watch out...dylan's putting on his camo's!
--
Stephenie
-----Original Message-----
From: Dylan Bromby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:31 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Violent education
die thread, die!
i think this topic is gonna drive me postal! :)
guns don't kill people, THREADS about guns kill peoplw!
:):):)
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 6:21 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Violent education
George,
Your argument regarding militias is somewhat misleading. The militias in
both the South and in the New England regions were very well organized at
the time. Even before the French and Indian wars during the 1750's, the
colonial legislatures had appropriations to pay for the militia's training,
most weapons (not many individuals had cannons then, and there were a number
of colonial artillery units) and uniforms etc. Very similar to what the
state legislatures do today with the national guard. This was the model that
the founders used for the definition of militias. They evolved to the modern
national guard.
BTW I have graduate degrees in experimental and cognitive neuropsychology.
You do not need to teach me about quasi-experimental design. I've taught
courses in the area. I was already taking those factors into account when I
used the comparison argument. Several years ago there was a good study that
compared ER admissions in hospitals in Vancouver, British Columbia Canada,
and Seattle Washington, USA. I'm not going to go into all the details, but a
really rough summary: After statistically factoring out most differences
between the two cities using a hierarchical multiple regression model, the
Seattle area hospitals still had a significantly higher ER admissions rate.
This difference was almost entirely attributable to gunshot wounds. The
statistical level of significance was something like one in a million that
the differences were due entirely to chance.
Again easily availability of firearms, a media infused with messages that
say using violence is OK, what else do you expect, people are going to use
guns more often.
Besides, the cold weather argument is flawed, there are a lot of places in
the US that are colder than most of Canada. Just not as many people live
there.
larry
--
Larry C. Lyons
ColdFusion/Web Developer
EBStor.com
8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204
Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795
tel: (703) 393-7930
fax: (703) 393-2659
Web: http://www.pacel.com
http://www.ebstor.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.
--
Original Message:
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 12:57:56 -0400
From: "George Kaytor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Violent education
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One problem with the militia argument. At the time the bill of rights was
written, militia's were not state controlled. They were formed locally by
members of the community, usually by a well to do guy who coul dafford
uniforms and equipment. If you use the militia argument, everyone who wants
a gun can say they are forming a militia.
Secondly one when one conducts a study, they must elimanate other factors to
find a true correlation. Saying that gun control reduces violent behavior
has as much credibility as saying the colder weather in canada reduces
violence, or the sparsity of population.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
