility. >>>>One can almost hear the sound of Pim giggling and rubbing his hands in >>>>glee at the prospect.... >> >>>Why do you say this Aldo ? Are we now to the point of putting words into >>>other people's mouths Aldo ? >>Anyone who has followed this newsgroup for a while knows that the notion >>of Pim being a fan of totalitarianism is not that far-fetched. >Oh so you are using correlational data not a causal analysis Figures why >you got it wrong... After reading megabytes of anti-gun rubbish from Pim, one can scarcely mistake him for a libertarian (of the big or small "l" variety). The correlation between Pim's ideas and those of some of history's best known statists approaches unity. This raises some interesting epistemological issues, for instance, did the existence of these ideas make Pim a statist? Did Pim's statist tendencies make his thinking similar to that of statists from the past? Or is there perhaps some third-variable causality at work that can explain both historical statism and Pim's statism? >>>>"Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up >>>>any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> >>>Aldo seems to ignore other scientific methods by restricting himself to >>>true experiments. >>True experiments are the only sort that can prove that variable X CAUSES >>- I repeat - CAUSES changes in variable Y. The voodoo "science" that Pim >>and his ilk like to spout can't prove diddly. >> >>>Of course given the outcome of such research one should >>>not be too surprised at this Pim apparently believes that the non-experimental anti-gun findings he posts have scientific merit. He is, of course, mistaken. One would think that Pim could come up with a single example of experimental research which proves that guns cause an increase in violence and/or that gun control can reduce such violence - but alas, he can't do it. Instead, he makes comically inept attempts to present the results of non-experimental research as if they had every bit as much weight and causal significance as true experimental data. This is known as the Brady Effect and it is well known among the true believers of the anti-gun cult. >While I realize that you have to hold such a restrictive opinion on science >since this allows you to esasily discard such data you do not agree with, >similar to the tobacco industry stating that there is no 'proof' of smoking >causing cancer. Pim's deceitful postings have earned him a well-deserved reputation as a liar here on t.p.g. and elsewhere. His silly diversionary tactics (e.g., likening his critics to tobacco industry lobbyists) won't change this. >>Garbage in, garbage out. Pim's voodoo science proves nothing about >>anything. If he had any integrity, he'd simply admit that no true >>experiments have ever shown that gun control has any value whatsoever. >Now if it were only *my* voodoo science but others like Cook, Kleck for >instance have drawn similar conclusions. Pim the mudslinger always try to exculpate himself by trying to fraudulently include Kleck in his circle of bogus anti-gun pseudo-scientists - fortunately, his little ruse is as transparent as it is absurd. >>>Similar to the arguments from the tobacco >>>industry that there is no 'proof' that smoking causes cancer, Aldo's >>>remarks sound a bit 'hollow' ? >>As always, Pim has to use the bogus guns :: cigarettes conceit that is as >>idiotic as it is unimaginative. In doing so, he has allied himself with >Not as bogus as your assertion that *only* true experiments can prove causal >relationship Aldo. Pim lies again by suggesting that I have ever said such a thing. Of course it's possible prove causality using correlational methods, but there's a catch: one must first rule out every conceivable third variable that could have contributed to the observed shared variation among a set of variables - a virtually impossible task - which is why true experiments are superior to quasi-experimental/correlational techniques and are generally the techniques of choice in the natural sciences and, increasingly, the social sciences. In graduate school, I remember reading at least one survey of the social science literature that pointed out that much of it is unreplicable, mainly due to the use of non-experimental techniques. Will Pim and his anti-gunner friends get with the program? Or will they continue to rely on inferior science that scarcely rises above the level of the anecdotal? >>intellectual giants like Kellerman, the 43:1 man who has brought us so >>much amusement in recent years. Unfortunately for folks like Pim and >>Kellerman, guns are not pathogens and violence is not a disease. >So you agree that they have proven causality using non-experimental data ? Another PimLie (tm).... >>Oh, and Pim is the guy who keeps insisting that the 1976 D.C. gun ban >>actually worked to reduce gun-related violence, yet his only evidence is a >>completely worthless study by Loftin (who has never even seen fit to >>replicate his own work). >What do you mean 'to replicate his own work' ? Of course your reference to >Lofitn's study as completely worthless is based on your beliefs rather than >on the actual study, now isn't it Aldo. Pim doesn't even know what "replicate" means; how pathetic. >>About the only thing Pim can prove is that the mental midgets of the >>civilian disarmament cult just keep getting smaller and smaller. Proven yet again.... ====================================================================== "Guns increase the lethality of crime." -------------- Pim van Meurs "Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson "Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> ====================================================================== =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Sep 8 07:02:42 1994 From: Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> Date: 7 Sep 1994 23:39:40 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: The stats-quoting automaton is on CompuServe In article <[LAMBERT 94 Sep 4092043] at [silver.cs.umanitoba.ca]> [l--b--t] at [silver.cs.umanitoba.ca] (Tim Lambert) writes: > In article <[34 auunINN 49 m] at [clem.handheld.com]> Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> writes: > > > Pim, I find discussion with you impossible, because you lie. If you don't > > like the word "lie", pick another. Selective truth. Half-truth. Implying > > things. You name it. Your defense of Loftin's methods is the prime > > example. One a study has been shown to have flawed methods, such as the > > use of raw numbers instead of rates, then the rest of it must be suspect. > > Jim, Loftin's study used raw numbers as well as rates. Since you seem > to be unaware of this, your criticism of this study must be suspect. Sorry, I am aware of it. But the use of raw numbers casts a serious doubt on the integrity of the rest of his study. If you don't see that, well, maybe Mark's right about you, too. > > In any case, unless you have some evidence that Pim believes that > Loftin's study is worthless, it is incorrect to call him a liar. Pim is an intelligent person. And he has a specific agenda. He knows what's wrong with that study, he just prefers to play it stupid. IMHO, of course. Just as he's a liar as a result, IMHO. BTW, to be clear, I use the term "liar" against someone who deliberately misleads folks, even if he just misuses the truth. > Do > you think that it is impossible for someone to honestly hold a > different opinion to yours about Loftin's work? It would be difficult for someone impartial who has studied it to conclude that it is a well-done study. > > Tim Jim =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Sep 9 07:20:17 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 9 Sep 1994 08:09:41 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim: a friend of violent criminals [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) writes: >In <34ncpr$[g 8 n] at [vixen.cso.uiuc.edu]> [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: >>Well, it seems that Pim has decided to infest Compu$teal. I guess he >>finally realized that he had no credibility on UseNet and is generally >>considered to be an object worthy of ridicule hereabouts. >I suppose he was disappointed at the how few of us here decided to take >up the cause against civilian gun ownership despite his best efforts to >spam us into submission. Pim is the pro-RKBA'ers best friend. It is sniveling little statists like him who convince reasonable people that Big Brother does not have their best interests in mind. Pim reminds me of the joke-tagline I saw recently: "We're from the government. We're here to help ourselves." -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Gibson | The meek shall inherit the dearth. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not BMRL or UIUC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =========================================================================== *************************************************************************** Editor's note: the next few posts reflect the fact that many of us here on t.p.g. suspect that Mr. van Meurs has been less than completely forthright about his identity, much less his motives. At various times, it has been hypothesized that van Meurs is an AI bot, a group of anti-self-defense sympathizers, Tim Lambert's alter ego (my hypothesis - no unequivocal proof [yet], just a hunch), a foreign operative of a country hostile to U.S. policy regarding the RKBA, etc.. The evidence that van Meurs isn't who he says he is has been circumstantial (e.g., message counts suggesting that no individual, acting alone, could post as much material to the net in such short periods of time as Pim has managed to do; the fact that he has enumerable mailing adddresses; etc.). At the same time that many here doubt van Meur's integrity with regard to his identity (among other things), there is also the sense that someday, the truth about van Meurs will out (folks here are just too damned clever). Stay tuned. You too, Pim/Tim. ;> *************************************************************************** From talk.politics.guns Tue Sep 20 14:44:52 1994 From: [i--m--l] at [gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us] (David Miller) Date: 20 Sep 1994 10:48:07 -0400 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Anybody heard from Pim lately???? James S. Rustad ([j s rustad] at [meqlan1.remnet.ab.com]) wrote: : I just realized I haven't seen any posts from Pim lately. : I guess the AI experiment is over. Nope, I've seen a couple posts from him this week. Just not the automaton. It was classic Pim tho: Pim makes misleading point, Pim is corrrected, Pim reasserts misleading point without acknowledging correction. : James S. Rustad | "A well regulated militia being necessary : NRA Life Member | to the security of a free State, the right : Libertarian Party | of the people to keep and bear Arms shall : of Wisconsin | not be infringed." : Executive Committee | : Member-at-large | ------DON'T TREAD ON ME------ -- David Miller Usual disclaimers apply Maine State Government =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Sep 30 07:33:30 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 30 Sep 1994 05:30:05 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: FAQ: Kansas City Robberies--Pim spews [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >Title : Kleck about Kansas City robberies >reference : David McDowal, Alan, J Lizotte and Brian Wiersema, General > deterrence through civilian gun-ownership: An evaluation of the > quasi-experimental evidence, Criminology, vol 29, No. 4, 1991, > pp. 541-559. >Last review: 01 april 1994 >Kansas city robberies [..DrivelPurge(TM)...] Pim isn't a very good AI...he doesn't learn much from his pathetic mistakes. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Gibson | Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | The meek shall inherit the dearth. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not BMRL or UIUC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sun Oct 2 23:14:14 1994 From: [a--y--r] at [nmsu.edu] (Nosy) Date: 2 Oct 94 18:42:50 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: PIM -- AI, single human, or group? was Re: Anybody heard from Pim lately???? [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: < In <[ATAYLOR 94 Oct 2160301] at [gauss.nmsu.edu]>, [a--y--r] at [nmsu.edu] (Nosy) writes: < >In article <36n54i$[sn 8] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: < > < > < > Of course, the fact that various postings from van Meurs < > used different styles of writing, had varying quality < > of spelling and grammar, and even argued with other < > postings by van Meurs....that may have contributed < > to such observations. < But this is a far cry from crediting me with the work of many people . No more so than observing that wet pavement causes rain.... , Brad Branham <[d--ag--n] at [otolith.lhs.org]> wrote: >Checking my Pim-post counter between yesterday and today, I have >established to my satisfaction that this simulation of a European >naval reserve officer who wants to disarm the civilian population by >numbing their brains with Himmler-filtered-statistics _cannot_ possibly be >a single human being (at least one who has a real job). There is a Pim van Meurs in the San Diego residential white pages. Pim and friends more than likely just have lot of canned responses and software to aid them, which are repeated ad naseum. Nice try Pim. Go back to the Netherlands, land of the drunk, home of the cowards, will ya. -- Larry Cipriani, [l v cipriani] at [att.com] or attmail!lcipriani Ever feel like you're being watched ? You will ... =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 20:27:43 1994 From: [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor~) Date: 20 Oct 94 00:36:00 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: status of the PvM matter Well, I've archived all of the Dutch Lt. Weasel's posts for the last wekk and a half or so : 288 articles, 650K+ of text, with up to 33 articles posted in a single day. I wanted to grab it before Pim van Muers figured out what the "cancel" command can do. I also plan some intersting analysis of it. We'll see what somes of it. I also sent a probe to the advisor Pim claimed was his in e-mail (that is also archived) : "[n--ll--r] at [nepac.ucsd.edu]". Of course, that bounced. Pim is no more honest in e-mail than he is on the net, it seems. To the people I forwarded this e-mail address to : don't bother. So, it looks like we go straight to the Feds with our story. I have to find out who at State and the FBI are the right people to talk to. BTW, in the course of archiving the Pim stuff I noted that pim uses two accounts to post : "[r--t] at [pvanmeur...]" and "[p--nm--r] at [...]". This is probably why Pim is so open about the address of the postmaster of the machine he posts from, while he lies about who his adviser is : he probably administers his news machine itself. However, even if this is true, he can't hide the name of the machine he gets his feed from, so we have a possibility of recourse there. -- Dennis O'Connor [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sun Oct 2 23:15:17 1994 From: [j s rustad] at [meqlan1.remnet.ab.com] (James S. Rustad) Date: 2 Oct 1994 15:17:04 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: What type of gun control measures would Pim recommend? I just realized that I've never seen Pim describe the type of gun control measures he believes to be appropriate. The only arguments I've ever seen him (or it) take part in are over the validity of various statistical arguments. Pim, would you please describe exactly what your ideal form of gun control is? Also please discuss what enforcement measures would be for its successful implementation in the US. James S. Rustad | "A well regulated militia being necessary NRA Life Member | to the security of a free State, the right Libertarian Party | of the people to keep and bear Arms shall of Wisconsin | not be infringed." Executive Committee | Member-at-large | ------DON'T TREAD ON ME------ =========================================================================== *************************************************************************** Editor's note: here are some informed opinions regarding van Meurs' statistical expertise and scietific integrity (sic). *************************************************************************** From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 19:04:19 1994 From: [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor) Date: 19 Oct 94 08:56:35 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim van Muers [z--le--a] at [world.std.com] (michael zarlenga) writes: ] Why all the insults and attacks on Pim? Because he's slime. Isn't it obvious ? ] I don't agree with his views, but he's a smart guy and his knowledge of ] statistics is exceptional. His ability to quote and misuse statistics is great. His _knowledge_ of statistics and statistical methods is pathetic, as I have pointed out in the past. I took several semesters of statistics in the process of getting my Math degree : while this does not qualify me as an actuary, it certainly taught me enough about statistics to be disgusted by the Dutch Weasel's misuse of them. -- Dennis O'Connor [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 19:05:01 1994 From: [cac 2] at [gte.com] (Crankin' Carl) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:33:01 -0200 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim van Muers In article <[C x wE 47 Fz 4] at [world.std.com]>, [z--le--a] at [world.std.com] (michael zarlenga) wrote: > Why all the insults and attacks on Pim? > > Pim this, Pim that. > > I don't agree with his views, but he's a smart guy and his knowledge of > statistics is exceptional. Bullshit!!!! You're out of your friggin mind, Zarlenga! As a professional statistician with an M.S. from a top school, I am outraged and insulted by your praise of his statistics knowledge! I KNOW BETTER! {I'm also insulted by his continuing abuse of statistics} Remember, Pim is the guy who thinks correlation equals causation... Pim gets the polemic that he does because of his neurotic behavior. He gets called 'Pimbot' because he just mindlessly reposts the same cites even though they've been thoroughly trounced. If Pim ceased his machiavellian behavior, his differing viewpoint, and his person, would be less reviled. -- ( ( ( ) ) ) Ideas, like seeds, can't ( ( ( germinate in concrete Carl Castrogiovanni '. ___ .' GTE Laboratories ' (> <) ' Don't Tread On Me! ----------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo----------------------------------------- =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 19:05:33 1994 From: [cac 2] at [gte.com] (Crankin' Carl) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 08:38:40 -0200 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim van Muers In article <38276n$[h j h] at [canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca]>, [umfran z m] at [cc.umanitoba.ca] (Jeff Scott Franzmann) wrote: > In article <[C x wE 47 Fz 4] at [world.std.com]> [z--le--a] at [world.std.com] (michael zarlenga) writes: > >Why all the insults and attacks on Pim? > > > >Pim this, Pim that. > > I have to agree. If he's so wrong, than a simple fact in the face will > work. That's right...if he's such a blatant liar, expose the lie and it > all comes crumbling down. The problem is, he isn't a liar. He presents > statistics, and uses them to come to conclusions. You can argue with those > conclusions, but calling him a liar is going a little far. You've been around here only a short time, Franzmann. Go back through the archives and you'll see that his cites have been thoroughly debunked many times. He also thinks correlation equals causation. That he ignores things which do not fit his position is itself a lie. So, yes, he's a liar... > >I don't agree with his views, but he's a smart guy and his knowledge of > >statistics is exceptional. > > He seems intelligent enough to me. I myself don't agree with ALL of his > findings...mainly because I disagree with some of his conclusions. > HOWEVER, I have found no evidence that he is trying to deceive anyone, and > assertions that he is doing so have, to date, been pretty unfounded. The authors he's so fond of, themselves, have been shown to be deliberately deceptive. That he continues to trot them out means that Pim, knowing they are deceptions, himself is deceitful. -- ( ( ( ) ) ) Ideas, like seeds, can't ( ( ( germinate in concrete Carl Castrogiovanni '. ___ .' GTE Laboratories ' (> <) ' Don't Tread On Me! ----------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo----------------------------------------- =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 19:06:14 1994 From: [a--y--r] at [nmsu.edu] (Nosy) Date: 19 Oct 94 12:21:29 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim van Muers [umfran z m] at [cc.umanitoba.ca] (Jeff Scott Franzmann) writes: < In article <[C x wE 47 Fz 4] at [world.std.com]> [z--le--a] at [world.std.com] (michael zarlenga) writes: < >Why all the insults and attacks on Pim? < > < >Pim this, Pim that. < I have to agree. If he's so wrong, than a simple fact in the face will < work. That's right...if he's such a blatant liar, expose the lie and it < all comes crumbling down. It's been done. More than once. Ask "Pim" about the availability of military-caliber ammunition in Switzerland, for example. I showed that Killias, "Pim"'s favorite Swiss researcher, was wrong on that, and thus "Pim" was wrong. I won't be surprised to see "Pim" reposting the claim that "military ammunition in Switzerland is available only from military sources", again, either. The account "Pim" has a habit of simply reposting the same material over and over again, totally ignoring the replies. Indeed, it is interesting that "Pim" often uses the same replies that were used months ago...word for word. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 19:06:53 1994 From: [cac 2] at [gte.com] (Crankin' Carl) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 11:03:27 -0200 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim van Muers In article <[C x xA 0 r Ms] at [world.std.com]>, [z--le--a] at [world.std.com] (michael zarlenga) wrote: > : {I'm also insulted by his continuing abuse of statistics} Remember, Pim > : is the guy who thinks correlation equals causation... > > From what I've read, he's been stressing just the opposite. You must be relatively new here then. Pim spent weeks promulgating that correlation = causation. He tried to argue that if a correlation coefficient is statistically significant, then it MUST imply causation. Pim, in the past, has stated many times and in many different words that "guns cause crime." He backed off on that claim in favor of "guns cause increased lethality." This is just one facet of Pim's lack of credibility. Stick around a while longer and you'll see the rest of it... -- ( ( ( ) ) ) Ideas, like seeds, can't ( ( ( germinate in concrete Carl Castrogiovanni '. ___ .' GTE Laboratories ' (> <) ' Don't Tread On Me! ----------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo----------------------------------------- =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 19:08:41 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 20 Oct 1994 06:37:30 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim van Muers [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor) writes: >[z--le--a] at [world.std.com] (michael zarlenga) writes: >] Why all the insults and attacks on Pim? >Because he's slime. Isn't it obvious ? >] I don't agree with his views, but he's a smart guy and his knowledge of >] statistics is exceptional. >His ability to quote and misuse statistics is great. >His _knowledge_ of statistics and statistical methods >is pathetic, as I have pointed out in the past. Agreed. I recall that when pressed on which statistical method was most appropriate for a given purpose, Pim resorted to citing _Numerical Recipes_...a fine book, for programmers, but someone with a strong background in statistics would have been able to cite a more authoritative book on statistics. Of course, if he knew more about statistics, Pim wouldn't make so many mistakes applying and interpreting statistics... -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 19:08:56 1994 From: [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor) Date: 20 Oct 94 09:40:44 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim van Muers [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: ] Of course, if he knew more about statistics, Pim wouldn't make ] so many mistakes applying and interpreting statistics... It's his persistance in repeating the same mistakes even when they are pointed out to him that truly indicts him. -- Dennis O'Connor [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 20:40:38 1994 From: [r--so--o] at [bigdog.fred.net] (Matthew T. Russotto) Date: 20 Oct 1994 17:45:05 -0400 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Reliability of Kleck's figures? In article <37klhq$[j q n] at [newsbf01.news.aol.com]>, Sgt RT <[s g t r t] at [aol.com]> wrote: }In article <37ik4s$[3 sc] at [network.ucsd.edu]>, [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] }(Pim van Meurs) writes: } }>Members of the criminal subculture ? The homicide risk in the home is }mainly }>from family members or intimate acquaintances. } }>Regards } }>Pim } }Pim's statement is written as though it is fact. It is based on an oft }quoted statistic that has no study whatsoever behind it. The stat was }manufactured by HCI and given much publicity in the liberal media. Curiously enough, the only thing that makes the statement a lie is the term "intimate"-- but that makes a world of difference. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 20 23:10:22 1994 From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:00:48 -0400 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim van Muers In <[DOCONNOR 94 Oct 20094044] at [sedona.intel.com]> [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor) writes: >[g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: >] Of course, if he knew more about statistics, Pim wouldn't make >] so many mistakes applying and interpreting statistics... >It's his persistance in repeating the same mistakes even when >they are pointed out to him that truly indicts him. Indeed. It's as if he is deliberately trying to play to the newbies who haven't been around long enough to see his arguments thoroughly debunked. He has never been able to sustain a rational discourse with the more experienced and knowledgeable t.p.g. contributors, and often does a disappearing act for several days at a time when it has once again become apparent that he cannot support his wild anti-gun assertions. This suggests that he isn't capable or even interested in a mature intellectual discussion about guns; instead, his primary interest appears to lie in being contrary and argumentative as a way of making himself the center of attention. Pim's insistence on repeating erroneous factoids and pseudo-scientific anti-gun disinformation has lead to speculation that he works for HCI or is an aid to some gun-grabber politician. My sense is that he is just severely neurotic and gets a masochistic thrill out of people's hostile responses to his provocative behavior on the net. He is not unlike a student who repeatedly raises his hand in class, only to give an answer that completely contradicts and enrages the teacher. For some folks, negative attention is better than no attention at all. Pim would disappear in a matter of weeks if he were ignored, but he safeguards his place as the class clown of t.p.g. by continually reposting the same errors, half-truths and outright lies. He knows he won't be allowed to make false or inflammatory statements about guns here; he knows there will always be a few folks who will never let him define the debate or have the final word. Like a vagrant who commits minor crimes in order to get free room and board in the local jail, all Pim has to do is raise a little hell to get the attention he can't live without. Maybe Pim should form his own chapter of Histrionics Anonymous. ====================================================================== "Guns increase the lethality of crime." -------------- Pim van Meurs "Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson "Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> ====================================================================== =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Oct 21 19:03:45 1994 From: [d--a--p] at [lsid.hp.com] (Dean Payne) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:43:00 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Response to Pim about Loftin Pim van Meurs ([r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu]) wrote: >>>People like to point out that Loftin did not use rates, however he did as is >>>clearly indicated in his study. ... > >>Though he claimed to have checked rates, none were included in his New >>England Journal of Medicine report. > >Indeed the numbers are part of the appendix which is separately available. He >does mention that his raw data and rates do show similar behavior. If they were sufficient to support the claims, they should have been published in the NEJM in place of the raw figures. Or as a followup. >>>Dean Payne has done a comparisson of UCR numbers but his analysis is >>>limited to comparisson of means ... > >>If the homicide reduction were real, rather than an artifact of Loftin's >>particular measure, it should also be visible in my comparison. > >Not necessarily if there is a trend for instance. ... Loftin didn't claim a trend. He claimed "an abrupt decline." >>Loftin's measure of lives saved by the gun ban was structured to include >>any lives "saved" by the population movement out of the District, and by >>any common DC-MD-VA crime reduction. He had to use a measure inherently >>susceptible to contamination, because that contamination was required to >>make the "benefit" statistically significant. > >What is this contamination Dean ? I answered that in the immediately surrounding sentences. >Note that he also found using interrupted time series analysis using ARIMA that >there was an abrupt drop in 1976. ... Then just what did you mean when you wrote the following confused passage? That there was no such drop in 1976 (no later than Jan 1, if FBI figures mean anything)? Or that said drop didn't really coincide with the gun ban (late Sep 1976 / Feb 1977)? >>> (1) There have been rumours on the net that the data actually show that the >>>the homicide rate dropped 10 months before the ban, i.e. in january 1976. >>>This is based on the incorrect assunption that for the annual rates, 1976 >>>was the first year of the gun ban. Since the gun ban took effect late 1976 >>>and was held in court for several months until ealry 1977, 1977 is the first >>>year of the gun ban. >>His measure even counted any people killed by substitution of other >>weapons in place of guns. I find it absurd to include dead bodies in a >>measure of lives saved. > >Please explain how his measure countred people killed by substitution ? He >addressed both gun homicide, non-gun homicide and total homicide. The NEJM article did not address total homicide (or suicide) at all. His measure of lives saved came exclusively from the drop in gun-related homicides and suicides as expressed in his Table 1, not from any measure of total homicide or suicide. Any substitutions (shifts from the gun- related line to the non-gun-related line), which would not have changed to overall death rate, would still appear as lives saved in his measure. Loftin claimed in the abstract of his report: : There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other : methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were : substituted for handguns. However, your posting of Loftin's Appendix figures shows that the non-gun homicide and suicide rates did increase, and that the homicide increase was even statistically significant: >-- ... Loftin's original study, which displayed no per-capita rates >> at all, ... >Loftin's original study does mention that the results for rates were the same as >for the raw numbers. The appendix A and B which can be ordered separately >contain the relevant numbers which I have posted several times now. Here, you write "the same". Above, you wrote "similar". The numbers you posted contradict both (the non-gun homicide rate _did_ increase), and even refute Loftin's claim of no substitution. >>-- Computing the average murder rate of the 50 states and DC by Pim's >> suggested method produces a rate of 9.1, noticeably below the 9.3 >> rate actually listed in the 1992 UCR. Without DC, the rate of the >> 50 states by Pim's method would be just 7.6, rather than 9.2. > >> Look, Ma! We're saving thousands of lives with nothing more than a >> handheld calculator. > >We are looking at trends here, how did you age correct one year Dean ? >Age adjusting of crime rates is quite common and in my opinion quite valid since >the age composition of a population also affects the crime rates and should be >taken into account. You changed the subject. I was responding to your complaint about how I computed "mean of a quotient", not about age adjustment. As for age adjustments, that was addressed by this (presuming Loftin provided you with age-adjusted figures - if not him, why should I?): >>-- When I substitute Loftin's later "Intervention Analysis" figures >> that Pim reposted (below) in place of the FBI/Census figures in my >> original comparison, what is the result? > >> For the District of Columbia, no change in relative performance. >> For Maryland-Virginia, a two percentage point lesser homicide >> reduction, the same minor changed found by averaging my numbers >> according to Pim's suggestion. > >>I.e., my comparison is virtually unchanged. >As I have pointed out Dean, you use a simple comparisson of means, hardly >comparible to the ARIMA interrupted timeseries analysis used by Loftin. It does >poorly in handling trends, serially correlated data. ^^ {Presuming "it" means my comparison, not Loftin's. Otherwise, Pim would be defending my comparison over that of Loftin.} Again, Loftin claims "an abrupt decline," not a trend. I lack both the data and the tools to meaningfully distinguish between the two, so I am challenging only the more broad claim of preventing an "average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented." > The findings were an abrupt drop of 25 % coinciding with the ban in raw rates, As you also seemed (in a confusing paragraph) to point out, the ban doesn't really coincide with the supposed abrupt drop, but appears to follow it. However, my real claim is that the more meaningful measure - per capita homicide rate relative to the control community - did not decline significantly, abrupt or otherwise, over the analysis period as a whole. The handgun ban did not "[prevent] an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented." > I assume you are not claiming >a similar reduction in population in one year to off-set the drop in crime rates I don't need to, as I am not claiming the existance of a major single-year homicide reduction. That is Loftin's claim. Instead, I am disputing the magnitude and significance of the claimed period-wide savings of lives. Dean =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Oct 21 19:14:46 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 20 Oct 1994 09:52:49 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.guns Subject: Pim demonstrates his amazingly poor scholarship [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In <382rke$[p 6 f] at [vixen.cso.uiuc.edu]>, [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: >>>And the final 'coup de grace' on page 18. >>>"However evidence gathered to date on these questions has been very mixed and IS >>>NO MORE CONCLUSIVE THAN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE CONCERNING DEFENSIVE EFFECTS >>>OF GUNS..." >>>It seems that the author himself admits that the evidenec is not very conclusive >>>and subject to different interpretations. >>>Source: >>>Kleck, Crime control through the private use of armed force.Social problems vol >>>35, 1988. >>That's your problem, Pim! You're citing an older work of Kleck's. I'm >>citing _Point Blank_. Try to keep up with the literature, Pim. >But Mark, his 1988 paper was the foundation of his chapter 4 remarks and from >what you quoted, Kleck does not seem to have added any significant new data >supporting his assertions: You are still using an obsolete reference to correct a newer one. Some scholar you are, Pim...NOT! >Almost verbatim from page 7 of his 1988 study But it didn't come from that study, it came from a book he wrote years later. You make youself look particularly foolish and ignorant when you don't use the most current version of a report or study. People revise, update, and extend papers all the time. Only a poor scholar such as yourself would use the outdated version of someone's findings. -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Oct 21 22:30:04 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 22 Oct 1994 00:00:48 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim's Myths, lies etc Part 1 (FAQ) [p--nm--r] at [sdcc3.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In article <387n2t$[k--u] at [vixen.cso.uiuc.edu]> [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: >>[...DrivelPurge(tm)...] >>You didn't really want to read hundreds of lines of tripe from the >>same Pimbecile who claimed that Chicago is the capital of Illinois, >>did you?... >Indeed, when pointed out to me that I was wrong about this I >acknowledged my error. People should do the same about their >perceptions of Kennesaw, Orlando and Kansas City. You are the one who is confused. In Orlando the anti-rape program was very sucessful. It seems that rapists didn't like the idea of being shot by their victims. >It was an honest mistake, similar to you comparing violent crime >rates in Canada and the USA, when US rates do not include simple >assaults and Canadian rates Mark. I din't make any such mistake. I quoted someone else's comparison. A government agency (I forget which one) compiled that list. If you don't like it, write them a letter. >>Let's face it, the Pimbecile isn't considered the resident charlatan with >>respect to statistical masturabation for nothing... >So Mark, are you disagreeing with my posting's findings about >Kennesaw, Orland or Kansas City or have you by deleteing them and >not addressing them admitted that they have some merrit ? See above. You are wrong about Orlando. Once you admit that, we'll deal with your other lies and errors. -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Sat Oct 22 11:49:12 1994 From: [V--L] at [utkvm1.utk.edu] (David Veal) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 16:45:07 GMT Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Guns Can Be Hazardous to Your Health In article <388otn$[3 f 4] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--nm--r] at [sdcc3.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In article <[s t ratosCxyJFn 3 o 5] at [netcom.com]> [s t ratos] at [netcom.com] (Steve Fischer) >writes: >>In article <[papabudge 1910941516100001] at [132.236.102.45]> [p--b--e] at [aol.com] (Papa >Budge) writes: >>> > Know The Facts >>>> If you have a gun at home: >>>> -- You are 3 times more likely to be killed by, or to kill, >>>> someone in your home. >>>> -- You are 8 times more likely to be killed by, or to kill, a >>>> family member of intimate acquaintance. >>>> -- You or a family member are 5 times more likely to commit >>>> suicide. >> I guess it's pointless to note that these are Kellerman statistics >>which have shown to be highly misleading. They do not include situations >>in which a gun is used (obviously not including suicide) to deter a crime >>without (a) being fired, or (b) without killing the victim. When these >>situations are taken into account, the gun is more likely to protect you >>than to kill you by a large margin. >The study looked at homicides in two counties and obtined control >groups. Two urban, high crime counties. Additionally, the "control" groups differed from the "experimental" group in a very relevant way: They were still alive. All of the "experimental" group were murdered. The study attempted to find "controls" who were close to the murdered in various ways, some with more success than others, and then asked them questions. >When comparing the two groups it was found that gun >ownership had a risk of about 3. It was found that those who were murdered were more likely to have owned a gun than the "control" group. This doesn't translate into owning a gun *causing* an increased risk of homicide, primarily because those likely to be murdered in the first place live disproportionately risky lives. It is entirely possible that it is this risky lifestyle which makes them more likely to be murdered, and also may make them more likely to be armed, especially in high crime, urban areas where gun ownership among the general population tends to be lower, except among criminals. >This seems to contradict your assertion that guns are more likely to >protect you than to kill you, if this were the case there would not >have been a riskfactor. Notably, not all of the risk found had anything to do with the owned guns, or even a gun at all. Interestingly, owning a gun makes you more likely to be murdered period, not murdered in a way your gun is involved. This, additionally, suggests there may be a spurious relationship. [...] >The National Crime Survey finds 60,000-90,000 yearly uses of a gun >in self defense _against a crime_. Assuming 'worst case' scenario, >this will mean about 200 lives saved. Interesting segue. This addresses the raw numbers of defense, not necessarily the effectiveness. (The same NCS you use here as evidence suggests that defense with a firearm is the most effective means of self- defense, including non-violent or evasive means.) And before you launch into a tirade about that, do remember who brought it up... =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Tue Oct 25 06:58:33 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 25 Oct 1994 10:30:58 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim's Myths, lies etc Part 1 (FAQ) [p--nm--r] at [sdcc3.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In article <38gm64$[me 4] at [vixen.cso.uiuc.edu]> [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: >>[p--nm--r] at [igrad1.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >>>>>Indeed, when pointed out to me that I was wrong about this I >>>>>acknowledged my error. People should do the same about their >>>>>perceptions of Kennesaw, Orlando and Kansas City. >>>>You are the one who is confused. In Orlando the anti-rape program >>>>was very sucessful. It seems that rapists didn't like the idea of >>>>being shot by their victims. >>>And what (lack) of evidence do you base these comments on Mark ? I have shown >>>you that Kleck's own data did not show any statistically significant effect ? >>I trust Kleck a lot more than I trust you. You are notorious for >>engaging in statistical masturbation. You have posted nothing >>which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the anti-rape >>program in Orlando was not very effective. >Well Mark, you responded to myths, lies etc part I so you must have >seen my references to McDowell's analysis of the Orlando rape data >and Green;s comments on this program. [...PimDrivelPurge(tm)...] Kleck addresses Green's objections in _Point Blank_ and shows why they are not serious. The evidence suggests that the program to prevent rapes in Orlando by arming several thousand women was very successful. -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Tue Oct 25 21:10:35 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 25 Oct 1994 12:07:33 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: More Statistics? [p--nm--r] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In <38gluk$[m 0 e] at [vixen.cso.uiuc.edu]>, [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: >>>Michael, could you please explain and support your assertion that gunrestriction >>>laws _promote_ higher gun related deaths and injuries ? >>Kleck has shown that the most effective means of dealing with a violent >>criminal attack is to use a gun in self-defense. (See Table 4.4 and the >>accompanying explanation by Kleck.) Now, violent criminals will not bother >>to obey gun control laws, but most ordinary citizens will. Thus, gun-control >>laws serve to disarm the victims of violent crime, removing their most >>effective means of self-defense, while doing little or nothing to thwart >>the activities of violent criminals. >Mark is making his usual error here by claiming that Kleck has 'shown' this. >In his 1988 paper Kleck is quite clear that there are many possible >explanations and that his conclusions are not very conclusively supported >by data. Pim is confused. I was citing a book published in the 90s, not a paper from the late 80s. That being the case, none of Pim's other drivel is relevent. Here is what Kleck had to say in _Point Blank_ and what Pim keeps trying and failing miserably to refute: "PREVENTING COMPLETION OF THE CRIME " It has been argued that resistance by crime victims, especially forceful resistance, is generally useless and even dangerous to the victim (Block 1977; Yeager et al. 1976). Although evidence supports this position as it applies to some forms of resistance, it does not support the claim as it applies to resistance with a gun. Yeager and his colleagues (1976) examined data from victim surveys in eight large U.S. cities, which included information on the fraction of robberies and assaults that was completed against the victim and on victim use of self-protection measures. They did not report results separately for victims resisting with a gun but analyzed a category including victims using any weapon to resist. For robbery, the completion rate was 37% in crimes where the victim resisted with a weapon, a rate lower than that of any other form of self-protection, and far lower than among those who did not resist in any way (p. 13). Because guns are regarded as more intimidating and deadly weapons than knives and other lesser weapons, one would expect gun-armed resisters to experience lower completion rates than victims resisting with other weapons. Therefore, had gun resisters been separately analyzed by Yeager et al., the results should have indicated even greater effectiveness of gun resistance relative to other forms of self-protection. " This is confirmed by national data reported in Table 4.4, which break out gun-armed resistance from other armed resistance. The figures are derived from analysis of the 1979-85 incident-level files of the NCS public use computer tapes (ICPSR 1987). This dataset contains information on over 180,000 sample crime incidents reported by nationally representative samples of noninstitutionalized persons aged 12 and over. Respondents were asked if they had been a victim of crime in the previous 6 months, if they used any form of self-protection, if they were attacked, if they sustained injury, and if the crimes were completed. For assaults, "completion" means injury was inflicted; thus completion and injury rates are the same for assaults. For robbery, "completion" means the robber took property from the victim. The figures in Table 4.4 indicate that robbery victims who resisted with a gun or with a weapon other than a gun or knife were less likely to lose their property than victims using any other form of self-protection or who did not resist at all. " The remarkably successful outcomes of defensive gun uses might seem surprising if one imagines the incidents to involve shootouts between criminal and victim. This, however, does not describe most gun uses. Among the 1979-1985 violent incidents reported in the NCS, 70.4% of defensive gun uses were against offenders who did not even have a gun (or at least none visible to the victim). Even in the remaining cases it is unlikely that many involved the victim and offender shooting at one another, since less than a quarter of gun assaults involve a gun actually being fired (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1986b) and under 40% of defensive gun uses involve the defender shooting. More commonly, gun-armed defenders face a criminal without a gun, thus have a strong power advantage, and successfully prevent the completion of the crime without shooting. "AVOIDING INJURY " Data on attack and injury rates in robberies and assaults, by victim protection method, for the entire nation are also shown in Table 4.4. Robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or who did not resist at all. Only 17.4% of gun resisters in robberies, and 12.1% in assaults, were injured. The misleading consequences of lumping gun resistance in with other forms of forceful resistance (ala Yeager et al. 1976; Cook 1986) are made clear by these data, since other forms of forceful self-protection are far more risky than resisting with a gun. After gun resistance, the victim course of action least likely to be associated with injury is doing nothing at all, i.e., not resisting. However this strategy is also the worst at preventing completion of the crime. Further, passivity is not a completely safe course either since a quarter of the victims who did not resist were injured anyway. This may be because some robbers use violence preemptively, as a way of deterring or heading off victim resistance before it occurs. Thus they may use violence instrumentally to assure victim compliance, against those victims for wwhom this seems to be a safe course of action (Conklin 1972, Chapter 6). Other robbers may simply enjoy assaulting victims for its own sake, using violence expressively (Cook and Nagin 1979, pp. 36-7). " Some analysis of robbery data have uncritically assumed that where crimes involve victims who resisted and were also injured, resistance must somehow have led to the injury (e.g., Yeager et al. 1976). Although it is tempting to assume that resistance to a robber provokes attack, the reverse may also be true. That is, victims otherwise reluctant to resist may do so out of desperation or anger after being attacked by the robber--injury may provoke victim resistance. The regular NCS surveys before 1986 did not establish the sequence of offender attack and victim self-protection actions. Consequently it is not certain if any of the 17.4% of robberies with an injured, gun resisting victim involved an attack provoked by the victim's resistance. Nevertheless, even after acknowledging that their police record data did not allow them to confidently establish the sequence of events, Zimring and Zuehl (1986, p. 19) asserted that active victim resistance escalated victim risk of death and recommended that victims refrain from resisting. " Based on work of a former Zimring collaborator, it is evident that such a conclusion is questionable. In a study of robberies reported to the Chicago police in 1975, Block (1977) examined offense reports to determine which came first, victim resistance or robber use of force. In robberies in which the victim resisted with force (including the use of weapons), victim resistance came _after_ the offender's initial use of force in 68% of the cases (1977, pp. 81-2). Presumably 32% involved resistance first, then offender use of force. If this applied nationally to the 17.4% of robbery gun resisters who were injured, it would mean that only about 6% (.32 x .174 = .058) were injured after they used their guns to resist. And since some of these injuries surely would have resulted even without resistance, it means that fewer than 6% of these victims provoked the injury by their use of a gun. In any case, even if all gun resister injuries had been directly caused by the resistance, a dubious assumption, it is still clear that a robbery victim's resistance with a gun rarely provokes a robber into injuring him. Based on the present findings and those of Block, the chances of this happening are probably less than 1 in 20. " In contrast, Block noted that among victims who resisted nonforcefully, by fleeing or yelling for help, it was resistance that came first in 70% of the cases. The evidence is thus compatible with the hypothesis that active physical resistance without a gun often provokes offender attack, whereas resistance with a gun deters attack. " These conclusions are supported by specail NCS data. Questions about the sequence of resistance and injury were asked in a limited one-month-only Victim Risk Supplement (VRS) administered to 14,258 households as part of the NCS in February 1984. In assaults that involved both _forceful_ self-protection actions and attack on the victim, the victim actions precede the attack in only 9.8% of the incidents. For assaults involving _nonforceful_ resistance, only 5.7% of victim actions preceded attack. For robbery incidents with both attack on the victim and and self-protection actions, _forceful_ self-protective actions never preceded attack, whereas in only 22% of similar incidents involving _nonforceful_ victim actions did the victim actions precede the attack (author's analysis of VRS data). Thus, even in those few incidents in which forceful resistance was accompanied by attacks on the victim, the sequencing was rarely compatible with the contention that the victim's resistance provoked the attack. The national NCS data, then, even more strongly indicate that forceful victim resistance rarely provokes attack. The best available evidence indicates that gun-armed victim resistance to robbery or assault almost never provokes the offender to injure the victim." "...." " Consequently, a rational goal of gun control policy could be to tip the balance of power further in prospective victims' favor, by reducing aggressor gun possession while doing little or nothing to to reduce nonaggressor gun possession. This would contrast sharply with across-the-board restrictions that apply uniformly to aggressors and nonaggressors alike. In view of this chapter's evidence, this sort of "blunderbuss" policy would facilite victimization because legal restrictions would almost certainly be evaded more by aggressors than nonaggressors, causing a shift in gun distribution that favored the former over the latter. The general public already seems to be aware of these issues. In an April 1989 CBS News/_New York Times_ national survey, 67% of U.S. adults answered ''Yes'' to the question ''Do you think prohibiting the public from having guns would give criminals an added advantage?'' (DIALOG 1990). " The following remarks, although over two centuries old, are still pertinent to consideration of across-the-board gun controls. They were written by Cesare Beccaria: False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. (1963 [1794], pp. 87-8)" Table 4.4 Attack, Injury, and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery, and Assault Incidents, by Self Protection Method, U.S. 1979-1985 ROBBERY Method of % Completed % Attacked % Injured Num Times Self Protection Used(a) Used gun 30.9 25.2 17.4 89,009 Used Knife 35.2 55.6 40.3 59,813 Used other weapon 28.9 41.5 22.0 104,700 Used physical force 50.1 75.6 50.8 1,653,880 Tried to get help or frighten offender 63.9 73.5 48.9 1,516,141 Threatened or reasoned with offender 53.7 48.1 30.7 955,398 Nonviolent resistance, including evasion 50.8 54.7 34.9 1,539,895 Other measures 48.5 47.3 26.5 284,423 Any self-protection 52.1 60.8 38.2 4,603,671 No self-protection 88.5 41.5 24.7 2,686,960 Total 65.4 53.7 33.2 7,290,631 ASSAULT Method of % Attacked % Injured Num Times Self Protection Used(a) Used gun 23.2 12.1 386,083 Used Knife 46.4 29.5 123,062 Used other weapon 41.4 25.1 454,570 Used physical force 82.8 52.1 6,638,823 Tried to get help or frighten offender 55.2 40.1 4,383,117 Threatened or reasoned with offender 40.0 24.7 5,743,008 Nonviolent resistance, including evasion 40.0 25.5 8,935,738 Other measures 36.1 20.7 1,451,103 Any self-protection 49.5 30.7 21,801,957 No self-protection 39.9 27.3 6,154,763 Total 47.3 29.9 27,956,719 (Source: _Point Blank_ by Gary Kleck, page 149.) [Any typos are mine --TMG] -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Tue Oct 25 21:35:16 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 25 Oct 1994 13:09:47 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: The Dutch Guy (was: Good Bye -- I Have Been Silenced) Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> writes: >No, he is reposting a lot of of articles that have been refuted repeatedly, >but which he continues to post as fact without ever even acknowledging the >disputes. That's Pim! SSDD...or more accurately, SSED. :-) -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Wed Oct 26 07:12:05 1994 From: [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor~) Date: 25 Oct 94 23:00:31 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim who? [r m b] at [i3109a27.atl.hp.com] (Mikel Bartol) writes: ] INTRO: I used to work for City of Tempe PD. Nuff said? ] ] I read some comments by someone named Pim. Banning guns, convoluted logic ] etc. describe my impressions when reading his communiques. What/who the ] heck are you Pim? Pim van Meurs claims to be: A Dutch citizen attending the Scripps Intitute of Oceanography on a student visa, receiving funding from a U.S. Navy research grant. He also claims to hold a commission in the Dutch Navy, as a 2nd Lt. He has apparantly at various times claimed to be a post-doc and a PhD candidate. And he was voted "most likely to be first against the wall" in an informal poll of t.p.g readers. (just kidding) ] Very few police officers feel the way you do about ] private ownership of firearms. He doesn't care. He knows better than you and your fellow officers do. All the gun-banners do. [...] ] We are always threatened by our paper pushing superiors if we ever ] say anything so you don't hear the truth, period! ] I no longer have anything to loose by speaking my mind since I don't ] work for the TempePD of AZ. As a Chandler resident, I'm sorry to see you gone. ] [...] The logic in the street is that if the ] intended victim is armed, find someone else. Even if you THINK they ] are armed. This attitude can be verified by visiting any medium to ] maximum security prison and asking burglars, rapists etc.. what they ] think. They LOVE the idea of gun control since it makes their life ] safe for future endeavors. Your error here is in thinking PvM and his group even understand what "logic" is, much less care. -- Dennis O'Connor [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 27 05:52:25 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 27 Oct 1994 02:05:18 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: What Police Can Do ? [p--nm--r] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: [...PimDrivelPurge(tm)...] >======================= >Compiled by Pim van Meurs (1994) ^^^^^^^^ "Composted" is a more accurate term... -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 27 05:53:58 1994 From: [r--y--e] at [ug.eds.com] (Royce Myers) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 08:37:53 -0800 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Pim's Myths, lies etc Part 1 (FAQ) Once again Pim demontrates that his years at Arthur Murray's Studios were not wasted. Briefly, Pim repeats a claim that Orlando's rape prevention program may not have had an effect because the number of rapes in Orlando varied significantly from year to year. As he mentions, in 1963 there were none, then in a few years shot up in the thirties, then the firearm training was performed and the rapes dropped from 34 to 4. If you look at raw data over a long period of time you find that the number of rapes seems to vary randomly enough that this drop was not necessarily caused by the program. When asked why long term data was used for a short term effect, he replies that long term data was used to look for a short term effect. Some might claim that this was not exactly answering the question, but Pim will claim that he answered it. His definition of "answer" is the same definition polititians use, but few of us here will be fooled. Then when asked why raw data instead of rates were used, he only claims to be looking at one year. He fails to mention that he was looking at one year in the context of many years, and that Orlando's population grew significantly over the time that the "random fluctuations" were estimated. Finally, and most amusingly, Pim is asked (vainly) not to be hypocritical, and use the same standard of proof for Loftin's DC study as for Kleck's Orlando study. Pim claims that Loftin's DC study has the same error as the Orlando "statistical analysis", and still manages to find a significant answer. He does not appear to worry that this statistically meaningful answer is based on flawed data. [The DC study attempts to find a short term effect, and finds it, yet the law was expected only to work in the long term. It looks at raw data while population is declining; it finds an effect that started up to two years before the law was enforced; and Pim fails to explain why DC is a murder mecca while this law is still in force.] -- Royce Myers [R--y--e] at [ug.eds.com] NNTP Server wanted =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 27 06:02:06 1994 From: [d c d] at [se.houston.geoquest.slb.com] (Dan Day) Date: 26 Oct 1994 20:18:43 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Reliability of Kleck's figures? In article <38hvau$[i 9 v] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [nepac.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: > >Note for instance the >Scotland data which was posted here a few days ago which indicated that a >addressing methods of homicides which are most prevalent, in their case knife >homicides, can result in a decrease in knife murders without replacement by >other methods. Oh it did, did it? Why, to read your sentence one would think that "knife control" lowered knife murders. What evidence do you have for this? Reading the article, we find that: 1. Knife murders went from 70 in 1992 to 44 in 1993, and this is the entirety of the data offered to document the "decrease". However, as you yourself have said: # In article <2v0hc5$[m 50] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [nepac.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) # writes: # >Yes Dan, but one cannot determine effect of a gun ban from looking at just # >two years, crime just varies too much too much. I couldn't have said it myself, Pim. This is especially true for such small numbers. 2. The high rate in 1992 was described in the article as a "record level" and an "unprecedented increase" over previous years. Surely a record year may well be a statistical fluke, and one would *expect* the rate to drop to more normal levels in succeeding years. 3. The law being "credited" for the drop was described in the article as "tougher knife crime penalties". This is hardly the "knife control" you'd have us believe, but is instead a tougher law on criminal misuse of that item, which even us pro-gun people favor. 4. The law was credited with being the "cause" of the drop in homicides by the Scottish Office, which I presume is a government department eager to take credit for the good news. 5. The article admitted that the results could change because a number of 1993 cases were still in court, and had not yet been ruled as murder or not. Also, the article stated that the figures "differed" from statistics recorded by the Registrar General, without stating in what way. Yet again, we find Pim gladly accepting poor data that he feels supports his position, while elsewhere he loudly insists that people with data that contradicts his opinion meet far higher criteria. Double standard, Pim? Can you honestly say that you would let slide a statement such as yours if, say, the law that were enacted had been liberalized concealed carry laws with the same "effect" on the murder rate? -- "Don't tread on me" From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 27 06:04:26 1994 From: [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor~) Date: 26 Oct 94 22:42:15 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Firearm Deaths are up... (Re: Arms, no thanks !!!) [p--nm--r] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: ] Folks, the Dutch Weasel once again dodges the question of what the BJS means when it says a crime "involved" a firearms theft. Does this for example include one crook killing another crook in a fight for the possiession of a gun they jsut stole ? Does it include _selling_ the stolen firearm, or receiveing a stolen firearm, or obstructing justice WRT a stolen firearm, or robbing a store with a stolen firearm, or conspiracy wwith respect to firearms theft ? All these crimes "involve a firearms theft". The Dutch Weasel has repeatedly refused to clarify this point. We can only assume it is because such clarification would revels the number he cites as artificially inflated and irrelevant to the original issue. Wouldn't it, weasel ? You know I'm right, and you know everyone reading this knows I'm right. -- Dennis O'Connor [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 27 06:13:11 1994 From: [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor~) Date: 26 Oct 94 23:17:36 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Mr. Gibson. Present Facts or Shut the Hell Up (Was Re: Jeff [p--nm--r] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: ] In , [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor~) writes: ] > ] >[p--nm--r] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: ] >] In <>, [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] (Dennis O'Connor) writes: ] >] ] >] >But it's nice to see you perhaps acknowledge or at least dodge the ] >] >fact that more people carying concealed weapons has reduced crime. ] >] >And there's a decent causal hyopthesis that explains it. ] >] ] >] But is the data actually supporting such conclusions Dennis ? ] ] ] >Why, a few posts back in this very thread, Weasel. ] >Go check your spool. ] ] Are you refering to the Florida CCW ? Are you so stupid as to really need to be told this ? ] What research/analysis shows what the causal hypothesis is of ] these correlations ? Why, the ones where they interviewed criminals and the criminals said they would be less likely to attack someone they thought was armed, Weasel. Thye were posted yesterday. I won't waste bandwidth by reposting them : anyone who cares can find them. The rest of the Dutch Weasel's groundless innuendo deleted. The Florida experience really sticks in your craw, doesn't it, Weasel ? -- Dennis O'Connor [d--on--r] at [sedona.intel.com] Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 27 06:19:51 1994 From: "William W. Hughes" <[w--g--s] at [lonestar.utsa.edu]> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 20:25:30 -0500 Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Pim does the Killfile dance. Again. > >[p--nm--r] at [igrad1.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I see Pim has yet another account. This makes what, four? five? From talk.politics.guns Thu Oct 27 06:21:58 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 27 Oct 1994 02:11:36 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Mr. Franzmann, Present Facts or Shut the Hell Up [d c d] at [se.houston.geoquest.slb.com] (Dan Day) writes: >In article <38hvb4$[i 9 v] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [nepac.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >> >>Sure, but data seems to indicate that guns make some crimes more lethal. Kleck >>for instance has shown that gunownership increases the use of guns in robbery >>and assault. Cook has shown this to increase the lethality of robbery. >Funny that you should mention this. I've pieced together data entirely >from your VERY OWN posts which indicate that Cook has his causality >backwards. Maybe that explains why Pim is so confused about causation versus correlation. >Using the very same Kleck study that you reference (so I assume you >feel it's a sound study), he found that high homicide rates actually >cause gun ownership, presumably for the obvious reason that people >concerned about homicide will more often acquire a gun for self defense. That makes sense. I'm sure many people decide to buy guns for protection when they become worried about being victimized by violent criminals. I know that I first bought a gun shortly after I was attacked by violent criminals. >Now, since the Cook study only found a correlation between gun ownership >levels and robbery *homicides* (but not robbery levels), it appears >that Cook may have just found another instance of Kleck's "homicide >causes gun ownership" finding, instead of the "gun ownership increases >robbery homicide rates" explanation you're pushing above. Pim is not honest enough to admit that. >Since all of these interesting findings came from your *own* posts, >what excuse do you have for pretending that you're not aware of them? Pim is dishonest... -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Oct 28 07:08:43 1994 From: [s t ratos] at [netcom.com] (Steve Fischer) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 01:59:21 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Loftin Study - no age "corrections" needed In the discussion concerning Loftin's study of the effects of the DC gun ban, Pim Van Meurs referred to certain corrections that were made to the murder rates. It is my understanding that those corrections were made to somehow adjust for a change in the age distribution of the DC population. It is my contention that such "corrections" are bogus and provide no statistical insight. Loftin himself does not even discuss how those calculations were performed. Such a correction could only be made if two factors were known with absolute reliability: (1) A distribution function which expresses the "innate murder propensity" as a function of age. (2) The actual population distribution in non-census years. The first factor is rubbish. All one needs to realize is that murder has shifted to younger and younger victims in recent years to know that this distribution function is time and circumstance dependent. I don't know how they compute census statistics in non-census years but I find it difficult to believe that it can be measured with the kind of precision that is being applied to the statistical changes in murder rates in the Loftin study. Any comments welcome. -- I don't tell Netcom how to run their business and they don't tell me what to think or write ....... Steve Fischer/Atlanta, GA ===================================================================== "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Johnson =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Oct 28 07:13:46 1994 From: [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) Date: 28 Oct 1994 07:38:07 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Mr. Franzmann, Present Facts or Shut the Hell Up [p--nm--r] at [igrad1.ucsd.edu] (P. van Meurs) writes: >In <38n28o$[l--i] at [vixen.cso.uiuc.edu]>, [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] (T. Mark Gibson) writes: >>[d c d] at [se.houston.geoquest.slb.com] (Dan Day) writes: >>>In article <38hvb4$[i 9 v] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--m] at [nepac.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >>>>Sure, but data seems to indicate that guns make some crimes more lethal. Kleck >>>>for instance has shown that gunownership increases the use of guns in robbery >>>>and assault. Cook has shown this to increase the lethality of robbery. >>>Funny that you should mention this. I've pieced together data entirely >>>from your VERY OWN posts which indicate that Cook has his causality >>>backwards. >Funny even Kleck concludes from his findings that gun ownership increases the [...PimDrivelPurge(TM)...] Here we have an example of the deceitful nature of the Pimbecile. He includes me in the attribution lines, yet carefully chops out every work I posted, leaving only the test of others, and his own drivel. Of course, this most recent post of Pim's will be saved under the heading of Pim-lies... -- Mark Gibson | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law. [g--bs--n] at [bmrl.med.uiuc.edu] | Help Stop Overgoverning -- De-FOLEY-ate Congress. 1:233/16 (Politzania) | Slick Willie presents: The New World Ordure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not UIUC. =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Oct 28 21:15:36 1994 From: Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> Date: 29 Oct 1994 00:04:13 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: CFD: Make Dennis O'Co In article <[e 70 9410250600] at [midrange.com]> [Bob Fenstermacher] at [f16.n200.z176.fidonet.org] (Bob Fenstermacher) writes: [...] > > By the way, Van Meurs is apparently in for some big surprises > when he gets back to the "safe" Netherlands; a recent CBS network > radio report said that 15% of Dutch kids had taken part in > violence on school property, and that 25% carried weapons to > school, including handguns. One Turkish student interviewed > mentioned that he had been threatened with "pistols, knives, and > electricity" [stun guns?]. I've been to Holland annually, most recently this month, and have tried to make that point with Pim, to no avail. I was more in fear for my safety there, than in my Native Virginia. And for just cause. The Hotels hand you warning sheets when you check-in, listing the current crime waves. It used to be just Amsterdam, but all the cities seem to have become quite dangerous, lately. I guess it's all those easily available Virginia guns, again! ;-) Jim =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sat Oct 29 09:49:56 1994 From: Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> Date: 29 Oct 1994 12:39:55 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Florida's CCW Law In article <38kbfd$[d 08] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--nm--r] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: [...] > > > But I am sure that you were not trying to pass a causal observation as a > causality without more information Mark ? > The Pot is once again calling the Kettle Black! Jim =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sat Oct 29 09:50:04 1994 From: Jim De Arras <[j m d] at [cube.handheld.com]> Date: 29 Oct 1994 12:45:20 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: The Pim & Tim Show In article <38kbfv$[d 08] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [p--nm--r] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: [...] His statement was not > incorrect, but it was misleading. Once more time, the Pot is calling the Kettle Black! Pim, Pim, Pim, when will you learn? ;-) Jim --- "Honest population is another word without any real meaning." "Today's honest citizen is tomorrow's criminal." "Todays criminal was yesterday's law abiding citizen" - Pim van Meurs =========================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Sat Oct 29 22:24:58 1994 From: [john grossbohlin] at [hvbbs.com] (John Grossbohlin) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 13:02:00 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Causal direction 1/2 Pim: Hmmm.... seems the system burped these messages up recently. I didn't see them back in August when I was looking for replies... PVM>>Of course we cannot ignore the possibility that situation 2 may exist >>because those who are unarmed are more likely to be attacked in the first >>place. Thus, it is not that one is "least likely to use a gun in self PVM>Those who are unarmed are more likely to be attacked ? Please explain this >somewhat peculiar remark. It is not a particularly peculiar remark. Wright & Rossi (1986), in their survey of convicted felons, found that criminals considered it wise to try to find out if their intended victim is armed before attacking them. Also, it certainly isn't uncommon for criminals to "case" businesses, homes, and other areas in an attempt to determine the risk they face and the potential returns they might reap. PVM>>defense" when attacked, but rather that because one is armed they don't >>have to use it. That is, a deterrent effect for being armed. Wright & PVM>Oh I see, you are assuming that people who carry guns can somehow be >identified >as such. Do you really believe this/ People who carry guns tend to notice other people who are carrying guns... it is part of the culture of going armed. The gun carrier wants to know where the risks are. As someone who does carry concealed handguns (legally) under particular circumstances, I have become acutely aware of the tell tale signs that someone is carrying. There are the bulges and gun outlines telegraphing through clothing, the tip of a holster that peaks out from under a jacket or pants leg, the butts of handguns in cross-draw holsters peaking out from jackets, and of course we cannot forget the relatively recent phenomenon of fanny pack holsters being worn in the front. This "awareness" is quite common--it is discussed in the defensive gun articles of the gun magazines and is a common discussion point among those who legally go armed. In my walks through crowded shopping malls it is rare that I don't detect at least one handgun. They may be carried by cops, or legally carrying civilians, or criminals--that is something I generally cannot tell simply by looking. If you know people who go armed, ask them about this phenomenon. You will probably be surprised at just how aware may gun carriers are. PVM>>Rossi's work strongly suggests criminals are as risk averse as anyone PVM>Rossi's data is about what criminals think other criminals would do. No suc >thing as strong evidence from this source. Indirect evidence at most. Wright & Rossi's work is at least as much about the felon subjects' own (prior) behaviors as it is about what they believe other criminals do. Granted the authors' sample (as discussed in their methods section) tends to be made up of older, more experienced criminals (because it is older more experienced criminals who typically end up in prison) and thus may somewhat overstate the case as compared to a representative sample of "all" criminals. "Youthful offender", "first time offender", and myriad other criminal justice policies create this situation and thus lend some distortion to the picture. Four-fifths of this group of "experienced" criminals agreed that "a smart criminal always tries to find out if his victim is armed." Thus strongly suggesting there is a deterrent effect for defensive arms. This, in turn, suggests the criminals are risk averse. "Crime for profit" (robbery) is viewed as an exchange relationship, by economists and other examiners, where the costs and benefits of a crime are assessed by the criminal. The costs of committing a crime can include injury or death if the criminal faces an armed victim. Viewed as a rational cost/ benefit analysis it is quite reasonable to expect criminals to choose to not attack those who are armed or are suspected of being armed. PVM>>else... Criminals carry guns to command compliance and thus lower the >>opportunity costs (risks) of committing crime... which makes the >>deterrent effect quite a plausible explanation. PVM>Plausible does not mean (f)actual. Plausible is about as good as it gets in much of social science... which is why I use terms like "suggests", "plausible", "likely", and other qualifiers when I write and speak of these issues. To do otherwise would be professionally foolish... Besides, there are no facts, there are only ambiguous stimuli which are subject to cognitive manipulation. PVM>>Also, Kleck has suggested that those "using" a gun in self defense in >>public make up a small percentage of those attacked due to the extremely >>small number of civilians who can legally carry concealed weapons. PVM>And ? We are not talking about the absolute numbers but the relative number >of (Continued to next message) * QMPro 1.50 41-8637 * Guns no more cause crime than flies cause garbage... From talk.politics.guns Sat Oct 29 22:27:28 1994 From: [john grossbohlin] at [hvbbs.com] (John Grossbohlin) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 13:02:00 GMT Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Causal direction 2/2 (Continued from previous message) >method of self defense used and attack/injury/completion rates. Which is my point above. There are relatively few incidents (i.e., low rates) because few civilians can legally carry concealed weapons. If more could legally carry the rates of defensive gun use in public may rise. Or, if the Florida experience is not an anomaly (e.g., the relatively recent concealed carry permit laws and the decreased homicide rates), the over all incidence of violent attacks may decrease due to the implicit deterrent affect of armed civilians. >>particularly areas in which street crime is most likely to occur. This >>further lends support to the notion that criminals attack those they can >>most easily victimize--avoiding those most likely to be armed. The >>reverse causation suggestion looses its appeal in this light. PVM>A shakey assumption, no supporting data ? Try again please. No supporting data? Really? The empirical evidence consistently shows that the areas with the highest levels of gun possession also have the lowest levels of violent crime. Hence, a criminal is far more likely to encounter an armed intended victim in rural America than in urban America. Granted it's correlation and not an explicit causal relationship, but how do you explain that away? PVM>>ownership," per se, that increases the likelihood of violent crime, it >>is gun ownership by a very small subset of our society. Viz, those with PVM>No, it is gun ownership which increases use of guns in robbery and assault. Again, gun ownership by a small subset of our society. If your argument were true, gun crime should be way down as the prevalence of guns has gone from nearly 100% of households in the 18th century down to about 50% of households today. We have more guns, in numbers, today but the ownership patterns are significantly different... If it were ownership, per se, that increased the use of guns in robbery and assault how do you explain the increased incidence (numbers of and rates) of gun violence, over the past two centuries, in the face of the near halving of general ownership rates? At no time in our history has obtaining and possessing guns been more difficult than it is today (despite the anti-gun political rhetoric to the contrary). Has this decreased ownership rate decreased gun related robbery and assault? No. It is also interesting to note that if you subtract out gun violence the U.S. is still more violent, as estimated from crime statistics, than the countries to which we are generally compared. This in turn suggests that there is a lot more going on here than simply the number of guns and number of gun owners. The one variable model of "guns cause crime" falls apart instantly when subjected to even the slightest test... John * QMPro 1.50 41-8637 * Guns no more cause crime than flies cause garbage... =========================================================================== *************************************************************************** Editor's note: one hopes that Mr. van Meurs/Lambert will continue to provide the t.p.g. audience with the finest in anti-self-defense sophistry and outright lies for our edification and amusement. - A.T. ***************************************************************************