Now, as if that whopper from Volokh isn't enough, they go on to cite John Lott.Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA with expertise on gun-related issues, points to a 2005 paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine that could not discern any significant impact on violence from eight types of gun-control laws.
"We don't have any reliable studies on the subject," he said. "It does seem pretty clear that the possible impact of any (gun-related) laws is going to be modest in either direction."
What's your opinion? Is it fair to say that there's been so much research on the subject of guns that both sides can support their argument and then quote Eugene saying "the possible impact of any (gun-related) laws is going to be modest in either direction?"
It sounds like biased double-talk to me. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
Eugene Volokh is a genius, that is indisputable. He also supported Fred Thompson's candidacy in the last presidential go-round, according to WIKI, because:
ReplyDelete"(Thompson) takes federalism seriously, and he seems to have a fairly deep-seated sense that there is a real difference between state and federal power."
he also liked Thompson's ideas about gun ownership.
Volokh was a supreme court clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor. He's touted as a brilliant analyst and legal sage. This:
"We don't have any reliable studies on the subject," he said. "It does seem pretty clear that the possible impact of any (gun-related) laws is going to be modest in either direction."
does not, on its face, qualify as brilliant analysis. On the one hand he says that there are no reliable studies--NONE,0, zilch, nada; on the other trigger finger he says, "it does seem pretty clear,,,". Oh, really? to whom? It seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Volokh is happy with those studies that vindicate his position and dismissive of those that do not.
John Lott is just a lying douchebag so I don't bother reading any of his nonsense. It's odd, to me, that his co-author David Mustard is nearly invisible--at least on the subject of gunz-- since 2001 when he published a paper.
Let's see, Volokh was born in Kiev.
ReplyDelete"Kiev or Kyiv is the capital and the largest city of Ukraine."
Yet Volokh describes himself as Russian.
Maybe he should say former citizen of the Soviet Union, but not Russian.
That's kind of like calling a Scot (or Welsh, or Irish) person English. British--OK (maybe), but not English.
I also believe that Volokh is not admitted to practise law in any bar in the USA.
Laci, I am just wondering what that has to do with anything. Could he be a Russian descendant who was born in the Ukraine? Certainly there are people who call themselves Irish though there were born in Boston.
ReplyDeleteVolokh is also a big supporter of the use of torture.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy reading his articles over at the Huffington Post. He is published there often.
ReplyDeleteHe also happens to be one of few leading acedemic scholars on the 2nd amendment.
I also believe that Volokh is not admitted to practise law in any bar in the USA.
Dr. Volokh teaches free speech law, criminal law, tort law, religious freedom law, and church-state relations law at UCLA School of Law.
BTW - He is often quoted within SCOTUS decisions. Here's his blog. http://volokh.com/
Volokh has a very popular blog. But quoting him on gun matters in an article purporting to be unbiased is just funny.
ReplyDeleteIt seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Volokh is happy with those studies that vindicate his position and dismissive of those that do not.
ReplyDeleteThat seems no different then I read around here. One doesn't like the study, attack the person. Rarely do I read actual analysis of the work.
Is it fair to say that there's been so much research on the subject of guns that both sides can support their argument and then quote Eugene saying...
I'm more inclined to believe peer reviewed work that has addressed criticism and republished. Whether that is Lott, Kellermen, etc. If said study has a lot of criticism by peer after publication, I tend to dismiss it as misinformation.
Volokh's paper 2005 paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine would have been peer reviewed. What did his critics say?
But quoting him on gun matters in an article....
Why? Is he not considered one of many experts with regards to the Constitutional application of the 2nd? I don't agree with everything he's written but I do admit he's been correct more often then not.
Helmke's an expert too, and Henigan, but whenever they're quoted, guess what happens, they get attacked personally.
ReplyDelete