RE: Cops and Guns

RE: Cops and Guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MsBerlin -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/14/2013 9:40:34 PM)
All you have to do is look at actual examples of communities where guns are banned. Chicago has extreme gun restrictions and the rate of violent gun crimes is still out of control. They also banned Sharpies and spray paint to curb graffiti. Since doing so, there has been absolutely no vandalism at all! (Hahahahhahahhahaha)

Huruma -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/14/2013 10:16:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Perhaps you are misapprehending that application of modifiers. In the case of 'a green car went to the store, it is the car (noun) that is doing something, 'green' just helps distinguish which car. In the case of ' an Islamist radical went to the store', it is the radical (noun) that went to the store. Surely you aren't thinking that the only radicals in the world are those who just happen to be Islamist, are you? quote: ORIGINAL: Huruma quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I saw this today.. considering all the other shite the govt has in place to "protect America from terrorists".. you would think making it harder to get a gun would also be part of that.. I guess the cops from the survey dont think its a big deal but I just wonder how Americans feel about this dude in the vid and what he is telling nutbars in the USA to do.. So let's see. Islamist radicals would like to do away with our Western freedoms force us to live according to the law of Allah. And you think it would be a good idea for us to just go ahead and give some of them up quietly on our own. Did I get that right? K. If you are thinking of the Qur'an much like the Bible it is the word of Allah, as claimed by the Prophet Muhammad given to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel. Then there is Shari'ah Law, so which one are you referring to or are you talking about both? No in fact you could use Christians (Don't have to include radicals) would like to do away with (Oh let's say Aztecs) freedoms and live according to the laws of the Bible.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/14/2013 10:23:45 PM)
As a matter of fact that topic is brought up fairly regularly in threads here. quote: ORIGINAL: Huruma quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Perhaps you are misapprehending that application of modifiers. In the case of 'a green car went to the store, it is the car (noun) that is doing something, 'green' just helps distinguish which car. In the case of ' an Islamist radical went to the store', it is the radical (noun) that went to the store. Surely you aren't thinking that the only radicals in the world are those who just happen to be Islamist, are you? quote: ORIGINAL: Huruma quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I saw this today.. considering all the other shite the govt has in place to "protect America from terrorists".. you would think making it harder to get a gun would also be part of that.. I guess the cops from the survey dont think its a big deal but I just wonder how Americans feel about this dude in the vid and what he is telling nutbars in the USA to do.. So let's see. Islamist radicals would like to do away with our Western freedoms force us to live according to the law of Allah. And you think it would be a good idea for us to just go ahead and give some of them up quietly on our own. Did I get that right? K. If you are thinking of the Qur'an much like the Bible it is the word of Allah, as claimed by the Prophet Muhammad given to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel. Then there is Shari'ah Law, so which one are you referring to or are you talking about both? No in fact you could use Christians (Don't have to include radicals) would like to do away with (Oh let's say Aztecs) freedoms and live according to the laws of the Bible.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/14/2013 10:34:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I wonder why all 400,000 of them didnt respond? Because it's not a random sample, but a voluntary survey, meaning that it has no scientific value. What one learns early on in the first statistics class is that a voluntary survey is heavily biased towards those who are most opinionated. A good many people in any survey venture might have an opinion (almost everyone does), but those who feel most strongly are going to make up the preponderance of those who want to spend the time on filling out the questionnaire. Those who consider it a waste of time make up the (usually vast) majority of the survey population, no different in this case. "Most opinionated" does not equate to "most representative." quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Because we didn't get the questionairre. Which tells us that you are a) not likely a registered member of the policeone.com site or b) your are registered but don't visit it regularly enough to have caught the promo and announcement. A valid poll would have included a random sampling of all law enforcement members, whether registered at a commercial marketing site such as policeone.com or not. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Isn't 15000 out of 400,000 a much larger sampling than the average poll? It wasn't a sampling, it was a voluntary survey. See above. And the population was limited to only registered members of a promotional commercial web site, constituting a significant bias to begin with, and excluded half the LE members in the country outright.

hypervelocity -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/14/2013 10:39:39 PM)
It doesn't surprise me that a poll asking cops how they "feel" about these particular issues would generate such responses. I'm Canadian, and the biggest gun nuts I know are RCMP officers. I went drinking with four of them once, and they spent three hours straight talking about their guns. When I finally had enough and suggested we change the subject as I have zero interest in firearms, they looked at me like I had ten heads.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/14/2013 10:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 But doesn't the IACP say they are telling the truth? [sm=rofl.gif] As they see it perhaps, but this survey is in line with what every cop I have known says. That's because it's an organization with no political agenda. The IACP is in bed with the Joyce Foundation. What/who is meant by "it"here? The "organization" is a commercial marketing website, policeone.com, which offers a decent variety of firearms for sale along with all other LE related items, owned by a commercial marketing LLC parent company, Praetorian Group. From the latter's home page: Grow Your Brand. Explore the ways we can showcase your products and services to more than 1,000,000 safety and security professionals. How much likelihood is there that a commercial venture would publish anything even possibly detrimental to the interests of their clients? OTOH, in any marketing venture worth its salt, the purpose-crafted client-friendly survey is a common and time tested tool. That's an expected part of the job. As with any of these marketing websites, the registered members are merely a captured audience for the marketing company's clients, the sellers of these products. "No political agenda"? Are you kidding? This is the US. If there's a commercial agenda then there is a political agenda. That's how the country has been run for over thirty years now. The Joyce Foundation means squat.

Kirata -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/14/2013 11:02:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn How much likelihood is there that a commercial venture would publish anything even possibly detrimental to the interests of their clients? In what way, specifically, would different responses be "detrimental to the interests" of a clientele principally composed of criminal justice and enforcement professionals? quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn The Joyce Foundation means squat. The Joyce Foundation funds efforts to achieve an outright ban on all firearms in the hands of civilians. I've never heard that called "squat" before, but it's I admit it's catchy. K.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/14/2013 11:43:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn How much likelihood is there that a commercial venture would publish anything even possibly detrimental to the interests of their clients? In what way, specifically, would different responses be "detrimental to the interests" of a clientele principally composed of criminal justice and enforcement professionals? It was already explained. Here it is again: "The 'organization' is a commercial marketing website, policeone.com, which offers a decent variety of firearms for sale along with all other LE related items, owned by a commercial marketing LLC parent company, Praetorian Group." "As with any of these marketing websites, the registered members are merely a captured audience for the marketing company's clients, the sellers of these products." Nothing new here. Who are ABC network's clients, CNN's clients, Fox News' clients, the NYT's clients, Time Magazine's clients, Google's clients, or Facebook's etc? The watchers or readers or listeners or registered members of the web site ? Get a clue, however many decades too late. The advertisers are the clients. Another review of the material for you here: Grow Your Brand. Explore the ways we can showcase your products and services to more than 1,000,000 safety and security professionals. That is a message to their clients, a host of firearms manufacturers among them, from the people (Praetorious Group, owners of the marketing company police.com) who designed for their clients and administered the survey to the audience, the *audience of registered members of the marketing website* police.com being the product delivered to those clients**.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 12:24:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn The Joyce Foundation means squat. The Joyce Foundation funds efforts to achieve an outright ban on all firearms in the hands of civilians. I've never heard that called "squat" before, but it's I admit it's catchy. K. The NRA has a $250 million annual budget. The congressional staff are flooded and besieged. We're not even talking about the huge manufacturer's lobby yet. The Joyce Foundation spent a total of $37 million in 2010, all for grants of various pursuits, and none that I can see directly for gun control. Look at and compare the above figures. This is the US. The Joyce Foundation means squat.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 4:36:38 AM)
What one learns in the first statistics class is that a truly random sample is impossible, for a variety of reasons from self selection on out. What one learns in an advanced statistics class, is how to control for those factors. In terms of usefulness, n=15,000 is quite acceptable out of a total population of 700,000 What one learns from real life is how foolish it is to try to make the territory match the map. And what you might learn from reading the posts above, is that the 400,000 member number includes those who are not LEOs at all. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I wonder why all 400,000 of them didnt respond? Because it's not a random sample, but a voluntary survey, meaning that it has no scientific value. What one learns early on in the first statistics class is that a voluntary survey is heavily biased towards those who are most opinionated. A good many people in any survey venture might have an opinion (almost everyone does), but those who feel most strongly are going to make up the preponderance of those who want to spend the time on filling out the questionnaire. Those who consider it a waste of time make up the (usually vast) majority of the survey population, no different in this case. "Most opinionated" does not equate to "most representative." quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Because we didn't get the questionairre. Which tells us that you are a) not likely a registered member of the policeone.com site or b) your are registered but don't visit it regularly enough to have caught the promo and announcement. A valid poll would have included a random sampling of all law enforcement members, whether registered at a commercial marketing site such as policeone.com or not. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Isn't 15000 out of 400,000 a much larger sampling than the average poll? It wasn't a sampling, it was a voluntary survey. See above. And the population was limited to only registered members of a promotional commercial web site, constituting a significant bias to begin with, and excluded half the LE members in the country outright.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 4:42:06 AM)
You can repeat yourself in any size font you want, that doesn't make it either correct or useful. What you are failing to mention, is that PoliceOne started out as special interest forum like any other (such as Collarme), and the logical advertisers sought them out.. the growth and corporate status came later. Cart...horse? quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn How much likelihood is there that a commercial venture would publish anything even possibly detrimental to the interests of their clients? In what way, specifically, would different responses be "detrimental to the interests" of a clientele principally composed of criminal justice and enforcement professionals? It was already explained. Here it is again: "The 'organization' is a commercial marketing website, policeone.com, which offers a decent variety of firearms for sale along with all other LE related items, owned by a commercial marketing LLC parent company, Praetorian Group." "As with any of these marketing websites, the registered members are merely a captured audience for the marketing company's clients, the sellers of these products." Nothing new here. Who are ABC network's clients, CNN's clients, Fox News' clients, the NYT's clients, Time Magazine's clients, Google's clients, or Facebook's etc? The watchers or readers or listeners or registered members of the web site ? Get a clue, however many decades too late. The advertisers are the clients. Another review of the material for you here: Grow Your Brand. Explore the ways we can showcase your products and services to more than 1,000,000 safety and security professionals. That is a message to their clients, a host of firearms manufacturers among them, from the people (Praetorious Group, owners of the marketing company police.com) who designed for their clients and administered the survey to the audience, the *audience of registered members of the marketing website* police.com being the product delivered to those clients**.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 8:57:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 What one learns in the first statistics class is that a truly random sample is impossible, for a variety of reasons from self selection on out. Self selection refers only to voluntary surveys, and non-probability (ergo non-scientific) samples in general. There is little if any self selection in a well designed probability sample, even those involving humans. Biologists use statistics all the time. They use probability samples, the only scientifically valid kind. Bacteria, rats, migrating fowl, etc., do not self select. If one wants to estimate the distribution of empty cola and beer cans around the periphery of a parking lot by counting the cans at randomly chosen locations, those locations having equal probability of being chosen, one can get a reasonably good estimate of distribution of empty cans around that parking lot. The cans do not self select. If OTOH a pollster stops people outside of a superstore and asks where they throw their empty cans (a non-probability sample), the resulting estimate would be quite different, for a variety of reasons. quote: What one learns in an advanced statistics class, is how to control for those factors. Do tell. quote: In terms of usefulness, n=15,000 is quite acceptable out of a total population of 700,000 If we were talking about a probability sample, where the sample was randomly chosen from the population of concern (all LE members), with each member of the population having the same statistical probability of being chosen, then indeed 15,000 would be overkill. In a non-probability sample (a voluntary survey given to an arbitrary non-random selection of population), the number of respondents is meaningless, especially in this case there being a double bias of selectivity by both parties. quote: What one learns from real life is how foolish it is to try to make the territory match the map. Which is precisely the purpose of directed purpose well crafted surveys such as this one. Nothing the least bit foolish about it to the marketers. What one learns from chemistry, statistics, history, economics, biology, finance, business, political science, and especially marketing, is that forcing reality, however temporarily and whatever the disturbance elsewhere, match the corporate interest pays damn good money for those really good at it. quote: And what you might learn from reading the posts above, is that the 400,000 member number includes those who are not LEOs at all. What I learn from that is that the population is narrowed and non-randomly restricted even further than I thought.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 9:53:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 What you are failing to mention, is that PoliceOne started out as special interest forum like any other (such as Collarme), and the logical advertisers sought them out.. the growth and corporate status came later. Cart...horse? I failed to mention it because it's not true. I have a bad habit of that. It wasn't an advertiser who sought 'them' out, it was a marketing company (and a good one) that created the site. http://www.policeone.com/about/ "If you are a manufacturer, distributor, service provider or technology company targeting the Law Enforcement market, PoliceOne is an outstanding medium for marketing and advertising. Learn more about how to reach the Police Market." The parent company is Praetorian Group, a marketing LLC for first responders and security professionals in all sectors. Personally, I think the company is providing a useful service, there being so many in that industry nowadays. I was just pointing out that it is as normal as a Rockwell painting for a company to want to make money, to want to hire the best marketing strategists they can find, for the marketing company to do their best to serve their clients, and lastly and most importantly, that designing special purpose surveys that best serve the economic interests of their clients (which includes gun manufactures in the case of PoliceOne.com) is SOP for any good (i.e., still in business) marketing company. It's not rocket science, it's market science.

Kirata -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 11:37:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn The Joyce Foundation spent a total of $37 million in 2010, all for grants of various pursuits, and none that I can see directly for gun control. You're either being disingenuous here, or you're not looking very hard. Their grants contribute to the funding of both the Violence Policy Center and Nanny Bloomberg's dog and pony show, as well as other anti-gun groups. K.

Kirata -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 11:48:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn What one learns early on in the first statistics class is that a voluntary survey is heavily biased towards those who are most opinionated. However, opinions (as you may have noticed) have a way of falling on both sides of an issue, so your claim that this introduces bias is pure sophistry. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn the population was limited to only registered members of a promotional commercial web site, constituting a significant bias to begin with, and excluded half the LE members in the country outright. Nobody is "excluded" from registering, and all of the 15,000 respondents were current or former law enforcement. The sample was "broadly distributed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at large." K.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 11:53:15 AM)
You're being worse than disingenuous if you can't even look at the vast expenditure difference between the pro-gun faction and the gun control faction and not see the financial and Congressional influence galaxy-wide discrepancy between the two. I have an explanation for that, but TOS prevents me from going there.

Kirata -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 12:13:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn You're being worse than disingenuous if you can't even look at the vast expenditure difference between the pro-gun faction and the gun control faction That does not change the fact that your attempts to discredit the survey amount to sophistry, and your claim that the Joyce Foundation doesn't fund anti-gun groups is false. Maybe that's something "you can't even look at"? K.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 12:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn What one learns early on in the first statistics class is that a voluntary survey is heavily biased towards those who are most opinionated. quote: However, opinions (as you may have noticed) have a way of falling on both sides of an issue, so your claim that this introduces bias is pure sophistry. Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself seriously here. This is taught in the first statistics class and that's because it is a basic of statistics at every level. It's mathematically derived, empirically derived, and not based on nor open to experimental logic. Sophistry would be 4 levels up from whatever you are proposing thus far, being that you seem to be unaware that such term is not applied in math or any social science to begin with. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn the population was limited to only registered members of a promotional commercial web site, constituting a significant bias to begin with, and excluded half the LE members in the country outright. Nobody is "excluded" from registering, and all of the 15,000 respondents were current or former law enforcement. The sample was "broadly distributed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at large." K. Thanks for bringing that up. That was the distorted "broadly distributed" claim of the marketing company. It was sufficiently explained for those capable of understanding it the significant difference between a probability sample and a non-probability sample, pointing out that the latter includes voluntary surveys and that the latter are never used in scientific study whereas the former are. However much it might be wished, this survey is not anywhere near science. It is commercial, callously preying on the the targeted susceptible mind, nothing else. Business as usual.

Edwynn -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 12:29:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn You're being worse than disingenuous if you can't even look at the vast expenditure difference between the pro-gun faction and the gun control faction That does not change the fact that your attempts to discredit the survey amount to sophistry, and your claim that the Joyce Foundation doesn't fund anti-gun groups is false. Maybe that's something "you can't even look at"? K. I didn't say that they didn't fund any gun control efforts. I said that I didn't see them in their grants. But that wasn't the point. I don't care if they want to ban guns from the police; their funds for whatever effort are provably miniscule compared to the pro-gun lobby and the gun manufacturing lobby. That was the point. Sober up before we proceed further, please. PS I'll relate to the math department your concern that preferring a statistically legitimate study over a non-scientific survey constitutes 'sophistry.' I'll even tell the folks in the philosophy department too. I'm sure they'll be just as interested, if not more, actually.

tj444 -> RE: Cops and Guns (4/15/2013 5:41:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Fair enough. If that's what they, or more nuts like Lanza, are going to do, then we better be armed, more of us than now, because there aren't enough police to bodyguard every man, woman and child; because responding after the fact is too late; and because no matter what you outlaw - alcohol, drugs, abortions, prostitution, whatever - a market will spring up to provide it, and people will get it anyway. I dont agree with that.. Wait, you don't agree with what? That there aren't enough police, that after the fact is too late, or that there is always a black market where people can get what they want? K. I personally dont agree that more guns are the answer.. but my view is from living all but the last few years in a different & fairly non-violent society and not feeling like I have to worry about who around me is armed and thinking about using his/her gun(s).. its from a view that I grew up in a school with no guns, no armed teachers or guards, no bullet proof glass, no metal detectors.. I understand people wanting their kids protected but I find it sad that kids are growing up in that enviroment.. I dunno.. kids should be able to be happy kids and not have to grow up so fast..

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625