Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $28,228
33%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by tberry

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Burglar meets well-armed victim

    02/09/2004 5:26:46 AM PST · 2 of 41
    tberry to *bang_list
    Bang!!!
  • Burglar meets well-armed victim

    02/09/2004 5:25:03 AM PST · 1 of 41
    tberry
  • Myth No. 3 Guns are Bad

    02/03/2004 5:08:40 AM PST · 2 of 15
    tberry to *bang_list
    Please activate the Source URL to get the original article then click on "VIDEO". The 20/20 clip is great.
  • Myth No. 3 Guns are Bad

    02/03/2004 5:07:10 AM PST · 1 of 15
    tberry
    Please activate the Source URL to get the original article then click on "VIDEO". The 20/20 clip is great.
  • Great News for Criminals: Socialist Brazil Bans Handguns

    01/23/2004 4:38:07 AM PST · 4 of 10
    tberry to *bang_list
    *bang_list
  • Gun owner: I, not cops, got bad guy

    01/23/2004 4:29:36 AM PST · 1 of 19
    tberry
    *bang_list
  • Great News for Criminals: Socialist Brazil Bans Handguns

    01/23/2004 4:14:40 AM PST · 1 of 10
    tberry
    *bang_list
  • Police: Homeowner Didn't Have To Use Deadly Force

    01/21/2004 5:09:29 AM PST · 99 of 100
    tberry to *bang_list
    *bang_list
  • Police: Homeowner Didn't Have To Use Deadly Force

    01/21/2004 5:06:22 AM PST · 98 of 100
    tberry to tberry
    *bang_list
  • Police: Homeowner Didn't Have To Use Deadly Force

    01/21/2004 5:05:19 AM PST · 97 of 100
    tberry to tberry
    bang_list
  • Police: Homeowner Didn't Have To Use Deadly Force

    01/15/2004 8:00:57 AM PST · 1 of 100
    tberry
    Let's Hear It!! What is your opinion???
  • Shooter Says 2 Men Tried To Rob Him

    01/15/2004 6:21:55 AM PST · 1 of 18
    tberry
    Let's Hear It!!!
  • THE NATIONAL SALES TAX HOAX

    04/25/2003 8:22:37 AM PDT · 409 of 509
    tberry to LetsRok
    "The reason a national sales tax will never work is that it takes the power away from legislatures."

    Exactly!! Not only the power to give influence but also the power to control money and the support of their projects as they see fit.

    They will never voluntarily give away their "Golden Egg." You will note that whatever tax is mentioned, it is always required to be "revenue neutral." They won't care what it looks like as long as they can manipulate it. Right now the Sales Tax is presented as returning money to the poor. What will keep them from returning money to whomever they please to give favor just as they do today? Nothing!! I don't believe the right to tax and control our money and the resultant power will ever be voluntarily given up.
  • No Guns In The Cockpits

    03/22/2002 8:50:08 AM PST · 17 of 29
    tberry to GalvestonBeachcomber
    "I asked one of my elitist friends, "Do you really think your fellow citizens are stupid and mad?" The answer was "Yes." Nothing is so conducive to making a fool of oneself than a small brain and a big ego.

    And this is what your current "elected" Republican government thinks of you too.

  • Am I 'Anti-American'?

    03/14/2002 10:39:37 AM PST · 6 of 22
    tberry to mlo
    "Posted yesterday

    It can bear repeating

    I did a search on the title and got the return that there was no post of that title.

  • Al-Qaeda Has U.S. Prisoners, Ex-spy Chief Says

    03/14/2002 10:36:27 AM PST · 19 of 21
    tberry to McGavin999
    "Do you realize just how much you sound like the Arabs? "

    And virtually everyone else in the world. Do you ever wonder how everybody but us can be wrong and that we are the only good and right people?

    Take a look here:

    Am I AntiAmerican?

    All of you other patriots take a look too!!!

  • Am I 'Anti-American'?

    03/14/2002 10:25:34 AM PST · 1 of 22
    tberry
    Guess I'm unamerican too and proud of it!!!
  • Al-Qaeda Has U.S. Prisoners, Ex-spy Chief Says

    03/14/2002 5:55:54 AM PST · 16 of 21
    tberry to McGavin999
    "Oh, give it a rest. If you want to post hate America stuff go to some liberal hate America board.

    RIGHT!!!

    Our government would never lie to us!!!

    It is obvious that we are always right and tell the truth and our enemies are always wrong and always lie.

    It is obvious that all we do is proper and all our enemies do is improper.

    It is obvious that none of our people are casualties but they have many casualties.

    It is obvious that we win every conflict and they lose every conflict.

    It is obvious that we are always right and they are always wrong.

    It is obvious that we are innocent of any actions leading to terrorism and that they terrorize us for no reason other than they envy us for being so good.

    It is obvious... OH, you get the idea.

  • The Pentagon thinks the unthinkable

    03/14/2002 5:14:06 AM PST · 12 of 13
    tberry to ex-snook
    "Or is the way to make America secure to pull out of regions where we are hated and let the rogues and radicals settle their own murderous tribal, religious and territorial quarrels themselves? "

    Ditto: "YEP"

    The more we stick our nose in someone else's business, the more likely we are to get it punched.

  • Founding Firearms

    03/13/2002 7:15:02 AM PST · 12 of 12
    tberry to Korth
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • Founding Firearms

    03/13/2002 7:14:49 AM PST · 11 of 12
    tberry to Korth
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • Gun Rights Advocates Chalking Up State Wins

    03/13/2002 7:13:18 AM PST · 11 of 12
    tberry to Southack
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • Tax Prep Firm Cuts Ties with NRA

    03/13/2002 7:11:38 AM PST · 11 of 12
    tberry to kattracks
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • Pace ROTC rifle team finishes first

    03/13/2002 7:08:44 AM PST · 9 of 12
    tberry to Eagle Eye
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • H&R Block Bows to Grabbers (Two Bucket Vomit Alert)

    03/13/2002 7:05:35 AM PST · 69 of 82
    tberry to pabianice
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • transcript SAS on CNN American Morning 3/12/2002

    03/13/2002 7:03:44 AM PST · 4 of 6
    tberry to SteveH
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • Michigan - Pro Gun VEAR BILL SIGNED BY ENGLER!!! YES!! We did it!!!!

    03/13/2002 6:55:25 AM PST · 75 of 85
    tberry to Dan from Michigan, bang_list
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • Michigan - Pro Gun VEAR BILL SIGNED BY ENGLER!!! YES!! We did it!!!!

    03/13/2002 6:55:09 AM PST · 74 of 85
    tberry to Dan from Michigan, bang_list
    I just tried to post this but either FR has a malefaction or a new posting technique had gotten beyond me. Anyway there was no post option. Here is an article you will all probably enjoy.

    Statistical Malpractice – 'Firearm Availability' and Violence

    Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.

    Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Part I: Politics or Science?

    "There is a worrying trend in academic medicine which equates statistics with science, and sophistication in quantitative procedure with research excellence. The corollary of this trend is a tendency to look for answers to medical problems from people with expertise in mathematical manipulation and information technology, rather than from people with an understanding of disease and its causes.

    "Epidemiology [is a] main culprit, because statistical malpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. The mystique of mathematics blended with the bewildering intricacies of big numbers makes a potent cocktail. ..." – Bruce G. Charlton, M.D. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1996

    Once again, Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), two strident gun control organizations, have entered the gun and violence debate with renewed vigor.

    You already know about AGS using the 9-11 tragedy to push its gun control agenda using the disingenuous cliché of "closing the gun show loophole." (1)

    Needless to say, AGS continues to neglect the fact that the government's National Institute of Justice 1997 study "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities" has shown that less than 2 percent of criminals obtain their illegally-possessed firearms from gun shows. (2,3)

    Moreover, AGS has claimed it has found a link between terrorism and gun shows. The link has been shown to be fully immersed in deception, used, once again, to exploit the 9-11 tragedy to further push its gun control agenda.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) has correctly tagged AGS "an anti-gun lobbying group with no members, no gun safety programs, and now, no credibility." (4)

    Enter the VPC, citing a Harvard School of Public Health study published in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Trauma. (5) According to the VPC's interpretation of that study, "The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization." (6) [Emphasis added.]

    The authors of the study did not put it quite so bluntly; they knew better. Yet, according to the abstract of the study, they assert:

    "A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence." (5) [Emphasis added.]

    Former U.S. president Bill Clinton once rhetorically explained that no one could prove that he had ever established administration policy based "solely" on the basis of campaign contributions, although in the case of Red China, the communist Chinese got their share of high-tech, strategic, missile-launching technology to pose a new threat to the U.S.

    In the authors' abstract, the words "not entirely" become the key to understanding the pre-ordained drift of their gun control agenda and the expected, result-oriented conclusions. The published study, indeed, is the typical, hackneyed public health, result-oriented gun research repeatedly published in the medical literature claiming that "gun availability is responsible for firearm violence."

    Thus, perhaps, we should analyze further the meaning of the words "not entirely." What follows is a preliminary critique of the study while the primary, raw data is requested from the authors for further analysis.

    According to the study, the five states with the highest gun ownership – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia – were more likely to have children dying from unintentional firearm injury (gun accidents), suicide (with or without firearms) and homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership – Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware.

    Why more western states like North and South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Nebraska, Alaska, etc., that have relatively "easy availability" have low firearm death rates for children is left unexplained.

    In fact, the whole study revolves around using the phraseology "not entirely" to exclude the much more important reasons for violence with or without firearms: the levels of poverty and education, not to mention the related cultural factors and the utter breakdown of the family in those states by welfare and other government policies. (7)

    I will explain, but before I do so, allow me to expound on two themes revolving around the subject of this study and make a couple of observations – observations that were overlooked by the public health researchers and their consorts at the VPC.

    Mass Shooting Incidents

    Three of the most notable mass shootings of the last several years occurred in the aforementioned states. Two of them, although they were adult, workplace shootings, occurred in Hawaii and Massachusetts, two of the states with draconian gun control laws and less "availability of firearms."

    Likewise, several mass shootings, adult workplace and children school incidents, have taken place in California, despite the stringent gun control laws and the supposedly less "availability of firearms" in that state.

    The Xerox workplace incident in Honolulu, Hawaii (Nov. 2, 1999), the San Diego, Calif., Santana School shooting (March 5, 2001) and the Wakefield, Mass., incident of Dec. 26, 2000, all took place in states with very restrictive gun control laws, where guns should have been less "available."

    School shootings, of course, can take place in states where firearms are more available to law-abiding citizens. And when they do, armed, law-abiding Americans can respond and stop the shooting before more innocent victims are robbed of their lives.

    This was the case in 1998 in Pearl, Miss., a state cited in the study, when a schoolteacher used his firearm to stop a school shooting by a student. Lives were thus saved. More recently, in Virginia, two law school students overpowered and subdued a gunman using their own weapons.

    The point is that, as usual, the public health researchers ignored the beneficial aspects of gun ownership and concentrated only in obtaining supporting evidence for their long-known thesis that firearm availability is responsible for violence in our society.

    The fact is that only the law-abiding obey the law, criminals do not. When the government passes restrictive gun laws, those laws interfere in the lives of law-abiding citizens. Yet they do not stop criminals (or the mentally deranged) bent on breaking them.

    While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law has been associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., those that took place in schools in San Diego, Pearl, Miss., and Littleton, Colo.) by an amazing 69 percent, according to Prof. John Lott, formerly of Yale University.

    Television and Media Violence and Juvenile Delinquency

    Another observation virtually ignored by the authors of the study, as well as their promoters at the VPC, is the effect of television and media violence on juvenile delinquency.

    It should be of interest to the reader to learn that some of the most important, breakthrough research papers on this topic first appeared in the 1970s and '80s. The pioneering research was conducted and the paper written by Dr. Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington School of Public Health.

    Dr. Centerwall's studies found that homicide rates in Canada were not related to easy gun availability by ordinary citizens, as he had expected, but to criminal behavior associated with watching television.

    He found that homicide rates, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. and South Africa, soared 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in those countries. In the U.S., there was an actual doubling of homicide rates after the introduction of television.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall noted that up to half of all homicides, rapes and violent assaults in the U.S. were directly attributed to violence on television. And that was when violence on TV was nothing compared to the rampant and graphic violence depicted today in the movies and on TV.

    Moreover, Dr. Centerwall showed with elegant data that reducing gun availability did not reduce Canadian homicides. Homicide rates in Vancouver, for example, were lower before the gun control laws were passed in Canada, and in fact rose after the laws were passed. The Vancouver homicide rate increased 25 percent after the institution of the 1977 Canadian gun laws.

    This valuable research, though, was not made widely available and was virtually consigned to the "memory hole" of the public health establishment. Fortunately, Dr. Centerwall 's research pointing to the effects of television violence affecting homicide rates has been made available. (8)

    In the summer of 2000, the media, including medical journalists, focused their attention on the associations of violence in television, music, video games and movies to violent behavior in children and adolescents.

    To this end, a consensus statement of experts released on July 26 and sponsored by the AMA and other medical groups proclaimed, "At this time, well over 1,000 studies – including reports from the surgeon general's office, the National Institute of Mental Health and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations – point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Moreover, the report continued, "Its effects are measurable and long-lasting ... prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life." (8)

    Why is all this background information being discussed about television violence and crime – virtually, life imitating art? Because, interestingly enough, the authors of the Journal of Trauma study ignored relevant and important data impacting directly on their research.

    Let us look at Table 1. As clearly shown in this table compiled from government statistics (1994), it turns out that, among other factors, students in the "high levels of juvenile violence" states not only watch more television (24.2 percent) than those in the "low levels of juvenile violence" states (19.8 percent) but also do "less reading on their own time almost every day (39.6 percent vs. 44.2 percent)." (9)

    We will be looking at the factors that Miller et al. claim were "not entirely" responsible for the high rates of unintentional firearm injury, homicide, suicide and overall violence in the mostly southern states. Incidentally, rather than using the biased, VPC shibboleths "highest" or "lowest gun ownership states," I have used the more objective terminology, "high" and "low levels of juvenile violence" states, for the purpose of this critique.

    On Feb. 28, 2002, I wrote Dr. Matthew Miller, the lead author of the study published in the Journal of Trauma, and requested that he kindly supply me with the primary, raw data which he and his associates used in reaching their conclusions. (10)

    As of the time of this submission, March 11, 2002, I had not received an answer to my request. Hopefully, I will conclude with Part II of this critical essay when I have had a chance to fully analyze that data. Stay tuned!

  • 'Inadequate' US troops pulled out of battleground

    03/13/2002 5:22:32 AM PST · 170 of 172
    tberry to Pokey78
    "Also sounds like the College of Central Connecticut telling Duke how to play basketball"

    If our team is so good, why did we pull them?

    Get real, it is just as many have said, other than bombing from 30,000 feet, we are unprepared to fight this kind of war and our mommies are unwilling to accept American deaths.

    You can not win a war until you win man to man and that means knowing your enemy and serious casualties.

  • Pentagon asks Iraq about U.S. pilot

    03/13/2002 4:53:37 AM PST · 3 of 3
    tberry to kattracks
    This is sickening. This attempt at justification for going after Iraq is so transparent it is laughable.

    Iraq might need going after but to suddenly try to make something important that you have accepted and ignored for years is contemptible.

    What would our reaction be if another country was attempting this ruse against us? Think about it.

  • Pickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of 'Institutional Crisis'

    03/08/2002 4:34:14 AM PST · 47 of 47
    tberry to Elkiejg
    Just sent to all the Judicial Commitee members.

    "Judge Pickering should get Senate approval.

    He has been overwhelmingly approved previously by the Senate. He has been approved by the American Bar Association and I believe he is approved of by the majority of the Senate and American electorate.

    The Judicial Committee members and Senate members should not judge the judge by whether he agrees with them but by his legal and experience qualifications. Approve Judge Pickering now because he deserves approval. Remove your bias or voters will begin removing you."

    Merce Thornberry

    "God who gave us life, gave us liberty . Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and his justice can not sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson

  • Bush takes a stand for America first: Pat Buchanan praises president for tariffs on imported steel

    03/08/2002 3:40:04 AM PST · 4 of 136
    tberry to JohnHuang2
    "Just as Ronald Reagan imposed quotas on steel being dumped in the United States in the 1980s, Bush has decided that U.S. national interests and America's steel industry will not be the next sacrificial lambs thrown up on the altar of the Global Economy. "

    BRAVO FOR BUSH!!!

  • Why does Islam hate America?

    03/07/2002 5:27:16 AM PST · 18 of 34
    tberry to Arkie2, LouD
    Arkie2 says:

    " Why does Islam hate America? Who the hell cares."

    LouD says:

    " Who cares? I don't want them to like us, I want them to fear us."

    These types of attitude concerning others who don't agree with the current nationalism/fascism of the US government is exactly what Buchanan was talking about when he said,

    "They see America as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked, biased."

  • Why does Islam hate America?

    03/07/2002 3:42:23 AM PST · 1 of 34
    tberry
    Repost of a deleted but perfectly proper article enumerating a conservative idea worthy of FR discussion.
  • Bush's Continuity Of Operations Plan Casts An Ominous Shadow

    03/06/2002 7:31:42 AM PST · 1 of 5
    tberry
  • Bush's Continuity Of Operations Plan Casts An Ominous Shadow

    03/06/2002 7:30:18 AM PST · 1 of 2
    tberry
  • Conservatism Is Dead Is America Next?

    03/06/2002 6:58:33 AM PST · 32 of 44
    tberry to Cincinatus
    "My contention is that he doesn't understand that "conservatism" has different strains and different philosophies. He is a paleocon. "

    I guess conservatism is a "living philosophy" just as the Constitution is a "Living Document'. Pseudo conservative of the neo bent of thought would be perfect examples. Black can become white if enough people start to say it is.

    NOT!!

    Conservatism is base on conserving the philosophies our country was founded on , as found in the constitution. Conservatism has never been founded on the principle of conserving what the democrats of 30 years ago believed.

  • Defining Conservatism Downward

    03/06/2002 6:22:09 AM PST · 122 of 130
    tberry to LiberalBuster
    "Meanwhile, a new breed was emerging: the "neoconservatives." These were former liberals, mostly pro-Israel and anti-Communist Jewish intellectuals. There weren't really very many of them, but they had disproportionate influence; conservatives welcomed them as allies with awe and gratitude. "

    " The neoconservatives were still basically liberals, albeit Cold War liberals. They favored the New Deal legacy and looked back at Harry Truman as a great president. The old conservative agenda of a return to constitutional government left them cold; limited government would hamper military action abroad. But they have moved to the head of the conservative movement, and their chief followers are conservative "leaders."

    The conservatives of today are nothing more than warmed over conservative Democrats. We are losing our political system and the greatness and legacy of our country. Conservatives, Wake up before it's too late!!!

  • Conservatism Is Dead Is America Next?

    03/06/2002 6:11:23 AM PST · 24 of 44
    tberry to Starmaker
    "Whatever the motivation, today's conservatives have compromised the principles of conservatism and constitutional government to the point that those principles no longer exist. By being willing to forsake their conscience in order to win the presidency, they have buried both their conscience and constitutional principle."

    " It is imperative that true conservatives and constitutionalists quickly wake up to the reality that both major parties have betrayed them, that the fundamental principles of the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are being obliterated without opposition! They must abandon loyalty to these parties! Only brave and independent people can preserve liberty. Are there a sufficient number of such people left in America? We shall see."

    I've been preaching this since well before the last election. Conservatives, wake up!

  • Make them pay for 'Borking': David Limbaugh rebukes spineless Republicans to support Pickering

    03/06/2002 5:23:42 AM PST · 11 of 12
    tberry to JohnHuang2
    "The Democrats have never been held accountable for their usurpation of the president’s appointment power and the systematic character assassination "Borking" of politically unacceptable judicial nominees. If anything, they have been emboldened by the Republicans’ feckless response."

    " Until Republicans get in the fight, they will be making fools of the framers by allowing the abject nullification of the President’s appointment power by the anti-constitutionalists."

    When will conservatives wake up and see that today's Republicans are no better than the conservative Democrats of a few years ago.?

  • Make them pay for 'Borking' [Re-post]

    03/06/2002 5:22:19 AM PST · 2 of 2
    tberry to JohnHuang2
    "The Democrats have never been held accountable for their usurpation of the president’s appointment power and the systematic character assassination "Borking" of politically unacceptable judicial nominees. If anything, they have been emboldened by the Republicans’ feckless response."

    Until Republicans get in the fight, they will be making fools of the framers by allowing the abject nullification of the President’s appointment power by the anti-constitutionalists."

    When will conservatives wake up and see that today's Republicans are no better than the conservative Democrats of a few years ago.?

  • A new racist strategy

    02/28/2002 3:18:11 AM PST · 7 of 7
    tberry to JohnHuang2
    "The SAT is not biased -- it accurately predicts a student's class standing at the end of his freshman year. In fact, the SAT over-predicts black freshmen standing, a standing higher than that actually achieved. "
  • More ad hominem

    02/27/2002 4:47:28 AM PST · 64 of 70
    tberry to WhiskeyPapa
    "Not only that, the Supreme Court ruled in 1862 that the actions of the so-called seceded states were in fact rebellion. The Supreme Court gets to say what the law is, not you.

    Yeah and the Supreme Court usually falls in line with the Executive when the Union is rightly or wrongly assaulted but that doesn't mean those are proper interpretations. In WWI they said it was OK to arrest anyone who spoke out by word or writing against the Federal Government and that has since been overturned as an assault against the First Amendment. In WWII the Federal Government rounded up citizens of Japanese decent and put them in camps. That has since been overturned as unconstitutional. Just as the above example, just because the Supreme Court once deemed something legal does not mean it is.

  • More ad hominem

    02/27/2002 4:09:15 AM PST · 61 of 70
    tberry to shuckmaster
    "As I show in my book, "The Real Lincoln," Lincoln was devoted for 30 years to the Whig agenda of the federal government's monopolization of the money supply – so much so that he even had to bring it up in his comment on the Dred Scott decision, as Quackenbush admits."

    I just placed my prepublication order and can't wait for it to arrive.

  • The hollowing out of America: Pat Buchanan shows how trade deficit is destroying U.S. economy

    02/26/2002 3:05:17 AM PST · 5 of 11
    tberry to JohnHuang2
    "Comes the retort: Not to worry. America excels in producing high-tech items other nations are not advanced enough to produce. So long as we are on the cutting edge of industrial technology, who cares who cuts cloth, stitches shoes or makes steel?

    Well, take a hard look at McMillion's stats. Not only did we run trade deficits in textiles, shoes and steel, we ran trade deficits in autos, trucks, TVs, VCRs, automatic data-processing equipment, office machines, electrical machinery, power-generating machinery, metalworking machinery, industrial machinery and optical goods.

    Among the products where America boasts a trade surplus – i.e., we sell more of these to the world than we import – are soybeans, corn, animal feeds, wheat, meat, cotton, cigarettes, hides, skins, scrap, pulp, waste paper, coal, tobacco, rice and fertilizers. Reads like a list of the leading exports of the Jamestown colony.

    PATHETIC

  • Apparent inaccuracies: or, Silly Season on Lincoln

    02/25/2002 7:14:27 AM PST · 109 of 137
    tberry to davidjquackenbush
    "He believed he had no Constitutional authority to interfere with slavery",

    I am glad you agree that Lincoln did not have the constitutional right or power to make or enforce the Emancipation Proclamation.

  • Single Moms-- tonight on John Stossel's "GIVE ME A BREAK!"

    02/25/2002 6:04:32 AM PST · 33 of 37
    tberry to sheltonmac
    BUMP
  • Family sues over raid

    02/22/2002 9:34:14 AM PST · 47 of 72
    tberry to William Tell
    "The raid on the Unis home occurred Aug. 19, 2000, according to the lawsuit."

    Has Bush or Ashcroft shot the apple off of their head to this point. NO, and you can bet they won't because the power is now theirs.

  • Newspapers Urged to End Classified Gun Ads

    02/22/2002 4:32:52 AM PST · 29 of 37
    tberry to Bang_List
    Bang
  • Family sues over raid

    02/22/2002 4:25:42 AM PST · 1 of 72
    tberry
    This is your compassionate "conservative" government at its best. Aren't we relieved that we don't have to worry about our Constitutionally protected rights now? (sarcasm intended)