Since Scripter argues so badly, litters his postings with insults and

outright lies, deliberately cooks his statistics and frequently gets

his facts wrong, it seems to me that he he is trying to convince

people that the pro-gun case is totally without merit. Is Charles Scripter an HCI plant?

Ingredients of a Scripter posting.

(1) Insults:

... oppressors, such as yourself, ...

... stupid sheep ...

... Lambert, much as the rapist does ...

... Tim "Lean back and enjoy it" Lambert.You are

but a filthy vermin that scurrys for hiding when the light is turned

on. Likewise your arguments require obfuscation and darkness to

thrive, and crumble when exposed to the light of scientific inquiry.

As for death threats, an invertebrate such as yourself is unworthy to

soil my blade...

Presumably, if he didn't consider me an "invertebrate" he would

attempt to murder me, so I guess we should be thankful for small

mercies.

Scripter hopes that I will respond in kind to his insults so that the

discussion will degenerate into a slanging match and we will not

discuss the facts, since he knows that the facts do not support him.

(2) Lies:

Timmy has already "scientifically proven" (read:

"manufactured statistical trends") that guns cause crime,1) You haven't the faintest idea what underlying mathematical

assumptions are made to develop the statistical formulae you use, nor

do you understand the correct application of these formulae, or2) You are deliberately and blatantly guilty of academic dishonesty.

he DOESN'T UNDERSTAND statistics

Timmy has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to solve simple

probability problems.Timmy has manufactured trends; he has ignored various potentially

important parameters in his assumptions, he has failed to justify

the discard of these parameters, and he has drawn incorrect

conclusions from his data.

(3) Getting it wrong:

armedThe statistic is clearly marked in the study as unreliable because

gun and knife self defence was so uncommon. The actual numbers were 1

completion out of 32 attempts. A 95% confidence interval for the

completion rate is 1-15%. The completion rate for non-violent

resistance was 10%. So the data does not tell us whether resisting

with a weapon was better or worse than non-violent resistance.But you ignore the data from a much larger study. Here's a clip from

a file I found that discusses it.A 1979 US Justice Department study of 32,000 attempted rapes show

that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion rate is 36%.

But when a woman defends herself with a gun, the completion rate

drops to 3%.A sample size of 32,000 is probably much more reliable than the 32

events you have chosen to attack. Lambert, much as the rapist does,

has chosen to attack a smaller and weaker opponent.

No Charles, it's the SAME STUDY. Here is the complete reference that

those numbers above came from:

AUTHOR :McDermott, M. Joan

TITLE :Rape victimization in 26 American cities

PLACE :Washington

PUBLISHER :National Criminal Justice

DATE :1977

The relevant number to estimating the reliability of the estimate for

the completion rate when gun/knife defense is used is the number of

samples when gun/knife defense was used, not the total sample size.

"armed woman" does not equal "resist with gun or knife". Someone

with a weapon may be unable or choose not to use it.Non sequitur, since I specifically referred to women who used a weapon

to resist.

And followed it by talking about disarming people, indicating that you

thought the statistic had some relevance to the benefits or otherwise

of being armed.