Denialism

[DanTex]

Let's start here: there are many peer reviewed papers in various reputable journals supporting gun control.

Cue the inevitable "that's just THIRTEEN! that's IT?!?!?!" from the pro-gun side -- rest assured, the above is merely a sample. But more evidence is not what some people are looking for, and the term for this particular affliction is denialism. We're all familiar with denialism regarding climate change and evolution, but today we'll be discussing the pro-gun denialists, who in many ways can give the global warming guys a run for their money.

To be sure, climate denial is much bigger business. And the case for global warming is clearly stronger than the case for gun control. But the patterns of denial are similar. Be it guns, climate, or creationism, when you are up against the bulk of credible academic research, you've only got a few moves:


1) Head in the sand -- "there is no evidence supporting gun control"
Hard as it is to believe, some people who claim to be interested in gun policy are actually unaware of any of the academic research supporting gun control. But this is an extreme situation, and most "head in the sand" denialists take a slightly different tack. You see, many gun control (or global warming) studies have been "debunked" or "discredited" by "experts" in what Rachel Maddow calls the "unreadable, all-caps, guns-forever rabbit hole" of right-wing internet sites. These "refutations", of course, are amateur hack jobs. Some might employ terms like "analysis of variance" or "t-test" in an attempt to resemble legitimate statistical analysis, but in the end it is just vacuous propaganda.

"Head in the sand" denialists are rarely familiar with the peer review process (aka refereeing): in order to be published in an academic journal, an article is first vetted by experts in the field. To be sure, the peer review process is not perfect, but it does maintain a certain standard of accuracy and integrity. Particularly when it comes to the most reputable journals, known for their exceedingly high standards: journals like NEJM, which has published a number of notable firearm studies.

In contrast, the vast majority of pro-gun arguments you come across wouldn't make it past a grammar check, must less a peer review.

Hence the familiar pattern: peer-reviewed, mainstream academic research generally points in one direction, and raving self-styled internet "experts" point in the other. But to "head in the sand" denialists, the distinction between peer reviewed research and "stuff I read on ggggggunnnnns.com" is dismissed as an arbitrary "appeal to authority".


2) Head in the clouds -- "I don't care how many studies you find, it's all just elite liberal anti-gun bias"
Some pro-gun advocates are honest enough to admit that the consensus of mainstream academics, backed by a considerable body of published research, generally supports gun control. These people understand the importance of peer review, and rather than mine the rabbit hole for loony "refutations" of each and every gun control study, they take a different, more high level approach to explaining how study after study comes out with results they don't like. They suggest that "liberal bias" runs rampant through the "elite" academic establishment, and therefore research on a given topic (be it guns or climate) is not to be trusted across the board.

And lets be clear: if it's really the case that all this research is bunk, we're talking about an elaborate conspiracy. It would have to span several decades and involve probably hundreds of reputable researchers. Not just the authors of the studies, but also the editorial boards of many highly regarded journals, as well as the referees for each and every gun paper. All of these people would have to be either intentionally deceptive, or blinded by unconscious bias.

At this point we must consider Occam's razor. What is more likely? That the extensive research supporting gun control is of same quality as one would expect to find in reputable peer-reviewed journals? Or that a large number of leading researchers, along with the editors of multiple highly regarded academic journals, are all either consciously or unconsciously scheming to manufacture false gun control studies?

In fact, gun denialists can't even answer the one question that drives any good conspiracy theory... Who benefits?



PS For those unfamiliar with the body of research on gun control, the papers linked to above are just a sample and definitely not a comprehensive summary of the gun control literature. Moreover, going straight to research papers is not always the most effective way to familiarize yourself with the body of literature as a whole. I would suggest this book as a good overall summary.

[aikoaiko]

1. Thank you for that.

I'm probably what you would call a head in the clouds denialist, but I wouldn't call myself that.

I don't think its a liberal bias that is the problem, but I do think that the anti-gun literature is a bit of a cottage industry among the public health types. I've been at a few public health presentations and, like most research were theories and data meet passionate politics, criticisms were not welcome.

For example, it was once popular in the 1990s and early 2000s to discuss the deaths of "children" from gun violence that would include 18 and 19 year olds. It was "fair" methodologically because that was how they operationalized children, but the data included a lot of adult gang violence that didn't fit the overall narrative. Pointing this out was unwelcome.

I will give credit where credit is due: The public health types have shown that guns can be used to injure or kill when used for malice or mishandled.

[krispos42]

21. Sort of like the Catholic Church defining pedophelia as age 10 or less

...where the standard legal definition is age 13 or less.


Or the Republicans last year defining a "small business" as a business with fewer than 50(?) or 500(?) owners, rather than by gross revenues. This turned Koch Industries, of which 84% is owned by two people and that has gross revenues of $100 billion, into a "small business".

[TPaine7]

2. Just out of curiosity, how many books and/or papers have you read that support gun rights?

Care to name a few?

Also, what conspiracy drove the CDC to say that there is no conclusive evidence that gun control has worked? Why are we right wing kooks for believing them after their exhaustive review of the literature?

[Starboard Tack]

3. Excellent post. Good luck with it

Get ready for the onslaught from those who use 2A as a justification for their choice to tote guns wherever and whenever they please. They remind me of the images from China of all those folk wearing masks, thinking they would protect them from SARS and swine flu. It's hard to argue with people who live in constant fear.

[gejohnston]

4. project much?

[Starboard Tack]

9. Occasionally. And you?

[gejohnston]

11. No. Projection requires one to lack self awarness.

[Starboard Tack]

15. I guess I'm not as perfect as you

But if you have such self awareness, why the gun?

[gejohnston]

19. Not perfection, just all of that groovy "finding yourself" stuff.

Why the guns? Sub cultural heritage, organic protein while not financially supporting the very barbaric factory farm/feed lot industry, and the usual reasons. Why not? How are the two mutually exclusive?

[Starboard Tack]

24. They aren't mutually exclusive

Neither are they mutually dependent, unless they are.

[ileus]

6. that's the problem with the antis they're in constant fear of firearms...

[Starboard Tack]

12. What would someone who doesn't carry a gun be afraid of?

Those who do carry? Why would one carry if they were unafraid?

[ileus]

27. What would someone who does carry a gun be afraid of?

Trouble doesn't make an appointment....go prepared. Safety first...

[Starboard Tack]

30. So what are you saying? You're afraid of possible trouble?

Do you also carry a defibrillator? Might come in handy, just in case. Me, I carry an umbrella when not in southern California.

[ileus]

32. as a matter of fact I do have a Zoll in my trunk.

Problem is it needs a main PC board, unless it's plugged in when you cut it on it won't power up. It also has a cmos problem with keeping time. So you can't record events with proper time something the ER docs are pretty upset about also. LOL

A handgun/firearm is exactly the same purpose as a defib a life saving device ready at a moments notice to save lives of those trained to use them.


300j = 45 auto

100j = 9mm

50j = 380

[Starboard Tack]

35. LOL! Personally, I'd fix the Zoll. More likely to save your life

and little chance of collateral damage. We do have such fun in this forum, don't we?

[eqfan592]

38. What are the stats on collateral damage again...

....involving concealed weapons carriers??

[Starboard Tack]

43. Don't know. They're probably not in yet.

Do you base your daily conduct on stats? Or on a realistic need, based on probabilities? Go with your gut, but run it by your head before making the final decision.

[eqfan592]

46. Both, actually.

But that isn't really what we are talking about here. People do use firearms for defense on a regular basis. It's a simple reality. We can debate how often, but it does in fact happen. If you don't want to carry, then that is fine. But that doesn't make you a somehow superior person for making that choice.

[Starboard Tack]

64. You are right. It doesn't make me a superior person and I don't claim that.

In fact my choice not to carry a gun may well prove to be my downfall, but that's a risk I'm prepared to take. My peace of mind is more important to me, but I would not presume to impose that on anyone else. Each of us faces the day before us and we decide what to wear, what to carry, what we might need to get us through that day. I spend most of my time on land in southern California, so I only consider carrying an umbrella during the rainy season. If I venture into uncharted waters, then I am going to be more vigilant. In the last 18 months I have had to deal with some major storms, I got hit by a water spout and seriously compromised by 2 tsunamis. Neither a gun, nor any other tool could have guaranteed a safe outcome. And I try to be prepared for any eventuality like a good boy scout (though I never was one). I often journey through this life with gadgets and tools that I think may come in handy, like flashlights, swiss army knives, cellphones, GPS, VHF radio, you name it. But invariably, when the shit hits the fan, it is quick and flexible thinking that counts. You navigate different waters, so you decide what to take with you. But my advice is, if it's between a specific tool and your wits, choose the latter.

[eqfan592]

76. I guess what I'm trying to say...

...is that while carrying a firearm would negatively impact your peace of mind, it doesn't impact mine at all (with maybe a slight positive impact similar to that of my leatherman).

But you are correct that your wits are far more important than any tool you could ever have on you. Anybody who lets their wits dull in favor of some tools as a damned fool, so I'm with you there.

[gejohnston]

87. IIRC, I read an Massad F. Ayoob article that said something to the effect of

that your first line of defense is avoiding the situation, the power of bullshit is second, and the pistol only if there is no way the other two will work. Something to that effect, I read it about thirty years ago, the way he put it kind of stuck.

[Starboard Tack]

116. Let me be clear. Your carrying has no impact on my "peace of mind"

My peace of mind is dependent on my behavior, not the behavior of others, which sometimes amazes me. Seemingly normal intelligent people do the most amazingly stupid things like tailgating. I once had to work a traffic accident involving 135 vehicles. On that occasion 134 of them boggled my mind by their stupidity. In 2004, more than 62 million people voted for Dubya. They all amazed me for their stupidity, but had no effect on my peace of mind.

[eqfan592]

126. My implication was not that....

...anybody else carrying a firearm would impact your peace of mind negatively, but that YOU carrying a firearm would impact it negatively. That was what I got from your post, where you stated that your own peace of mind was more important to you than carrying a firearm. If I was mistaken in how I understood the meaning of this, then I do apologize.

[Starboard Tack]

133. Ok you got it right. No problem. Peace my friend

[ileus]

39. It's a freebie job for a local VFD...

I maintain about 100 of these guys for my hospital and 4 or 5 clients.

Yeah it's fun over here...

[GreenStormCloud]

97. But you can't self administer a defib. It needs a trained operator.

I can however use a gun by myself against a thug. My wife, about five years ago in two incidents spaced a few weeks apart, twice used her gun to defend herself. No shots fired - thug ran away each time.

[Starboard Tack]

117. Without knowing any details, one cannot have any idea why or how your wife

used her gun. I assume you only have her account of things as to the facts and necessity of using a gun. Did she report the incidents? Is she an obvious target of "thugs"?

[GreenStormCloud]

128. She was an obvious target back then.

She doesn't work there anymore as the place went bankrupt. We got her CHL specifically because of that level of risk. After the two incidents she was not bothered again. We concluded that the word must have gotten out on the street that she was dangerous to attack. I have posted the details several times previously.

[Starboard Tack]

139. Sorry, I must have missed the details

and obviously, as a target, she was smart to carry.

[Euromutt]

132. Actually, these days, AEDs don't need a *trained* operator

Well, not highly trained, anyway. But even AEDs do still need a human to do the physical work of opening the victim/patient's shirt and applying the electrodes. You still can't self-administer them, as you rightly put it.

[spin]

31. Why do I have fire alarms and fire extinguishers in my home ...

Because I may be able to put the fire out before the fire department arrives. If I wait, my house may suffer significant damage or burn to the ground.

I am not afraid of a fire, I simply prefer to be prepared.

Why do I have a NOAA Weather Radio? Once again so I can be prepared to take action in case of an emergency.

[eqfan592]

8. Wow Starboard Tack

You actually fooled me into thinking you were attempting to be a bit open minded on this issue. Clearly I was mistaken.

DanTex has demonstrated his lack of understanding of the peer review process numerous times. He takes our punching holes in his evidence as denial of said evidence. You seem to fall into the same boat it seems. And the "constant fear" stuff? Yeah, you really did have me fooled man.

Peace.

[Starboard Tack]

14. Then please explain why you choose to carry if not out of fear?

Which I consider a valid argument, but to carry constantly infers being in constant fear. I am not pointing at any individual here, but it is obvious from many of the posts in this forum that constant carry is essential, justified by "you never know when you might need it". I sincerely hope you haven't already fallen into that category. BTW I'll be in Indiana tomorrow for a confrontation with some people I have a big problem with. I won't be armed so if you don't hear from me again, you'll know I was wrong.

[gejohnston]

20. Be safe, completly unarmed or just with a gun?

[Starboard Tack]

22. Just with my wits.

[gejohnston]

90. Just don't have a Paul Watson moment

In case you don't know, when he was with Green Peace, a Soviet whaling ship started shooting its harpoons at his boat. In his speech, he said something like "Gandhi was not going to work for us that day."

[eqfan592]

26. For the same reason I carry a leatherman at all times.

I don't carry it because of some deep seeded fear of anything. I carry it because I never know when I'm going to need it. Same reason why many carry a firearm at all times. They never know when they're going to need it. Nothing to do with fear.

Honestly, I think it's just a difference in the way you view guns compared to those who carry. That's not to say that people who carry do so lightly, it just doesn't require the fear you seem to think it does. I won't say there aren't people out there who carry out of fear, I'm just saying that I don't believe it is the majority.

[Starboard Tack]

122. "They never know when they're going to need it. Nothing to do with fear."

If it has nothing to do with fear, then why would they need it? You may say for self defense, but self defense against whom? Someone they may be afraid of, or they are afraid of not being able to defend themselves in any other way? It's still about fear. Fear of the "bad" guys, the thugs, the guys with big muscles, the guys who look at their women the wrong way, fear of their own inadequacies. They choose to discount the possibility that carrying may just as easily create a bad situation, rather than resolve one. You are correct in saying that most do not take carrying lightly and nor should they, but I bet you are one of the few who carry a Leatherman or Swiss Army knife, either of which are far more likely going to come in handy.
But it's a crazy world we live in. Driving through Indiana today I was amazed to see guys riding Harley's, dozens of them and not one was wearing a helmet. A bunch were wearing U.S Marine Corps Club vests. Guys that were taught the value of wearing a helmet in combat, but not on the highway.

[X_Digger]

123. Are people with fire extinguishers (I know you disavow them) afraid of fire?

Are people who carry spare tires afraid of flats?

you are one of the few who carry a Leatherman or Swiss Army knife

Actually, on many forums where concealed carry is discussed, folks compare what they carry.

Invariably, they include things like a knife, a cell phone, and a flashlight.

e.g.

fear of their own inadequacies

Ahh, the nugget of corn in the turd.

Any other telepsychology you'd like to do?

[PavePusher]

136. If they were actually active duty Marines, they were also violating regs....

if they were not wearing full protective gear.

[Starboard Tack]

141. I doubt they were active duty

probably belonged to this club http://www.marinesmc.com/
or possibly the Leathernecks.
They were riding some really sweet hogs though.

[ileus]

36. carry a kimber pepper blaster....it's the next best thing for a firearm

I carry mine everywhere I'm not allowed to carry one of my EDC's...

[lawodevolution]

33. Gun control supporters live in constant fear. OMG!!! The guns are not under total gov control!

OMG! Teflon covered bullets. OMG! 50 calibres. OMG 32 round assault clips!

See the trend. Gun control groups use fear to push gun control.

[ileus]

37. well guns have been known to kill people...fear fear the scary gun.

[PavePusher]

42. Just like I use the First Amendment to 'justify' writing my opinons, and reading whatever I want...

and use the Fourth Amendment to 'justify' not allowing the police to arrest/search me on mere whim, or use the Thirteenth Amendment to 'justify' my lack of chains....

Personal choice on whether to be armed or not... it goes along with that whole freedom and liberty schtick. Hmmmm....

[DanTex]

53. Good point, and the onslaught has now arrived...

Get ready for the onslaught from those who use 2A as a justification for their choice to tote guns wherever and whenever they please

This is actually different from denialism. A substantial fraction of 2A extremists understand that loose gun control laws result in increased homicide and suicide rates, but they believe that their "right" to carry around devices designed specifically to kill humans is more important than the lives that would be saved by rational gun control laws.

It's just selfishness. But hey, at least they are honest. Like the Koch brothers, who believe in their absolute "right" to live in a world free of taxation and regulation, the rest of society be damned.

[Straw Man]

95. The "onslaught"? Puh-lease...

Drop the handwringing bit. You knew what kind of reaction you were going to get, and you continue to court it.

A substantial fraction of 2A extremists understand that loose gun control laws result in increased homicide and suicide rates, but they believe that their "right" to carry around devices designed specifically to kill humans is more important than the lives that would be saved by rational gun control laws.

There are holes in this that one could drive a Mack truck through. First "substantial fraction"? What is that fraction? How substantial is it? You have no idea, but hey, you'll throw that factoid out there anyway. And why is "right" in quotation marks? Because you have decided, in your infinite wisdom, that 200+ years of legal precedent should be discarded if it doesn't line up with the way you think things should be? And the "lives that would be saved by rational gun control laws"? What laws exactly are you proposing, and how would they save these lives? Please be specific, something you have so far avoided doing. What is this whole thing except speculation and innuendo?

"It's just selfishness." So we're back to the character-defect school of political discourse. People who disagree with you are either stupid or evil. I thought you didn't like those black-and-white formulations. I thought that was "conservative" thinking. The Koch brothers? What are they, the new Hitler for hyperbolic character assassination?

I'm sorry, but all we've got here is a slightly more articulate version of jpak's "CCW sucks."

[beevul]

100. What specifically is a "2A extremist"?

Please define that.

Or is it simply a matter of "I know it whrn I see it"?

[ileus]

5. Just as we always thought....guns kill people.

[gejohnston]

7. Is that the only book you read?

What makes your guy more qualified than mine on the subject?
My guy's papers were published in criminology journals. The editor most likely had a background in criminology or sociology. The referees were criminologists. Dr. Kleck even remembered to add the raw data. Dr. Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology in 1993 for this work.

Your guy is an economist and was published in a health journal. I am guessing the editor had a public health or injury prevention background. My question is what were the backgrounds of the referees? Since he did not include his raw data, was it even sent out before publication?
Show us this plenty of peer-reviewed empirical evidence.

Rachel is free to her own opinion, but on this she is full of shit.

[ileus]

10. Their agenda trumps our rights don't you know...

[DanTex]

63. Exquisitely "head in the sand". But some "cloud" as well, plus a shot at Rachel Maddow

[Union Scribe]

127. So long as we're diagnosing

I'm thinking you have a pretty inflated sense of yourself, beyond a healthy confidence. A superiority complex, if you will. It oozes from every post I've read of yours. Who activated you after nine years, anyway?

[eqfan592]

13. Here is your problem, DanTex.

Nobody here denies that there have been papers published in peer reviewed journals that aim to support your position. What we keep attempting to drive through to you is the fact that there is HARDLY a consensus on this issue in the peer reviewed journals. You do NOT have the bulk weight of evidence to support your position, PERIOD. You're so busy clinging to your papers as if they are infallible that you are unable (or unwilling) to view them in any critical fashion.

A paper being published in a peer reviewed journal is NOT the end of the peer review process, nor is it 100% proof that the conclusions reached in that paper are 100% correct! We have time and time again showed you various papers that expose the gaping flaws in the papers you tout so highly, but you seem to be of the opinion that the only way anybody can disagree with any of your "evidence" is that they are a right wing nut job, and therefore incapable of being right about anything.

I mean seriously, you argue EXACTLY like a climate change or evolution denier. I feel like I'm posting in response to Kirk Cameron half the time! I keep waiting for crockaduck to pop up somewhere in one of your posts!

[DanTex]

55. Primarily "sand", definitely clueless about peer review.

[eqfan592]

60. omfg.

"The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues as publications are read. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature. A variation on this theme is open peer commentary; journals using this process solicit and publish non-anonymous commentaries on the "target paper" together with the paper, and with original authors' reply as a matter of course. The introduction of the "epub ahead of print" practice in many journals has made possible the simultaneous publication of unsolicited letters to the editor together with the original paper in the print issue."

From the wikipedia page on the peer review process. Emphasis mine.

Also, talking about people as if they were subjects in some sort of study is so amazingly and unbelievably condescending it's not even funny. It is also especially sad when you are so clearly and demonstrably wrong when it comes to that which you are commenting on (in this case the peer review process) yet you continue to insist you are correct and I am somehow "clueless."

[DanTex]

65. Yeah, we should consider anonymous right-wing nutjobs on the internet as part of "peer review"

You're so giddy! You think you caught me in a technicality!

But in reality, clueless is exactly what you are. It is very clear that you have never been anywhere near any actual peer reviewed academic research. Correct me if I'm wrong. LOL.

If you ever meet someone with academic credentials or a publication record, you can ask them about peer review, I'm sure they'll be happy to explain the whole thing to you.


edit: typo

[eqfan592]

73. What anonymous...

...right wing nutjobs would you be referring to? Oh, you must be talking about the National Academy of Science, who released a 300+ page report a few years back that found no evidence supporting the idea the gun control as an effective means of combating crime.

Or how about the various professionals that wrote replies to the articles you posted yourself? Replies that were printed in the vary same journal those papers were submitted to? You know they are all linked at the bottom of the papers you linked to, right?

So tell me, who's head is in the sand again?

[cleanhippie]

110. Funny, you seem to be demonstrating the textbook definition of Denialism yourself.

Color me not surprised.

[kelly1mm]

16. Not to be an ass, but so what? The SC has declared that the 2A is an individual right.

What other individual, constitutionally protected rights should be subject to control via peer reviewed studies? For example, let us assume that there were numerous peer reviewed studies that showed that many more criminals could be caught if police were not burdened with the 4th amendment restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures. Does that mean that individual's 4th amendment rights should be curtailed?

[ileus]

17. Don't try and French up the 2nd....that's my motto

[kelly1mm]

25. It is too bad that the OP seems to have just done a "post and run" as

I would like to hear his/her response to my post.

BTW what does "French up" mean?

[ileus]

28. It's a quote from Joe Dirt...

[kelly1mm]

45. I will put it on my "to see list"! nt

[DanTex]

57. So you understand that loose gun laws result in more homicide, but you don't care...

Hey, I respect the honesty. It's a refreshing change from the "guns don't kill people" BS.

[kelly1mm]

61. Glad to see you back! Yes, even if what you cite is/was true, I will not

condone giving up constitutionally protected individual rights for perceived safety.

Now, since I answered your post, could you answer mine? Assuming that there were peer reviewed studies that indicated that more criminals could be convicted for their crimes if police were not restricted by the confines of the 4th amendment, would you favor curtailing those individual rights?

[kelly1mm]

75. self delete

[DanTex]

80. I don't agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

I'm not sure how you interpret the 4th amendment, but we probably have similar views on the 4th.

[kelly1mm]

85. You don't need to agree with my interpretation - the SC is the body

that decides that for the both of us. So, again, do you agree that curtailing individual rights as determined by our constitutional structure due to numerous peer reviewed studies is a dumb idea?

It is a simple yes or no question.

If you say that the 2nd amendment individual rights should be curtailed then what is your response to others that want 4th amendment individual rights curtailed?

[kelly1mm]

77. I answered your question clearly. Are you going to answer mine? nt

[Bold Lib]

108. Would you please answer the 4th amendment question asked of you?

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Even in the medical professions group-think exists.

For example, consider the case of the doctor who discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium and could be cured by an antibiotic. The medical establishment would not listen to him becaue they aleady "knew" that it was caused by stress. Finally, a supermarket tabloid, The National Inquirer published his story and the resulting media attention forced the medical community do the experiments to prove him wrong and they found out he was right.

The medical community similarly suffers from groupthink with regard to guns. No conspiracy needed, just closed minds.

I have seen some of the major studies and so far all of them suffer from the same defect - they do not distinguish between criminals and law-abiding people - but treat them as if they were the same lifestyle.

[DanTex]

59. Full-on "cloud", but with a touch of "sand" at the end. A true specimen!

[GreenStormCloud]

96. So you have no counter argument. N/T

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

134. Full on...

..."clown" (you) with a somewhat limp leaf of sarcasm served in a cold and tasteless ad hominem sauce.
Keep it and give the waiter a tip: don't expect any tips.


Oh and while I'm on the subject, the only thing worse than denial is avoidance. Your consistent avoidance of the related topics addressed by several individuals here reveals your insincerity and unwillingness to focus on the actual topic. Shifting the attention to your opinion of the perceived denial of those you disagree with belies the confidence you hold of the strength of your own arguments. Try some BPI A.5.0.

[benEzra]

23. I notice that you don't cite a single article in the field of criminology,

just medical researchers, many writing as de facto laypeople outside of their field.

That, IMO, is how egregious factual blunders sail through peer review without even raising eyebrows. To use a favorite example of mine, consider Trask, Richards, Schwartzbach, and Kurtzke, "Massive orthopedic, vascular, and soft tissue wounds from military type assault weapons: a case report," J Trauma 1995 Mar 38(3):428-31. That article flatly contradicted the peer-reviewed wound ballistics literature on 7.62x39mm wounding ability (ref. Fackler et al), overstated kinetic energies by 40% (a math error, inconsequential except it was a major point of the paper), and claimed that low-velocity AK rounds have greater velocity than high-velocity hunting rounds. Those blunders weren't even noticed in peer review, because the "reviewers" didn't know crap about the subject either. (And of course rifles are the least misused class of weapons in the United States, but you'll rarely see that in the doctors-as-criminologists literature.)

The medical literature on gun technology, gun law, and criminal gun misuse seems characterized by rather widespread ignorance of ballistics and law, intentional conflation of low-risk and high-risk groups, and intentional conflation of low-risk and high-risk activities. The majority are glorified press releases, not scientific studies.

But whatever. I'm a noncriminal adult with a squeaky clean record, at low risk of suicide, who has spent two and a half decades becoming proficient with firearms, who is licensed by the state to carry a firearm, and who keeps said firearms secured in a safe when not under an adult's direct control. I think I'll choose to keep mine, thanks. And in this country, as a citizen in good standing, that is my choice to make. :hi:

[eqfan592]

29. Thank you for the awesome post! nt

[DanTex]

50. "Head in the clouds" for sure: writing off all gun research in medical journals...

because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

[eqfan592]

62. Ummm, nooooo...

...because it is so clearly written by people who are very ignorant of the subject matter at hand. If that is "because it doesn't say what you want it to say" in your own little FUBAR fantasy land, then whatever works.

[gejohnston]

68. since he ignores criminologists that does not say what he wants, is that head in the clouds or head

in the sand?

[X_Digger]

81. Head up the ass, maybe. n/t

[gejohnston]

82. Yeah that works

[Straw Man]

93. Yeah, shame, shame, ...

"Head in the clouds" for sure: writing off all gun research in medical journals...

because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

... shame on him for wanting them to get the technical data right. What unmitigated gall...

[oneshooter]

103. Would you be willing to accept any medical research written

in a gun journal? Surely you would as they are most knowledgeable on the subject. Or perhaps only those that push your personal agenda?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Let's take a look at those papers.

#1:
International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.

CONCLUSION:
Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.

I don't really care how many people commit crimes or suicide with firearms - I am not going to let the actions of criminals or mentally ill people be used as an excuse to restrict the rights of everyone else.

#2:
Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 year olds.

CONCLUSION:

A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent.

Sad, but again, I'm not particularly concerned with suicides. But I'm not particularly surprised that the more firearms are available, the more bad people will use them to do bad things. But again, I'm not going to allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse to curtail the rights of everyone else.

#3
State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.

Abstract

Two of every three American homicide victims are killed with firearms, yet little is known about the role played by household firearms in homicide victimization. The present study is the first to examine the cross sectional association between household firearm ownership and homicide victimization across the 50 US states, by age and gender, using nationally representative state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership. Household firearm prevalence for each of the 50 states was obtained from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Homicide mortality data for each state were aggregated over the three-year study period, 2001-2003. Analyses controlled for state-level rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, per capita alcohol consumption, and a resource deprivation index (a construct that includes median family income, the percentage of families living beneath the poverty line, the Gini index of family income inequality, the percentage of the population that is black and the percentage of families headed by a single female parent). Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

As has been pointed out before, studies like this ignore the fact that people with criminal histories also live in homes with firearms. The largest determinator of homicide with a firearm is not having a gun in the home, but having a past criminal history.

#4
Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform.

CONCLUSION:

Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform.

Oh, there's no doubt that firearm restrictions are effective. Machine guns are all but gone in the United States, being held in private collections and fetching tens of thousands of dollars at sale. In the UK firearm crime is all but gone also. There is no doubt that getting rid of guns can lower crime rates. The consequence, of course, is that every single victim of violent crime thereafter has no choice but to engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker if they wish to resist.

#5
An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates.
CONCLUSION:

A "shall issue" law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates. No law was associated with a statistically significant reduction in firearm homicide or suicide rates.

I have no doubt that the more people you allow to obtain CCW permits, the more of a chance there is that one of those CCW permit holders will commit a crime with a firearm. But we have loads of statistical data that show that CCW permit holders are much less likely than the average citizen to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

#6
Firearms as a cause of death in the United States, 1920-1982.

We present the epidemiologic history of firearms in the United States. Firearms are among the nation's ten leading causes of death. Nearly one million firearm deaths occurred in the half-century 1933-1982. Suicide is the leading type of firearm death. Teenagers, young adults, and males 75 years old and older are currently at highest risk. An individual's risk of suffering a firearm death has generally risen with age. Increased firearm availability is associated with increased rates of firearm homicide and suicide. Strategies to prevent firearm deaths and injuries should be formulated in light of these findings, and heightened efforts to design, implement, and evaluate preventive measures are urgently needed.

I do not concern myself with suicides, nor am I willing to allow my rights to be curtailed because of people who wish to commit suicide.

#7
Firearm legislation reform in the European Union: impact on firearm availability, firearm suicide and homicide rates in Austria.
CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings provide evidence that the introduction of restrictive firearmlegislation effectively reduced the rates of firearm suicide and homicide. The decline in firearm-related deaths seems to have been mediated by the legal restriction of firearm availability. Restrictive firearm legislation should be an integral part of national suicide prevention programmes in countries with high firearm suicide rates.

Again, there can be little doubt that restricting access to firearms will reduce bad things done with firearms. But it also means that less good things will be done with firearms. I am not willing to allow people to be deprived of the ability to do good things with firearms because of the actions of people who do bad things with them.

[DanTex]

47. I'll put you down for "head in the sand"

[Atypical Liberal]

102. Be sure to put me in the "winning" column, too.

[lawodevolution]

40. No data. Just con artists who want you to take their word without proof. I showed everyone

Data, real data consistent with more guns = less murder but it was dismissed as bad, yet you want us to take a bunch of jerks seriously who don't even know what end the bullet comes out of promise us the guns'r'bad mkayyyyy and they're bad because they say so

[DanTex]

48. And here we have "head in the clouds"

[Bold Lib]

109. Is that really all you've got?! Several people have shown the glaring flaws

of your O.P. and you cannot debate, or justify the position of the O.P. You just dismiss them as having their head in the clouds or in the sand. But rather YOU may want to take a serious look at the criticisms of the O.P. because the reality is, it is getting torn apart and it is in fact YOUR head that is too high up to either feel the need to defend the O.P, or you simply cannot.

[Logical]

41. This is once again more BS....Once again....DanTex....Please respond to my post....

"Once again....All that "Gun Control" can possibly do is remove guns from honest citizens!"

And provide any answers from your studies!!!

[kelly1mm]

44. Dan Tex does not want to discuss the issue (2hrs +so far). Just a "post and run". Oh! Dan Tex is

back now. Maybe we can get a discussion going!

[gejohnston]

51. is this better or worse than condensation side stepping?

[DanTex]

67. Yes, when it rains I step inside. But is evaporation worse than sublimation?

[eqfan592]

52. No, he's more interested in...

...categorizing folks now than anything else. "Oh, you have counter evidence? You must just have your head in the clouds or in the sand then, because clearly no counter evidence can exist for a cause that I believe in!!!"

No, what is honestly most disturbing about this thread is how many so called progressives fall lock step in line with this bullshit. It's like critical thinking skills just go out the window when they come to this topic.

[gejohnston]

54. I noticed that too. That and what is "liberal" and "conservative" switch places kind of like an

antimatter universe.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Nope. He refuses to discuss any of the counter-points that are raised. N/T

[DanTex]

49. Leaning towards "head in the sand", but too incoherent to say for sure

[Logical]

58. Clear enough for unbiased posters!

[gejohnston]

56. Did you hear something? It sounded like DanTex admitted to having his head in the sand by ignoring

studies by criminologists.

[eqfan592]

66. lol!

He directly personifies all the negative attributes he is attempting to apply to the "pro-gun" people on this forum. It's really ironic actually.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. You have to appreciate irony. n/t

[DanTex]

71. lol indeed! Wow! That post was *really* funny and creative! Such a sharp sense of humor!

I bet you pro-gun people throw awesome parties!

[eqfan592]

83. Actually, my wife and I do throw a pretty good party.

You know, it would help you a lot in life if you stopped behaving as though people that hold different opinions from yours were from some other planet. Especially in a forum such as this where we likely have more in common politically speaking than not.

I know that wouldn't make it so easy to behave so condescendingly, but that would actually be a good thing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

84. For someone that throws a good party...

...you seem to be trying to throw water on this burgeoning laugh-fest where dantex is the cause for the humor. ;)

[DanTex]

86. Have you ever objected to the smug, condescending things people say about "antis" on this board?

I can see that for you it's much easier to just attack me. After all, I'm in the minority on this board. Wouldn't want to lose your place in the pro-gun pecking order by once in a while pointing out how smug your own side behaves...


Besides, is there anything more condescending than a sentence beginning with "You know, it would help you a lot in life..."


I mean, yes, your writing is plodding and stale, but that doesn't mean it can't also be condescending.

[eqfan592]

92. lol, you're loss.

I tried to give you a shot to pull out of the death spiral of garbage you put yourself into, and you tossed it back in my face. That's your choice.

And for the record, when people "on my side" as you put it are too quick to jump on folks I DO point it out to them. However some people are clearly not interested in open and honest discussion but rather start out being as insulting and condescending as possible right out of the gate. When such people get the same back it only serve them right in my book, though in the long run it serves little useful purpose outside of the occasional good laugh.

It was you that set the tone for this discussion, Tex, not anybody else. So the only person you have to blame for the tone this entire thread has taken is yourself.

[gejohnston]

74. Do you remember reading "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" in school?

Or is it just good old fashioned projection? Or is it some Al Quada experiment in psychological warfare?

[gejohnston]

78. Correction, not Walter Mitty or anything ill or cloak and dagger, just a new twist

on the old "Do you have Prince Albert in a can phone calls" that kids in Jr High used to do in the 1950s.

[Straw Man]

69. Unrec for out-of-the-gate well-poisoning.

Anyone who disagrees with your POV is a "denialist." Got it.

[X_Digger]

72. Giant appeal to authority..

But since you seem to place much credence in citations..

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10881

Hard as it is to believe, some people who claim to be interested in gun policy are actually unaware of any of the academic research supporting gun control. But this is an extreme situation, and most "head in the sand" denialists take a slightly different tack. You see, many gun control (or global warming) studies have been "debunked" or "discredited" by "experts" in what Rachel Maddow calls the "unreadable, all-caps, guns-forever rabbit hole" of right-wing internet sites. These "refutations", of course, are amateur hack jobs. Some might employ terms like "analysis of variance" or "t-test" in an attempt to resemble legitimate statistical analysis, but in the end it is just vacuous propaganda.

aka.. you can't refute the problems identified in the works, therefore you attack the source.

To ignore things like Hemenway's treatment of guns like molecules of gas filling a volume, or Kellerman's guns as germs on a doorknob- well, there is absolutely someone with their head in the sand, but it isn't us.

Who benefits?

Researchers getting grants:

http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/program-grants-list-3?rr=1&OrderBy=GrantDate&OrderAsc=0&pageNum=1

University of Pennsylvania
Harvard University School of Public Health
President and Fellows of Harvard College
Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
American College of Preventive Medicine
Research Foundation of City University of New York
The George Washington University
University of Washington
The University of Chicago
University of California, Davis
Ohio State University Foundation
International Association of Chiefs of Police

Add it up, it's in the neighborhood of $26,000,000 ($600k to the president & fellows of harvard, $700k to the harvard school of public health)..

Perhaps you've never worked in academia, but most researchers spend more time on grant proposals than they do on actual research. Your tenure (or the chances of getting it) often depend on how much money you can bring in, as well as how often you publish- "publish or perish" is the saying.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. So what do you do...

...for a living, exactly?

[DanTex]

88. I'm Batman!

Not sure why you ask, but I sense a personal attack in my future...

But speaking of work, it's getting late here, gotta go for now.

Good night everyone, always a good time!

[gejohnston]

89. It is past Robin's bedtime caped crusader.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

104. Regardless of whether your batty-sense was tingling...

...there was no personal attack planned.

I thought perhaps your work would give you some background in this all important peer review process.
If your work doesn't relate, that's fine as well. We all know batman doesn't work out of an office. ;)

[rrneck]

91. So based on your extensive research

do you have a policy proposal?

[rl6214]

94. I won't be categorized by someone like you

Not even worth the read.

[Euromutt]

99. You could do worse than examine yourself for the biases you describe

Because your entire post--indeed, much of your posting in this forum thus far--is an excellent demonstration in how the easiest person you can fool is yourself.

Take your "head in the clouds" characterization: haven't you noticed that you do exactly the same thing, by hand-waving away every instance of a study being shown to be flawed. Your own position could just as readily (if not more so) be characterized as "I don't care how many studies you take apart, it's all just loony conservative pro-gun bias."

In contrast, the vast majority of pro-gun arguments you come across wouldn't make it past a grammar check, must less a peer review.

And here we see an amusing demonstration of how proof-reading isn't merely a question of running the spell-checker.

Let me turn to your "head in the sand" characterization. For someone who likes to castigate people who disagree with him as being unfamiliar with the peer review process, you don't seem to be so well versed in it yourself. I've already quoted Amy Tuteur elsewhere recently, but I'll do so again:

Publication of a scientific paper is not the end of a process confirming the truth of a paper; it is only the beginning. Publication does not mean that the findings should be accepted uncritically; it merely means that the findings are worthy of being included in the ongoing public discussion that characterizes science. The findings of the paper may ultimately be deemed worthless or wrong.

And indeed, in an overwhelming majority of cases, the findings are ultimately deemed worthless or wrong. That's generally not indicative of a failure of the peer review system, because the peer review system isn't intended to establish whether the findings of a study are or are not correct; that happens after publication, when the general research community gets to read it and try to replicate it. But what it does mean is that it is a mistake (albeit a very common one) to think that the fact a study passed peer review means its findings are correct; it merely means that it's not obviously garbage. Most of the time, anyway.

So yeah, replicability. That's one way science is performed: you observe a phenomenon and a possible causal factor, you run some retrospective studies to see if you can turn up a statistical association between the two, you formulate a hypothesis as to the mechanism whereby the one might cause the other, you make some predictions based on that hypothesis, you run some experiments to see if those predictions come true. If they do, then, and only then, can you allow yourself to think that you may be onto something. However, the medical/public health literature on firearms hasn't come even close to this point; in over thirty years, it hasn't progressed past the retrospective study phase. There was some observation made, back during the Vietnam war, that because of the U.S. Army's personnel rotation policy, it had not (at the time) amassed five years' experience; it had amassed one year's experience five times. The same is true of the medical/public health literature on firearms: each study represents a step down the path of scientific discovery, but at best, it's the same step over and over.

So it's actually a defensible claim to argue that "there is no evidence supporting gun control," in the sense that the (admittedly) many studies on the subject in the public health literature are initial steps in the evidence-gathering process. Their findings aren't evidence; they're indications where to look for evidence, which for some inexplicable reason (inexplicable to my mind, anyway) no public health researcher ever proceeds to do.

In fact, gun denialists can't even answer the one question that drives any good conspiracy theory... Who benefits?

To the minds of the participants, everybody benefits. If their research helps bring about more stringent gun laws, there will be fewer guns, and therefore fewer shootings, fewer deaths, less money spent on treating gunshot wounds, etc. etc. Who wouldn't feel good about themselves for helping to save lives?

[eqfan592]

105. Thanks Euromutt

You can always be counted on to put together a well crafted and reasoned post in situations such as this!

:toast:

[rl6214]

119. Well done, I knew someone with better analysis and writing

skills would come along to tear this piece of crap apart.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

129. Do you have any argument that ISN'T fallacious?

Because, boy, you sure do like to trot out that "guilt by association" fallacy! You seem to be incapable of responding to my posts without getting in some dig about creationists and climate change "skeptics." To put things in perspective, the first research indicating that smoking was harmful to one's health was conducted by Nazi scientists. Their motivations for conducting the research were deplorable, but despite being Nazis, their research findings were ultimately proven correct. Under the Nazis, the Reichsgesundheitsamt also conducted some of the most rigorous testing of homeopathy ever performed; again for the wrong reasons--Nazi ideology was favorably disposed to more "natural" and volkisch methods of healing, and the research was supposed to find out how homeopathy worked, not that it didn't--but the science was impeccably performed.

Say, who knew you could post a response to a post that has been deleted in the interim? I'm not the one who reported it, incidentally, and now I'm going to have to base the rest of my response on memory.

You can whinge about my "lecture" on how science is performed, but the reason I included it because you gave the appearance of not being aware of it. As I'd already pointed out in my previous post, there may be large numbers of studies whose conclusions--worded tentatively in the papers themselves, markedly less so in the accompanying, non-peer reviewed press releases--indicate a possible causal relationship between private firearms ownership and firearms injury, but none of them go beyond the initial stages of the process of scientific discovery. Nobody's ever taken the findings of one more of those studies and taken it to the next level, namely developing a hypothesis, making testable predictions based on that hypothesis, and conducting prospective studies to see if those predictions hold up. And we may reasonably wonder, "why not?"

I note also you persist in claiming there's a consensus among the experts, when there is in fact no such thing. The medical/public health researchers who delve into this issue may agree with each other, but their results are markedly at odds with the results from the field of criminology. Curiously, the public health types rarely refer to the criminological evidence, preferring to stick to circle-jerking each other.

Okay, my editing window's closing, so I'm going to have to leave it there this time.

[Euromutt]

130. Actually, an addendum regarding peer review and publication bias

You've used the term "publication bias" elsewhere, so evidently you're not unfamiliar with the phenomenon. However, for the benefit of our readers, I'll explain that "publication bias" is the term used to describe the tendency of scientific journals to give preference to (and I quote the Wikipedia page) "the reporting of experimental results that are positive (i.e. showing a significant finding) differently from results that are negative (i.e. supporting the null hypothesis) or inconclusive, leading to bias in the overall published literature."

In other words, journals are inclined to publish provocative scientific findings, even though, to be blunt, such findings will more often than not never be replicated, and replication is key to verification of scientific findings.

So when you, Dan, dismiss critiques of published studies because those critiques haven't been published in journals after undergoing peer review, the very fact that you're familiar with the phenomenon of publication bias should have allowed you to already deduce why such critiques are unlikely to be published. Crudely put, journals are markedly less interested in publishing follow-up studies that conclude that the findings of an earlier study don't hold up under more rigorous testing than they are in publishing that initial study.

[Euromutt]

131. You might also want to read my response in the Cory Booker thread

That would be here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=422017&mesg_id=423018

I'd hate for you to miss that, since it addresses a number of your talking points, and it'd make arguing with you a lot easier for me if I didn't have to repeat myself ad nauseam. Though, to be honest, I expect I'll have to anyway, because if there's one behavior I've observed in the more sophisticated antis (like jgraz, HankyDubs and if I'm charitable, even depakid), it's an annoying tendency, when faced with rebuttals to their stock arguments, to simply ignore them and regurgitate the same stock arguments in another thread (and another and another).

Maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me.

[DanTex]

135. I'll be more to the point.

On the internet you get to do things like accuse me of not understanding the scientific method.

Which is good fun, but in the real world, you have to get things past the referees.

I'm not going to convince you or very many pro-gun people of anything, fair enough.

To people who are not already "true believers" of the pro-gun arguments: when someone makes the claim "there is no evidence" supporting gun control, that person is simply wrong. It's not that I am writing off those with different opinions, it's a simple fact. And critiques of the peer review process, publication bias, unrefereed "refutations" floating around the internet, none on these things change the fact that there is indeed quite a bit of evidence.

It's not "guilt by association" it's a pattern. You see, everyone knows that the side with the peer reviewed research has a much stronger argument. Nobody wants to defend the side of the internet "experts" versus the academic consensus. That's why denialists always make the same arguments. The target audience is not you; as I mentioned in the OP, if you are determined to ignore the evidence available, you will no doubt succeed, and more evidence is not going to change a thing. But I think non-"true believers", who may have followed the global warming and creationism "debates", are going to be very familiar with the kinds of things you are saying.

In the end everyone makes up their own mind.

[rrneck]

137. It would help

if you weren't preaching to the choir yourself.

And unfortunately, your sarcastic attitude won't convince anyone on the fence.

[eqfan592]

138. Ok, lets say this again...

...there is NO ACADEMIC CONSENSUS ON THIS ISSUE! Only in your mind does such a thing appear to exist. Peer reviewed papers have been released supporting both sides of the debate. To date, there has been no evidence showing a causal relationship between gun control and reduced crime, between more guns = more crime, or between guns impacting the violent crime rate in general.

Each study so far, on both sides, has at best shown a correlative relationship, which is very far from a conclusive causal relationship.

You aren't standing on the side of the academic consensus, because it doesn't exist on this issue.

I suggest you read this.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=R1

It's very interesting and it covers many of the topics we are discussing on this forum. And no where in there will you find anything about any sort of consensus on the part of the academic and scientific communities in regards to this issue. Far from it, in fact.

[Euromutt]

143. Your point presumably being to restate your assertions and ignore my objections to them

On the internet you get to do things like accuse me of not understanding the scientific method.

I can't see into your mind, so I have to go with the available evidence. And the available evidence strongly indicates that you either do not fully understand how science works, or choose to ignore it as inconvenient to your argument.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this: the medical/public health research into firearms has, to the best of my knowledge, never progressed past retrospective case-control studies, which are one of the weakest forms of evidence in medical science. This kind of study is very useful in pointing the way towards further, more rigorous research (like prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials), but the findings of any case-control study have to be treated as provisional at best, unless and until they are confirmed by more sophisticated research. And that's all that the public health literature has: many, many iterations of the same weak evidence, with no indication that any of it is actually correct.

And I reiterate: this "academic consensus" to which you constantly refer does not exist (I'm not the only one pointing this out, incidentally). There may be a consensus among medical/public health researchers, but they are by no means the only ones investigating the topic, nor are they indisputably the most qualified to do so. Social scientists, including criminologists, who delve into this issue have come up with a far more equivocal and nuanced set of findings, almost all of which the medical/public health researchers prefer to ignore.

Frankly, coming from you, the accusation of being "determined to ignore the evidence available" is an exercise in breath-taking chutzpah. You're so damn convinced of the cleverness of your talking points that all you can do is regurgitate them ad nauseam without even acknowledging the arguments that have been made against them, let alone refute those arguments, ultimately resorting to dismissing people who disagree with you as "true believers." You're providing an excellent example of denialism, all right, but it's your own.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

107. I think we're into the 88th prequel already

[Remmah2]

106. A good example of research and lies.

Michael A. Bellesiles (pronounced "bah-LEEL")<1> is a former professor of American colonial and legal history at Emory University best known as the author of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (Alfred A. Knopf, 2000), a book that won the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 2001. The prize was rescinded in 2002 after an inquiry of distinguished historians found Bellesiles "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work."<2> Bellesiles responded that he had "never fabricated evidence of any kind nor knowingly evaded my responsibilities as a scholar,"<3> but he nonetheless resigned his Emory professorship the same year.<4>



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

[rl6214]

120. Yeah, but that won't be included in the original post

or any other post by the original poster.

[jpak]

111. Great post - right on target

:D

:hi:

[gejohnston]

112. yeah the wrong target

[rrneck]

113. At least jpak produces efficient bullshit. nt

[Oneka]

114. Head in the, sand/ clouds?

3 words sum up my response quite nicely. POT,

KETTLE,

BLACK....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

115. In the true spirit of peer review...

...in the 8th paragraph, "And lets be clear" the "let's" needs the apostrophe.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

118. woot

:rofl:

[Blown330]

121. I wonder if there is a formula...

...that can determine the level of the OP's hypocrisy in relation to his own "head in the sand" view points. I think the correlation is direct and it is a continuous function that extends infinitely. I'm glad the Second Amendment provides a tool through which this function can be differentiated such that along its path, any given tangent can be exactly determined and dealt with accordingly.

[Kayso]

124. Yup

You can put me in the "Do not care" list. "Peer reviewed journals" are not the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution enumerates certain inalienable god given rights. Since we are a society that lives by rule of law and the law of the land is that private gun ownership is legal and so is private carry. Thats just the way it is. I know that hurts your feelings and all but again you can place me in the "Do not care" category for that as well.

Honestly. I do not care. I have never even bothered to read one of those studies about how surrendering our god given rights would make the world safe and full of love and lollipops.

[Common Sense Party]

140. So let me make sure I understand you: When something appears in a

"peer reviewed" journal, is it your opinion that that article is incontrovertible, unassailable, and must be accepted without question? It is, without a doubt, 100% factual?

[gejohnston]

142. only if

it is written by an economist or MD and appears in a medical journal. If it is written by a criminologist and appears in a social science journal and if it does not fit his world view, then it is total crap.