Why No One Trusts Experts
It is important when on TV to think before you speak because sometimes what you say can be misconstrued or add to sterotypes that lead others to discount expert opinions. Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has a post and link to a CNN video showing a discussion of risk factors between three experts discussing pregnant women killed by boyfriends. One of the risk factors is men who own guns, says the commentator and asks criminal profiler Pat Brown to comment. "Psychopaths are fascinated by weaponry ....If you are hooking up with a guy with a big gun collection or those big ninja knives it's a big red flag, he's not doing yoga....if he loses it with you or in his life--he may eliminate you." A poor choice of words.
It implies that men who own guns may be psychopaths who will kill you. That's silly, and I hope that Ms. Brown did not mean to say this--it is false. Psychopaths are very rare anyway, and gun owners are common. The fact is that the majority of legal gun owners in this country are found to be more law abiding--not less. The Department of Justice did a study and found that "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns." Ms. Brown would probably be careful to avoid smearing an entire racial group with charges of criminality, and I hope that next time she'll be careful to avoid similar statements about gun owners.
And by the way, Say Uncle, in response to your question, am I psycho? Not for being a gunowner but that's about all I can vouch for at the moment.
Update: Criminal Profiler Pat Brown responds in the comments:
It implies that men who own guns may be psychopaths who will kill you. That's silly, and I hope that Ms. Brown did not mean to say this--it is false. Psychopaths are very rare anyway, and gun owners are common. The fact is that the majority of legal gun owners in this country are found to be more law abiding--not less. The Department of Justice did a study and found that "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns." Ms. Brown would probably be careful to avoid smearing an entire racial group with charges of criminality, and I hope that next time she'll be careful to avoid similar statements about gun owners.
And by the way, Say Uncle, in response to your question, am I psycho? Not for being a gunowner but that's about all I can vouch for at the moment.
Update: Criminal Profiler Pat Brown responds in the comments:
Wasn’t it just a few months ago when I got wailed on by the left during the Virginia Tech massacre for suggesting kids should carry guns to school to protect themselves? Sometime during the many interviews I did that week I said something to the effect that if we allowed concealed carry on campuses maybe someone would have taken Cho out. I am a big fan of concealed carry because I know criminals carry concealed weapons all the time and I would like to even the field with some honest citizens carrying a few themselves so criminals don’t think no one will shoot back. I think of how many lives would be saved if only someone in the school or company could defend against mass murderers instead of allowing these killers from mowing down a bunch of sitting ducks who are desperately try to hide behind furniture to save their lives.
Now, after doing interviews on the Jesse Davis murder, those from the right are taking one statement out of context and going nuts about it. It seems they think that I believe any man who owns a gun is a danger to women. If I thought that, I guess I would be talking about my own father and my own son. They have guns for personal protection. For that matter, my daughter has guns for personal protection and I also own firearms for personal protection. I am all for gun ownership for personal protection. Clearly, I was not saying a man with a gun is a psychopath.
Nor was I saying a man who might have a collection of guns is a psychopath. I know many of these men as well. They are hunters or lovers of antiques or do a lot of target shooting. What I was talking about during the Paula Zahn Show was the combination of psychopathic behavior and an obsession with weaponry as psychopath love weapons as it gives them a feeling of power and control. Psychopaths do indeed have a fascination with guns and knives and just because the rest of us might happen to own weapons or even have a number of them as a hobby doesn’t eliminate the fact that psychopaths may also be shopping at the gun store with us.
Women must learn to differentiate between psychological healthy men and unpsychologically healthy men if they want to keep from getting into a dangerous life threatening situation. No one trait will be proof that an individual is a psychopath but add a bunch of traits together and this is a warning. A kind, honorable, honest man with a gun collection is not a psychopath or a danger to anyone but a lying, manipulative, arrogant creep who has a cache of twenty weapons is someone a woman wants to get the hell away from. A man who teaches history at the local junior high school and happens to have a collection of Asian swords is not someone a woman should be frightened of but a man who obsessively watches ninja flicks, brags about how he used to be in the CIA, can’t keep a job, calls women sluts and whores, and owns a huge collection of swords and daggers, now there is a guy a woman wants should avoid like the plague.
Anyone who watched the actual Paula Zahn Show and paid attention to the whole conversation and intent would clearly know I was not labeling gun owners psychopaths. Unfortunately, when words are taken out of context and printed on the Internet, often the meaning of those words get misunderstood. I apologize to any gun owners (who aren’t psychopaths) who thought they were the target of my statements. I respect your constitutional rights to own firearms and would never want to see those taken away. I, like you, want to be sure I can protect myself and my family. I wouldn’t want it any other way.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
posted by Helen at 12:04 PM
109 Comments:
Dear Dr. Helen, you are simply too polite...
I'd say it is far more likely that Ms. Brown looks at gun ownership as a red flage regardles of the stats, then that she made a simple MISTAKE. In the rush and pressure of an interview, you are far more likely to say EXACTLY what you think, because you don't have time to filter it...
perhaps it's just me... ;)
At least I've narrowed my psychosis down. Whew, that's a relief. ;)
-SayUncle
Thanks for pointing this story out--I did not see it. Inaccurate comments from the network "criminal profilers" and "legal/police experts" never never fail to amaze me.
One of the younger guys in my department has been studying Kung Fu for about 2 years and now has a black belt. I've heard him mention ninja knives and throwing stars. He carries a pocket knife. (I do to but I'm not worried about myself.) How afraid shoul I be?
I saw about one minute of the interview and changed the station because I knew immediately it was B.S.
Ms. Brown merely parroted the majority view of the mental health industry. Dr. Helen continues to marvel at the disconnect between her views and those of 99% of her profession, while ignoring the high probability that this says something about the very nature of the profession itself.
"It implies that men who own guns may be psychopaths who will kill you."
This is quite a leap. She did not SAY this. She said men "with gun collections" . . . and from that I gather that she is referring to men who harbor guns and treat them as members of the family.
I'm a man and I would caution my daughter against getting involved with such a man.
I never quite understood how Pat Brown became an expert on criminal profiling. It seems that she became a famous profiler by appearing on lots of cable TV shows where she claimed to be a profiler.
Is this woman even a PhD? What are her qualifications for being a "profiler"?
Is Ms. Brown attempting to confuse, either deliberately or due to her serious (and, by my reckoning, disqualifying) ignorance, these two probabilities?
1. The probability that the person is fascinated with guns GIVEN that he/she is psychotic, which apparently is fairly high, and
2. The probability that the person is psychotic GIVEN that the person is fascinated with guns, which is much, much smaller than 1. above.
It's called conditional probability. Note that the order of the known condition and dependent condition is reversed in the above two items. It makes all the difference in the world, although most people don't know or don't care, 'cause they make this mistake all the frickin' time.
Dadvocate --
Did he tell you he had a black belt? That's a karate thing. In Kung Fu there's typically no adornment at all and those schools that do have some usually have sashes.
As far as "ninja knives" and stars, that's unusual for a class as well. He would more likely be required to advance through the normal weaponry first. Has he ever mentioned staff training? If not, I'd be suspect. Two years is just too soon.
oligonicella -
This guy really exists and all I said is true. He is a very nice guy, ran cross coutnry in college and quite laid back. I'm actually not worried at all.
Now the people I go past who are loitering in the parking lot where my car is parked are another story. Sometimes I wish I had a gun with me.
Pat Brown holds a Masters Degree in Criminal Justice from Boston University. LINK
"She said men "with gun collections" . . . and from that I gather that she is referring to men who harbor guns and treat them as members of the family."
Gun collections is not the same as LOTS OF GUNS, and that is a key. Gun Collectors have many different kinds of them, perhaps antique one to more unusual modern ones. It is a hobby like collecting Hummel Figurines. Guy with lots of guns may have other reasons for having one in every car, and one in the boot, and a derringer, and so on. This is very difficult to tell of course just meeting them, and it may be a while until they show them to you. Perhaps there is a danger, perhaps not. How are you going to tell?
She is certainly worying about the vanishingly small group, while painting the vast majority with a broad brush, IMHO.
and as everyone knows, you can protect your daughter more by interviewing her date while cleaning your own .45... ;)
Do bloggers just nitpick over everything in which it is possible to see a shred of bias in?
Pat Brown said "a big gun collection," not just "a gun collection" or not just owning firearms. She isn't at all saying that men who own guns are more likely to do X. She threw in that ninja knives thing in there for a reason. She also didn't condition being a psychopath on owning guns or loving weapons, she just said that most psychopaths are fascinated by weaponry. If I were asked that question, I would have put it the exact same way that she did.
Also, anonymous, you don't need to be have a doctorate to be a profiler. A lot of profilers (including some of the more succesful and more scientifically oriented such as Brent Turvey) have masters degrees or less. Most of the profiling used, such as what is used by the FBI, is not even scientific. The best way to be a successful profiler is to maximize the exposure of your succesful guesses and minimize the exposure of your unsuccesful guesses.
The DOJ report you cite is for adolescents. Why you choose this one in particular is odd. Here's something that might be a little more applicable.
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=2880
Been saying it for years - the next thing is going to be pathologizing gun ownership. They're going to expand the definition of mental illness as much as possible to disarm as many people as possible. (often using false claims and fraudulent diagnoses to do it) Eventually they are going to claim that anyone who would want to own a gun is mentally ill and enact a de facto gun ban.
Eventually they are going to claim that anyone who would want to own a gun is mentally ill and enact a de facto gun ban.
So only people who don't want guns will be allowed to own them? Clever.
~mf
Ms. Brown may have used a poor choice of words, but there may have been a point to what she was saying.
According to this study there is a very small chance a gun will be used to ward off an intruder in the home and a much larger chance it will be used in homicide, accident or suicide. So if someone is talking very lovingly about a very large gun collection where he/she is the only one with the key to the gun cabinet and that doesn't sit well with you, it might be time to find another person to date. I know I would.
If the man doesn't hunt or just collect the weapons, but is always talking fearfully about what's to come, that's a sign. If he/she is bigoted against other peoples and think America is changing too fast from the good old days, that is something to be considered. If he scours the papers and tv for shows about murders and crime violence with gun weapons, that's a sign too.
It's like with any "toy" be it a kayak, car or guns. Does the person own it, or does the item "own" the person -- who enjoys talking or obsessing about it more than they actually use it? Unless they're bona fide collectors as hobbyists or regularly shooting for hunting or sport, yes Virginia there are a lot of men who turn to guns in an ... odd way. Women now too. I think Freud has been there before me though, and of course you don't lump every gunowner into that subset. If you're secure, you don't worry about being lumped in there either -- not referring to you. hth
Dadvocate -- Must be one of them thar Mericanized Kung Fu classes.
Anon 3:16 - Define a big gun collection.
She threw in that ninja knives thing for no reason. Most people who collect guns actually collect weapons. At one time I had over a hundred weapons in all categories except major fire power. That included shiruken, throwing knives, throwing stars, meteor balls and so forth.
Her point would be what?
Cham - The majority of the time, the weapon drives off, not kills, the intruder. Those weren't listed.
The abstract ends with "The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned."
What then, would be suggested to keep in the home for protection? Something that works, that is.
Yeah, but cham, I suspect that if you restrict the study to legally owned guns, you'd get a much different result. There's lots of data around that shows that most gun homicides are committed with stolen or otherwise illegally possessed guns.
She didn't say "gun ownership" was a red flag. She said fascination with heavy weaponry was a big red flag - especially a loser/lowbrow who amasses a huge cache.
And that fascination with domination of others with use of firepower IS "klinker personality" red flag, especially when it is found with signs of a general propensity for grandiose thinking.
The only psychopath I know personally, made a big deal of his gun, his concealed carry status. He sat around in his office with his holster and weapon on, (and trust me, there was no good reason for this except to make himself feel "cool", and to enjoy intimidating anyone who saw him in his get-up, including his partners and secretaries and mild-mannered clients.) He was paranoid and prickly with a huge sense of entitlement, which might on a Tuesday be an impression reinforced with a tale, retold by him with some pride, of how he pulled the gun on someone who cut him off on the highway. He was a huge liar so he might - MIGHT - have been making that up.
I was never more relieved to have anyone move far away...which he did because he was arrested for threatening his own family.
Oh good grief. No -- Ms Brown was clearly taking a pot shot at people into weapons. That is the exact sense of what she said -- it was designed to make Gladys Kravitz (from Bewitched for those of you who don't know who I am talking about) sit up and purse her lips. And, Dr. Helen is exactly true to form in her response to it as being anti-male. It is. Guns and ninja stars will turn the head of just about every 7 year old little boy. So cut the crap.
And, the actual fact of the matter is that legal gun owners are a quite respectable lot. That is, in fact, what "the studies" show. And, the reason this is the general outcome is because ownership and possession of weapons has been systematically attacked in a long sustained effort for years now. So, it quite frequently takes an extra clean record and/or an extra effort to have a gun. You have to get a concealed carry license to carry it. There are usually extra obstacles to buying a gun than, say, a TV. And so on. So, psychopaths tend to exclude themselves from legal gun owners more than, say, legal TV owners because they tend to fail background checks and what not more often than average.
There really is no end to he nanny state apologetics strong currents within our society will resort to in an effort to attack gun ownership. All their "studies" and psychobabble are mostly crap.
gun owner -- "She said fascination with heavy weaponry was a big red flag."
Nope. Just watched it. No mention of heavy weaponry, just "big gun collection".
Dr. Helen,
This story may inspire a post on your part.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17937813/
But....but...what about pants, shirts....neckties!!! I have probably 50 neckties. God, think of the innonent women and children I could strangle if I went over the edge.....
Help me!! Somebody help meeeeeeeee!!
Any body really think the American male is NOT in trouble yet?
Partly tongue in cheek - the liberal commies know they can't fully take over as long as we are armed. First they take the souls, then they get the weapons, then they get the money...
I can't define a large selection of guns, except I would think she is referring to having more guns than one reasonably needs. A hunter might need 8 guns. A guy who wants to protect his home & family...one, maybe 2. It's not like he is going to have to defend himself against an army. And he isn't going to need to don a ninja outfit and start twirling nunchucks around to ward of an intruder. Guns and ninja stars may twirl the head of a 7 year old, but what is an adult going to do with them except lead some sort of violent fantasy life?
I could see if you are a collector of these things having them. But if you have a collection of throwing stars and are actually using them....
Let me put it this way. Let's say you have a daughter and you meet her boyfriend. The guy has a handgun and says he keeps it in his house just in case. I don't see anything weird about it. Now let's say instead, that he says he had 4 guns, a japanese sword, and a set of throwing stars. He says he keeps them to protect his home and just likes them. Then he shows you that he can hit a bullseye with his throwing stars 3 out of 4 times. I don't know about you, but I'd be concerned. This is the type of guy Brown is referring to.
To answer the question in your post title as if it were not rhetorical:
The problem isn't that there isn't real expertise in the world. The problem is that our mechanisms for sifting out the real experts have broken down.
I blame academia, but the media haven't helped.
Person A--One gun.
Person B--Fifty guns.
I think Person B is more likely to be trustworthy. Probably both are trustworthy, but criminals don't generally get collections of guns together. So a thug might have three guns, if he's a really well outfitted thug, but he's not going to have fifty.
Tennwriter
In fact, it isn't even just some crude "We got guns so they can't turn us into nazi germany." It is a smooth continuous gradient between the America our founders made and nazi germany. Inasmuch as we have guns, the government must respect its citizens: a bad cop decides not to harass someone they otherwise would have, a draconian law gets mitigated a little more than it would have, and so on. It's not just if they take our guns, it will open the door to tyranny. It is that every bit as much as they limit the right of citizens to freely keep and bear weapons, we open the door just that much to abuse of the citizens by the government. (And, that is, in fact, what usually happens.) We don't have to re-institute the second amendment or revoke it in an all or nothing move to see this phenomenon. We can just expand the right a little and see a little more freedom and respect or infringe that right a little and see a little more abuse and tyranny.
But, of course, political bigotry can spin anything 180 degrees in a person's mind when they don't know anything about a subject which is why Dr Helen might just be right about the idea that every adult ought to know how to competently handle a hand gun. Yes, let me see -- handle weapons, back a trailer into a drive way, parallel park,... what else....
Guns and ninja stars may twirl the head of a 7 year old, but what is an adult going to do with them except lead some sort of violent fantasy life?
What is an adult going to do with a television or a movie or a stamp collection? Who are you to decide what people "need"? That's the whole point -- you don't get to tell other people how many cars they "need", how big of a house they "need", how often they "need" to have sex, or how many guns they "need"... Gladys...
Adrian, I'm not deciding on what people need. If this guy can explain why he needs ninja stars or even just wants them, that's fine with me. You're going to some sort of movement where the government is going to take them away. That (or that ridiculous Nazi post either) has nothing to do with this. It's a question of risk reduction for women and women avoiding these psychopaths...it's advice. The goverment implementing gun control isn't likely to stop the psycho from killing their target (though there may be a reduction, it would be because gun wounds are more likely to be lethal than other wounds). He'll just use his ninja sword instead of his assault rifle. I don't see Brown advocating any government intervention in this video clip; she is saying who women should avoid so they aren't fighting for their life against their weapon-nut boyfriend who loses it.
If in the scenario I described above, would you be concerned? Yeah, I thought so. 3 points from the top of the arc.
What racial group is Ms. Brown "smearing"?
Are you implying that legal gun owners are exclusively white?
As for the rest of your points--hard to disagree.
Dave F,
Please read before you comment.
anon 6:08...
having to defend yourself on why you need something, is the mindset that starts taking things away...
having the assumption that they can have it UNLESS there is a reason not to, is the mindset that protects their rights from unreasonable seizure.
Identifying the psychopath first, and THEN taking their weapons away... Makes sure you don't take my weapons if I am not a psycopath... This is why the base assumptions and the WORDS themselves ACTUALLY DO MATTER...
The nazi post is neither ridiculous nor was it to you. Since we're jumping to conlcusions here, let me guess -- you are a woman, aren't you? Or perhaps you are a gun control advocate. At best, you are maybe a libertarian or something that accepts gun rights analytically because it is part of your broader ideological views but that personally finds them distasteful.
No -- the guy with the ninja stars in your scenario does not creep me out -- not even a little bit.
I live in a gun culture -- a sub-culture of the United States in which guns are truly respectable. I admire proficiency with weapons and someone that simply has weapons and is proficient with them doesn't creep me out nor should they. A martial artist doesn't creep me out. The idea that someone could kill me doesn't scare me in that way. If it did, I wouldn't be able to live amongst other humans. I would rather have Ninja Stars for a neighbor than someone imminently concerned with stuff like how many guns I own or if I am into martial arts. The latter sort of person is far more likely to call CPS if they don't agree with my parenting style or to wield the HOA against me if they don't like my lifestyle.
And, Ms Brown's comments were a pot shot at gun owners -- a suggestion for people to be concerned about other people owning weapons.
Cham,
I think that you need to look at that study a bit more carefully. I haven't read it, but the abstract not only gives away its biases, but doesn't support the conclusion that was obviously arrived at prior to the "study".
so what it all boils down to is since the "expert" being questioned is a hardcore liberal - because he was chosen by a liberal-leaning news outlet, he could be nothing else - gets a chance to go on TV and advance his ideological agenda. oh, sure, he has to *lie* to do so, but we've seen this enough times before to understand that mere "lying" is not a problem for liberals/statists/power-mad left-wing control freaks.
so "psychos love guns"; we're really "secretly *under*taxed"; and "everyone wants the gay agenda taught to 1st graders".
and we're surprised by this...why?
The only expert at getting you through this maze called life alive is YOU. And when you've lost confidence in you and come to rely on experts...that's when trouble begins: for you; for your nation.
Cham
About the Kellerman study, Google on Gary Kleck (Florida State University). He's been doing research on the defensive use of firearms for, oh, about 30 years now. A good part of that time has been spent show how Kellerman got it wrong, and that is putting it charitably.
You might also want to check with Dr. Helen, 'cause I seem to remember that Instahusband has published some work on the legal aspects of gun control.
So,
How come Bill Reilly gets Dr. Brian Russel, forensic psychologist to foil with (some exibition wrestling "anthropolagist") instead of Dr. Instawife, forensic psychologist?
Is that circus a venue you'd even consider?
Cham,
You are grossly misrepresenting the NEJM piece of garbage.
First, the NEJM study had nothing to do with "warding off an intruder."
Did you read even the abstract ? What part of "we reviewed all the gunshot deaths that occurred" did you not understand ?
One of the stupidest things about this piece-of-garbage-that-would-never-have-seen-the-light-of-day-in-any-criminoloy-journal was that the Idiot Extraordinaire, Kellermen, DID NOT include any incidents that did NOT result in a death. Incidents in which an attacker stopped without being KILLED were not included.
Thus, any conclusions about the efficacy of firearms for personal protection become laughable, predicated that I must kill an attacker in order to defend myself. Do you think that the police kill every rapist ? How about every perp who is beating an old man ?
"Hmm, I think I want to rape that woman. Hey, she's pointing a gun. No matter, I'll just keep attacking. BANG! BANG!"
Most criminals are not masterminds, but they're not that stupid. The only people that stupid are folks writing about criminology matters in medical journals -- where the trash they write is not peer-reviewed by criminologists.
Sadly, while Kellerman may rank as the stupidest criminologist wannabe, almost all of of "urban legends" about the goodness of gun control are as worthless as this.
And sadly, there are only too many people who so want to believe "guns are bad" that they lose all critical thinking when a "study" comes along that confirms their pre-existing biases.
As for the "profiler," she's either an extraordinarily lousy speaker, or she's another anti-gun loon like Kellerman.
Note well: I am not blind to the potential danger a firearm presents. I have told a woman once:
"Does the man who is already threatening violence toward you have any weapons ? If so, he has the means to carry out the threat with no prior notice. Consider that carefully. I have nothing against guns -- I own a number myself -- but if you have a gun, and you threaten violence, you must be taken seriously."
It's like when we counseled folks to ask any friends who have discussed suicide
"If you were going to kill yourself, how would you do it ?"
When the have a plan, it's "red alert" time.
That may be what the "profiler" was aiming towards. If your abusive SO (either gender) has access to lethal weapons, consider your options carefully.
But no amount of firearms is necessarily "bad" (or good). An evil woman with a one gun is bad. Giving her two doesn't change things.
Anonymous 5:27 PM
I can't define ... needs.
As pointed out, you don't get to define how many I need. That is for me to decide.
And he isn't ... an intruder.
Oh really? I have quite literally chased two intruders out of my K.C, Mo Westport house with swords. Don the outfit, no. By the way, you display your ignorance. Nunchucks are Okinawan or Chinese, you're spouting bad myth about ninjas using them.
I could see if you are a collector of these things having them. But if you have a collection of throwing stars and are actually using them....
Yet again you visit your control tendancy. I collect, manufacture and use with some level of expertise throwing daggers, shiruken, throwing stars, knives, swords, axes, berdische, long sword, stave, spear, etc. Just who in hell are you to condemn be for my practice?
Now let's say instead, that he says he had 4 guns, a japanese sword, and a set of throwing stars. He says he keeps them to protect his home and just likes them. Then he shows you that he can hit a bullseye with his throwing stars 3 out of 4 times. I don't know about you, but I'd be concerned. This is the type of guy Brown is referring to.
You would be concerned because you are ignorant. His mere demonstration of hitting a bullseye with one of those things indicates a helluva lot of practice with accompanying concentration and physical adroitness. He scores a great deal of bonus points with me if he can demonstrate that he actually knows what he's doing with the katana. This is because, unlike you, I understand what it takes to use those things.
I'm not deciding on what people need. If this guy can explain why he needs ninja stars or even just wants them, that's fine with me.
You contradict yourself. You say he has to explain to you why he needs them. That's a not so implicit presumption that you wield judgment over his answer and therefore his "need".
It's a question of risk reduction for women and women avoiding these psychopaths...it's advice.
Except it doesn't identify psychopaths, just martial artists and gun proficienados.
The goverment implementing ...
The government has implemented gun control. You show yourself. What you mean by gun control is no guns, not control thereof.
I don't see Brown ... she is saying who women should avoid so they aren't fighting for their life against their weapon-nut boyfriend who loses it.
Or, she'll sit at home knowing she's a helluva lot safer with her weapon-nut boyfriend who will drop anyone attempting to do her harm with speed, accuracy and relatively little danger to him or her.
Bruce is correct in his critique of the study Cham reported. I sat out to compare the reported gun-assisted suicide rates to the national average, compare the gun related deaths to the national average, that sort of thing to check out if there was an unintentional sampling bais or something else at work. Standard stuff really.
But I could not! That is becuase the numbers were presented is such a convulted way as to make that impossible! Clear results deverve and get clear presentations. People with an agenda run the numbers any way they can until they get something that looks like it supports their agenda. So far, this report looks like the latter.
Here are some statistical and sampling concerns raised by people who read the study. Most have enough letters after their name to satisfy me, but some of them are from the NRA.
http://www.guncite.com/Kellerman93Letters.html
One point of interest to me is that the study is 20 years old and while it is widely quoted in the ban the gun literature, it has not been replicated despite the author's claim that it would be and his approach would be vindicated (located in the above citation.)
I am thinking that this is like the thoroughly debunked marijuana leads to lower testosterone in men and higher testosterone in women study from the 70s. That study is still widely quoted as true, despite it being found false and never having been replicated.
So there is science, and crap that masquerades as science. As a final note, the author showed up for a reading of the report wearing a "Ban Guns" button.
Not an example of an impartial scientist seeking the truth, now is it?
Trey
a guy with a big gun collection
But women with giant collections of cats or "Precious Moments" figurines are textbook models of sanity, no doubt.
So far, we've been discussing generalities. Take a peek at what John has in his basement. Then check out his blog and that of his wife. Ordinary folks, maybe a bit conservative and pro-war, but he is a combat veteran. I consider them friends, to the point that I've tried to get my son, who lives less than an hour away, in touch with them. He's got probably as many guns as anyone in the blogosphere, and I'm satisfied that he is not a psychopath.
"Oh really? I have quite literally chased two intruders out of my K.C, Mo Westport house with swords. Don the outfit, no. By the way, you display your ignorance. Nunchucks are Okinawan or Chinese, you're spouting bad myth about ninjas using them."
LOL! Let's settle down there Michael Dudikoff! Those "intruders" were what us non-weapon-maniacs call pizza deliverers.
No, probably not anon 10:48. They probably were what you non-weapons-maniacs call 'my murderer'.
Sorry to shine the light of reality on your mildly amusing joke, but reality is what it is.
Tennwriter
"Most criminals are not masterminds, but they're not that stupid. The only people that stupid are folks writing about criminology matters in medical journals -- where the trash they write is not peer-reviewed by criminologists."
I would disagree. Most criminals, particularly the ones we are mostly referring to (firearms related offenses) are stupid. They can't use whatever they have to make it in society. Unless they're robbing banks, their crimes are not going to have big payoffs that will beat a typical entry level position. But also, criminologists would LOVE to have their articles appear in something like NEJM. This isn't so much a social science theory-testing article in it's usual form, so NEJM is probably in the tier right below something like Science. For an article like this, peer-review should just make sure the methods are sound and the conclusions logically follow the data.
But the thing about gun suicide is that it is much more likely to be lethal. Pills, hanging, garage suffocation, wrist slitting, etc. are less likely to get the job done. It shouldn't be a surpise that a gun in the household will increase the suicide rate because the succesful suicide is pretty much a guarantee with a gun.
But this whole thing is a complete overreaction to what the profiler said in the interview. That part about the "ninja knives" is definitely not irrelevant and is probably the most important part in the segment. Brown, if given more time, would elaborate on a fascination with weaponry & non-defensive violence. Responsible gun owners who buy guns for protection don't think in terms of killing people, they thing of defending themselves. Who Brown describes think the former.
Also, would someone who says something like this be considered anti-gun?
"While I personally believe in the right to own guns and the right to carry them to protect yourself, I also believe we have a responsibility as a society and as citizens to be serious about gun ownership. We should be required to have a background check, one which checks criminal, behavioral, and mental status. In other words, this should be a solid check so that people like Cho who exhibit frightening behavior and are on antidepressant meds aren’t considered citizens safe enough to be gun owners. The owner should also have to go through strong training in gun safety and sign a document that accepts full responsibility for the gun, that if the weapon is used by anyone other than the owner in a criminal act, the owner will also be liable for prosecution."
What about this:
SMERCONISH: Well, wait a minute. I think you`re speaking my language now when you say we need to arm the general public. Is your thought process that we`d be better served if more individuals, law abiding Americans, were carrying firearms so that they could take down whomever it is that perpetrated these acts?
MYSTERY PERSON: You bet, Michael. I`m one of those people. Yes, I do believe that.
Now, anyone want to wager a bet on who the MYSTERY PERSON is?
I'll give you a hint - starts with Pat, ends with Brown.
Anonymous 12:55,
I had already read the first statement you have about Ms. Brown on her website before posting on this so I realize that Ms. Brown is not totally against guns. I disagree with parts of her statement such as "signing a document that says the owner is liable etc." But that is beside the point.
If she is truly pro-second amendment then she should want to make sure that legal gunowners are not smeared as psychopaths or potential murderers of pregant girlfriends. As some say in this thread, she did not intend to do that. I agree. But the clip makes it sound that way.
BTW, I like the work of Pat Brown that I have seen so far. I saw her once on another show and she really came across well. Her website is very interesting and has good information on it. I like the post she had on bank-robbing women, for example. I might have to do another post on that topic!
Anon 11:26
I'm not so sure we disagree. My comment about criminals not being "that stupid" was that they seldom advance in the face of a drawn firearm. They are not that stupid. Do you disagree ?
As I said, the only folks that stupid are publishing CJ opinions in medical journals, a reference to Kellerman, not the "profiler." And I stand by my statemend that the average criminal is smarter that Kellerman proved himself to be by putting his name on this piece of crap.
As for comments about "responsible gun ownership," I don't disagree. So long as you agree that the number of guns a person ownes, 1 or 200, has nothing to do with responsbility.
But be careful. If you agree to that, then nearly all the idiotic control-freak legislation that has emerged under the name "gun control" in the last 30 years has been about something else entirely.
If I am responsible, what right have you to say "only one gun a month" ? Yet this attempt at prohibition emerges time and again.
If I am responsible, what right have you to say "no Saturday Night Specials" ? What matter what form of firearm I choose ?
The primary problems with endorsing "responsible gun ownership" is that
1. For 30+ years it has been used for some of the most insulting, useless pieces of legislation enacted, and
2. Its supporters continue to perpetuate out-and-out lies, as did Kellerman.
I'd like some responsible gun journalism for a change.
I'd like some responsible gun control advocates for a change.
I'd like some responsible gun control politicians for a change.
I'd like some responsible gun control academics for a change. (Apologies to Gary Kleck and James Wright, but you ARE in the vanishingly-small minority)
What you wind up with is the realization that it's not about firearms responsibility, it's about firearms control
You think drug laws are stupid and counterproductive ? Try looking at anti-firearms legislation. When I taught the required firearms safety in NY State to folks applying for their concealed-carry license, they could not legally touch pistols in the class (NY Penal 265.20, NY Penal 400 S 3d). We, as instructors, petitioned the county judge for a waiver in the classroom. He refused. So what we have are students who are trying to be responsible, being treated to a display to the idiocy that they as CCW holders will be living with. It was certainly educational, but it had nothing to do with firearms safety
It's interesting that "liberals" (i.e., State socialists, or as I like to call them if they object to that term, "State-fockers"), in my experience, tend to be dislike firearms and tend to look askance at people who like firearms. Yet their whole political agenda is backed and enforced by agents of the State. These agents don't carry love-beads and incense. So really, I guess, their hoplophobia is limited to private individuals who carry guns. Guns in the hands of the State are fine. Because after all if you can't trust an institution that claims the right to your life and the right to dispose of your money, and has legions of armed enforcers, and is the bloodiest gun-toter in history, who can you trust?
Wasn’t it just a few months ago when I got wailed on by the left during the Virginia Tech massacre for suggesting kids should carry guns to school to protect themselves? Sometime during the many interviews I did that week I said something to the effect that if we allowed concealed carry on campuses maybe someone would have taken Cho out. I am a big fan of concealed carry because I know criminals carry concealed weapons all the time and I would like to even the field with some honest citizens carrying a few themselves so criminals don’t think no one will shoot back. I think of how many lives would be saved if only someone in the school or company could defend against mass murderers instead of allowing these killers from mowing down a bunch of sitting ducks who are desperately try to hide behind furniture to save their lives.
Now, after doing interviews on the Jesse Davis murder, those from the right are taking one statement out of context and going nuts about it. It seems they think that I believe any man who owns a gun is a danger to women. If I thought that, I guess I would be talking about my own father and my own son. They have guns for personal protection. For that matter, my daughter has guns for personal protection and I also own firearms for personal protection. I am all for gun ownership for personal protection. Clearly, I was not saying a man with a gun is a psychopath.
Nor was I saying a man who might have a collection of guns is a psychopath. I know many of these men as well. They are hunters or lovers of antiques or do a lot of target shooting. What I was talking about during the Paula Zahn Show was the combination of psychopathic behavior and an obsession with weaponry as psychopath love weapons as it gives them a feeling of power and control. Psychopaths do indeed have a fascination with guns and knives and just because the rest of us might happen to own weapons or even have a number of them as a hobby doesn’t eliminate the fact that psychopaths may also be shopping at the gun store with us.
Women must learn to differentiate between psychological healthy men and unpsychologically healthy men if they want to keep from getting into a dangerous life threatening situation. No one trait will be proof that an individual is a psychopath but add a bunch of traits together and this is a warning. A kind, honorable, honest man with a gun collection is not a psychopath or a danger to anyone but a lying, manipulative, arrogant creep who has a cache of twenty weapons is someone a woman wants to get the hell away from. A man who teaches history at the local junior high school and happens to have a collection of Asian swords is not someone a woman should be frightened of but a man who obsessively watches ninja flicks, brags about how he used to be in the CIA, can’t keep a job, calls women sluts and whores, and owns a huge collection of swords and daggers, now there is a guy a woman wants should avoid like the plague.
Anyone who watched the actual Paula Zahn Show and paid attention to the whole conversation and intent would clearly know I was not labeling gun owners psychopaths. Unfortunately, when words are taken out of context and printed on the Internet, often the meaning of those words get misunderstood. I apologize to any gun owners (who aren’t psychopaths) who thought they were the target of my statements. I respect your constitutional rights to own firearms and would never want to see those taken away. I, like you, want to be sure I can protect myself and my family. I wouldn’t want it any other way.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Ms. Brown,
Thanks very much for stopping by to clarify---unlike television and other media, the great thing about the internet is that you can respond and I can update the post. Thank you for all your work.
AC 10:48
Those "intruders" were what us non-weapon-maniacs call pizza deliverers.
Your pizza delivery guy jimmy's the lock and comes into your house unanounced at 2AM? And you do what? Nicely dig out your wallet and hand over what he says you owe?
CPPB -- I did watch the show and had no problem with the bulk. Perhaps the jab at nunchuks and throwing stars was meant as humor, but it didn't sound like it and it's the kind of stuff that gets ladled over the topic for rhetorical reasons.
I'll take it as humor not well delivered.
Maybe it's just me, but a man who "brags about how he used to be in the CIA, can’t keep a job, [and] calls women sluts and whores," is a guy a woman "should avoid like the plague". Never mind the gun thing, here are three indicators that this just isn't the right guy for you. Hell, I wouldn't even want to have to associate with this guy.
CPPB --
Questions.
Compared to the number of guys who kill their significants, how many of them would you suppose actually had "huge collections" of weapons at all?
Conversely, what percentage of people who own huge collections actually go on to commit violence with them?
My take as a lay person is that the violent killers usually only have the weapon they use.
anonymous 9:14:
You're back again? I guess Media Matters had you hitting some other blogs for a while and your're making the rounds back here. You will never shut me down. Sorry--and that's the best apology you'll get from me.
Well, I stand corrected if Brown really is a gun rights advocate (since I imagined that she must not be). However, I will note as another poster has that the indication of the psychopathic nature of the person in her example was not that he is into weapons but that he has delusions of grandeur, lies, and is generally a loser and a mysogynist. I still think the original comment is a pot shot at gun ownership even if Brown didn't intend it that way because it talks about something that absent the other factors really is independent of the psychopathy as if it were the primary indication of a psychopath. But, perhaps she was just being too charitable in her caveats and/or concessions at the time or something....
Well said to Mr Brown!
Y'know I support the right of all you folks to responsible gun ownership and all, but some of you do come across as disturbingly gun-obsessed -- in an angry, hostile way. It's not healthy.
One or two of you would scare me if you were a neighbour or colleague...
To this day, one of my favorite quotes is from Konrad Lorenz:
Every man gets a narrower and narrower field of knowledge in which he must be an expert in order to compete with other people. The specialist knows more and more about less and less and finally knows everything about nothing.
I find Ms. Brown's comments encouraging and enlightening. Having only seen a few minutes of Paula Zahn's show, it seems I got a mistaken impression of Ms. Brown's point of view. In the future, I will avoid Paula Zahn completely to prevent this from happening again because there is no way in Hell I can watch the entire show.
kipwatson -- Actually, the point I make is that you wouldn't even know most collectors have them.
Just read this page top to bottom and I don't see the anger and hostility you suggest. Unless you're referring to responses to hostility, in which case the object should be the initiator.
mel and adrian: The real problem here is that the psychopath you describe is someone that a significant number of American women actually find attractive. I think that was the point that Brown set out to address. Unfortunately, the way she stated it forced the disucssion off of the intended topic, as we have just seen.
Kip wrote: "but some of you do come across as disturbingly gun-obsessed -- in an angry, hostile way. It's not healthy."
I know what you are referring to, but I have a different take on it. I am a mild mannered Christian, just leave me alone to worship and practice my faith, and you would not really notice me much.
But threaten my ability to practice my faith freely and I will come across as defensive, hostile, and angry. I think that gun owners (rightfully) feel attacked and somewhat cornered. That explains some of the defensiveness and aggression you see. Of course, gun owners have some obnoxious people among their ranks too! But I would bet that the obnoxious are under-respresented in that group.
Just my thoughts.
Trey
In Ms. Brown's response litany, I notice that weapons don't come close enough to being an independent variable to warrant the mention she gave them. Especially if she's commenting on the Jesse Davis murder, don't you think that a married guy becoming a baby-daddy to two women on the side would be a WHOLE lot more probative than how many guns he, as a police officer, who is required by his job to have weapons familiarity and proficiency, might own? Sorry, but I think the lady protesteth overmuch, especially since a psychopath with any kind of paranoid streak is probably not going to let people know about the weapons he owns.
Ms. Brown, Dr. Helen hardly strikes me as someone who has trouble with communication or evaluating the context of a statement. If she found something troubling about what you said, and you feel that is not consistent with your intent, I suggest you might want to review how well you managed to state your position.
Hi everbody, I'm back in the USA, which means there will be one more concealed firearm on the streets of California today. Run for your lives!
Welcome home, tomcal.
To pat brown......
I hope what you said above is true, and truly how you feel (are), rather than just doing as people do when in Rome, so to speak.
I don't own any weapons of any sort beyond what one would expect to see in the average kitchen or tool box. But as a citizen, it is part of my duty to make sure rights are rights. Especially when in the Constitution.
Evidently, the comment has been removed.
But I guess I was right. Rosie's been in the hospital, eh?
tc - Are you a gun owner, a psychopath, or both?
Answer yes or no...
One or two of you would scare me if you were a neighbour or colleague...
Probably not. Until it was too late. At least in my case...
tmink,
I think you are correct. I have discussed gun with many folks through the years. The degree of my "hostility" depended mostly on how accurate and confrontational the other folk were.
Someone (like, oh, a local news reporter back in the mid-90's) asking in a neutral one
"You own a firearm for self defense. But aren't there studies that say that's a bad idea ? How would you respond to that ?"
and then actually listening to my answer (and putting it unedited on air) gets a far different response than someone repeating the long-disproven shibboleth:
"Keeping a gun puts you at more risk than your attacker."
It's hard to describe in text, but the reporter came across as genuinely interested -- and I presumed she didn't have access to the source document (Kellerman, et. al.) So I treated her as a student rather than an opponent and told her what was wrong with the "study."
Even in my posts above, I tried to keep the majority of my hostility (and oh, I have plenty) directed primarily at Kellerman and the NEJM.
I did get annoyed that the link did not say what someone purported it to say, hence my snotty "did you read it ?" jibe. But while hostile, I do feel that was not completely unwarranted. If you spread the gospel, you are responsible for what's in it. If you don't like the response, consider what "truth" you are spreading.
And considering the amount of verbal abuse that firearms owners took during the 80's and 90's, and the amount of out-and-out BS that has been spread already, attempts to spread more will meet with immediate and yes, hostile response.
The truth, for anyone not aware and not predisposed to the thought "guns are bad." is much more complex than politicians' sound-bites.
Mario Cuomo, that bastion of liberal goodness, former governor of NY, spoken of as a potential Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court, and person who claims HE hates labels, described hunters as drunken slobs who lie to their wives about their whereabouts over the weekend.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,961505-3,00.html
THAT's the sort of thing that makes us see red. As does the rank hypocrisy of many of the anti-gun elites:
Carl Rowen (1981) "We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). We can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail- period!"
Carl Rowan (1988 after shooting someone) ". . .as long as authorities leave this society awash in drugs and guns, I will protect my family." (from "At Least They’re Not Writing My Obituary")
Joyce Brothers "Men possess handguns in order to compensate for sexual dysfunction." Which, beside being a complete misquote of Freud, is especially hypocritical since her husband has a CCW from NY City.
Gee, why would I a little hostile on the subject ? I've been called crazy, dangerous and a liar by folks who themselves are often hypocrites.
So it wasn't hard to imagine Mr Brown as one of their ranks, for they are legion. I am glad Ms. Brown stopped by, and I hope she accepts my apology for misjudging her. Her quote was not received in quite the way it had been intended, and I suspect we mostly would see eye-to-eye on the issue (though not on strict liability).
I am a father, a firearms owner, and a former paramedic. Like all citizens and parents, and essentially every gun-owner I have known, I have a desire to keep firearms out of untrained or criminal hands.
But I do not want, nor will I tolerate, useless laws that hinder ownership while doing nothing to prevent crime or accidents. Nor will I accept any baseless slurs or innuendo about gun-powners. I insist that research be conducted fairly and intelligently. I will never "justify" my desire to engage in constitutionally-protected activities, nor will I accept prior-restraint.
Substitute the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or movement for the freedom to own firearms, and see how well any of those things fit....
1charlie2, I feel the same way.
Trey
Has anyone noticed how much Paula Zahn seems to resemble Jane Fonda? Or is it just me?
Rusty
Several of you missed the point that Ms. Brown was trying to make (I say this the second time around). Ms. Brown was talking about choosing a date, not anyone's right to amass firearms. In the US you can have an arsenal, and as along as you abide by the law gun ownership is completely legal. But people are also free to choose to date whomever they wish. And it is totally legal as well to be discriminatory with whom one chooses to date. One can only assume from the responses that some people are deeply offended that they might be unceremoniously tossed out of a person's dating pool because of their amassed weaponry and firearm obsession. But people have a right to discriminate, so deal with it or find a good therapist if you can't. Yes, you have a right to bear arms, but others have a right to avoid you like the plague.
cham: I'm in agreement with you that the point Brown was trying to make was for women to be aware of signs of abusers. My beef is that the advice she gave doesn't support this goal; women who follow it probably won't be any safer, and as it turns out they might be more in danger.
As a particular point, I think the throwing-stars reference was completely irrevelent. When I was a teenager, stars and other exotic Eastern weapons were all the rage with the boys. To be honest, it was more a fashion statement than anything else. I did know a couple of guys who got pretty good with stars. A star in the hands of an expert can do amazing things. Both of these guys were well-adjusted, did fine in school, and wouldn't hurt a flea.
Brown's point would have been served a lot better if she had stayed on-topic instead of going for the cheap political humor. It probably wasn't intended that way. I like to crack jokes when I talk about difficult subjects, because it lessons the tension in the room. But when you do that you run the risk, if you aren't careful, of saying something inappropriate without meaning to. I've done that before, more than once.
There are few things more embarassing than blurting out a joke an an inappropriate context. My advice to Brown would be to just ask for a do-over and try again.
Cham
You badly need to read my original posting (1:38PM, June 27, 2007) on this thread, the one about conditional probability.
It sounds suspiciously like you believe that women SHOULD use having a lot of guns as an important indicator that the guy is probably psychotic. Certainly you're arguing that men have no right to be upset when a women does this. (Is this the same as the requirement that men must have a "sense of humor" when women relentlessly ridicule and insult us?) The problem with your argument is there are so many well-adjusted and harmless gun nuts that is it essentially impossible to determine anything useful solely or largely from the fact that the guy owns a lot of guns. To throw somebody out of the dating pool primarily because they own a lot of guns is just one form of the common manipulative practice of refusing to have a relationship with someone else unless he/she does what you want. (Of course, if that other person has lots of social allies, they can all get together and pass a law stating that you must interact with them as they see fit or they will throw you in jail.)
Today Paula is doing a report on a transgendered 7-year-old. Maybe we'll get to hear her/his opinions on gun control, too.
Note well, how even now gun owners are likened to "the plague."
Are you listening to yourself ?
We couldn't leave it at simply that folks have the right "to date who they want," -- frankly I don't care who a person chooses to not date over something as silly as a gun.
But we can't stop there -- we are too busy "avoiding like the plague." Folks, that is a perjorative, however you try to spin it.
One avoids lunatics "like the plague." One avoids axe murderers "like the plague." Onw avoids HIV "like the plague."
How does "Avoid liberals like the plague" sound ?
Does it sound neutral ?
How about this:
a. "I have the right to choose my friends."
b. "I choose to avoid gays like the plague."
Which one is phrased like an angry bigot ?
And folks wonder why gun owners are "hostile" ?
Mostly because they do not sit still while they are insulted.
Thanks for proving the point so eloquently.
p.s.
No one has "an arsenal" except the US government.
"Arsenal" is another perjorative made up by anti-gunners to describe someone who has "too many guns." In their view of course.
Why do I call it made up ? Because it does not mean "lots of guns." Look up the definition, for God's sake. Even Wikipedia, not known for historical accuracy, gets it right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal
Now understand, those intrinsically afraid of guns are actually talking about a freaking armory, where weapons are stored.
An arsenal is where weapons are made, not stored.
Think the Arsenal at Springfield (which was also an armory, and is now a National Park Service site), Watervliet Arsenal, Rock Island Arsenal, etc.
Let's keep it simple: They make the weapons at an arsenal, they store them at an armory.
But, as with the equally inane "assault weapon," the media and politicians make up whatever perjorative du jour they wish. And they parrot one another in their own echo chamber. So that they can raise the connotation (as opposed to the denotation) and smear their targets.
Saying "John has a number of firearms." carries much less negative connotation than "Police uncovered an arsenal."
Though they are useful terms for quickly exposing unreasoning bias.
Cham... not harping on guns. But you said people have a right to discriminate. Where is that place?
Unless it's against legitimate gun owners and other white males, it ain't this country.
What bothers me about Pat Brown's statements is not the guns or the psychopaths. By talking ONLY of male-psychopaths and women's need to be afraid, Pat Brown gives the impression that men do not need to be afraid of psychopathic women: That is an all too common belief in our first world society and a very dangerous belief too.
Now, maybe you can say that men have a lower chance of being murdered by a female psychopath and you're probably right. However, men have a staggeringly higher risk of other severe harms. When that is added into our society's pride in re-hurting already hurting men, the risk of severe harm for males is higher than for females.
jw wrote: "By talking ONLY of male-psychopaths and women's need to be afraid, Pat Brown gives the impression that men do not need to be afraid of psychopathic women."
I noticed that too, and was going to mention it when I got distracted by another comment. Dangerous people are worth watching out for by the rest of us. Gender is not part of the equation.
Trey
"The real problem here is that the psychopath you describe is someone that a significant number of American women actually find attractive."
YES. That is EXACTLY the problem. I take exception to your use of the word "psychopath"; this is more of a "douchebag" trait. I can pretty much guarantee you that 99% of this behavior would dry up in about three days if its presence resulted in guys' not getting laid.
What would get my interest is data showing that people with large gun/weapon collections and/or "excessive" interest in force projection are statistically more prone to psychosis.
To tmink:
A great deal of physically violent behavior by women against men is socially acceptable, even socially encouraged Consider that one of the most popular country songs of 2006 was "Before He Cheats" by Carey Underwood where she recounts in great detail how she used a baseball bat to do several thousand dollars damage to her boyfriend's (ex-boyfriend's??) truck. The year before, there was Miranda Lampbert burning down her ex-boyfriend's house because he rejected her.
Then there is the scene in "The Holiday" where Cameron Diaz slugged her (ex) boyfriend, twice, hard enough to knock him down and apparently break his nose.
Can you imagine the screams from feminzis and their allies if the gender roles were reversed?
(I won't even get into paternity fraud as possible [and perfectly legal] retaliation against an uncooperative husband.)
To Mel:
Having a physically-violent boyfriend might actually be useful to a woman, if she can keep him under control and directed toward attacking HER enemies. (Physical violence is just one technique for achieving social dominance.) The problem is that it can be extremely difficult for the woman to control the man and not have him trying control her. A couple where both the man and woman are control freaks can lead to a continuing and sometimes violent dominance struggle. ("Dominance struggles are a fundamental characteristic of biological systems" - George C. Williams)
As one TV ad put it, the optimum to some woman is a boyfriend who has "the bad-boy look without the bad-boy behavior".
BobH,
I just watched "The Holiday" this weekend and when I saw the part where Cameron Diaz punched her cheating boyfriend in the face twice full force and left him bleeding in the snow, I pretty much lost respect for her for doing such a part. It was sick, abusive and would never have been tolerated in the opposite way. It's just a movie but it shows what our culture finds funny and tolerates. I read recently that 32% of men who are injured by women do not even get treatment--probably too embarassed. It's no wonder no one thinks men are abused, no one knows about it or cares or just finds it funny.
Uh, Helen, get real. She's doing a role. Othello? No black man should play that part because of it's sick outlook? He smothers his wife by hand, you know.
He smothers his wife by hand, you know.
Like a black man couldn't use a laser beam or lower her into a vat of boiling mercury or something. Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations...
"Criminal Profiler Pat Brown"
And you got that degree from where?
I'm not annoyed at Cameron Diaz but I am very annoyed at Nancy Meyers. Meyers wrote the screenplay and directed and co-produced the movie. The scene in question didn't have to be in the movie. The point had already been made abount Amanda (Diaz' character). We have had gratuitous nudity in movies. Now it seems we have to have gratuitous physical violence against men by women with "gumption".
Not "gumption" - Grrrl Power!
It's so darn cute...
Bob H,
Yes, I suppose Diaz was just taking on the role--but it was painful to watch. Just did another post on domestic violence talking about this issue. Thanks for bringing up the movie. It was good and fun otherwise!
Bobh, in retrospect, I think you might actually be correct and Brown is somewhat wrong. Even if they have a fascination with guns and have multiple guns, I think the odds are much more likely that they are not psychopaths. Instead of boring and confusing everyone with equations, try drawing this:
1. Draw a circle labeled Y, for the population of psychopaths.
2. Draw a circle 3 times bigger than Y but containing Y so that only about 10% of Y is not inside of it. Label that F for fascination with weapons. Here, we are saying that 90% of pyschopaths are fascinated with weapons, but about 2/3 of people who are fascinated with weapons (this isn't unreasonable, look at how many gun magazines there are) are not psychopaths. This 2/3 could be a big underestimate.
3. Draw a circle 6 times the size of F, containing about 80% of F. Label that M, for those that own multiple guns. This is saying that about 5/6 of people who own a lot of guns are not fascinated with weapons.
No matter how you try to include or exclude Y from M, you can see that those who own mutliple firearms are far more likely to not be psychopaths. The numbers I am using are just made up, but I have a feeling that actual data shows something similar to it. Even if you cut the size of the multiple guns circle M by 2/3, it is still unlikely the guy owning multiple guns will be a psychopath.
Now, where I think you might be wrong though is when you start adding in more weaponry, i.e. ninja knives. I can't imagine a whole lot of the multiple gun owners out there own things like swords, shurikens, throwing stars, etc. So, adding that condition might be what makes Brown's argument and I think it's the most important thing she said.
anonymous 9:14:
You're back again? I guess Media Matters had you hitting some other blogs for a while and your're making the rounds back here. You will never shut me down. Sorry--and that's the best apology you'll get from me.
Oh, Helen. I wrote that comment at 9:14 -- little old anonymous me, who checks in for entertainment, and participates in interesting thread discussions.
My characterization must have hit a bit to close to home (heh!), but fear not, I am just an individual observer and amateur critic -- not part of any new media conspiracy to smear you or the InstaHub. Funny that your mind chooses to think that way, and you were so quick to hit the delete button. I do hope Pat was able to read it as it contained a good deal of wisdom. Of course, wisdom is more a longer term type of thing...
Have a great weekend, and don't confuse your regular anonymous commenters with trolls. You'll turn off the audience. Better to just bite your tongue and tough out truth where you find it? It's here for all to read in the original.
ps. I also commented earlier in the thread at 3:56pm 6/27. Been out of the town much of the time you seem to get troll infestations, off computer, so that person throwing in the Rosie accusations may just be egging you on in the conspiracy fear mongering. Don't take the bait! Chances are you do have trolls, so don't fear the honest critics?
Bugs --
"Like a black man couldn't use a laser beam or lower her into a vat of boiling mercury or something. Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations..."
I didn't write Othello, I just used it as a handy example of a part with violence.
Honest critics sign their criticism.
Trey
I think you should change the format for Ms. Brown's response, either put it in quotes or use the blockquote feature. I figured out they were her comments, but I wasn't sure when I started reading it.
Honest critics sign their criticism.
Trey Oh Trey... you seem to have gotten me there, you doctor brains you!
Sign me,
Publius.
hth
Why no one trusts experts? Just look at the mug shot of "Dr" "Expert" Helen in pajamas and you'll get your answer!
Bugs 1:44 6-28:
Yes, isn't everyone by someone's definition?
tomcal: "Hi everbody, I'm back in the USA, which means there will be one more concealed firearm on the streets of California today. Run for your lives!"
I thought those were illegal in California, glad I'm mistaken!
So much food too...........
Regarding guns--
I turned into a 2nd Amendment supporter sometime around 11th grade or so & for two different and somewhat contradictory reasons.
1) After meeting a few dedicated gun enthusiasts I came to realize that most folks who own guns & grow up with guns & use guns are exceptionally safety-minded, conscientious & very aware of the destructive potential they wield when they pull on someone or something.
2) I've long believed that the 2nd Amendment was slipped into the Constitution as a sort of emergency self-destruct button. That is to say that a heavily armed citizenry is much better equipped to deal with a tyrannical government then a less well-armed body politic. I mean, think about it: The District of Columbia is 300 square miles of unreality and poofters completely surrounded by poor (but heavily armed) rural whites and poor (but heavily armed) urban blacks.
Congress & 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would be wise to remember this fact.
That said, I have in the past taught/inherited a couple of self-defense classes & I (almost) always discouraged casual gun ownership as a means of self-defense.
Guns are designed to kill. They're not defensive weapons. They can get turned around very easily and someone who carries out of a sense of fear is not someone I trust to exercise good judgment in a conflict scenario or apparent conflict scenario. Panic reactions and firearms tend to produce unpleasant consequences.
My feeling is that anyone who wants to own a firearm should commit themselves to the mastery of their weapon with the same diligence and discipline as a martial arts expert.
Also, for what it's worth, I have found numerous non-lethal and improvisational weapons (some of which aren't exactly non-lethal) which, situationally, are much more effective then guns if one's goal is self-defense against an attacker/invader.
To: Oligonicella
Re: Your exceedingly cool hobby & Helen's original post
Your comments (and Helen's original post) put me in mind of some of the unpleasant experiences me and several of my fellow muscle-head gym rats seem to have on a fairly regular basis. I'm awfully strong for my height & pretty muscular in a souped-up gymnast kind of way (5-9, 182 as of this morning). I have friends who are much larger. By and large, we're generally really nice guys unless we're seriously provoked.
It's like the sword & gun collection thing. Physical prowess or expertise with a weapon rarely correlates with the threat someone represents. Usually, it's rather the opposite.
Find a rogue's gallery of famous serial killers somewhere & take a look at the pictures. They tend to be dull, dowdy, butt ugly or deadly-pretty, sort of like fire coral.
If I wanted to kill someone I'd shave my beard, get a decent suit & tuck a .22 into the waistband & stash some ballpoint pens in my breast pocket.
That's one way I might do it. Theoretically speaking, of course.
Dangerous people tend to blend in. They don't advertise.
Graham:
In my experience, and I have had some, dangerous people do advertise. I'm not talking about a professional assassin or sniper, who is going to get you no matter what; but about imbalanced people who for whatever reason decide that they want to harass, intimidate, stalk or otherwise put fear into the heart of a victim. They almost always send out signals.
In those cases the victim has to go on the offensive, just like war. Many victims just want to walk away and live their lives; but as in war, the presence of an enemy who wants to destroy you makes that a very unrealistic and very dangerous desire.
Tom
室內設計,室內設計,室內設計,裝潢,室內設計,室內設計室內設計公司
,搬家公司,搬家公司,台北搬家公司,搬家公司,室內設計
這一家租屋網免費刊登不用錢耶
搬家公司,健身,茶葉A片,SEO,SEO,SEO,motel,led手電筒,棧板,二胎,隔熱紙,照明,健身,a383,a383,,二手家具,a383,胸章,車燈,
文山搬家,兼職小姐,南港搬家,大安區搬家,松山搬家,中山區搬家,八里搬家,
五股搬家,
泰山搬家,大同區搬家,中正區搬家,士林搬家,萬華搬家,
台北搬家公司,台北搬家公司,客人,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,加油棒,台中搬家公司,台北市搬家公司,台北縣搬家公司
http://blog.yam.com/ chongangel/
http://blog.yam.com/chong0219/
http://blog.yam.com/cheerypeng/
http://hala.ew09.com/
http://www.wygou.com/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai05/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai06/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai07/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai08/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai09/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai10/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai11/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai12/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai13/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai14/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai15/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai16/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai17/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai18/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/movie008/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/mobile02/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/phonesun/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/thin09/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/myew09/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/mrpeng/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/hebeauty02/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/feier02/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/apple02/
http://hala.ew09.com/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/cheerychong02/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/qwer9/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/qwer10/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/qwer11/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/peng0219/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/vala02/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/month05/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/hala18/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai02/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai03/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/xiaocai04/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/myice02/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/blogger02/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/targeth/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/summerth/
http://tw-yan.blogspot.com/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/moomyo/
http://blog.sina.com.tw/intent/
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
電玩快打小遊戲米克綜合論壇玩美女人影音秀美女交友av美女美女寫真免費a片卡通影音視訊聊天室080xxx383美女寫真玩美女人免費線上成人影片6k聊天室情趣 用品 店aa片免費看本土自拍自拍貼圖aaa片免費看短片自拍美女聊天室 s383微風成人線上成人影片本土自拍性感辣妹成人網站
Post a Comment
<< Home