This page includes my quick views of the current news, some new half-baked ideas as they occur, and links to other sites. I will follow up on at least some of these opinions and ideas to substantiate (or refute) them, and to develop some of the ideas further if they look promising.
My writings are in black. Plagiarized text is in maroon, sometimes highlighted by me in red.
Go Home.
. . . Athlete idiocy ___ Murder rates___ Zoom into homesite
. . . Glorification of athletes
Go to Page contents near top.
Zoom into homesite 19 July 01
The following idea occurred to me today. The idea is to have a Web site which would allow one to zoom through a series of images ranging from a distant view of Earth right down to a view of one's homesite. I have already done this to some extent -- but the hard way -- picking various sites on the Net, and obtaining from them a series of images, the final one being a 3-m resolution image (via http://www.terraserver.com/) of my humble abode in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. See the space-satelites and images page for more sources of images.
There are at least partial precedents for aspects of this, including the following:
(a) At the wonderful site of Ken Musgrave site of algorithmic art, there is a zoom from outer space onto the surface of a virtual planet, which might as well be Mars. This continuous movie was generated from fractal geometry techniques, played on the Net via a Java Applet or equivalent, perhaps.
(b) A series of images forming snapshots of a zoom, constructed by someone in Montana, I think. He used available topographic information to reconstruct the terrain surrounding his family's homestead in the foothills of mountains in Montana. Again, he used fractal terrain-building techniques. I will try to rediscover this site, as it was several years ago that I came across it.
Athlete idiocy 19 July 01
I came upon the following site while on an unrelated search. It helps to confirm my opinion that athletes, no matter how ethical they may be in principle, should not serve as role models for anything whatsoever.
Idiot Athletes: http://homepage.interaccess.com/~whizbang/athletes.htm#olympics More than a few coaches have referred to sports as a metaphor for life itself. And they're correct. Life, just like the fantasy world of athletic competition, is full of absolute nincompoops. Extracts:
"I want to tear out his heart .... I want to eat his children .... praise be to Allah." -- Mike Tyson, referring to Lennox Lewis, after a recent fight.
May 2001: Four more massive soccer stampedes, with many dead and many more injured. Iran, South Africa, Congo, and Ghana have all hosted death matches this spring. Crowd fights, police tear gas, spectators climbing on buildings under construction, and just plain stupidity all contributed. All that death, destruction, and misery, to watch a long, boring game. I just don't get it.
Murder rates 21 July 01
About two days ago, I heard part of an interview on CBC Radio 1 in the program Ontario Today ( 18 July, live guest in studio Wendy Cukier professor, Justice Studies, Ryerson Polytechnic University ) in which it was stated that, contrary to majority public opinion, the murder rate (per capita) in large cities in Canada is much lower than that in rural areas. In particular, it was stated that Toronto has the lowest incidence of murder per capita of any area in Canada. A partial rationale for this was that there is a much higher incidence of gun ownership in rural areas -- for hunting and such. The data, at Urban vs rural below, would seem to contradict her statement above, at least for 1997. As an aside -- unrelated as far as I know -- the incidence of mental illness is significantly higher in rural areas than in urban ones.
I did a preliminary search on the Net. Most available statistics relate to the USA and Australia and to gun-control efforts. It appears that, in the USA, the murder rate is much higher in cities than in rural areas, primarily, it is presumed, because of racial factors and drug trafficking. Another report related changes in such rates to the incidence of lead poisoning. See:
The Baby Boom Experiment and the Decline of Society The Social Impact of Leaded Gasoline on Canada's Post WWII Generations: http://www.webhart.net/lead/bb1-7.html.
Another interesting site that I came upon was as follows:
TruthOnDemand.com: http://www.truthondemand.com/index.htm "Reliable Facts and Logical Arguments About the Things That Really Matter"TM Truth on DemandTM is an organization dedicated to providing all citizens with the knowledge necessary for a fair and sustainable world. It is a prototype site run by a psychologist in California. So far, it has only the following article -- but an interesting one -- presenting pros and cons on the following issue:
Do We Need More Gun Control: http://www.truthondemand.com/Library.gun.htm
See also:
Statistics Canada A Graphical Overview of Crime and the Administration of Criminal Justice in Canada: http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/justic/justic.htm
The subpage at http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/justic/2-6.pdf shows, for 1997, the following homicide rates per 100,000 population for metropolitan areas of population 500,000+: Calgary (1.02), Ottawa-Hull (1.15), Quebec (1.29), Hamilton (1.66), Toronto (1.71), Montreal 2.13), Vancouver (2.54), Winnepeg (2.95), Edmonton (3.00).
The subpage at http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/justic/2-5.pdf shows, for 1997, the following homicide rates per 100,000 population for Canada and the Provinces: N.B. (1.05), Nfld (1.07), Ont (1.56), Qe (1.78), Canada (1.92), Alta (2.11), Sask (2.45), N.S. (2.53), Man (2.63), B.C. (2.91).
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INVOLVING FIREARMS: http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/research/other_docs/factsheets/domestic/Default.html Canadian Firearms Centre.
National Rifle Association: http://www.mynra.com/
Firearm-related Suicides Similar in Rural and Urban Areas, Homicide Rates Higher in Urban Areas: http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/903998694.html Medical College of Wisconsin. . . . .suicide rates were similar in rural and urban areas and confirmed that the homicide rate was much higher in urban areas. . . . "People are often surprised to learn, for instance, that two thirds of the firearm fatalities in Wisconsin are suicides; and suicides still constitute more than half of the firearm fatalities in the nation," . . . "One of the functions of the Center is to dispel the myths that surround firearm injuries in the public mind," . . . They found the suicide rates per 100,000 population were relatively similar in rural (16 per 100,000) and urban (13.5 per 100,000) areas. There was, however, a vast difference in how these similar suicide rates compared to the total number of firearm fatalities in each area. In rural areas, suicide accounted for 91 percent of all firearm fatalities (20 of 22). In urban areas, suicide accounted for only 20 percent of all firearm fatalities (39 of 158). . . . 1 August 1998.
Community The Small-Town Community Its Character & Survival, KPW: http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/casconf/nercrd/Community/Writing/KPW_smalltown_problems.html Kenneth P. Wilkinson, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. . . . small towns and rural areas face serious problems in community life. In recent years, for example, research findings have challenged the earlier assumption that rural areas have relatively low rates of such social problems as suicide and homicide . . . In fact, both of these rates tend to increase with the extent of ruralness of a local population, when the effects of other important influences are controlled.. . . .
The Age - The healthy life a country myth: http://www.theage.com.au/news/20000307/A58454-2000Mar6.html By RICHARD BAKER. 7 Mar 00. Australia. The assumption that country living brings a healthy lifestyle is a myth, according to researchers.
Dr Katrina Alford and Mr Joel Ziffer, of Melbourne University's department of rural health, have found that the health status of country Victorians is much lower than those in urban areas. Dr Alford said people living in rural and remote areas suffered higher rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer and injuries likely to cause death. Country Victorians often had a lower socio-economic and educational status than urban dwellers, and according to Dr Alford, this contributed to higher rates of homicide and suicide in rural areas.
The report said primary health care services in country areas were inadequate.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S. Overview: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/overview.htm The more rural the region, the lower the homicide rate. Excellent use of graphs.
Homicide and Suicide in America, 1990-1998: http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky1.html David C. Stolinsky, MD.
The thought of violent death both fascinates and terrifies us, so it is understandable that homicide and suicide are the subjects of voluminous commentary. Regrettably, much of this commentary is based on emotion rather than reason, and it is propped up by incorrect "facts" that have been repeated so often that they have become widely accepted.
Examples of these "facts" include the following: Violence has reached "epidemic proportions." America is in the grip of an unprecedented wave of violence, with the highest homicide rate in our history, or in the industrialized world. Homicide and suicide rose in the 1980s in response to callous social policies of the Reagan administration. Homicide and suicide rise when leaders are "macho" but fall when the government is "caring." Homicide and suicide rise after wars, because veterans are "unstable" and bring home violent habits. Homicide rates show no relation to the death penalty. Homicide and suicide rise when guns are easily available but fall in response to gun-control laws. Homicide and suicide rise and fall together, showing that they are subject to the same influences.
These statements all seem reasonable because we have heard them so often, especially from those who blame America for the ills of the world. They are so widely accepted that attempts to refute them are met with amused disbelief, or even anger. But they are all false. . . .
What explanation can there be? The population in 1900 was more rural, and rural areas tend to have lower homicide rates than urban areas. Conversely, medical care was primitive. Antibiotics and resuscitation were unknown. Blood transfusion and surgery of the chest, brain, or blood vessels were in their infancy. Many died who would now survive. (A wounded man was 10 times more likely to die in World War I than in Vietnam.)(9) If modern care had been available in 1900, the homicide rate would have been even lower. . . .
the homicide rate is at its lowest level since the 1960s. So why are we frightened? Television news plays a role . . .
Many believe that poverty causes violent crime. This is largely false . . .
Do gun laws(15) reduce violence? . . . . On the contrary, 31 states now license law-abiding citizens to carry guns. A careful study by Dr. John Lott(16) shows that these states enjoyed a greater fall in violent crime than states with stricter laws. Even if one questions Lott's conclusions, the argument now centers on the extent of the fall in violent crime in states that license law-abiding citizens to carry guns. Violent crime clearly did not rise in these states, as proponents of strict gun laws would have predicted.
. . . Advocates of gun laws point to any fall in homicide or suicide as evidence that the laws are working, and to any rise as evidence that more laws are needed. Whether homicide or suicide rates rise or fall, and whatever age, gender, ethnic, or regional group is affected, the advocates insist that more gun laws are needed. An idea that cannot be disproved by any obtainable evidence is an irrational belief, not a logical conclusion. For some persons, the idea that gun laws reduce violence may fall into this category. . . .
We cannot say exactly what it is that inhibits human beings from killing one another, but we can say some things about it. First, whatever it is, there is less of it now than there was in 1900 or even 1960. Second, the evidence suggests that it has little to do with guns, poverty, racism, war, "macho" leaders, social programs, education, immigration, or most things within the grasp of government. But if we have the courage to admit that we may have been looking in the wrong places, we will be freed to look elsewhere. For example, we could look more closely at intact family structure, reverence for human life, awareness that rights come with responsibilities, hope based on the anticipation that hard work will be rewarded, and an expectation that crimes will be promptly punished. At the very least, if we recognize that these factors could be important, we may stop eroding them still further.
More Guns, Less Crime Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws: http://www.womenandguns.com/wfn/lottbook.html The book that sets the record straight by John Lott.
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it cause more citizens to harm each other? Wherever people happen to fall along the ideological spectrum, their answers are all too often founded upon mere impressionistic and anecdotal evidence. In this direct challenge to conventional wisdom, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime. In this timely and provocative work he comes to a startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. . . .
His unexpected findings reveal that many of the most commonly held assumptions about gun control and its crime-fighting efficacy are simply wrong. Waiting periods, gun buybacks, and background checks yield virtually no benefits in crime reduction. Instead, Lott argues, allowing law-abiding citizens to legal concealed handguns currently represents the most cost-effective methods available for reducing violent crime. . . .
John R. Lott, Jr. teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago, where he is the John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. He has published over 70 articles in academic journals. This is his first book.
Reviews of John Lott's Book:
"This sophisticated analysis yields a well established conclusion that supports the wisdom of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than of those who would limit the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns. The general reader may find of most interest chapter 7 which documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. John Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue." - Milton Friedman . . .
"This book will -- or should -- cause those who almost reflexively support the limitation of guns in the name of reducing crime to rethink their positions." - Steve Shavell, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership: http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) is a project of The Claremont Institute launched in late 1994. Headed by Dr. Tim Wheeler, a southern California surgeon, DRGO has become a nationwide network of over 1,000 physicians and other health professionals who support the safe and lawful use of firearms.
Why would a group of doctors be concerned with firearms? Because social activists in the medical and public health fields have used their authority to misrepresent gun ownership as a disease. And their treatment for this new "disease" is to ban gun ownership by regular citizens — a public health prescription starkly opposed to the American Founders' vision of freedom and responsibility.
The Problem
One of the most persuasive tactics employed by the gun controllers is the argument that guns are a threat to public health. Accordingly, firearms are portrayed by some in the medical community in terms of epidemiology.
Organized medical groups like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics use the discredited advocacy research of medical doctors to justify their political stances against gun owners. [In other words, why consider that a physician -- or a star hockey player, for that matter -- is qualified to do research in criminology? They don't generally qualify as researchers, lacking a PhD in anything, as most of them do.]
These supposedly scientific groups ignore respected criminology research on firearms, because it generally proves the obvious: good citizens use guns wisely, and criminals misuse guns.
[I do not agree fully with the preceding statement (some "good" citizens are stupid); however, I agree with it in the main. This issue is looking more and more like another candidate for my junk science section -- the junk being that any bad habit or inconvenience in society must be considered to be a disease, and that, therefore, every bad habit is the fault of someone or something other than one's self. If you gamble too much, it must be a disease -- it certainly can't be your fault. You need group therapy, spiritual guidance from witch doctors (counsellors), and a mythical "higher power" -- maybe something like a rain god, or maybe old Jehovah himself, in spite of his failure to answer a single prayer in recorded history? See Cause of death? Junk science in court.]
The Solution
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership — a group of health professionals familiar with guns and medical research — is the antidote to those who twist science to serve a misguided ideology. We believe that managing the lives of honest citizens does not control crime, but putting criminals out of business does.
medical junk science used for propaganda purposes: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Bridge/2431/junk.html . . . I am still fighting in our capitols, both Lansing and Washington D.C. testifying every chance I can against more gun laws and for the rights of citizens to legally defend themselves against the dregs of society. . . .
[CTRL] Most Violent nation: http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg65292.html America: The Most Violent Nation? David C. Stolinsky, MD. Is America the most violent nation on earth? Those who blame this country for most of the ills of the world would have us believe so. They frequently refer to high rates of homicide and suicide, though they rarely cite actual data. But before fear impels us to shred the Bill of Rights, we should determine whether our fear has a factual basis. The accompanying table (Table 1) gives suicide and homicide rates for all 86 nations for which data are available.
Gun Rights Defender of the Month 2000: http://www.ccrkba.org/defender2000.htm The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I have not reached any firm conclusions on these issues, as I still have not studied them enough -- yet.
Go to Page contents near top.
Go Home. Go to Page contents near top.
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca