This is what makes the latest study from Professor Wintemute, MD, MPH, especially hilarious: It seems that it consists of going "undercover" to gun shows and taking note of anything that "looks illegal". I'm sure it will be as packed with factual knowledge and sound research as his last effort.
Doc Wintemute has inspired me, however. I'm going to do a study on improper surgical procedures in the operating theaters of America. I'm just going to grab a mask and gown and go hang out in OR's, and note when stuff just looks wrong to me.
In her trademark condescending tone, Tamara mocks Prof. Wintemute as one who is unqualified to speak about gun violence. On the contrary, Dr. Wintemute is the Director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, and as such is one of the most qualified to speak about this.
The treatment is similar for Dr. David Hemenway and Dennis A. Henigan and of course the biggest target of all is Paul Helmke.
Why do pro-gun folks resist these intelligent and highly educated men so aggressively? Why is it necessary to attack them on their expertise as well as their veracity? What's wrong with simply discussing the issues? I'll tell you what I think.
I think what explains the incredibly nasty attitude on the part of so many pro-gun writers is that they realize they're wrong. They realize that anyone who refuses to join in a common effort to find a way to diminish gun violence is in the wrong. Well, why would they do it then? Out of fear. Out of fear and insecurity.
What's your opinion? Do you have any other explanation for the behavior and rhetoric of the gun enthusiasts? Do you think they are representative of the whole, or are they just a very vocal minority? We've had a number of gun owners around here who do not fit this weird stereotype, Don and Zirgar, to name just two.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
"Why do pro-gun folks resist these intelligent and highly educated men so aggressively? Why is it necessary to attack them on their expertise as well as their veracity?"
ReplyDeleteBecause what Wintemute is peddling is 100% grade A bullshit. Did you even read Tam's post? Wintemute's "study" is a joke.
Also, just because the man has MD next to his name and received a grant from the gun control lobby doesn't make his an expert on guns or gun laws.
Tell me mike, how in the hell is Wintemute determining what guns are illegal, what illegal activity is going on and whether "crime guns" are being bought and sold by doing nothing more than walking around at a gun show taking pictures and video of people.
He is quite literally conducting a "study" based upon absolutely NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Why would you defend that?
Isn't interesting that you don't support WHY Wintermute or Hemenway are qualified other than they have jobs?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting that you don't recognize that Tam is right?
I'm the Director of Firearm Safety and Benefit Research Program (Fort Worth Texas Branch). I therefore proclaim that all firearms are completely safe and that only those with IQs less than 3 support gun control.
Care to dispute that? I'm qualified to say it because I am a Director -- (it's called "appeal to authority").
If I don't have the credentials, information, data to support my contention, why should anyone believe me?
Wintermute has no data to support his contentions, why should we believe him?
Again, Mikeb30200, how do you determine truth from falsity.
ReplyDeleteSo, because he heads up an anti-gun group you assume he knows what he is talking about in regards to illegal guns?
ReplyDeleteI guess then since Carolyn McCarthy has introduced and supported gun-control legislation, then she should know what it is that she seeks to ban but we have proven she does not.
Anti-gun people never let facts get in their way of peddling their nonsense that is based on emotion rather than logic.
Maybe this "researcher" can find a "shoulder thing that goes up" for sale at a gun show somewhere.
Quick question there MikeB...
ReplyDeleteWhen Wintemute observed all this illegal activity, did he contact the authorities and inform them of what he witnessed?
Now ask yourself why?
"Why do pro-gun folks resist these intelligent and highly educated men so aggressively? Why is it necessary to attack them on their expertise as well as their veracity? What's wrong with simply discussing the issues? I'll tell you what I think.
ReplyDeleteI think what explains the incredibly nasty attitude on the part of so many pro-gun writers is that they realize they're wrong. They realize that anyone who refuses to join in a common effort to find a way to diminish gun violence is in the wrong. Well, why would they do it then? Out of fear. Out of fear and insecurity."
You made me snort just then. That's hysterical.
The reverse is actually true. Look sometime at the "studies" the anti-gun groups espouse, from the faked one that claimed very few pioneers owned guns to the heavily doctored "you're 20 times more likely to be killed with your own gun than to use it to protect yourself."
More recently, the anti-gun groups have given up even trying to be logical. They will relay 5 or 6 anecdotes about CCW holders committing a crime (most of which were not affected in the least by the license), and call it a "study" and "proof" CCW is bad and congress shouldn't pass a nationwide reciprocity bill.
I've actually been trying to find the time to post on this most recent "study" myself. From what I've read so far, he makes a bunch of anti-gun claims, shows pictures of "scarey" and possibly illegal transactions at gun shows (I don't argue the latter doesn't happen, but they are already illegal and making them more illegal probably won't make a difference) and then makes a bunch of anti-gun statements. And from what I have read so far, makes barely any attempt to link them together.
The anti-gun groups have given up on intelligent debate because they have none. On the other side, many pro-gun blogsites regularly post statistics and real studies with carefully analyzed and honest data.
Some anti-gun sites will make up numbers, like calling 10% of gun owners criminals or claiming there is a 200:1 DGU to criminal gun use ratio, and keep calling them facts no matter how many times disputed. This is the level of debate we have to face from the pro-gun side, which is probably why our side is slowly but surely winning the hearts and minds of Americans (more and more American's side with us every year).
Of course there are bloggers on our side that are condescending. That has always been part of political debate from all sides. Though I think the current main stream king of condescending is on the lefty side, and that title goes to the "worst person in the world," Keith Olbermann.
Are you really anti-gun or is this just all a big joke?
So the FBI says 2% of crime guns come from gun shows, based on actual interviews with criminals (albeit not the most trustworthy fellows). Dr. Wintermute says the leading source in not only the US but Mexico and Canada as well, is gun shows. This based on observation of gun shows (not follow up with the people to see if they committed crimes).
ReplyDeleteMikeb, can you not see the massive disparity in how the two groups gather and report data? And you expect us to believe that Dr. Wintemute is an expert?
Ronnie Barrett is an expert on guns. And he doesn't have a medical degree. Kleck is an expert on crime, and he didn't like guns before he researched them.
Yeah, when your study method is to go to a gunshow and "document" everything that you think "looks illegal", it's not much of a study. Wintermute's previous study had been debunked and largely rejected by the actual academic community as well, so his latest is just another attempt to push his agenda without using legitmate data gathering techniques.
ReplyDeleteI think what explains the incredibly nasty attitude on the part of so many pro-gun writers is that they realize they're wrong. They realize that anyone who refuses to join in a common effort to find a way to diminish gun violence is in the wrong.
ReplyDeleteNo. What explains the nasty attitude (and it can get nasty, I'll admit) is two things: First, we've heard this a thousand times before, it's always the same, and we're tired of arguing with it. It's no fun anymore. So since reason clearly gets us nowhere, we just snark.
Second, you do understand what's being argued here, right? You're not really interested in 'diminishing gun violence,' because taking guns from the peaceable won't do that. They're the only ones that would obey these additional laws you crave, so you're clearly not serious about 'gun violence.' What you're interested in, from my point of view, is taking something away from me. Something I'm very much not interested in giving up. I don't want anything of yours, so who's harming whom? It gets on my nerves, and that's why the nasty attitude. Tell you what: You stop it, and so will I.
FWM, Carolyn McCarthy is a politician and her misstatements and failure to know the nomenclature of the weapons she was trying to legislate, although it's given you something to write about for a year or so, is different than the case of Wintemute who is an academic working in the field of violence prevention. He's an expert by simple definition. The fact that you don't like what he concludes doesn't change that.
ReplyDeleteJoe Huffman, I don't want to play that game. I didn't want to on Kevin's blog and I don't want to here either.
ReplyDeleteDoes that give you a major victory over me, that you can say I don't know the difference between truth and falsity? Fine, go ahead.
You and all your friends can say that over and over again. It's a perfect way of avoiding what I am saying, of pointing out what I am saying is wrong, of discussing the issues.
Go ahead, be my guest.
Or if you'd like you can educate all of us about the proper way of determining truth from falsity. It might be interesting to know what you and all your pro-gun friends know that the rest of us, poor liberals that we are, don't.
Joel, Thanks for that explanation about why the comments often get so sarcastic. It makes sense. And thanks for resisting the urge in this case. I appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteBut your saying "because taking guns from the peaceable won't do that," is not a fair description of what we want to do.
The old argument that the criminals won't obey the laws doesn't work because it doesn't depend on criminal compliance. If the laws are organized properly and the law abiding comply, the availability of guns to criminals will be affected. That's what we're talking about.
The old argument that the criminals won't obey the laws doesn't work because it doesn't depend on criminal compliance. If the laws are organized properly and the law abiding comply, the availability of guns to criminals will be affected.
ReplyDeleteHow?
is different than the case of Wintemute who is an academic working in the field of violence prevention. He's an expert by simple definition. The fact that you don't like what he concludes doesn't change that.
ReplyDeleteMichael Bellesiles
He was an "expert" too. At least for a while.
"I think what explains the incredibly nasty attitude on the part of so many pro-gun writers is that they realize they're wrong. They realize that anyone who refuses to join in a common effort to find a way to diminish gun violence is in the wrong. Well, why would they do it then? Out of fear. Out of fear and insecurity."
ReplyDeleteBut we as gun owners have found a way to reduce gun violence. We train and practice and shoot for fun. That way when the time comes, we can end a violent confrontation quickly. See, when we answer violence with violence, we don't do it out of some wish to act out a fantasy or to carry out a vendetta. We do it, so that other's may not at some future time be confronted by the instigator of said violence against us. We've just chosen a different path than you sir. To paraphrase Orwell, I sleep peacably because I stand ready to visit violence upon violence.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWe don't get angry because we know what we are doing is wrong. We get angry for the reasons mentioned, and for another:
This is a civil rights issue. If you take any group in this country that has had, or feels they have had, their civil rights curtailed (say, gays or the African American community)they get bloody angry if we fail to recognize this and move to remedy the situation. And this is how it should be-we should not be trampling the civil rights of law abiding citizens.
Mike, I don't know you, your character, motivations or agenda. You may very well and truly have the best interests of your fellow man at heart. I do know, from their own words that groups like the Joyce Foundation, the Brady Campaign and VPC want to end private gun ownership. I also know that they are aware that the only feasible way for them to achieve their stated goal is to do it incrementally. This is why we fight every turn of the wrench. We will not sit by and just let this crushing of our civil rights occur without a fight.
We do not want to see criminals armed, but there has yet to be a system devised that would allow the law abiding their basic human rights AND keep the criminals unarmed. Aside from keeping the criminals locked up-Codrea has a quote about people not trustworthy enough to own guns aren't trustworthy enough to move about unsupervised.
As long as people like Wintemute try to pass off what amounts to upskirt photography as legitimate scholarly work, all people of any degree of intellectual honesty have no choice but to heap it with scorn and derision. The fact that he keeps trying this same trick tells me that perhaps he is not as bright as his position and credentials may seem to indicate.
"Why is it necessary to attack them on their expertise as well as their veracity?"
ReplyDeleteBecause they have no legitimate, relevant expertise, yet insist on holding themselves out as though they did. Doctors are no more qualified to comment on guns and crime than the NRA is qualified to dispense medical advice. And if the NRA did start dispensing medical advise, I have little doubt the anti-gunners would ridicule them for it. And for once, they'd actually be right.
My great concern with Wintemute's "study" (which, by the way, M.D.'s while highly trained, are NOT trained to conduct...you're thinking Ph.D.'s) is that he purports to have assembled a team that can accurately spot felonies occurring (something which police, ATF, and other law enforcement agencies cannot do)...yet doesn't bother to report them (despite a law enforcement presence or availability at every gun show).
ReplyDeleteThroughout the repot, his observations (which the entire report really is...a series of observations and assumptions and NOT a scientific study) and lack of knowledge of laws (e.g. a family member is allowed to purchase a firearm as a gift for another family member in most states, yet in his 'study' this transaction would be identified as a straw purchase) calls to question his credibility. At best, this report should fall into popular nonfiction next to Michael Pollan's books about food...potentially meaningful, but not worthy of any peer reviewed journal due to its nature. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Pollan's work, but at least he researches the facts, while Wintemute leverages his own opinions, feelings, and prejudices.
I'd love to see an authentic study done by either the pro OR con side of gun control, but everyone who undertakes it seems to already have their mind decided before even starting...including this highly questionable report.
So the 'Tamara K.' response? Perhaps a bit knee-jerk, but does raise some valid points.
When a so called "expert" makes a mistake like saying the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 1989 (Chapter 6, page 3), can you blame people for calling his study a joke?
ReplyDeleteLuckily that's the biggest error in the study. The rest are spelling and grammar mistakes that you'd expect from a freshman in college, not a "doctor". You'd think with all that money he gets paid to do these studies, he'd hire some proofreaders and fact checkers.
Xrlq summed it up like this: "Doctors are no more qualified to comment on guns and crime than the NRA is qualified to dispense medical advice."
ReplyDeleteI guess you say the same about the Brady Campaign lawyers, Helmke and Henigan.
What I say is, regardless of a man's academic achievements, if he works for 10 or 20 years in the field of violence prevention or the gun control movement, he's an expert.
Some (not all) of their critics are folks who have not only used firearms their entire lives but have read and studied extensively on the subject. These guys are experts too, with or without university degrees.
I see no reason to attack Wintemute or the others on the basis of expertise.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou've worked in the field of gun control of many months now.
Does that make you an expert?
Or does it simply prove someone can write things without knowing what they are talking about?
Let's turn this around a bit.
ReplyDeleteI've worked as a volunteer for an organization which helps abused children for four years now. This organization helps children recover from all forms of abuse, and I've seen a fair amount of what umanity can throw at a child.
Does this make me an expert in abuse prevention?
This doctor made observations if what he THOUGHT were illegal activities. And yes, there are a LOT of activities at a gun show that could look a little shady, unless you really know what's going on. That doesn't mean they are, actually, illegal though.
You assert that "...regardless of a man's academic achievements, if he works for 10 or 20 years in the field of violence prevention or the gun control movement, he's an expert.". Unfortunately, this just isn't the case. Especially when he's shown a clear bias in his "research"...
"Why do pro-gun folks resist these intelligent and highly educated men so aggressively?"
ReplyDeleteBecause, for intelligent and highly educated men, they are frightfully ignorant about the very things they write about: guns.
It's akin to an academic with an MPH presuming he can perform surgery because he took a few years worth of classes in health care policy in college.