Real Shotgunners Shoot Pink Shells.....

Idek, an oncologist I know tells me we are 5-10X more likely to detect early cancers now than when Mom died in 82. And research for one kind oft pays off for others.

Mom died on her 60th Birthday. Early detection and better treatments could have meant she got to see the two grandsons born after that day.

Am I logical about this? Doubtful. Committed to finding a cure? Absolutely...

Thank you, Kim. Glad to spread the word.


Shotgunners are a great bunch, a heads up like this thread can cause the outbreak of a lot of good....
 
Got a case of them from Cabela's last week. My wife was going to shoot them, but she really likes the 7/8 oz loads now, so I guess they're mine. No problem for me, I'll shoot pink!
 
During those same two decades, breast cancer mortality rates have dropped 2%--a drop so small that it could just as likely be attributed to coincidence as to any sort of real progress.
Click to expand...

If we are going to play with statistics, lets use the statistics. For instance, "For the years 1970 through 1999, the overall decline of 26 percent in mortality from breast cancer in California was seen mostly among white women.":confused:

Playing devil's advocate is one thing, if one doesn't fudge on the facts and stats.
 
If we are going to play with statistics, lets use the statistics. For instance, "For the years 1970 through 1999, the overall decline of 26 percent in mortality from breast cancer in California was seen mostly among white women."

Playing devil's advocate is one thing, if one doesn't fudge on the facts and stats.
Click to expand...

The stats I saw were from 1982 to 2008 and covered the entire country. The time span you describe is about a decade earlier on each end and addresses a single state. So I don't know that either set of data disproves the other.

http://www.breastcancerdeadline2020.org/2020/assets/pdfs/2011-progress-report.pdf
There's some reading if anyone's interested. Page 18 addresses changes in mortality rates over the years (though that is admittedly not the whole picture). I can't guarantee the validity of report, but I don't have much reason to doubt it.

ETA: I don't mean to be off-putting to people affected by this disease. This and other forms of cancer have been a big part of my family. While that maybe makes some people more supportive of the issue, it's instead made me more skeptical of the lack of tangible progress.
 
Last edited:
I lost an aunt (moms only sis) too recently and far too young to the big "C"...

I will buy at least one box when I find them...

My gripe is the long delay regulations cause for new drugs. The inability of individuals to decide their own demise such as volunteering for studies far earlier than they allow. And lastly, they use chemo on far too many sorts of cancer even with proof it has little to no provable, repeatable results... So basically they experiment without the patients knowledge but the patient don't have the right to choose other experiments to involve themself in.

But the PINK SHELLS... I will own some and not likely to even shoot them and that is 180* out from my usual spartan nature to buy only what I will use in life...

Brent
 
Last edited:
I just spent 100 of the pink shells last weekend busting clays. Shot a 93, my best score yet after a year of shooting once a month. Could have been psycological, or just dumb luck, but I will be looking for more of the pink shells to help THE cause and maybe even for MY cause (lousy shooting).
Thanks DAVE, for starting this thread.
 
IDEK, I am sure you meant no harm, but the misuse of statistics pro and contra is a sore spot with me. I don't doubt that you belived what you posted about a 2% decrease in the mortality rate, but if you simply read the section encaptioned "Mortality and Survival" and total up the decrease in the mortality rates for the three periods mentioned you will see there was a drop of 6.5% from 1990 to 2006. If one really wants to play the statistics gain, that is a decrease of 225% of what you stated was the 2% reduction over "the past two decades".
 
KlawMan, I agree with you regarding misuse of statistics. I'm a math teacher and I teach lessons on misleading numbers and graphs and survey biases and such.

Another thing we have in common is that we apparently don't know how long two decades is. I mistakenly referred to 1982 to 2008 as two decades and you called 1990 to 2006 two decades.

According to the link I posted, from 1975 to 1990, mortality rates actually increased about .4% each year, resulting in a total increase of about 6% during that span. If we just start at 1982 (when the Komen foundation began), that's still an increase of about 3-3.5%.

So going back to my initial statement, since the Komen foundation began in 1982, the overall decrease in mortality was about 3% by 2006.

...The 2% number I listed previously did not come from the link I posted. I read that in some journal that had a slightly different time frame. I suspect that was accurate based on the specific timeline it addressed.

I admit I made a mistake when I wrote "two decades," but based on the time frame of which I was thinking (early 80s to the latter part of the last decade), I still believe the numbers I posted were accurate.
 
Last edited:
Followup.....

Went to PGC this AM and shot off 50 pinkies at SC and 50 at Wobble. Wobble was 47/50, a trifle off my best but I'm not getting the practice I need. Didn't keep score on SC because I was working on problem pairs.

Small world. The day manager there quoted the thread title as he went on past me. Then, I crossed paths with a guy that read the thread either here or over on THR. He had also asked and received info on target shotguns. He had a Blaser with him.

Didn't see if he was shooting pink.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top