The difference is you are willing to forgive the Clintons, but not an organization that stands for something you don't agree with by pretending it's ok for the President to lie about his moral fiber.
NRA Hijinks
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
The difference is you are willing to forgive the Clintons, but not an organization that stands for something you don't agree with by pretending it's ok for the President to lie about his moral fiber.
Are you intentionally being daft? I'm not supporting the lie, just putting it in its place. The core of Lott's gun research club was gun research. And THAT is what they lied about. Clinton did not lie about anything pertaining to his presidency. I'm not supporting the lie. Just putting it into perspective. Have a child explain it to you.
Keep telling yourself that, as I'm sure it makes you quiet that little voice in the back of your head (assuming one is still left after all these years).
You showed one statement - one - that Lott made that was incorrect, and it had nothing to do with the study.
Check the second of the 3 links I posted above. Other false statements made by Lott are factually challenged. The guy can't help himself. And now you're buying into his "studies" and swallowing them whole.
Plus, you didn't bother to read beyond the headline of the earlier link. It goes on to discuss a pattern of falsehoods perpetrated by Lott in furthering his agenda. There are several links in that article leading to specific examples:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/25/discredited-gun-researcher-john-lotts-failed-at/192391
Follow the breadcrumbs. There are plenty. The man has been utterly discredited.
Plus, you didn't bother to read beyond the headline of the earlier link. It goes on to discuss a pattern of falsehoods perpetrated by Lott in furthering his agenda. There are several links in that article leading to specific examples:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/25/discredited-gun-researcher-john-lotts-failed-at/192391
Follow the breadcrumbs. There are plenty. The man has been utterly discredited.
Last edited:
Ok, let's dissect the first link, first.
In the first one, it references a Boston University study - but strangely doesn't link to it so I can't go into the study itself and must rely on the text for general information. But ok, let's see.
The team took state-level homicide rates from a database from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Since there is no survey at the state level that measures gun ownership, the researchers estimated these numbers by looking at a commonly used proxy: the number of suicides by firearms. Researchers use this statistic because the ratio of gun suicides to all suicides has been shown to correlate strongly with surveys that measure gun ownership.
A commonly used method of determining gun ownership is to look at the number of suicides by firearms? Really? That's the first I've heard of it. And researches use this statistic because:
gun suicides
-------------- = correlates strongly with surveys that measure gun ownership
all suicides
How can it correlate strongly with a survey that measures gun ownership when there is no survey at the state level that measures gun ownership? Isn't the premise of the article that States with More Guns have Higher Homicides? Not that I disagree with this premise, of course, because it should be obvious that the more guns there are, the higher the overall homicide rate is. That's never been in question. The question is whether more legally owned firearms deters crime. This article doesn't address that at all. Mine did.
This type of study can't prove causation, and the researchers noted that it is theoretically possible that people who live in states with higher levels of firearm homicide are more likely to purchase guns.
Ah, well I didn't have to continue because the article self-destructed. I'll review the next link of yours in the next post. In case, by some miracle, you'll actually start debating some of the "facts" and sources.
I understand you're trying to finesse a losing argument. I get it. I just don't want to take part in your time-consuming little dance. Lott has been utterly discredited.
That's a good article. I skimmed it but bookmarked it for later. Some key points at the conclusion.
- Statistically speaking, guns are rarely used in self-defense, and thus cannot be defended on the grounds that they can reliably defuse crimes while they are happening.
- The NRA bases its claim that guns are used millions of times a year in self-defense on a discredited study from 1995 that has not been validated in a single academic paper.
- Concealed Carry Laws are not associated with decreases in crime, and sophisticated analyses show that, in some cases, there is an increase in aggravated assaults associated with concealed carry laws.
- The best studies to date, using proxies to estimate gun availability, show that more guns lead to more crime.
Ok, then bow out and take your loss gracefully, instead of trying to make excuses. You post articles, I post detailed responses. That's really the difference. Substance.
I'm at least trying to read the stuff you're spamming desperately in your defense. I'm providing the reasons why I disagree/agree. You're just clinging to "Lott is stinky and a liar" as your thesis.
I'm sorry if I don't possess the time to comb over each and every piece of text in all your articles. You could save me time and reduce the noise to signal ration by providing exact commentary that refutes posted data.