Another college shooting -- at least 4 people shot

dublinbay z6 (KS)January 22, 2013

Here we go again. BREAKING NEWS--shooting at Lone Star University in Harris, Texas near Houston.

Perhaps a couple shooters. "Multiple" people shot. Everyone on campus has taken shelter.

On-going tragedy--stay tuned for details.

Kate

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lily316(z5PA)

This is an almost everyday occurrence anymore. We need more guns to protect these things from happening...(sarcasm)

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 2:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

Actually not "almost" everyday, there is gun violence every single day across America, not every shooting makes the headlines however.

I suppose now we will be told that Texas is a "gun free zone".

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 2:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Evidently, one perpetrator has been captured; second suspect was seen fleeing off-campus. But there is some suspicion that the one caught may not be the perpetrator. It might be the one fleeing into the wooded area offl-campus.

One person has been critically shot for sure. The others are unknown at the moment.

Kate

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 2:27PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

4th shooting on a college campus since the 1st of the year!

Gee, maybe we'll set a record this year!

Kate

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 2:30PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maddie_athome

Ah, Kate--didn't see you had a thread up already.

Lone Star and neighbouring schools are on lockdown.

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 2:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Why? And don't say guns, they have been around and far easier to get for many many years. So why?

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:08PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hamiltongardener(CAN 6a)

The latest I am reading says it was a shootout between two individuals. Bystanders were wounded in the crossfire. According to one witness, two dudes got into an altercation, drew their guns and started shooting.

Several different articles are actually calling it a "gunfight".

They still have gunfights in Texas? Well, git along little doggie.

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Because so many other people are doing it ... copy cat.

Or because it is so easy. Like the law enforcement officer that shot his wife and child and then killed himself the other day.

He had a gun, he was upset. Bam!

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Teenagers packing, getting in a disagreement, acting out gunfight at the OK Corral.

Who could resist!

Kate

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:25PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9)

I heard a statement that I thought was profound from one of the people who was wounded at VA Tech. He was on the Chris Matthews show.

He said something to the effect that this is a country that allows people to have guns and to carry them wherever they go. I believe he said that there are 300,000,000 guns in the country. If we already have this many guns and we cannot protect ourselves from this kind of violence, how many more guns do we need?

I think that sums it up. The more guns we have, the more they will be used, and the more people will end up dead from gunfire. It's a vicious circle of violence.

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:27PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

So if it was teenagers who were "packing", most likely they weren't legal guns, and probably handguns and not assault weapons. So what's the answer?

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:30PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Why, give a free gun to every teen in America. They would be eager to clean up the streets and hallways and swagger about like a big western hero--particularly if you take them to a keg party (or equivalent) beforehand, mrsk.

Don't ya know--more guns is the answer. Everybody packing --til we are all terrified to even blink in public for fear the person next to us will lose it and pull his/her gun.

Problems solved, as per NRA recommendations.

Kate

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

So if it was teenagers who were "packing", most likely they weren't legal guns

Big assumptions based on nothing but speculation. Why not wait for more information, or is there an immediate need to change the direction of the discussion?

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

My DH was gobsmacked last year in Florida. He could buy a firearm... a foreigner with no checks..... but he could not get cold medication without darn near leaving his passport with the pharmacy!!!

Seriously screwed up priorities in my view.

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

So Kate...what is your answer? Do you know why these shootings are taking place? Do you think banning guns are going to prevent these killings from taking place?

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:39PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Mrsk, I'm not going to get into this with you. You know darned well that you don't approve of anything I would say on this subject, and it has all been said hundreds and hundreds of time. Why go through it again. Besides I started this thread so we could keep current on another tragedy in our society and find out what happened. I did not start this thread so you and I could argue about whether or not they are coming to get your guns. For that matter, I can tell from your phrasing that you already have a distorted view of the "other" side's viewpoint. I really get tired arguing about your misconceptions of liberals' viewpoints.

No thanks. Find someone else to squabble with.

Kate

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 6:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

Kate, allow me to point of the red herring arguments of the conservative NRA supporter:

"Do you think banning guns are going to prevent these killings from taking place?"

1) Red alert!!! "banning guns"
2) Yellow alert!!! "going to prevent these killing from taking place"

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 10:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

Kate and all, I admire you all for reporting the deaths that continue to take place because of easy availability to angry or disturbed people with very poor impulse control who turn to a gun for an instant resolution which allows the shooter to remain physically safe, commit the deed at a comfortable distance, and allows for a fast correction if the aim isn't quite accurate.

I can really hardly to stand to know about them, but since I have firearms in my home, I figure its my duty to underscore to myself the reasons I have begun to re- think my position. Reading about these constant tragedies reminds me of the constant price being paid not by me but by others, all because of the right which exists to have firearms in my home.

We must discover the resolution to make these deaths by firearms become the exception in our country and not the rule. If we can't or won't, then I will have to come to my own conclusion that we simply aren't a kind of people who's makeup can allow for such a right to exist.

    Bookmark   January 22, 2013 at 11:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

So if it was teenagers who were "packing", most likely they weren't legal guns, and probably handguns and not assault weapons.

First assumption proved wrong. Any bets on the remaining two assumptions being false?

From AP: HOUSTON (AP) - A 22-year-old man has been charged in the shootings at a Houston-area community college campus that left him and two others wounded.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 12:21AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

marshall...no red herring. I don't own a gun, don't plan to. If every gun disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't know the difference. That has been settled by the Supreme Court who have upheld the second amendment anyway. I seriously want to know why people are doing this. What makes someone walk into a school, a mall, a movie theatre, and kill.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 5:17AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

MrsK few of the "mass shooters" survive to tell us, they either take their own life or shoot it out with the police.

Yesterday was a personal argument between two men, one of who shot himself in his own butt ... okay I did actually laugh when I read that.

There is no way to remove all guns from our society and when the dust settles the politicians will realize it is a political land mine and drop it.

There will be no meaningful gun ban and no one is going to come knocking down doors to take guns ... and the email that Mitch McConnell sent out? Well shame on him, but that is between him and his own conscience.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 6:33AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
PRO
Brushworks Spectacular Finishes(5)

Actually not "almost" everyday, there is gun violence every single day across America, not every shooting makes the headlines however.

Well, you're just being unfair, OMom.! If they don't hear about it, it hasn't happened.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 7:21AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

Brush I think I will have to "send you to your room" :)

Two people shot in Rocky River last night ... for those of you who are not familiar with the area, this is a suburb of Cleveland.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 7:33AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
PRO
Brushworks Spectacular Finishes(5)

What? Not RIVER? The affluent yuppies of northeast Ohio? Oh my!

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 7:50AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

Yes that was my thought also Brush ... okay I am off to work, no play for me today :)

Everyone have a blessed day.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 8:02AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hamiltongardener(CAN 6a)

Well, we can't possibly report on ALL of them.
But *I* will go on record saying that yes, handguns should be banned. Not just automatic weapons. And not just one jurisdiction.

I'm hoping it will happen here in Canada. I'm working on it.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 8:03AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

I have an idea--

SHOOT BACK!

you'll be AMAZED how well it works!

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 1:27PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hamiltongardener(CAN 6a)

Yeah, it's been working really well for the USA, we can tell.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 1:45PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

No, it hasn't. In most cases, it happens in places where WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO. In places where we HAVE been allowed to, the outcome is much different.

Here is a link that might be useful: Clackamas Town Center, Oregn

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 1:56PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
� Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
� Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I�m excluding the shooters� deaths in these examples.)
� Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
� Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates � as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
� Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman�s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
� Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures � Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed � and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bill Maher's exgirlfriend

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 2:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

@bill_vincent -

As you are on the gun-control topic here and have been active recently, I wanted to extend yet another invitation to you to correct the misinformation you posted regarding the states with the highest rate of homicides. Frankly, I have been hoping that you would not hew to the same dishonest behavior exhibited by other conservative posters here when their misstatements have been revealed, but I am losing that hope due to your failure to correct the record.

Again, you wrote,

lets look at OVERALL murders:

1. California
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Illinois
5. Pennsylvania

This list is incorrect; these are *not* the top five states by overall homicide rate. They are the top five state in total homicides, which is meaningless as it does not adjust for population.

Here is the correct list of the top five states by overall homicide rate, from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports data from 2011:

1. Louisiana
2. Mississippi
3. New Mexico
4. Maryland
5. South Carolina

Thank you.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 2:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

My failure to correct or not has not been due to my reluctance to step up, so to speak. It's been due to my work schedule. I didn't even see my laptop since yesterday morning-- for about 10 minutes to check email. As for your contention that my link was skewed, I finally understood what you were trying to say-- that it was totals, and not per 100K residents or whatever. Now, if you've already posted the RATES, then why should I repost it?

That's right-- liberals these days seem to enjoy rubbing the nose in it. You haven't been around long enough to know, so I'll give you a pass. But I'm one of the FEW-- FROM EITHER SIDE-- that will apologize when I make a mistake. As for this, though, you can take your nose rubbing and stuff it.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 2:41PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

I AM surprised you didn't address my last posts, though,

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 2:50PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

bill_vincent wrote,

My failure to correct or not has not been due to my reluctance to step up, so to speak. It's been due to my work schedule. I didn't even see my laptop since yesterday morning-- for about 10 minutes to check email.

Bill, the reason I was concerned that you were avoiding addressing this issue is that since I challenged your original post last week, you posted several times (before yesterday morning) but did not respond to my question.

I am not nose-rubbing. I am requesting an acknowledgement that the data you posted was wrong, and further that therefore, the point you were making about a lack of correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates is thus not supported by the correct statistics.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 2:57PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

I'll acknowledge that I was looking at the wrong stats and posted them in error (I actually already did in my post above, but you didn't sound like you were ready to accept that until I took a little taste). However, I do NOT acknowledge a lack of correlation. I've heard of too many incidents like the ones I listed above to think otherwise.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 3:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

While we are at it, I pointed out in another thread a couple days ago that you had completely mis-read the polls I listed there, but you never responded. You were trying to invalidate the polls I cited since they did not say what you wished they would, but if you read the polls correctly, you will see that they support my point about NRA attitudes and not your contention that they are untrustworthy.

You can apologize for your mistake if you wish--but you have never apologized to me for any error I pointed out in your claims--or for any insults you directed my way. But whatever--those were still errors.

Kate

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 3:13PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

bill_vincent wrote,

I do NOT acknowledge a lack of correlation.

But Bill, you offered the fact that your list of high-homicide states was different from the list of high-gun-ownership states as evidence that there was no correlation between the two. As the actual list of high-homicide-rate states does correlate with high-gun-ownership states, I don't see how you can stand by your conclusion when the very evidence you offered in support of it actually indicates the opposite when the correct figures are examined. Otherwise, it would appear that you have chosen a conclusion first, then tried to find data to support your pre-selected conclusion -- and if the data actually contradicts your conclusion, you then discard it as irrelevant, rather than take a fresh look at your position based on data that is new and surprising to you.

This post was edited by Factotem on Wed, Jan 23, 13 at 15:56

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 3:20PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

No, they weren't. There is NO WAY IN HELL that hunters, and ESPECIALLY NRA members, would be in favor of banning semi auto weapons as a whole, and that's what your survey "stated". As I said in that thread, other points supposedly made in your survey, as much as I might agree with them, are now called into question by that one that is so blatantly in error.

So no, I won't retract, recind, or apologize. Thank you for playing.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 3:20PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

bill, you don't even seem to know what error I pointed out in your claim that the poll numbers didn't add up correctly. You were trying to use that "error" (which was your error, not the polls error) to invalidate the poll in general, the basis for your claim that IN YOUR OPINION, the poll was wrong because those attitudes did not reflect your attitudes.

Bad reasoning all around, but you still have no idea the blatant error in your reading of the numbers--nor do you want to take the time to figure out what I'm referring to-cuz you saw red when I cited what the poll said and you don't care if you misread the numbers as long as you can pound the table (your favorite argument) in support of your viewpoint, right or wrong.

You added wrong, bill. Yell at me all you want--you still added the wrong numbers.

Kate

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 3:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Bill, you are still misreading the what the bar graphs demonstrate. And you are conflating 'gun households' with hunters and NRA members. Maybe they do hunt, maybe they are NRA members, but not all 'gun households' will consist of hunters and/or NRA members.

The overall approval for a ban on semiautomatic weapons combines the responses from non-gun and gun households.

Here's the thread Gun Control Polls, and here's the link Americans' Views on Gun Control. Do you favor or oppose ...
A nationwide ban on semiautomatic weapons?

Gun households: 42% favor; 55% oppose.

For the other poll questions: A ban on the sale of high capacity magazines?
Background checks on all potential gun buyers?
A national database of gun sales?

a majority of gun households approved.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 3:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Thanks for reinforcing my point, nancy. If I gave the impression that I posted that poll when in fact you posted it, my apologies. I meant that I referred to/cited that poll--although I did post poll results at the beginning of that thread.

Kate

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 3:51PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

If I gave the impression that I posted that poll when in fact you posted it

Kate, not at all!

You saved me the trouble of answering Bill in the original thread; you pointed out his error in reading the data. And you have more patience than I in explaining polls and methodology.

My experience has been that whenever objective data are presented that refute a partisan position, the topic shifts, or the data are ignored, or countering data are presented from a highly partisan source.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 4:00PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

So, there you are in a mall with with a concealed carry pistol, and some crazy dude with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine, carrying plenty more, is firing at everything that moves.

And everyone of you folks who think that widespread concealed carry is the answer, would any of you immediately engage the shooter? Like they do on TV, where the hip cops in street clothes pull out their pistols and take on gangsters with fully automatic rifles - who never manage to hit anything but the cars the cops hide behind?

Me, I'd be scared witless the guy would shoot me if I engaged. And if I saw other people with drawn guns, I might think they were in on the massacre as well. I'd be pretty confused. And just think if the shooter was dressed up like the guy in Aurora - police ballistic helmet and vest, gas mask, etc.

As for the mall shooter, "He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side." [it was jammed? ]

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

So we have the word of this guy that the guy with the rifle saw him point a pistol and then went and hid, and even though nobody shot at him, the guy with a rifle just committed suicide. Not because the gun was jammed. But because he saw somebody with a pistol who went and hid somewhere.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 4:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

I think a lot of us worry about conceal/carry types playing hero in a crowded room--the possibilities of "collateral damage" could be high!

But if conceal/carry types are mostly as sensible as the guy you describe, David, then that story invalidates the NRA position that we need guys packing heat randomly strolling around and capable of saving us all from the mad gunner-- who, in this case, was NOT stopped by the sensible conceal/carry guy.

So what do we conclude? There is no one "fix" for these situations and sometimes both sides of the argument are simultaneously wrong?

Kate

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 7:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
alexrander

Who's wearing the bullet proof vest, that's what I want to know? Is it the good guy with the concealed gun? Because Bill and other 'walk around with a gun' folks always ignore it. But rarely the shooter. Anyway....

Just imagine: Everyday the good guy goes to work, he packs his lunch, he packs his gun and he wears a bullet proof vest. Maybe we should put bullet proof vests on our children when they enter school?

And the movie theater will give them out to patrons, like 3D glasses.

TEACHER : "Now does everyone have their Kevlar vests on? How about you Billy- no, I'm afraid a Kerdi vest won't do, dear me... that's for rain, not bullets ... rain comes from the clouds, and bullets come from a gun"

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 9:45PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"So what do we conclude? There is no one "fix" for these situations and sometimes both sides of the argument are simultaneously wrong?

Kate"

Yes. I think so.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2013 at 10:03PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

and if the data actually contradicts your conclusion, you then discard it as irrelevant,

no, if the data contradicts what I see with my own eyes, then I'll look for why, or more accurately, HOW, it's skewed. If I see blue, and the data says grey, and I KNOW I'm not colorblind, then I'm not going to completely believe the data, but rather look to see WHY the data is wrong. It's the whole reason I disagree with Kate's stats.

And you are conflating 'gun households' with hunters and NRA members. Maybe they do hunt, maybe they are NRA members, but not all 'gun households' will consist of hunters and/or NRA members.

not at all, Nancy. Until a couple of months ago. MINE wasn't an NRA household. Nor up until a couple of years go was it an "active" hunting household. But it was still a pro-gun household. And the first gun that came back into it (my protection weapon)? A semi-auto pistol. And most "gun households" that are not hunting or NRA affiliated, the weapon of choice, overwhelmingly, is a semiauto, or a double action revolver which, by Feinstein's definition, is still a semi-auto handgun. So that tells me that this group, more than the REST of gun factions, would not support a ban on semi auto firearms.

Kate-- I appreciate the fact that you thanked nancy for the clarification of your position-- it only served to prove I was spot on with my answer before.

Maybe we should put bullet proof vests on our children when they enter school?

THis is, in my opinion, someone trying to make HUGE bucks off a tragedy:
http://bulletblocker.com/bullet-proof-backpack-shield.html

    Bookmark   January 24, 2013 at 2:46PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

if the data contradicts what I see with my own eyes, then I'll look for why, or more accurately, HOW, it's skewed. If I see blue, and the data says grey, and I KNOW I'm not colorblind, then I'm not going to completely believe the data,

What you are saying, in essence, is that your anecdotal evidence trumps any information that disagrees with your experience. So you're never wrong with this standard, whether going by your personal experience, or by selecting partisan polls to support your already-formed opinion.

    Bookmark   January 24, 2013 at 2:55PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

bill_vincent wrote,

and if the data actually contradicts your conclusion, you then discard it as irrelevant,
no, if the data contradicts what I see with my own eyes, then I'll look for why, or more accurately, HOW, it's skewed. If I see blue, and the data says grey, and I KNOW I'm not colorblind, then I'm not going to completely believe the data, but rather look to see WHY the data is wrong. It's the whole reason I disagree with Kate's stats.

I was strictly referring to the ranked list of states by homicide rate. You have already accepted that the list you provided was wrong, and that the list I provided was correct. As you had used your incorrect list as the basis for a conclusion that gun ownership rates do not correlate with overall homicide rates, I would expect that if you are going to discuss this issue honestly, you would agree that there *is* a correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in view of your acceptance of the correct data.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with any personal experience you may have had. It is completely dependent on national data which you have already accepted.

    Bookmark   January 24, 2013 at 3:19PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

You have already accepted that the list you provided was wrong, and that the list I provided was correct.

You want a cookie?

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 11:09AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Tricky bill. I thank Nancy for "reinforcing" my point, and bill twists that to read that I thanked Nancy for "clarifying" by point. Once he has made nonsense of what I said, then he can attack my integrity without fear.

No, bill. I did not say what you said I did. Can't you read?

You still owe me an apology--but I'm not holding my breathe. Any time I have ever pointed out a mistake you made, you have ignored it--all the while bragging that you are man enough to own up when you make a mistake.

Yeah, sure.

You were wrong on the point that both Nancy and I made. Admit it--or just drop the issue. But quit twisting what I said out of shape.

Kate

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 11:51AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

bill_vincent wrote,

You want a cookie?

No. I want you to reconsider the conclusion you drew from erroneous data, now that you have correct data that is the complete opposite of the data you thought was correct. If you are intellectually honest, you will look at information and then draw conclusions. If the information turns out to be the opposite of what you thought, your conclusion should change. Unless your conclusion was selected first and you really don't care whether the data supports it or not.

You argued that because there was no correlation between the states with the highest rates of gun ownership and the states with the highest rates of homicide by all methods, therefore gun ownership does not correlate with homicides in general.

But you now know that your data was faulty, and that the states with the highest rates of gun ownership *also* have the highest rates of homicide by all methods. Therefore, what is your conclusion now about a correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates by all methods?

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 11:56AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

You know that commercial where the young lady says "they can't put it on the internet if it isn't true"? The following article reminds me of those who "run with a story" without first verifying the facts.

Totally OT ... but a good example of running with a story and instead of admitting error saying "it felt true".

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course

This post was edited by ohiomom on Fri, Jan 25, 13 at 12:26

    Bookmark   January 25, 2013 at 12:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bill_vincent(Central Maine)

So let me see if I have this right, factoman-- if I used the wrong kind of data, then your data MUST be right?

have a nice day.

Kate, Kate, Kate. You know, if I demanded an apology every time one of you creatans stepped on MY toes? I'd be owed a whole lotta apologies by now. If I do something to insult you deliberately, and it's unwarranted? You can bet I will. It wouldn't be the first time I've apologized-- even to you personally. But I haven't done that. So no, I owe you NOTHING.

    Bookmark   January 26, 2013 at 2:20AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

Bill, I mean no offense by this because I do like you, but you have been wrong A LOT lately. I attribute half of that towards the NRA which you have recently embraced. I also believe that you don't double check enough of your sources. You seem to hear about things, and then blindly follow them as fact.

Just my opinion.

    Bookmark   January 26, 2013 at 2:35AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Factotem

bill_vincent wrote,

So let me see if I have this right, factoman-- if I used the wrong kind of data, then your data MUST be right?

Disappointing straw man, Bill. You have it wrong.

If you relied on incorrect data to lead to a conclusion, and it turns out the correct data says the opposite of what you thought, you must modify your conclusion. I've explained this several times. Please re-read my previous message and respond without the attitude.

    Bookmark   January 26, 2013 at 8:46AM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Just went to the grocery store
and as we left a woman followed us out by less than...
don_socal
California displacing older American workers via H1-B Visas
What have California's middle class American workers...
adoptedbyhounds
This made me cry. So beautiful.
Jacob is beautiful. Wonderful letter, please read. Happy...
enmc
One last issue for me with new format
How do I turn off the "say thank you" at...
duluthinbloomz4
Congratulations Nebraska
They saw this coming and were changing the forms in...
labrea_gw
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™