HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Why Not Use Science To De...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:14 AM

Why Not Use Science To Determine What Should Be Done About Gun Control?

Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:35 AM - Edit history (1)

VP Biden has been the best gun control advocate among all politicians in my opinion and the reason for that is simple. He bases his opinion on what experts and scientists say as opposed to what lobbyists and PR firms say. If politicians acted on all issues the way Biden has on gun control, our problems would be much less. It's as simple as that. The WhiteHouse has been working long and hard on this issue but they get no credit for it by the media that only consults experts that are outside mainstream thought.

A position statement on the Sandy Hook school shooting has been posted by scientists here and an international group of experts on media violence has posted a similar statement here. The recommendations are very similar to the VP Biden led violence against women scientific report published earlier this year whose recommendations have been rejected by Republicans.

22 replies, 1951 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Not Use Science To Determine What Should Be Done About Gun Control? (Original post)
toddmiller Jan 2013 OP
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #1
iiibbb Jan 2013 #2
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #4
iiibbb Jan 2013 #5
jmg257 Jan 2013 #7
jmg257 Jan 2013 #6
TxRider Jan 2013 #20
jmg257 Jan 2013 #21
Kablooie Jan 2013 #3
gejohnston Jan 2013 #8
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #9
toddmiller Jan 2013 #14
gejohnston Jan 2013 #15
toddmiller Jan 2013 #16
gejohnston Jan 2013 #17
toddmiller Jan 2013 #22
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #10
DanTex Jan 2013 #11
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #12
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #13
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #18
gejohnston Jan 2013 #19

Response to toddmiller (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:52 AM

1. modern ignorance on 2ndA

He bases his opinion on what experts and scientists say as opposed to what lobbyists and PR firms say. If politicians acted on all issues the way Biden has on gun control, our problems would be much less

Concur; As well, Todd, there is so much misinformation, disinformation, & misunderstanding of what the 2nd Amendment actually intended. Most Americans can't even recite it properly, don't know who wrote it or when, just think that it gives people the right to own a gun rather than not own a gun - thus when you ask about the 2ndA most will say 'the right to own guns'. It was legal for colonists & early americans to own guns well before the 2nd Amendment was ever written, that was not the intent of the 2ndA in 1791.
.. I went to a Joe Biden rally, coincidentally, last election cycle, & I asked a couple people about 2ndA, off the cuff - what do you think the original 2ndA meant? -- well my husband owns a gun & I think that should be ok... I don't have any problem with people who own guns... see? 2ndA = guns, abolish 2ndA = gun bans, police state, fines, arrests for owning guns, jail.
The ignornace on what 2ndA actually entailed is appalling sometimes.

This is why americans, in polls, largely give the individual interpretation of the 2ndA. It used to be split in the 70's, about half going to militia interpretion, half to individual, but now it's about 2 to 1 for the individual. GWBush being president with his rabid pro gun vice Cheney are the reason for the supreme court rulings which reversed the historical interp as a militia based right. Bush appointed alito & roberts which gave repubs a narrow advantage on the court. Ashcroft, another bush appointee in justice was it? officially altered the 2ndA to the individual RKBA prior to the supreme court ruling as well.
GWBush was the reason for much of current gun laxity & guns galore mentality, american gullibility succors it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:07 AM

2. Oddly, people that state the real reason for it they're called crackpots

 

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.Then read it as


(a) A well "controlled" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

(b) A well "maintained" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

or

(c) A "properly functioning" militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

then answer me a two questions

1) Why would they say a "controlled" militia, and then proceed to say that the right shall not be infringed? Doesn't the second context make more sense... especially since they never meant for there to be a standing army, and that all citizens were expected to act in defense of the country, as well as provide their own arms to do so?

2) Why would they put a clause to govern state militias in the part of the Constitution that was specifically created to enumerate the rights of individuals?


The difference between now and then? Probably I don't have the philosophical or sociological chops to discuss it. What I do think is that the bill of rights shouldn't need that to interpret it.

I think it means individual rights. I think the Federalist papers back me up. I think that if the country wants to make the second amendment mean else, it should be done through the amendment process.

As far as the scientific case, I am a scientist, although an environmental scientist. I do have a PhD. The one thing people forget about statistics is that it only means something to populations... they are fairly meaningless to individuals. Try telling a person being eaten by a bear that the odds of it are astronomical. Tell the winner of a lottery they wasted their money. A distribution describes a population, and in that population you get all kinds of outcomes. Anyone who claims a specific result from gun control, or owning a gun, is not acknowledging this.

At any rate, I still think people have a right to make up their mind about their odds of a specific events happening in their lives. If we want to change the culture, we have to do it at the amendment level; anything else is a poor substitute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:58 AM

4. English bill of rights 1689, just glorious

iiibbb: 1) Why would they say a "controlled" militia, and then proceed to say that the right shall not be infringed? Doesn't the second context make more sense... especially since they never meant for there to be a standing army, and that all citizens were expected to act in defense of the country, as well as provide their own arms to do so?

(part reposted from another thread): You post dictionary definitions evidently from a modern site http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulate

Here's how 'regulate' was defined in 1828 by webster, contemporary to 2ndA 1791:

1828 - regulate REG'ULATE, v.t. 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate

In 1828 'regulate' meant either to adjust by rule or method, to put in good order, or to subject to rules or restrictions, or a combo of the three. .. 'control' is not in websters 1828 definitions.
You seem to harp on singling out one particular definition of 'regulate' & trying to apply your own favorite, while disallowing for the others. Boo.

iiibbb: Why would they put a clause to govern state militias in the part of the Constitution that was specifically created to enumerate the rights of individuals?

The 2ndA qualified as an 'individual' right, only for militia purpose; american white males 17 - 45 (not women, adolescents, most blacks, slaves) had an individual right to belong to militia. Militia service became a responsibility the next year by the Militia Act of 1792.

British Paper on 2008 ruling by US Supreme Ct on 2ndA: ... contrary to discredited scholarship {to wit, joyce malcolm} upon which Heller relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm.
The “have arms” provision in the {1689} English Declaration of Rights .. provided two protections to the individual. First, the right to “have arms” gave certain persons (qualified Protestants) the right to possess arms to take part in defending the realm against enemies within (i.e., Catholics) as well as foreign invaders.
Second, the grant of a right to “have arms” was a compromise of a dispute over control of the militia that gave Parliament concurrent power (with the sovereign) over arming the landed gentry. It allowed Parliament to invoke its right of “self-preservation” and “resistance” should the sovereign usurp the laws, liberties, estates, and Protestant religion of the nation.
... The Supreme Court correctly found that the English right to “have arms” was an expression of the same right that has “long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment.”
Where the Court erred was by interpreting the quoted terms in a manner divorced from their historical context, reading “individual” to mean “private,” “defence” to mean “defense against harm by private individuals acting for private purposes” and equating “self-preservation” with the modern usage of the term “self-defense.” In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point.
The origins of {2ndA} in the English right to “have arms” demonstrate that this right of self-preservation/self-defense gives individuals the right to collectively defend their public interests against organized assault or tyranny, not only in case of a foreign invasion, but, in 1689, in the event of a Catholic plot to overthrow English Protestants.
Moreover, the right of “self-preservation” was to be exercised not by individuals acting privately or independently, but as a militia organized by their elected representatives, whether Parliament, the Boston Town Council, or otherwise.

http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/briefs/pdf/brief__08-1521__22.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:49 AM

5. You are hinging everything on only part of the history... as am I, I guess

 

The truth of the matter is possession being 9/10ths of the law, so is conventional wisdom. And conventional wisdom being as it is, you're going to have to modify the 2nd amendment if you want to change things now. Anything else is just the platinum coin option, a gimmick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:04 AM

7. Like this...

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:41 AM - Edit history (3)

The 2ndA qualified as an 'individual' right, only for militia purpose; american white males 17 - 45 (not women, adolescents, most blacks, slaves) had an individual right to belong to militia. Militia service became a responsibility the next year by the Militia Act of 1792.

Very thoughtful.
(Though in numerous states it was already a duty to be enrolled.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 09:02 AM

6. Even though not contemporary, in the 2nd & Constitution, atleast 3 definitions

you provide are covered fairly well.

The militias were supposed to be well organized, well armed, and well disciplined...i.e. "well regulated"...('proper functioning' - i.e. usefull & effective).

All according to guidelines provided by the Congress (an Act of Congress - 'direct according to rule/law'), and trained under the authority of the States (authority of a governmental body - the States)

'Controlled' could be seen in how they were to be governed when called forth for federal service (by the Congress, Pres is CinC.) and how they were subject to martial law; otherwise they are under the authority of the States.

"are Necessary" would give you "maintained". Well functioning Militias were mandatory.

To that end, the people have the right 'to keep and bear arms' - i.e. to serve in the Militias.


From Federalist #29
"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

Mr. Scott: "objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army."
In Congress 1789

'Keeping arms' here obviously refers to Militia service.

Mr Gerry: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this {religious exemtion} clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

'Bearing arms' here obviously refers to Militia service.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:31 PM

20. I see it like this..

The 2nd stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can only be read as an individual right.

"The people" throughout the document refers to individuals and individual rights.

Regardless of intent then, or now, I see any interpretation of "The people" in the 2nd to mean anything other than individuals to pose a serious threat to protections of the rest of our rights.

We an argue about the first half of the 2nd amendment all day long, but to say that the 2nd oes not protect individuals rights cannot be accomplished without interpreting "the people" in the 2nd to mean other than individuals.

If that interpretation were to be codified then you can be assured that "the people" as used in the 1st amendment and all the others using "the people" to protect individual rights is very open to challenge in the future.

To me the only clear way forward if you want to change is to modify the 2nd amendment itself, not to twist an interpretation of convenience that opens up a threat to almost all our individual rights being challenged. It would not be a good precedent to set.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TxRider (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:50 PM

21. I have no trouble that the people have 'the right to keep and bear arms' as

Individuals. But it is another matter to be sure that 'to keep and bear arms', especially in this case, was a phrase unrelated to a martial act.

In all the debates about the 2nd and the militias, this phrase was almost if not always exclusively tied to the militia, not to any other purpose (hunting self defense tc.) Of course there are examples of non-military use of the phrases, but they were obviously not of a concern to the framers. Does an individual right or privilege exist for having/using arms for other lawful purposes? No doubt...but there is doubt that THAT right is what was secured from infringment in the 2nd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:48 AM

3. Science and reality are two things Republicans do not believe in.

You'll never get them to agree if you use logic.
The only thing that affects them is emotion and fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:29 AM

8. Which science?

Gun control advocates call peer reviewed studies by respected criminologists like Gary Kleck, David Rossi, James Wright, etc "NRA shills" just because they don't like their results.

On the other hand, GCAs like the studies done by ER doctors like Arthur Kellermann and Garin J. Wintemute. Kellermann's studies were questionable and Wintemute's was so bad I have no idea how they got published.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:35 AM

9. I rather like...

...the part that says: "...guns are never the simple cause of a violent act..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:16 PM

14. As noted in the links to the original articles they are international bodies of interdisciplinary

scientists including sociologists, psychiatrists, social psychologists, criminologists and other relevant disciplines. There are also links to national groups in Canada, US and Australia. Everyone pretty much agrees except for a few paid spokesperson for various interest groups. Instead of focusing on the crap experts that always seem to make their way onto TV, I believe it's better to focus on what entire scientific organizations conclude, especially if they're from a strong Democracy where corruption is less (e.g., Australia and Canada) or an international organization.

Also, clinicians tend to speak on TV. Clinicians went to school to treat patients and typically know next to squat about research. Researchers who are almost never asked to speak on TV tend to know what they're talking about, especially if what they say is in line with national organizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:23 PM

15. true

none of the criminologists I listed like Wright or Kleck have never been on TV and has no connection to either interest group. The would not meet your criteria for "crap experts".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:24 AM

16. They meet one criteria and fail the other

Their work is consistent with what international bodies have concluded. If fact, they conclude the opposite of what most scientists believe to suggest. Furthermore, their work isn't well respected by other scientists. In fact, more often than not it's been criticized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:30 AM

17. Hemenway et al

has also been criticized. Even Lott has his supporters and detractors among academics. Every study is going to have counters and critics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:04 AM

22. The link below is a discussion of that issue. Media and others misinterpret

how science should be interpreted. There's no such thing as a perfect study. Science is a process that includes interpreting the results of multiple studies. Shooting holes in one study is Master's level analysis. PhD you learn to synthesize and interpret the literature and make judgment as a body of scientists whether any conclusions are warranted. See the structure of scientific revolutions by McGuire. See my comment after the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:46 PM

10. Criminologists are scientists.

The discipline was started about 200 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:20 PM

11. For the same reason we don't use science to determine what should be done about climate change.

The GOP/NRA doesn't believe in science and has fought the scientific community at every turn, even going so far as to cut funding for gun violence research because the results weren't supportive of their political agenda.

Whether it's climate change, or guns, or evolution, or anything else, science doesn't have much weight with teabaggers who are committed to ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:46 PM

12. scalia's phantom support for 'well regulated'

jmg: ..in the 2nd & Constitution, atleast 3 definitions you {iiibbb} provide are covered fairly well. The militias were supposed to be well organized, well armed, and well disciplined...i.e. "well regulated"...('proper functioning' - i.e. usefull & effective)....
{jmg}: To that end, the people have the right 'to keep and bear arms' - i.e. to serve in the Militias.


concur, jmg;
Relatedly, Justice Scalia ruled, in order to distance 'well regulated' from conferring any restrictions upon the militia or firearms:".. the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (Regulate: To adjust by rule or method): Rawle 121-122; cf Virginia Declaration of Rights...)".

.. the Articles of Confederation, the original american constitution, which were the law from 1781 until 1789.. (Congress formally adopted the Articles Nov 1777, but full ratification wasn't until Mar 1781): Article VI (+emph) Nov77: ".. every state shall always keep up a well regulated AND disciplined mlitia, sufficiently armed and accoutered.."

Doesn't absolutely refute scalia, but the articles of confederation do seem to make a distinction between 'well reg'd' and 'disciplined', which scalia calls synonymous.
---------------------------

PS: Justice Scalia ruled (repeat from above): ".. the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (Regulate: To adjust by rule or method): Rawle 121-122; cf Virginia Declaration of Rights...)".

Note from above how scalia cited Johnson & Rawle & the Va Dec of Rts to make his case that 'well regulated' meant nothing more than discipline & training.

Regarding Johnson 1619, scalia simply cited Johnson's dictionary definition of regulate - To adjust by rule or method - clear as mud that johnson agreed with scalia, eh? nah, scalia creates phantom support from johnson.

Scalia cites Wm Rawle for support, even though Rawle was not providing a proper definition of what 'well regulated' meant: That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country.
Yeah, a disorderly militia is not a well regulated one, but that's only one aspect of well reg'd (being orderly) & rawle wasn't providing a proper definition. Scalia the conman reaching too far.
An orderly militia, being necessary for the security of a free state?

Justice Scalia also cited Virginia Dec. of Rts., noting 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814, apparently referencing: 'Whereas, in all other things .. .. imitate and follow the Policy .. Used in the Realm of England..'.
Unsure how this helps define well regulated as per Justice Scalia, unless Virginia is citing England to support Johnson's definition?
It's weird, like scalia's conjuring up these phantoms to support his version of 'well regulated' which when scrutinized, don't really do that!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:07 PM

13. Carrying arms is not Bearing Arms (wm rawle)

jmg posted: Mr. Scott "objected to -- "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." This would lead to the violation of another article.., which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army." In Congress 1789

{jmg}'Keeping arms' here obviously refers to Militia service.


I hadn't seen this before, concur.

Mr Gerry: They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."
{jmg} --'Bearing arms' here obviously refers to Militia service.

Note how Wm Rawle, in 1825, separates 'bear arms' from 'carry arms', but you have to think on it, it's not blatantly obvious:
In Chapter 11 (XI) of A View of the Constitution, Treason against the United States, is this suggestive passage (+emph):

Rawle, 1825: "All insurrection, the object of which was to suppress an office of excise .., and the marching with a party in arms to the house of the excise officer, and committing acts of violence and outrage there, with a view by force and intimidation to prevent the execution of the law, has been held to amount to a levying of war against the United States.
A conspiracy to subvert by force the government of the United States, violently to dismember the Union, to coerce repeal of a general law, or to revolutionize a territorial government by force, if carried into effect, by embodying and assembling a military body in a military posture, is an overt act of levying war; and not only those who bear arms, but those who perform the various and essential parts which must be assigned to different persons, for the purpose of prosecuting the war, are guilty of the crime {treason}.


As I said you need think on it; Rawle identifies those insurrectionists - a party in arms, or those conspirators 'in a military posture' - they are obviously bearing arms as per the last sentence.
.. then he designates 'other' co-conspirators who do 'not' bear arms, as those who perform various & essential parts of the treasonous acts. It's stupid to think some of these co-conspirators would not own muskets or rifles or other arms - in other words keeping arms, or even carrying them on the person but not bearing them in a military posture.
.. leaders perhaps, spies, aiders & abettors, could certainly have kept or carried pistols or knives innocuously about or kept them at their homes & offices but not in a belligerent manner, clandestinely.
.. scalia did make the concession that bearing arms was in a confrontational manner, but then soon contradicted himself with double double talk talk.

Rawle wrote this in his 2ndA Treatise: "The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddmiller (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:15 AM

18. Kleck & Lott & Mary Rosh too

johnston: Gun control advocates call peer reviewed studies by respected criminologists like Gary Kleck, David Rossi, James Wright, etc "NRA shills" just because they don't like their results.

gejohnston true none of the criminologists I listed like Wright or Kleck have never been on TV and has no connection to either interest group. The would not meet your criteria for "crap experts".

Kleck has given interviews, regarding his 'dgu' study; this might be dated, 1993: Readers may be interested to know that Kleck is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is also a lifelong registered Democrat.
He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to the NRA, Handgun Control Inc., or any other advocacy group on either side of the gun-control issue, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.


Kleck interview ref his 2.5 million defensive gun uses yearly:
SCHULMAN: How many respondents did you have total?
KLECK: We had a total of 4,978 completed interviews, that is, where we had a response on the key question of whether or not there had been a defensive gun use.
SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime?
KLECK: Handguns, yes.
SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any gun.
KLECK: Right.
SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people?
KLECK: Something like that, yeah.
SCHULMAN: Okay. I can just hear critics saying that 50 or 55 people responding that they used their gun and you're projecting it out to figures of around 2 million, 2-1/2 million gun defenses. Why is that statistically valid?
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

-------------------------------------
gejohnston Even Lott has his supporters and detractors among academics.

John Lott you might recall, wrote 'More Guns, Less Crime' and his study is still quoted by gunworld as having 'proven' that carrying concealed handguns have a positive effect on reducing crime. John Lott even created a fake screenname (Mary Rosh) & went online to promote his own books! and himself! (the best professor I ever had! said mary rosh, er, john lott).

"The argument that more guns makes us safer is made by Professor John Lott, who usually doesn’t mention that his work is paid for by the Olin Foundation, the Olin Co. being the manufacturer of Winchester ammunition. http://concealedguns.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=010354

Is true, Olin Foundation, as some kind of subsidiary (back then) of winchester ammo, funded 'More Guns Less Crime'. Imagine, a bullet maker funding a ccw study to determine whether carrying concealed guns, & bullets, reduced crime, & whattaya know, it Do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:09 PM

19. Lott's book was published by

the University of Chicago Press. It was peer reviewed. That doesn't mean it is flawless or even good.
Really, I missed that interview with Kleck.

That said, every study that I know of that counters Kleck is funded by the Joyce Foundation, the same people who astro turfs Brady, VPC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread