C J Morgan,

Heh, heh, you can't resist, can you? I didn't raise guns as a criticism of one of the independents of the hung parliament and I certainly didn't stir it along as you did.

I definitely didn't post that article with the flawed research paper about guns and suicide that has strangely come into prominence during the hung parliament. You did that and yes, it does create murky politics around the independents.

I did take you and others to task about facts and evidence. Fair enough too.

Now your closing and best shot is to make another personal attack on me? But hey, that does mean you finished the thread as you started it, with a personal attack on a poster. Good one!

CJMorgan:"its prevalence is too low for much in the way of statistical inference."

I don't know what you mean by that. There are several thousand suicde attempts each year and at least a couple of thousand succeed. I suspect a greater factor is the historical reluctance of authorities to make much of an investigation, especially of it can be written off as death due to misadventure, such as a car "accident". I'm not suggesting anything sinister here, just a motivation to make things easier for those left behind. Combined with the dearth of rigour in the social "sciences" this creates a fertile environment for misinformation and poor outcomes.

Cornflower:"A flaw in the research methodology is that substitution of suicide method was not considered, nor was the positive effect of the national mental health initiatives - men helping men, that sort of thing."

It seems a great flaw to me. The only way to arrive at decent understanding is to consider all of the possible impacting factors.

Come on, Cornflower. I haven't made any kind of "personal attack" on you. I have suggested that, as a gun enthusiast, your interpretation of reseach findings about gun suicides is likely to be biased. That's not an attack, nor is it any kind of abuse.

As I've said, if you want to start your own thread rather than hijacking this one as a platform for your hobbyhorse, I'd be quite happy to correct your misunderstanding of the research methodology and findings.

Have a lovely day.

C J Morgan,

So it wasn't your last post and you have come back for another last post to do the same?

Can't you do any better than name calling a MP as a:
"gun nut",
"nutty as a fruit cake",
"sideshow freak",
"paranoid",
"racist",
"a homophobe", and
"a loose cannon of the worst kind", among other epithets?

On OLO, in this and other current threads you are similarly free with your disgraceful name calling of contributors and respondents alike (eg "Peter the Babbler") and abuse of anyone who is unfortunate enough to express a different view to you.

There are murky politics being played to sledge the independents of the hung parliament and attempts to lower their credibility through personal attacks is just one of the tactics being employed by those specialised in the dark arts of scurrilous politics. OLO is not free from that it would appear.

Cornflower, you claimed that I had "personally attacked" you.

Are you actually Bob Katter? It would explain alot.

However, assuming you're not, you were 'exaggerating' just a tad, weren't you?

On the subject of Katter and his wheeling and dealing in the context of the hung parliament, today's Crikey has this pearler:

<< Bob Katter, energy corridors and conflicts of interest

by Bernard Keane and Wendy Bacon

A key element of Bob Katter’s regional development wish-list presented to the major parties will directly benefit companies owned or controlled by Katter’s brother-in-law, and was spruiked by the Member for Kennedy for months in 2009 before Katter acknowledged the conflict of interest. >>

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/02/bob-katter-energy-corridors-and-conflicts-of-interest/

Just another reason to be apprehensive about this character's access to any degree of real power, I reckon.

Unfortunately, you have to register to read the rest of the article, but you can do so for free