mcculloch@mail.utexas.edu (Jim McCulloch) wrote:

>In article , csmkersh@flash.net (Sam A.
>Kersh) wrote:
>
>> mcculloch@mail.utexas.edu (Jim McCulloch) wrote:
> 
>> ....  a long winded disclaimer which doesn't math his past positions...
>
>
>I see you have removed not only my supposed "disclaimer", but your own
>accusation, which was, if you will allow me to refresh your memory, that I
>advocate confiscation of guns.
>
>I do not advocate confiscation of guns. Never have.
>
>In a different thread, I mentioned that you have an honesty problem,
>because you presented a very selective quote which totally misrepresented
>the article it came from.
>

No, the quote was more than sufficient to show you were either
misinformed or (as I believe) another lying anti-gunner.  You've
attacked Prof Kleck as have other anti-gunners because you cannot
disprove the science.  You've attempted to twist Cook's assertion that
there must be an intrinsic problem with the science into a condemnation
of Kleck himself since he comes up with the same findings as Kleck.
Fortunately, there are anti-gunners with a modicum of integrity; Marvin
Wolfgang being one.  He said of Kleck's and Gertz' Work:

	"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz (who)
	 have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound
	 research in support of something I have theoretetically opposed
	 for years.

	"Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in
	 which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime?  It is
	 hard to believe.   I do not like their conclusions that having a
	 gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.  They
	 have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have
	 done exceedingly well."

	Dr. Marvin E. Wolfgang
	from paper submitted at Northwestern University Violence Symposium


>But that was an ungenerous remark on my part. I take it back. I see now
>that your problem is not that you are dishonest, but that you can't think
>very clearly.  
>
>Try to focus on this, Sam.
>
>Jim:  I have never advocated confiscation of guns.
>Sam: Yes you have.
>Jim:  Where do you get this stuff, Sam?
>Sam: You called Mr. Hale a murderer, therefore you advocate confiscation
>of firearms.
>
>Get some help here, Sam. If you are diligent, and with the assistance of
>someone who is not logic-impaired, you'll see what's wrong with your
>conclusion.

Oh, Jim, Jim, how careless with the truth you are.....  BTW, I did
DejaNews you and BD and found one post only from 1994 through last week.
And, yes, you did defend the Davidians stand.  Wonder why you think it's
ok for the Davidians to defend themselves against  assault by the
federal government but insist that Gordon R. Hale was a murderer for
defending himself against the assault by Mr. Tavai.  

In case you've got a memory problem, your posts on Hale can be found via
DejaNews.


Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
LEAA Life
TSRA L-111738
JPFO
Training is Sergeant's Business
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/
===============================================================
talk.politics.guns' resident hypocrite admits to using a gun 
by proxy

     "So for me and my family, all we need for protection
against crime is some basic knowledge of where not to
travel, and how to travel there if we have to.  For
instance, I've had to go into the Cabrini and Taylor Homes
in Chicago a number of times, but because they are
high-crime areas, I go in daylight, to meet someone I know,
with a bodyguard."

Robert L. Ray aka kira@interaccess.com