I have had an issue with the fact aversion of the right wing for some time now, including the lapses of my own member of Congress from the district in which I live, as well as that of another Minnesota member of Congress, Michele Bachmann's notorious lack of connection to either fact or reality.
I found the story on the website of John Lott, of More Guns, Less Crime fame. An excerpt of the story appeared right next to this bio:
Virginia, United StatesThe headline of the post read:
Amazed how lucky I am that I have had jobs where I could just think about whatever I wanted to think about. I have published over 90 articles in academic journals. I received my Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984.
and over the labels 'GunControl, Terrorism'11/23/2011
Limes are classified as a weapon in the UK?
What is next? Lime registration? From the UK Daily Mail:
all of which are under this giant banner, apparently intended to impress the gullible:
Posting that story, that brief comment, right next to the bio where he tells his web site readers about his academic accomplishments certainly seems to me to be an attempt to give the imprimatur of fact and accuracy to this. There is no criticism, no skepticism, no challenging thinking that this might not be true, plausible, or reasonable. That impression is further conveyed by the labels at the end of the excerpt.
I shouldn't be surprised. Looking at his book entry on Wikipedia.org, under controversy, the studies in support of Lott's work seem largely to derive or be funded by fairly far right sources, rather than independent academic sources. The list of sources which oppose or contradict Lott's work is considerably longer.
So, now it is clear that Mr. Lott doesn't do his fact checking on the content of his web site. On top of the challenges to his other work, perhaps that shouldn't surprise me. But it does go a long way to explaining where the story got its original circulation, because I don't really find it plausible that there are a lot of gun nuts who make a habit of reading a UK tabloid.
Shame on Mr. Lott for lending even his limited credibility with the gun loonz to such nonsense. Shame on Lott and the rest of the loons for single sourcing content and for doing so without any research into the credibility of their sources.
But it sure is fun to be on the debunking side of the story.
In case our readers are wondering, I've left comments on Lott's site and others noting the factual inaccuracy of the story as well as the poor credibility of the source, and a criticism for promoting it without fact checking it first.
Like our gun nuts so often do. How fortunate they have us to do those necessary critical thinking exercises for them.
Considering all the other ridiculousness that happens in the UK in regards to their mortal fear of weapons and potential weapons, you can't blame anyone for believing that limes are considered weapons.
ReplyDeleteYes I can.
ReplyDeleteNo, there is NOT unreasonable fear of weapons in the UK, and no they don't engage in ridiculous prohibitions.
That was a preposterous story on the face of it, and it was so ridiculous you should have checked it.
Not fact checking is endemic on the right, believing utter crap, totally made up stories is epidemic.
"How fortunate they have us to do those necessary critical thinking exercises for them."
ReplyDeleteWell, there is sound critical thinking and unsound critical thinking. It is easy to differentiate between the two.
Unsound critical thinkingstirs up contentious feelings, sanctions totalitarian thinking, indulges in elemental double standards, permits fallacies, and endorses prejudice. In this manner, unsound critical reasoning usually makes situations worse rather than better.
And there you have it.
"No, there is NOT unreasonable fear of weapons in the UK."
ReplyDeleteOf course there is. I have documented many such cases on my own blog. Some examples headlines:
1. Children banned from shooting events in 2012 ticket giveaway
2. Toy Firearm gets Banned from Flight at Gatwick Airport - Keep in mind the toy firearm was permanently attached to a 9 inch action figure. Sadly, such stupidity is becoming policy among the TSA.
3. Flame-thrower scooter owner arrested - Not because a flame throwing scooter is inherently dangerous, but because it was considered a "converted firearm".
4. Then there is the anti-stabbing knife.
5. And finally, my personal favorite, the anti-knife chicken box.
Stuff like the above makes me glad to live in a free country and free state where I have nearly unfettered access to guns, proper knives, flame throwing scooters, and any quantity of citrus fruit I desire.
Lets tale these in order.
ReplyDelete1. Olympic shooting sports. at least the source is more reliable than the Daily Mail. It doesn't ban kids from attending the shooting sports, it is simply not going to provide them free tickets.
So? They explain that it is trying to cooperate with an initiative to prevent gun and knife violence.
Were you aware of the age demographic in the statistical breakdown of who is at greatest risk for that involvement?
Not glamorizing firearms to kids makes sense, and the Olympics very much glamorize the participating sports.
Are they right not to give the tickets to these kids? Maybe yes, maybe no; but that they are concerned with a demographic that is at greater risk for involvement in gun violence and gun crime, does not make them ridiculously fearful by any stretch. It shows they are looking at how to target the segment of their population with some of the worst problems with weapons.
But apparently you RedAz either did not read the entire article or did not fact check to put it in a more complete context. You just had a knee-jerk reaction and made an unfair assessment of this decision.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteSo the Olympics glamorizes sports, and therefore, children will grow up to be violent users of firearms? Have you seen the guns used by Olympic athletes? We're talking about a disciplined group of people, not thugs. Showing children an appropriate use of firearms makes complete sense to me.
John Lott's a lying piece of shit who fudges/makes from whole cloth his "statistics". He would be very welcome at Farah's Whirled Nuts Daily.
ReplyDeleteBetween lying about basic research (he didn't do any) for his bullshit book, to fluffing himself by using sockpuppets to pump up his cred he's a poster boy for the gunzloonz.
Showing children an appropriate use of firearms makes complete sense to me.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, we don't know how many kids are affected by this decision, how many WANT to attend compared to other sports.
Secondly, glamorizing weapons which are largely not found in use by anyone except criminals using them for violence, even if they are shown using them with precision. The firearms are still weapons.
I think that the kids should get tickets to whatever they have an interest in attending, so far as possible. But I can see both sides, given the problem demographics.
This does NOT demonstrate an unreasonable fear of weapons. The fact that they are hosting the Olympics, including shooting sports, and including having a UK team competing demonstrates that.
To continue to do the fact checking that RedAz didn't.
ReplyDeletedog gone said...
Moving on to the second example.
Yes, a screener made a stupid interpretation of the rules and regs for what is allowed on a plane.
So? You have not demonstrated that this is typical RedAz. It is not. So a rare fluke doesn't prove your point.
Further, you take it out of the larger context.
A better source for information than the Daily Mail, but you don't discriminate, and you don't fact check; you DO cherry pick -a lot.
Here is a larger context for those regs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1578183.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackingsj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdom
In that context,the number of bombings and hijackings and other terrorist activities, I don't think the regulations are ridiculous or disproportionate. And the routine interpretation of those regs is reasonable, not fearful or ludicrous.
Unless you cherrypick the information to make it look that way.
Then we have number 3.
ReplyDeleteIt's a weapon. Gee didn't I recall a recent discussion here about gunpowder being a flammable rather than an explosive?
So now the Brits are unreasonably fearful because they classify something like a flamethrower in with weapons using another flammable, gun powder.
In any case, it doesn't appear that this makes the case that the Brits are unreasonably fearful.
It's just another idiot doing his dress rehearsal for the Darwin awards who was stopped before his opening night.
Then we have number 4.
ReplyDelete"The first "anti-stab" knife will soon go on sale in Britain and has been designed to work as normal in the kitchen, but be ineffective as a weapon.
Knife has unique "combination tip"
Tip has rounded edge instead of a point
Blade for cutting is underneath
Ergonomic handle reduces aggressiveness of the knife
The knife has a unique "combination tip" that reduces the risk of injury. The tip has a rounded edge instead of a point and the blade for cutting is underneath. While it can chop vegetables, the tip makes penetration more difficult. It also snags on clothing and skin, making it very unlikely to inflict a fatal wound. "
Btw, your link no longer works; I found it by googling.
So, someone noticed that kitchen knives rather than say camping knives or hunting knives or pen knives or switchblade knives were used in stabbings.
So they made an attempt to produce a good kitchen knife that wouldn't be a good weapon to injure people.
And THIS is supposed to demonstrate somehow that the UK is unreasonably fearful of weapons?
OR, it demonstrates that someone was an inventor, an entrepreneur. It is fact and reality based like the issue with the gun sports tickets, focusing on problem areas.
and a PR campaign like this
ReplyDelete"In terms of targeting their audience this is genius. Whether or not anyone reads a chicken box and thinks "Yeah, I'm going to leave my knife at home next time," well, that's another story - but all credit to the police for trying something a little bit different.
So again, targeting the demographics of a certain kind of violence is......ridiculously fearful?
Or they're just trying to combat a problem.in innovative ways. What makes this 'ridiculously fearful'?
Nothing, but it makes for good cherry picking by the ignorant. The ones like RedAz who know nothing much factual about the attitudes towards crime and weapons in the UK.
Tell me RedAz - ever been there? Ever lived there? Or do you just look for silly stuff and pretend it somehow describes the reality?
No wonder YOU believe stupid shit about limes, as does your hero expert Lott.
Well, there is sound critical thinking and unsound critical thinking.
ReplyDeleteNo there is pretty much logic which relies on fact, and stupid emotional response which relies on the irrational, mistakenly labeling it reason.
"This does NOT demonstrate an unreasonable fear of weapons. The fact that they are hosting the Olympics, including shooting sports, and including having a UK team competing demonstrates that."
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, you've just proven that it is an unreasonable fear of weapons. The weapons aren't being abused. They are actually being used for the "sporting purpose" that gun banners claim to have no problem with and yet they still bristle in fear for The Children®.
"So now the Brits are unreasonably fearful because they classify something like a flamethrower in with weapons using another flammable, gun powder."
Flames coming out of the exhaust of a scooter is not a weapon and it's definitely not a firearm by even the loosest of definitions. It's just par-for-the-course English Nannyism.
"In that context,the number of bombings and hijackings and other terrorist activities, I don't think the regulations are ridiculous or disproportionate"
Remind me: How many airplanes have been hijacked by action figures? The actions of screener? Completely ridiculous.
"OR, it demonstrates that someone was an inventor, an entrepreneur. It is fact and reality based like the issue with the gun sports tickets, focusing on problem areas."
It does no more to focus on the problem, than filling a car with a dozen airbags focuses on the problem of inattentive drivers. It focuses on the weapon instead of the offender.
"Or they're just trying to combat a problem.in innovative ways. What makes this 'ridiculously fearful'?"
It may be innovative, but is also incredibly hilarious and quite pathetic. Hence, it's inclusion. I wonder if it's helped to reduce knife crime? Or will the English fire up that innovative spirit and invent a foam rubber knife and only allow people to buy one if they provide 8 character witnesses?
I have that book on my shelf and have read it. He's a pretty slick con-man in my opinion. I'nm not surprised the less-gifted believe in him. You can see our friends on The Truth About Guns don't talk abour Prof. Lott too much.
ReplyDeleteReally, Aztec Red, you live in a fantasy world.
ReplyDeleteDid they toss you from Lipstick Alley because someone found out you weren't really black?
The flamethrowing scooter, Asstec Red? You really want to defend some asshole who is willing to attack someone he thinks is following too close?
ReplyDeleteYou demonstrate the exact sort of behavior that put the "loon" in "gunzloonz".
It does no more to focus on the problem, than filling a car with a dozen airbags focuses on the problem of inattentive drivers. It focuses on the weapon instead of the offender.
ReplyDeleteIt is much more like equipping vehicles WITH airbags instead of continuing to make unsafe automobiles RedAz.
In recognizing what kind of knives are used in knife violence, and changing them so they are not useful as weapons, it is the same focus. If a knife is not available that makes a good weapon, it won't be used as a weapon.
I would argue that is a false analogy to compare accidental injury and death with acts that intentionally cause those things.
But to use your analogy, we penalize distracted driving, as the Brits do with knife violence.
We have public campaigns to educate people not to be distracted drivers, and the Brits are doing that with the chicken box campaign as well.
AND we continue to make vehicles safer, to minimize injuries and death, which is exactly what is being done in the case of this knife invention.
Your argument fails.
Red Az writes:On the contrary, you've just proven that it is an unreasonable fear of weapons. The weapons aren't being abused.
ReplyDeleteAnd no adults are being denied free tickets, nor are children who have an interest or who engage in gun sports being denied the right to purchase tickets.
But as to guns being abused or not abused, I would disagree. What is being promoted is rewarding greater accuracy in shooting. There is no more moral example being shown. What is demonstrated is simply proficiency with a firearm, which goes to promoting the potential power and effect of a weapon over distance. It does nothing to address anything else.
They are actually being used for the "sporting purpose" that gun banners claim to have no problem with and yet they still bristle in fear for The Children®.
I understand why they are targeting kids as a demographic; it makes sense. In order for providing free tickets to this event to genuinely and legitimately promote shooting sports versus the illegal and dangerous aspects of firearm proficiency, there would need to be some form of educational content provided in addition to those tickets.
That is not the case with any other sport in the Olympics that I can think of taking place in 2012.
So, unless the pro-gun sports people want to develop that material, persuade the Olympic committees and educators that it is effective, AND pay for it in the time remaining before the events occur, I don't think this is a reasonable conclusion on your part.
Red Az, comparing what the Brits are doing in turning knives into safer objects would be equivalent to making vehicles safe in the hands of even inattentive drivers, while retaining the capability of being a mode of transportation.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't make a country unreasonably fearful of weapons. That is an unwarranted leap from the information.
What you fail to realize is that to those other countries of the world, particularly Europe, the UK and other industrialized developed countries, OUR gun policies appear insane.
And those observations are correct, because we have more guns and more gun violence than anywhere else that is equivalent.
You are critical of those countries, you try to mock them as fearful, but they have done what we have not, and you have yet to propose any solutions that would similarly make us as safe as they are, while remaining as free as we are.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteRed Azztec is convinced that it's alright to give free tickets to kids for this thing. I'm sure it's also okay with him to give kids free tickets to a beverage industry show where the kids will get a "safe" introduction to the joys of beverage alcohol and it's unmitigated success as a social lubricant. Hey, what the hell, why not just strap on teh Ol' Glock and take 'em down to the Lock'n'Load eaterydrinkeryshootery and let 'em see, firsthand, just how well liquor and gunz mix! Can I get a "YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAW!"?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteEurope thinks that we're crazy? That is so entirely uninteresting. I didn't know that we'd joined the European Union--oh, that's right, we didn't.
The Europeans may think whatever they wish about us. We may remind them of their opinion when they come asking for help next time. Of course, given the globalization of the world, we probably can't turn our backs to them, but it would be pleasant if they'd stop judging us, especially since they get upset when we do the same about them.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it (working from memory here), the Europeans are a lot calmer about teaching children how to use alcohol responsibly--by parents introducing limited amounts in the home, in religious ceremonies, etc. It all seems like a parent's responsibility to teach children about adult things.
The Europeans may think whatever they wish about us. We may remind them of their opinion when they come asking for help next time. Of course, given the globalization of the world, we probably can't turn our backs to them, but it would be pleasant if they'd stop judging us, especially since they get upset when we do the same about them.
ReplyDeleteAnd this goofball confirms every belief about stupid yanks.
Thank god, he could give a shit about that!
And you wonder why I am British once I leave the US? No way do I want to be confused for a numskulll ike him.
Proud to be an idiot!
Once again Greg Camp talks off the top of his pinhead.
ReplyDeleteThis:
http://www.mdt.mt.gov/safety/docs/taskforces/ojjdp_feb01.pdf
is a U.S. DoJ report. Try reading it.
I spent nearly four years in Wiesbaden, German while in the U.S. Air Force. My experience was that germans, young and old alike, drank like americans. There was more than a little public drunkeness, especially around holidays of any sort.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteAnd how would other nations feel if everyone around the world constantly made jokes about them, despite needing their help from time to time? But really, the Europeans are welcome to their attitudes. We'll keep our guns.
And how would other nations feel if everyone around the world constantly made jokes about them, despite needing their help from time to time? But really, the Europeans are welcome to their attitudes. We'll keep our guns.
ReplyDeleteHow stupid. It seems to me we've been requesting help from the Brits all too often, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
So..by your reasoning, that means RedAz shouldn't be making fun of the Brits.
The rest of the world have every right to criticize us for the number of firearms deaths and injuries. They are a stain on this country, they are shameful and they damn well make us less FREE.
You have no solutions, no answers, and you apply a double standard.
Keep your guns, by all means, - keep them at home, you're too bone ignorant and stupid to safely carry them.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, Great Britain has supported us. The relationship isn't called special for nothing. We've helped each other for a long time. But when there's a war in Europe, we get called. That's fine, since we have long ties to many countries there, and things have settled down since the nineties. If they or other nations want to comment on our gun deaths, that's their right. Still, we have the right to decide for ourselves how we're going to run our own country within our borders., presuming a basic committment to human rights--which we have.