if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
How Soon We Forget
by Lee
Just five years ago.
Last week, a disgruntled student at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., went on a shooting spree. Peter Odighizuwa tragically shot six people, killing Dean Anthony Sutin, Associate Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales.
Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students “confronted,” “tackled,” or “intervened.” However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely “confront” Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen’s and Ross’ aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, “I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down.” Bridges, Besen, and Gross had previously received police or military training.Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the “intervening” students were armed. A Lexis-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross were armed. A Westnews search exposed worse results. It revealed 112 stories, of which only two mentioned the armed students.
With media bias like this, it is no wonder that people fail to see the benefits of gun ownership.
Gee, it’s almost like the media are full of liberals who seek to downplay any positive benefit of gun ownership or implementation.
Comments
The fact is that the media ignored the armed students actions.
John Lott used to be a statistician at Yale—not exactly a hotbed of right-wing propaganda—and now works for the AEI think tank. He’s one of the preeminent statisticians in the world of firearms data. (And he’s got the WEIRDEST fucking eyebrows you’ll ever see.)
As for his remark about black police officers, so what? If that’s what the data show then that’s what the data show.
Allow me to regale you with an anecdote. When I was in the Navy I was once robbed at knifepoint. My assailant was black, well dressed in the type of clothes you would wear out to a club, and acted like he knew what he was doing. He demanded my watch and wallet. I gave him the watch, and told him I’d give him my wallet but I needed to take my military ID out first, which he said was fine.
Later on, after I gave a report to police, they told me that in all likelihood he was in the Navy or the Marines. What they find is that the military will recruit kids from high-crime areas. Then, when the pittance that junior enlisted folks make doesn’t cover their expenses, they revert back to their high-crime ways and go out and rob a few people.
Now, assuming this is true, would it be “racist” (as you seem to insinuate) to state that enlisting black members in the military makes the crime rate go up? Or is it an unfortunate truism wholly supported by the facts?
Well in this case:
Increasing black officers� share of the police force one percentage point as a result of the new hiring policies increases murders by at least 2%, violent crime by almost 5% and property crimes by 4%
I haven’t had a chance to look at the methodology behind, and I won’t have time until tonight. I mean - how has he proven something that could have been affected by a variety of other factors? And the statistics mean nothing, absolutely nothing unless you know why.Simply using it as a reason for a return to an almost all-white police force is completely obtuse.
Now, assuming this is true, would it be “racist” (as you seem to insinuate) to state that enlisting black members in the military makes the crime rate go up? Or is it an unfortunate truism wholly supported by the facts?
Actually, you have supported it with an anecdote.
I am going to have a look at exactly what John Lott has proven about guns. I’ll let you know what I find.
I thought of this story today. Glad you reminded everyone.
Don’t know that armed students would havae stopped this guy. Armed security officers didn’t stop Columbine or the UT Tower. But it’s certaintly better than sticking your head in the sand.
I suppose we’ll hear a lot about a “culture of violence” from the Right and Left. They’ll ignore that violent crime is way way down over the last 15 years (and WAY way way down over the last 15 centuries).
Well, we’ll all feel better when Mikey Moron goes there and laments about the evils of the gun culture for the sequel to Columbine, won’t we?
My dad just called me and insinuated that the NRA should be now listed as a terrorist organization. I hung up on him. He can be an idiot at times.
Well, we’ll all feel better when Mikey Moron goes there and laments about the evils of the gun culture for the sequel to Columbine, won’t we
He’s too busy making a movie about how the healthcare in Cuba is better than in the US.
My dad just called me and insinuated that the NRA should be now listed as a terrorist organization.
Geez. We don’t even know the shooter’s identity, let alone his political affiliations. I hope the old man comes around.
My dad just called me and insinuated that the NRA should be now listed as a terrorist organization.
I wonder how many of these crimes are committed by NRA members. Likewise, I wonder how many crimes have been prevented (or stopped in mid-crime) by a NRA member.
I bet the NRA has a far lower crime rate than the general public. Think about it. Gangbangers are already don’t join.
"An armed society is a polite society..."-Robert Heinlein
With all due respect for Heinlein, I don’t think I deserve to be shot for being a dick.
This guy chose this place most likely because it was a gun free zone where he knew he wouldnt be bothered..lets see the news media report it
John Lott used to be a statistician at Yale—not exactly a hotbed of right-wing propaganda—and now works for the AEI think tank.
Heh, at least you were honest enough to include AEI, even if it sort of ruins your point.
Yes, Lee we know you can come up with a single example to justify anything. If you honestly believe encouraging college kids to carry handguns would make campus safer there’s nothing a thinking person can say to make you change your mind.
I was an NRA member until they opposed the banning of cop killer rounds, I shoot my 10mm Glock regularly but keep it locked in a basement safe because I know that the odds are greater that my child will kill herself or I’ll shoot my drunk friend in the middle of the night than preventing Osama bin Laden from launching a stinger missile from my porch. It’s about percentages, not being liberal.
This guy chose this place most likely because it was a gun free zone where he knew he wouldnt be bothered..lets see the news media report it
Get out your tin foil hats folks.
So we better arm ER nurses those places are gun free and just BEGGING to be the location of a massive killing spree.
In-fucking-credible.
Heh, at least you were honest enough to include AEI, even if it sort of ruins your point.
Uh, no it doesn’t. It ruins YOUR point. I say let his work speak for itself, and you say, “He works for AEI.” Of course, most of his work was done at Yale, but don’t let that pesky fact get in the way of your delusion.
Yes, Lee we know you can come up with a single example to justify anything. If you honestly believe encouraging college kids to carry handguns would make campus safer there’s nothing a thinking person can say to make you change your mind.
Encouraging? I didn’t say we should encourage anything. What I said, have always said, and will say again here, is that those students—all legal adults—who wish to carry CCW should be allowed to do so once they obtain a CCW permit. Remember, you can already carry concealed everywhere else except for “gun free school zones,” which do nothing but make sure that the victims are unarmed.
I shoot my 10mm Glock regularly but keep it locked in a basement safe because I know that the odds are greater that my child will kill herself or I’ll shoot my drunk friend in the middle of the night
Then you’re a fucking retard, and you should take your Glock and blow your head off with it.
Thanks Lee for letting me off the hook, I’d much rather feel smugly superior by ignoring the ranting of a lunatic (much like the out you handed Jerry Taylor) than spend the time on a substantive discussion about the issues.
My university was not a gun free campus (I knew a couple of folks with concealed permits that kept guns in their vehicle). While I was a student there were three shootings: one drunk frat boy who found someone else’s gun in a dorm room, one botched mugging (funny, he made it off campus w/o being gunned down by undergrad vigilantes) and an argument at the just-barely off campus watering hole’s parking lot.
If Virginia Tech allowed weapons on campus (I’m not even sure they don’t, but just for sake of argument) there’s a 99.999% chance things would have turned out exactly the same as they did. But a 2-3% greater chance of a shooting happening on campus. Again, it’s about the percentages. Even most retards can figure that out.
And I still say those durn hospitals are sitting ducks! We’ve got to arm all nurses to keep us safe, right?
If Virginia Tech allowed weapons on campus (I’m not even sure they don’t, but just for sake of argument) there’s a 99.999% chance things would have turned out exactly the same as they did. But a 2-3% greater chance of a shooting happening on campus. Again, it’s about the percentages. Even most retards can figure that out.
Since any “retard” can figure this out, you should have no problems demonstrating to us all where you got the actuarial algorithm you used above to determine the risk from having armed students. Because if you can’t give me the actuarial algorithm, then you’re totally talking out your ass on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.
If Virginia Tech allowed weapons on campus (I’m not even sure they don’t, but just for sake of argument) there’s a 99.999% chance things would have turned out exactly the same as they did. But a 2-3% greater chance of a shooting happening on campus. Again, it’s about the percentages. Even most retards can figure that out.
Actually in a study by John R. Lott, Jr. from the School of Law, University of Chicago showed the exact opposite.
From the study:
Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, at least 1,570 murders and over 4,177 rapes would have been avoided.
Additionally, the National Safety Council’s statistics show that while in 2005 17,700 people fell to thier death, 20,900 were accidentally poisoned to death, 4,600 people choked to death, 3,600 people drowned, 3,100 people were burned to death, and 1400 people were mechanically suffocated to death, only 730 people were accidentally shot. that’s only .02 per 100000 versus 7.1 per 100000 of accidental poisoning victims.
So, no , hazehead, your “math” doesn’t calculate.
Oh, and another thought.
When those students were line up against the wall, about to be executed, I wonder if any one of them thought “ I wish I had a gun on me right now”?
I was an NRA member until they opposed the banning of cop killer rounds, I shoot my 10mm Glock regularly but keep it locked in a basement safe because I know that the odds are greater that my child will kill herself or I’ll shoot my drunk friend in the middle of the night than preventing Osama bin Laden from launching a stinger missile from my porch. It’s about percentages, not being liberal.
complete and total utter Bullshit.
Actually in a study by John R. Lott, Jr. from the School of Law, University of Chicago showed the exact opposite.
I was about to pull the Lott study apart - at first glance, it looks pretty shaky, but I’ll hold off until I find something.
Keep at it boys-on both sides of this issue. As they say, this is a “teachable moment”.
And I still say those durn hospitals are sitting ducks! We’ve got to arm all nurses to keep us safe, right?
Why would it be a bad idea for nurses to have guns? Tard.
I was an NRA member until they opposed the banning of cop killer rounds, I shoot my 10mm Glock regularly but keep it locked in a basement safe because I know that the odds are greater that my child will kill herself or I’ll shoot my drunk friend in the middle of the night than preventing Osama bin Laden from launching a stinger missile from my porch. It’s about percentages, not being liberal.
If your gun is locked in a safe in the basement, that guarantees that it can’t be in your hand when someone breaks into your house. You might as well not have a gun at all. Osama bin Laden is not who you’d be shooting on your porch, but that doesn’t mean that someone on your porch might not need to get shot at some point.
Yes, Lee we know you can come up with a single example to justify anything. If you honestly believe encouraging college kids to carry handguns would make campus safer there’s nothing a thinking person can say to make you change your mind.
No deep thinker are you. At least Stogy didn’t get into this one when he knew he had no ammo.
Respectfully, John Lott is not much more than Michael Moore with numbers.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
He has as much credibility as Coulter.
And as for the specific Lott analysis of the Appalacian event:
Not so fast, Mr Lott
“John Lott’s favourite example of the “Bias Against Guns” is the story of the shootings at the Appalachian School of Law. Lott performed a superficial analysis of the news stories about the shootings and found that very few of the stories mentioned the fact that two of the students involved in apprehending the killer were armed. Lott concluded that reporters deliberately left out this fact because they were biased, but a more careful analysis finds that the first stories published did not mention the guns because the reporters did not know about them, while the later stories were about different aspects of that matter.”
My basic result does not change. There was only reporter whose account could possibly be construed as biased against guns. Lott makes it appear that there is bias by counting all the reports from the 17th and 16th when the reporters did not know about the defender’s gun, and also counting all the stories that were about completely different aspects of the shootings.
Lee: You’re right there is a bias, but it isn’t the durn librul media.
Whoops.. pooched that link.. sorry, Lee. I think it went over the character count.
Dang it, Sean - I think you screwed the thread!
Actually, I found something else interesting too, on our friend John’s account of what happened: link
Lott begins his chapter on guns in the media</a> talking about concealed carry laws. He very briefly mentions his 2002 self-defense gun survey, and soon asks “why did the torrential news coverage of public school shootings in the 1990s fail to acknowledge when attacks were halted by citizens* with guns? A similar example of selective reporting occurred during January 2002 in a shooting that left three dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia.” Lott’spends three pages discussing this incident (pp. 24-27). He complains that the media did not pay enough attention to the fact that “the attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars.” Lott does say that “many stories mentioned the law enforcement or military background of these student heroes,” but not their guns. But Lott fails to tell the whole story and thus presents a misleading picture. It seems the shooting actually stopped because the shooter ran out of ammunition. And it appears that both students were actually police officers. One not only retrieved a gun from his car but also a bulletproof vest and handcuffs.
So John Lott condemns the media for misleading the audience, and then does exactly the same himself? Surprise, surprise!
Just recently there was an armed robbery outside the bar at which I moonlight. The victims were two girls who parked at the next strip mall over due to a lack of parking. The robbers were armed. Which of the following three choices would have been the best solution to have prevented this robbery:
1. Stronger gun control laws
2. A greater police presence
3. The victims being armed with a concealed weapon
Choice one would have nothing to do with this. The assailants used ordinary kitchen knives.
Choice two is absurd. Our bar is located about a quarter mile from a cop shop for Tampa PD, and is a few blocks over from a large FHP station. The police are often going up and down the street, and sometimes stop by the bar to make sure things are cool when there are large crowds outside (usally bands setting up or taking down equipment.)
Choice three is dead on. The majority of the time a gun is used to prevent a crime there is not one shot fired. Criminals would respect gun control laws no more than they respect laws against robbery, assault, arson, or whatever other crime they would commit. Gun control laws will only seek to prevent John Q. Lawabider to prevent some asshole from being able to threaten him with anything deadlier than a #2 pencil. Is it any surprise that the same people who called for the release of Tookie Williams also want to take away a tool that could have been used to prevent his actions?
So I just read that Virginia Tech sent an email more than two hours after the first shooting. An EMAIL! Two hours later! EMAIL? Honestly, they’ve got some problems with security there. Someone has some explaining to do on that one.
So are you suggesting that all the girls at the nightclub would have been safer had they been carrying guns at all times?? And what if they were nervous and had dropped the gun while getting it out of their bag? Couldn’t a simple robbery have turned into something much nastier?
Pure spectulation? Yes, absolutely! But then so is your ‘choice 3’
So are you suggesting that all the girls at the nightclub would have been safer had they been carrying guns at all times??
At some level, you only need the possibility of the victim being armed to create a deterrent. If the assailants know for sure you’re not armed, you’re just a sitting duck.
Honestly though, I don’t know who raised the point but the truth is that the vast majority of gun violence in the US is gang related. And of course, all gang bangers go through proper channels to obtain their guns and they all have CCW permits.
Lee: I’m curious what you think of Lott and his claim given the information I posted above (when you have a chance.. no rush).
the_btfh:
I chose Choice 4: Move the fuck away from Tampa. Place was an arm pit. Only place I’ve lived or been where I’ve had the fortune of an attempted mugging.
(just a bump to maybe catch Lee’s eye)
First off, I had to fix the links. Tsk Tsk, you two should know better. :)
At ant rate, I don’t think Lott is some kind of God or anything. He’s certainly opened himself up to enough criticism in the past, and as a scholar criticism is part of the game, as is defending your claims. (Unless you’re Jerry Taylor at Cato, apparently.)
That being said, the specifics of the case are less important than the general theme. There were guns available which could have been used to subdue the killer, but they were not available because of gun-free laws. Pick any massacre—Luby’s, the Long Island Railroad, the Post Office, various office buildings, etc.—and the one common thread they have is that they ALL take place in areas where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying weapons for self-defense.
Ma bad. :-) It won’t happen again until the next time I do it. I promise.
With respect, the specifics are quite relevant if you’re going to use a specific study to make the claim of liberal bias.
Those of you criticising the study because it was done by John Lott - did any of you go and try to do a similar search to see what you turn up? He is not claiming to have conducted any kind of in-depth super scientific study that no one else could do. He did a computer search.
I did the same thing myself a little bit ago. I got different results (many of the old articles are probably archived and no longer available through Lexis-Nexis or something). I was able to retrieve about 31 different articles. Of those, about half make any mention at all of the fact that the people that subdued the gunman went to get their weapons (sometimes they call them their guns and a few times they just refer to them as weapons) before confronting him. Only about 4 of the articles I read actually described the confrontation between the gunman and the people that eventually subdued him. But if you read the articles themselves, they really do downplay the fact that these students (two of them former police officers) confronted the gunman with guns of their own. The AP articles, especially, make it seem like these students just rushed at the fellow ond overpowered him with sheer strength of numbers.
Also, all of the articles make a point of describing the .380 semi-automatic pistol used by the assaillant, but none of the articles I read (even those that prominently describe the students with guns in somewhat heroic terms) go into any detail about the guns that the students used to confront Peter O. That seemed odd to me and I didn’t really know what to make of it, other than the press reports really wanted people to visualize the gun being pointed at them, but not so much visualize the guns being pointed at the assailant.
Zinger: I didn’t, but the person criticizing Lott did. He found errors in Lott’s methodology that invalidated the claim, and in this case, Lee’s as well (fruit of the poisoned tree). Read the link I posted to find out more as to why a simple lexis nexus search, which is basically what Lott did, isn’t correct.
With respect, the specifics are quite relevant if you’re going to use a specific study to make the claim of liberal bias.
To put it in terms that might be more to your liking, say you were talking about what a bunch of corrupt shitbags the Bush administration is. You see in the paper one morning a story about how some guy was left off the no-fly list allegedly because he gave an anti-Bush speech. Now it appears that this might not entirely be the case.
So, does the fact that the specifics in this case turn out to be less than accurate in any way invalidate the overall claim of shitbaggery on the part of the administration? Of course not.
So yes, I’ll concede that Lott took some liberties with his interpretation of the story. That being said, to me the salient facts were that there was a shooting, some armed students might have been able to prevent it at least minimize it, and they were prevented from doing so by gun safety laws.
Careful, Lee, you’re drifting into Michael Moore “who cares what the facts say, it is the general belief that matters” territory… If the facts change, or are shown to be horseshit as in this case, the conclusion much change or be based on other facts.
Zinger: I didn’t, but the person criticizing Lott did. He found errors in Lott’s methodology that invalidated the claim, and in this case, Lee’s as well (fruit of the poisoned tree). Read the link I posted to find out more as to why a simple lexis nexus search, which is basically what Lott did, isn’t correct.
He found that Lott included articles from when the story was still “fresh” (i.e. a day or two after the event). What I did was go through and actually read the articles. Many of them from the 17th do mention that these former police officers obtained their “weapons” and some even mention that they got their guns, so it was obviously known (or at least knowable, since some reporters had apparently found it out) from early on that these students had confronted Peter O with guns of their own.
I looked at your link. They basically point out one possible flaw in the methodology (which as I point out is not really a flaw) and proceed to engage in an ad hominem attack against John Lott and not address the actual results. They don’t even bother to try and do a quick search of their own. If you want to engage in the lazy debate tactics of ad hominem attacks, if I can’t get you to even look at the evidence which contradicts your own pre-chosen conclusion, then there is no point in even trying to engage you in a discussion.
How on earth do you expect someone to demonstrate that there is a bias in reporting if you aren’t even willing to go and read the reporting that took place?
BTW, the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is a legal doctrine that has to do with the exclusionary rule on evidence obtained in an impermissable manner. It has nothing to do with the validity, weight, or persuasiveness of the underlying evidence - just that it was obtained in violation of the rules of evidence. You are using the term to describe your own ad hominem attack, which is really a misuse of the term.
I chose Choice 4: Move the fuck away from Tampa
Do you have to go through a lot of training to avoid questions like that, or does it just come naturally?
Careful, Lee, you’re drifting into Michael Moore “who cares what the facts say, it is the general belief that matters” territory… If the facts change, or are shown to be horseshit as in this case, the conclusion much change or be based on other facts.
No, that’s my point. I’m not saying this is “fake but accurate,” I’m saying that there is so much evidence of anti-gun bias in the media that, even if the specifics of this case turned out to be a total fabrication (which they weren’t, the quibble is with methodology) the remaining mountain of evidence is still enough to support the underlying case.
With Moore, his entire premise was faulty, and the films were full of intentional lies, distortions, editing tricks, and propaganda. There’s a big difference between Moore and what is going on here in this discussion.
Zinger: It seems that the link to the research that Lambert did was lost when I pooched the links (only the summary survived). So we’re both on the same page here, here is what Lambert did to debunk Lott.
the_btfh: The question wasn’t directed at me, so I decided to just state MY anecdote. As I said in another thread, hypotheticals are useless.
Zinger: You’re correct that I’m not using the legal term specifically, I’m using the “spirit” of the term, wherein if you base a claim on faulty evidence, the claim doesn’t stand.
Lee: I’m sure it wasn’t a fabrication is that Lott believes he is correct. Once again, he is wrong because, once again, his methodologdy was wrong.
Zinger: It seems that the link to the research that Lambert did was lost when I pooched the links (only the summary survived). So we’re both on the same page here, here is what Lambert did to debunk Lott.
Thanks for the updated link. If you look at the article, though, Lambert is the one that is incorrect. He summarily dismisses every article from the count that came out on January 17th. This reduces the count of the total articles down to 25. He does this because he found one reporter who wrote an article that came out the 17th which does not mention that Bridges and Besen (two fo the students that stopped Peter O) followed up by another article by the same reporter the next day which does mention the fact that they had guns. Lambert uses this evidence to conclude that NONE of the reporters knew or even could have known that Bridges and Besen used their guns to put a stop to Peter O. But if you look at other articles - ones which did come out on the 17th, some of them DO mention that Bridges and Besen went for their guns. If Lambert’s conclusion (that reporters did not/could not have known of the involvement of guns on the part of the innocents) is correct, then NONE of the articles that came out on the 17th should have any mention of any guns except the one used by Peter O.
In the end, though, I am not here to defend John Lott. But even if you look at Lambert’s data - he acknowledges that few, if any of the stories that even he looks at after the 18th highlight or even mention the fact that Bridges and Besen had guns. His position, though, seems to be that John Lott (or anyone wanting to show that that aspect of the story was under-reported) needs to affirmatively show that the reporters had positive knowledge of how things went down and then purposely did not include the information about the guns.
I am of the opposite opinion. I would prefer to have the truth reported to me in the press - the whole truth, as much of it as there is that can be found out. If mention of the guns used by Bridges and Besen made it into reports that were issued by the AP on the 17th, there is absolutely no reason that any reporter worth their salt would not have been aware of that fact on the 18th. Also, Lambert seems to have a very narrow idea of how an anti-gun bias would manifest itself. He seems to think that any bias can only take the form of purposely manipulating the news, rather than perhaps a much more subtle, but no less present, effect of just emphasizing different aspects of the news more and other aspects less. The reports that I read definitely emphasized the .380 caliber SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL that was used by Peter O, but none of them even mentioned the type of guns used by Bridges and Besen. Not that I am dying to know or anything, but it does demonstrate quite clearly that the reporters were focusing much more on the scary aspect of some deranged lunatic weilding a gun, rather than the more comforting and courageous aspect of an armed defender of innocent life stopping the deranged lunatic.
As I said, I went a did my own little search on Lexis-Nexis. You can do the same using Google or Factiva or any other search engine you like, and I encourage you to do so (don’t let lambert be the sole source of your information - what if he turns out to be as unreliable as John Lott?). If you do so, I think you will find that, while John Lott seems to have exagerated the level to which the press ignored how guns probably saved lives that day, they definitely downplayed that aspect of it. They were much more focused on getting people scared of guns, rather than focused on the life saving function that guns played that day.
Zinger: You’re correct that I’m not using the legal term specifically, I’m using the “spirit” of the term, wherein if you base a claim on faulty evidence, the claim doesn’t stand.
You are using it to discredit an argument by attacking the presenter of that argument. You did not address the evidence, but rather you attacked the person presenting the evidence. In looking at the links you provided, it seems that much of what Tim Lambert does is to engage in ad hominem attacks on John Lott. That is the textbook definition of an ad hominem attack. Attack the argument - not its presenter.
Now maybe John Lott deserves to be attacked like that, I don’t know, I am not familiar with the man or his work. But I think it is always more effective to address the arguments presented. For an example of this, click on the link to Moorewatch and look at some of the posts by paratrooper tat came out around the same time that F/911 came out. He does an excellent job of attacking the arguments, while leaving the attacks on the presenter completely out of it.
In looking at the links you provided, it seems that much of what Tim Lambert does is to engage in ad hominem attacks on John Lott. That is the textbook definition of an ad hominem attack. Attack the argument - not its presenter.
Darn it. PIMF.
What I mean here is that it seems that Lambert engages in ad hominem attacks against John Lott. I meant to follow that up with a bit of advice - that advice being for you to attack the argument, not its presenter. They way it is written above, it makes it sound like I am saying that the definition of an ad hominem attack is to attack the argument and not the presenter, when really that is the exact opposite of the definition.
My apologies.
Zinger: Fair enough. I am relying on the research of others (mostly because it isn’t enough of an interest to me to do it myself). Lambert’s critique seems valid to me, but he could be wrong. On your advice, I tried going to the AP’s website directly to see the time stamp of their first release that related to the defensive gun, but I don’t think those are online (since the time matters as much as the date) that I can find. I will agree that there may be more to this than I originally concluded.
Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths.
Para uses this as a pretext stats about drownings and burning, and finishes with the punchline:
So, no , hazehead, your “math” doesn’t calculate.
Ahem. Well, for most of us accidental deaths are seen very differently than homicides. And for the victims survivors, and often their communities, those accidents and murder have different psychological effects.
I hope these discussions don’t descend to the level of stats. It’s demeaning to the victims and obscures the core issues. One core issue here is whether or not we want our mentally ill carrying firearms.
Since what we have called “horrific” events or “acts of madness” the past couple decades have been enacted by mentally deranged individuals, maybe some of who (like Monday’s killer) had been committed to mental institutions .... doesn’t it make sense to focus on those profiles.
‘Hmmmm. So you’re mentally ill .... Just released you say? Well, here’s a sniper rifle I can sell ya!’
Since what we have called “horrific” events or “acts of madness” the past couple decades have been enacted by mentally deranged individuals, maybe some of who (like Monday’s killer) had been committed to mental institutions .... doesn’t it make sense to focus on those profiles.
So, why don’t we? Why was this guy basically ignored, until he killed 32?
So, why don’t we?
That’s the unanswered question ignored by pro- and anti-gun, politicians, and your favorite talk show hosts .....
Come on lawmakers. Is it REALLY that hard to make it illegal for the mentally ill from buying guns [...at least those who have been institutionalized].
Check that. It is illegal. The law is simply weak on enforcement.
Posted by American Liberal on 04/18/07 at 07:12 PM from United States
Check that. It is illegal. The law is simply weak on enforcement.
that i something we pro gunners have been saying for years. ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!
Come on lawmakers. Is it REALLY that hard to make it illegal for the mentally ill from buying guns [...at least those who have been institutionalized].
So - it’s all the fault of those who allowed him to buy a gun, and everyone else who was aware of his problems but did nothing get a pass?
oh and define “mentally ill”, because i know of some anti- gunners that would conciser anyone who owns a firearm to be “mentally ill”
So - it’s all the fault of those who allowed him to buy a gun, and everyone else who was aware of his problems but did nothing get a pass?
Absolutely not! I would be calling a bunch of people into question, starting with the parents. Same with the parents of Dylan and Kleibold. They had to have some clue of what these fucking psychos were up to. I don’t buy this “we had no idea” bullshit.
Obviously we have to try to keep guns away from the insane. The problem is making the determination and then dealing with all the privacy laws around that. Who the hell wants the insane to have guns?
Next entry: Iraq Tech
Previous entry: The Political Gap
Would this LexisNexis search be by the same John Lott (an NRA leader - not an unbiased source himself) who also said this:
Just goes to show you can get statistics to prove anything can’t you?