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.