published a fascinating article by Frank Miniter, who, as you can see by his bio, is completely unbiased and objective about the gun debate.
I am a bestselling author and a freelance journalist who concentrates on man’s struggle to keep the state in balance with the American dream. My latest book is Saving the Bill of Rights. I am also the author of The Ultimate Man's Survival Guide. My website is www.frankminiter.com.
Here's the best part.
Don't you just love that "conclusively prove scientifically" part?Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) explained that in 1959 some 70 percent of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. “We’ve been able to conclusively prove scientifically that, as John Lott wrote, more guns do equal less crime. Other factors include the fact that the number of hunters has actually risen in a number of states. Then you have returning servicemen and women who are staying with the shooting sports. Meanwhile, the advocacy of the NSSF, the NRA and other groups have shown that the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of our freedom.”
Mikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to include the links to those conclusive scientifical proofs that the author cites. Or did he just make some shit up? That would be sooooooooooooo surprising.
This article highlights three serious problems in almost all areas of debate in recent times.
ReplyDelete(1) People who call themselves "scholars" or "experts" cannot ever possibly be mistaken, biased, or downright deceitful.
(2) Correlation equals causation.
(3) Something is "science" when it is complicated and only "scholars" or "experts" can argue about it.
The problem with (1) is that anyone can be mistaken, biased, and deceitful.
The problem with (2) is that correlation may or may not equal causation.
The problem with (3) is that science isn't that complicated and if people are arguing about something ad nauseum then it isn't really science -- it is politics, philosophy, or dogma.
Remember the scientific method? Someone tries to explain something that they observe and then tests their explanation. The results either support or reject their explanation. And anyone should be able to reproduce their test and get the same results.
The problem is that so many people and organizations are not interested in facts, science, or the truth. They are interested in getting their way and sometimes try to use "science" to justify it.
Nothing like a good bit of pro-gun propaganda. I found it interesting that he cites the year 1959, which sounds like it backs up my statement made in my post The Second Amendment and the Military Industrial Complex.
ReplyDeleteNothing like saying that John Lott proves your point to show someone out for being propaganda, pure and simple.
The freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment was to be free of Standing Armies, which was far more of a concern to the founders than anything else.
Even General Eisenhower warned against the influence of the Military-Industrial complex and a large military.
Yet, we have personal guns and an megasized military.
If you read the debate surrounding the Second Amendment--that is tyranny.
So much for the armed populace myth.
Amsuing note:
ReplyDeleteFrank Miniter, Contributor
I expose the excesses of the bureaucracy.
Uh yeah...
What about the tyranny caused by the Standing Army:
It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.--Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91
To everyone,
ReplyDeleteThe authors here would never claim conclusive scientific proof for their claims, even though that proof turns out to be a tangled knot of statistics that can be read a variety of ways. No, of course not.
Laci the Dog,
I'm still awaiting your statement that you oppose abortion because it isn't to be found in the original intent of the Constitution.
Laci - well by being perpetually at war, then we are not in a "time of peace" and therefore we need the standing army... simple really.
ReplyDeleteCap'n Crunch:
ReplyDelete"The problem with (1) is that anyone can be mistaken, biased, and deceitful."
For an illustration of this, look to John Lott.
"The problem with (2) is that correlation may or may not equal causation."
Really? please furnisht the etymological basis for your claim.
"The problem with (3) is that science isn't that complicated and if people are arguing about something ad nauseum then it isn't really science -- it is politics, philosophy, or dogma."
Please furnish an explanation for both the special and general theroies of relativity, tectonic plate subduction activity and the mechanism by which hemoglobin attaches and detaches oxygen molecules as it circulates in the blood supply.
Greg Camp sez:
"To everyone,
The authors here would never claim conclusive scientific proof for their claims, even though that proof turns out to be a tangled knot of statistics that can be read a variety of ways. No, of course not."
Which authors might you be speaking of, son? It's not at all clear from your comment whether you're speaking about this blog's posters or the author whose work is quoted in the OP. I know you know more about writing than any of us lesser mortals but, wtf?
"I'm still awaiting your statement that you oppose abortion because it isn't to be found in the original intent of the Constitution.
January 20, 2012 3:53 PM"
Gosh, can I take a whack at it? Abortion is not a criminal act under federal law. Foetii are not people, under law, despite what you and your anti-choice friends might believe. If they were, abortion would be homicide, under the law; it is not.
I'll go on record stating that irresponsible sexual activity coupled with a lack of genuine education about human sexuality and a lack of adequate contraceptive measures lead to a far too high number or avoidable pregnancies that are then terminated, legally, by a medical procedure. The deliberately deceitful propaganda of orgamzations such as Focus on the Family and Operation Rescue cloud the issue with a lot histrionic and hysterical horseshit.
So,Greg Camp, since abortion is not discussed in the U.S. Constitution, may we assume that you're anti-choice? Of course we may, since you're such a strict constructionist. Y'know, I haven't looked at your "Wild West" portrait in a while, but I think that if you grew a goatee you might look like a young Robret Bork--and be at least as full of shit as he is.
Greg, You and Frank Miniter are birds of a feather. American Dream and The Bill of Rights, rah rah rah.
ReplyDelete"Laci - well by being perpetually at war, then we are not in a "time of peace" and therefore we need the standing army... simple really.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 20, 2012 4:02 PM"
AFAIA, the U.S. hasn't been in a declared war since about 1945. There certainly has not been a demonstrably effective invasion or substantive attack on the U.S. or its territories, by a foreign government or its agents, since August of 1945.
While there has been a SHITLOAD of death and destruction meted out by U.S. forces since 1945, we haven't really been at war, so, FAIL.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI support abortion rights in the first two trimesters. My point in asking about it is that the current constitutional position on abortion isn't in the original construction and would probably have been opposed by the Founders, if they had considered the question. We interpret the document for our times, and the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct for our world.
With regard to relativity and plate techtonics, those are well established theories. General relativity still doesn't fit into quantum mechanics, so we have no grand unified theory, but that's a debate over evidence and mathematics, not social values.
Propaganda, causation, the militia and aborted fetuses aside, does anyone really doubt that gun sales are up over the last few years?
ReplyDeleteLaci:
ReplyDelete"The freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment was to be free of Standing Armies, which was far more of a concern to the founders than anything else."
Let's say that is true for the sake of discussion. How was a citizen in 1783 to deal with a criminal attacking their person at home? While riding to a city to vote?
Now let's up the ante. How was that citizen supposed to handle bands of hostile native Americans or even violent outlaws?
"AFAIA, the U.S. hasn't been in a declared war since about 1945. There certainly has not been a demonstrably effective invasion or substantive attack on the U.S. or its territories, by a foreign government or its agents, since August of 1945.
ReplyDeleteWhile there has been a SHITLOAD of death and destruction meted out by U.S. forces since 1945, we haven't really been at war, so, FAIL."
Well whether it is a declared war or just the Commander in Chief playing at war with the consent (or is it willful lack of oversight?) of Congress, I would say we have done a good job of staying out of "times of peace."
democommie,
ReplyDeleteSo you agree with my point number (1).
Regarding point number (2), here is a simple example. A student sets out to understand why people act strangely after drinking certain beverages. They formulate a theory that Tonic water affects the brain. To test that theory, they serve people drinks made of vodka and tonic, gin and tonic, and whiskey and tonic. (I know, whiskey and tonic would taste awful.) They observe that everyone who drinks those beverages act strangely. Since there is a 100% correlation between tonic water and strange behavior, the student concludes with absolute certainty that tonic water affects the brain.
The most obvious problem with this example is that the student failed to consider all variables. We all know it wasn't tonic water, it was alcohol in the vodka, gin, and whiskey. But the student didn't know that. The point is that when the student failed to account for other variables, the student made an apparently logical but flawed conclusion.
Regarding your questions about point (3) and explanations of Einsteins theories, plate tectonics, and hemoglobin, I could explain some of those off the top of my head without any research even though I am not a Physicist, Geologist, or a Cellular Chemist/Biologist. And that is the point. A reasonably intelligent, learned person can grasp real science. The more complicated the science, the more assistance they will need from "experts" to digest it, but they will be able to digest it. When the "experts" disagree ad nauseum, it isn't science.
FatWhiteMan:
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible to know, unless one has access to the records--that's all there is to it. When the NRA and the firearms manufacturers--all of them--furnish statistics to the public, answering of that question will be somewhat easier.
Greg Camp dithers:
"Democommie,
I support abortion rights in the first two trimesters. My point in asking about it is that the current constitutional position on abortion isn't in the original construction and would probably have been opposed by the Founders, if they had considered the question. We interpret the document for our times, and the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct for our world.'
Oh, so women may control what happens inside their own bodies up until the fetus really starts to look like a pwetty wittow babee?
This:
"
Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html#ixzz1k1NX9uRN"
is from this notoriously leftwing source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html)
indicates that 3rd trimester abortions comprise--wait for it--a statistically insignificant percentage of the abortions performed in the U.S. So, if you're really interested in saveen teh babeeez you'll work at overturning Roe v Wade, outlawing contraceptives and criminalizing a medical procedure. Rick Santorums looking for guys like you to help run his pretendsidential campaign.
"With regard to relativity and plate techtonics, those are well established theories. General relativity still doesn't fit into quantum mechanics, so we have no grand unified theory, but that's a debate over evidence and mathematics, not social values.
January 20, 2012 4:39 PM"
Is that nonsense supposed to be an answer to the request I made of Cap'n Crunch? I don't remember my saying (here's a clue: It's because I didn't say it) that any of the items I mentioned are not pretty well settled in the scientific communit--which, unlike reichwing politics and KKKristianist magic thinkig, actually allows for changes to be made to theories when new evidence becomes available--but that they are not uncomplicated or, for most laypersons, easy to genuinely understand.
At times I wish that all of your babbling was on paper and that I owned a pet store. I would never need to purchase cage liners so long as you were "arguing" your points about whatever it is you're yammering about on any given day.
And where did you ever get the quaint (and completely incorrect) notion that scientific theories such as celestial mechanics, evolution and antrhopogenic global warming are, "a debate over evidence and mathematics, not social values."?
You didn't matriculate at and graduate Liberty U, perchance?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get the idea that I'm opposed to abortion? Where did you get the idea that I'm unaware of the rarity of third trimester abortions? You're taking a page out of Dog Gone's playbook, filling the comments with irrelevant information that I already know and understand and, in this case, agree with.
But on to your next attempt at a point, what's quaint about the idea that science is a discussion of evidence and logic? Is the Earth heating up? Is this due to human causes? Those questions are purely a matter of science. What should we do about it? That's a social question. Can you undertand the difference?
Democommie: “When the NRA and the firearms manufacturers--all of them--furnish statistics to the public, answering of that question will be somewhat easier.”
ReplyDeleteDemocommie, here is a link to Japete’s site where we discussed the increase in gun sales. Short synopsis: the manufacturers report to the ATF exactly how many guns they made and how many were exported, and the ATF makes this information available to the public. They also make import information available. So from that we can conclude exactly how many new guns were introduced to the market, and we can see it ramp up considerably over the past few years. Go read the thread, and see how Japete tried to rationalize it away by suggesting that it has nothing to do with sales. Read it, and if you want to agree with her, you and I can have at it in this forum.
http://www.commongunsense.com/2012/01/new-studies-about-guns-and-gun-violence.html
These are the ATF numbers showing new guns added to the market by year:
1998 – 4,509,105
1999 – 4,731,796
2000 – 4,781,532
2001 – 4,190,476
2002 – 4,845,376
2003 – 4,632,994
2004 – 4,869,964
2005 – 5,153,487
2006 – 5,715,325
2007 - 6,461,824
2008 – 6,676,095
2009 – 8,968,180
2010 – 7,820,445
Cap'n Crunch:
ReplyDeleteI agree that John Lott is a lying sack of shit.
"Regarding point number (2), here is a simple example. A student sets out to understand why people act strangely after drinking certain beverages..."
This would not be a chemistry, bio-chemistry, pharmacy or any other life sciences student in any reputable high school, never mind undergrad or graduate level university course. The experiment is completely flawed in its inception. It really IS quite a bit like something that lying sack of shit John Lott would come up with.
"Regarding your questions about point (3) and explanations of Einsteins theories, plate tectonics, and hemoglobin, I could explain some of those off the top of my head without any research even though I am not a Physicist."
That is NOT knowing the science of any of those subjects. Scientists, those who study the processes of life, geology, astrophysics and the like CAN explain the science behind the popular notions that we all have about how the universe works. I certainly cannot do so, and I very much doubt that you can.
Your assertion is actually one that is at the heart of the arguments put forth by AGW denialists, anti-evolutionists, those who believe that human life begins at conception/fertilization, birferism, 9/11 conspiracy theory and the like. They don't know a fucking thing in most cases. They hear someone like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, John Lott, Orly Taitz, Glennie Bek or any of the other chowderheads that pass for "authorities" on the right and simply accept it as fact. It makes rational discussion with them impossible.
When you see someone quoting John Lott, or citing his work, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, unless they do, in which case they are lying.
Greg Campedoutinlalaland:
"Where did you get the idea that I'm opposed to abortion? Where did you get the idea that I'm unaware of the rarity of third trimester abortions? You're taking a page out of Dog Gone's playbook, filling the comments with irrelevant information that I already know and understand and, in this case, agree with."
Umm, aren't these YOUR words.
"Democommie,
I support abortion rights in the first two trimesters." ?
So, you're pro-abortion? Or you're only 2/3 pro-abortion? It's okay when the babeez don't got recognizable faces but not when they do? If that's not your positions, then WHAT is your reasoning that say's it's okay until the third trimester?
"But on to your next attempt at a point, what's quaint about the idea that science is a discussion of evidence and logic? Is the Earth heating up? Is this due to human causes? Those questions are purely a matter of science. What should we do about it? That's a social question. Can you undertand the difference?"
Oh, dear me, poor, poor pitiful Greg. He thinks that the Kochsuckers and their merry brand of AGW denialists are "debating" on the merits. How fucking stupid are you, really? Do you deny AGW exists? If so, cite some peer reviewed studies to back up your contention that what's going on is just a normal fluctuation, unrelated to the massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide--and the deletirious effects on the environment and biosphere--since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It's not a pointless exercise to try to slow it down but idiots like you seem to think it will go away if we ignore it. That does not surprise me, considering your basic inability to think critically.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteYou are the epitome of blind rage. You can't understand what I say, even when we don't actually diagree. Once again, I'll clarify:
1. I am pro-choice in the first two trimesters. I oppose abortion in the third, since the fetus can live with varying degrees of assistance outside of the womb, but I believe in making exceptions for the health of the mother. My position is held by many Americans and is more or less the current state of the law.
2. I accept the scientific evidence regarding the existence and causes of climate change. That's purely a scientific question. I also believe that we must change how we produce energy and how we use fossil hydrocarbons. The latter is a moral and social position.
Now, can we drop this pointless discussion so as to get back to other such discussions?
Well democommie since you bring it up, please post the baseline data that the leading climate scientists have used for their conclusions that the Earth is warming at the moment. I'll help you out a little. You won't be able to find that data because the scientist/s that has/have that data refuse to make it available to the public. Since he/they is/are not making the baseline data available, we cannot test his conclusions much less the data.
ReplyDeleteAnd while we are talking about testing, how can we test anyone's theory about global warming? In order to do that, we would need two identical Earth's -- one a "control" and another the test subject with excessive carbon dioxide. Since that is impossible, all anyone can do is make statements that are impossible to prove one way or another.
As I stated in my example, even if global temperatures did correlate to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are causing the warming. And it doesn't prove that humans released all of that carbon dioxide. We are just now discovering places around the globe that release both carbon dioxide and methane gas from the Earth's crust. How much? No one can measure it.
My point is that debate about such notions can be endless and thus are not science and certainly are not suitable for major policy decisions.
FWM, getting right to the points, asked, "does anyone really doubt that gun sales are up over the last few years? "
ReplyDeleteI don't. But, I figure the total number of gun owners is going up slightly while the average number of guns owned by each individual is going up more, accounting for most of the activity.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for increased gun ownership is partly anecdotal--gun shop owners reporting new gun buyers and so forth. Those of us with sizeable collections often have carry licenses, which in many states exempt us from a fresh background check every time we buy a gun. Look at the rush to get carry licenses and handguns in Wisconsin. Now that is likely due in large measure to pent up demand, but many of those people getting a license are also buying a first handgun.
Capn Crunch,
Climate data come from a variety of sources, including tree rings, coral growth rings, ice core samples, and so on. The ice cores, for example, give a good measure of the global temperature over time, as well as a sample of the atmosphere at the point that each new layer of ice was deposited. There is reason to believe that the Earth was heading for a new ice age around the time of the Agricultural Revolution, some nine thousand years ago, but human farming released enough greenhouse gases to stop it. What we now see, though, is a spike in temperatures well above most periods of Earth's existence.
45,000 attended the SHOT show in Las Vegas last week. 70,000 are expected to the NRA meetings in St Louis is April.
ReplyDeleteHow many are going to a Brady bash or an anti-gun show?
Thought so.
WINNING!
" am pro-choice in the first two trimesters. I oppose abortion in the third, since the fetus can live with varying degrees of assistance outside of the womb, but I believe in making exceptions for the health of the mother."
ReplyDeleteIOW, the woman gets no say in the matter? Fuck you, you ignorant misogynistic piece of shit. Trust me on this, asshole; we don't agree in any way, shape or form on the subject of "choice".
"Well democommie since you bring it up, please post the baseline data that the leading climate scientists have used for their conclusions that the Earth is warming at the moment. I'll help you out a little. You won't be able to find that data because the scientist/s that has/have that data refuse to make it available to the public. Since he/they is/are not making the baseline data available, we cannot test his conclusions much less the data."
Citation required.
I'd suggest reading this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.htML
for a start.
Thank you for the link democommie ... I'll check it out in the next couple days. Last I heard the group that had the data was in legal jeopardy for refusing to honor the U.K.'s version of a freedom of information request.
ReplyDeleteI want to ask you a question and I am hoping you will provide a simple answer. I promise I will not debate the topic; I just want to hear your thinking. It sounds like you are 100% pro-choice without any restrictions based on development of the fetus/baby. As it stands, a woman can legally end the life of a fetus/baby via an abortion while it is in the womb. A women cannot legally end the life of the fetus/baby after she delivers it. How do you reconcile that?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteHow many times do I have to tell you that I support abortion rights generally? It's the woman's choice for the first two trimesters. After that, things become more complicated, but where did I say that it wasn't the pregnant woman's decision? Why must I spell everything out for you? Just what do you think "pro-choice" means?