A Serious Question -not sure where we go

[chipbennett]

Devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure that John Lott is considered unbiased.

Based on what, exactly? I have seen many ad hominem attacks on him, but nothing that challenges the validity or objectiveness of the data he reports.

 

[chipbennett]

I would say that "unbiased" means consensus by those in the middle of the bell curve (i.e. a majority) that the conclusions are unbiased.


Not saying I don't agree with him, I'm just not sure his conclusions will be widely accepted. If a study is a released, but no one believes it (except ardents), then what value is it?

You seem to be conflating "unbiased source" with "accepted conclusions".

I would argue that, generally speaking, the lack of the latter is due to the bias of those from whom you seek said consensus, and not due to the bias of the source.

 

[chipbennett]

So, you're talking 'settled science' and '97% of scientists agree' or what? Groups with a vested interest in the status quo view consensus for change suspiciously. Ditto for those with a vested interest in radical change vis a vis consensus for conserving the old ways. Since Mr Lott is dealing with numbers, you might have to review his statistical methods and make a decision for yourself. Consensus == wisdom of the crowd == shouting out questions in a bar. Consensus just means an oversupply of wrong people

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BugI02 again.

 

[2A_Tom]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BugI02 again.

I took a shot at it. No joy.

 

[jamil]

Based on what, exactly? I have seen many ad hominem attacks on him, but nothing that challenges the validity or objectiveness of the data he reports.

Reports of objectivity are widely exaggerated. I would say that Lott is biased because he seems eager to accept findings that support a predetermined desired result while being less eager to accept findings that support a predetermined undesirable result. Does that mean his findings are wrong? No. It means he's normal.

 

[eldirector]

Seems that Chip and jamil are talking right passed each other. Normal for INGO. You both appear to be correct, but still seem to disagree about something.

Lott is a person, and has opinions. If we do a bit of reading, we may learn his opinions have changed over time. Originally more on the anti-side of the fence, after beginning his research project, discovered he was wrong. He is indeed now on the pro- side of the fence, based on what he has learned over the years.

The data and findings he has collected and published have yet to be invalidated or disproved. They stand on their own. No opinion needed.

Of course, that's my opinion.

 

[2A_Tom]

Lott was an anti-gunner that started out to prove guns were bad.

He started out with a strong bias that was overcome by facts. It may be that he is strongly pro-gun now and that "SEEMS" to be a bias, however I see him more as a zealot for the truth than someone that is operating in a biased manner.

 

[jamil]

Seems that Chip and jamil are talking right passed each other. Normal for INGO. You both appear to be correct, but still seem to disagree about something.

Lott is a person, and has opinions. If we do a bit of reading, we may learn his opinions have changed over time. Originally more on the anti-side of the fence, after beginning his research project, discovered he was wrong. He is indeed now on the pro- side of the fence, based on what he has learned over the years.

The data and findings he has collected and published have yet to be invalidated or disproved. They stand on their own. No opinion needed.

Of course, that's my opinion.

No. I'm agreeing with Chip in a disagreeable way. There's a difference you know.

 

[jamil]

I'm saying Lott is no less biased than anyone. It's not like he's gained some kind of super human anti-bias force-field. Of course he's biased. That doesn't mean that what he's researched is wrong or objectively untrustworthy. If people think it's wrong, do your own research and prove it wrong. As I said earlier, "untrustworthy" is highly partisan for topics like this. If the criticism is, oh, don't listen to John Lott, he's biased. Ya, so are you. Why should I listen to you then?

 

[JettaKnight]

Based on what, exactly? I have seen many ad hominem attacks on him, but nothing that challenges the validity or objectiveness of the data he reports.

I was just throwing it out there - just a passing thought in my noggin.


I don't recall any of his papers paint guns, gun owners, or the 2A in a negative light. And experience has taught me that everything has some unappealing perspective.


Nothing serious here, just musing.

 

[eldirector]

Ya, so are you. Why should I listen to you then?

Of course I am. I also discriminate. Definitely have some preferences. Certainly stereotype, though try to be aware of it and not let my "preconceived notions" apply to an individual. Probably have a prejudice or two (I REALLY dislike the willfully ignorant). Don't think I am bigoted in any way.

You should listen, because I am right and supported by facts, logic, and common human decency. Just sayin'.

As posted previously, Lott's position changed as he became educated. Something we should all strive for.

 

[jamil]

Of course I am. I also discriminate. Definitely have some preferences. Certainly stereotype, though try to be aware of it and not let my "preconceived notions" apply to an individual. Probably have a prejudice or two (I REALLY dislike the willfully ignorant). Don't think I am bigoted in any way.

You should listen, because I am right and supported by facts, logic, and common human decency. Just sayin'.

As posted previously, Lott's position changed as he became educated. Something we should all strive for.

Of course I said that rhetorically, aimed at people who would dismiss Lott just because they think he’s biased.

 

[eldirector]

Of course I said that rhetorically, aimed at people who would dismiss Lott just because they think he’s biased.

I know. :-)

Couldn't pass up a soapbox. They are sooo comfortable.

 

[2A_Tom]

We always carry a crate now, because ...






TERRORISTS!

 

[Cameramonkey]

Indy317 has a point that it is a reasonable argument. Yes, I can admit that an AR-15 style rifle with standard capacity magazines is more firepower than a bolt action. But that doesn’t mean that admitting that fact means we automatically accept a solution that includes a ban on these rifles. There are plenty of counter arguments.

Except all these arguments ignore one thing: the purpose of the 2A and why we have them. Limiting our firepower is contrary to the 2A because its goal is to allow us to be as dangerous as possible to an oppressive govt. Nerfing our rights and making us less dangerous is precisely counter to the 2A. Its like saying that making a faster runner start behind the rest of the runners is cool because the other runners need an advantage is OK.

Lott was an anti-gunner that started out to prove guns were bad.

He started out with a strong bias that was overcome by facts. It may be that he is strongly pro-gun now and that "SEEMS" to be a bias, however I see him more as a zealot for the truth than someone that is operating in a biased manner.

And he freely admits he is not a "gun guy". I saw his speech at the NRAAM and he admitted he just bought his first handgun about a year and a half ago. By his tone it implied that he was no longer feeling that he was safe from those who argue against his studies. Somebody asked him a fairly benign question about guns that anyone here would happily have an opinion on, and he dismissed it saying he wasnt really into guns so he didnt have a reasonable answer for the question due to his relative ignorance on the topic.

 

[2A_Tom]

No new laws directed against law abiding citizens.

The Main Stream Media has made the Modern Defensive Arm, Modern Sporting Rifle, AR clones and semi-auto AK clones into the preferred tool of deranged tools that want more than their 15 minutes of fame.

I do not know what the actual number of AR's is but it is around 30 million. The fact that a under 20 have been used in these type of crimes is no reason to create new laws.

 

[Dan35]

I firmly believe that many in our the government want to incrementally ban guns until We the People are neutered and unable to defend against intrusions on our liberties, as has happened numerous times and places in recent world history (with horrible results to the people).

I believe that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is being purposefully and aggressively eroded so that the will of We the People can be ignored. Many are still oblivious to this.

I believe that very powerful individuals and institutions are now all in, and going for broke, in this endeavor to overcome We the People. Their survival depends on the outcome.

I believe that now is time (and time is short) for We the People to stand up and speak out for what we truly believe is best for our families and the well being of our nation.

I believe that it is not, nor has it ever been, in the interests of We the People to further bargain away what our forefathers fought and died for, so that we might have a real chance to live as free people.

I believe that the fear being orchestrated against guns, of one type or another, is a distraction from the infinitely larger issue for We the People of INDIVIDUAL freedom and INDIVIDUAL responsibility vs governmental direction and control (much of which yields less than desired results).

I believe that We the People have a personal responsibility for the safety of ourselves and our loved ones and we each need to be able to carry our that responsibility according to our unique circumstances. This means that your chosen solution may not be my solution and our individual solutions should NOT negate the solutions chosen by others. That is how the response of people who are free should work. Does this approach guarantee safety for all, at all times, and in all places? NO! But it is in keeping with the history and spirit of the American people.

 

[chipbennett]

Reports of objectivity are widely exaggerated. I would say that Lott is biased because he seems eager to accept findings that support a predetermined desired result while being less eager to accept findings that support a predetermined undesirable result. Does that mean his findings are wrong? No. It means he's normal.

Then why do his biases matter? If someone has challenged either his data or his analysis of those data, I welcome to see/read it. Otherwise, calling his findings into question merely on the basis of his alleged biases is the textbook definition of an ad hominem argument.

 

[Libertarian01]

When banning "assault" weapons produces no reduction in "mass shootings" what will be next?

Give someone a pump shotgun loaded with 00 buck and see how many they could kill in a confined space. I'll bet it's more than a few.

Give someone some homemade explosive packed inside some ball bearings with rat poison and see how many that would kill.

Fact: when a person really wants to hurt other people and does not fear the repercussions - they can! See 9/11 video for more details.

There are about 40,000 deaths on American roads every year. We could reduce that to nearly zero. All we have to do is make a regulated speed limit inside cities at 15mph and on highways at 30mph and "Voila!" I would guess at least a 95% reduction in automobile deaths. I bring this seemingly off topic issue up because we are willing to live with death for our own convenience. This is the reality of life. We make trade offs every day and we're not even aware of it.

In the case of firearms it is a very simple one: we trade safety away (ie. a total firearms ban) for the greater need for self defense of self and of freedom. A group of armed people flocked to the support of Cliven Bundy. Personally I believe they were all wrong, but what is undeniable is that the federal government backed down from an armed conflict and allowed things to cool down. Had the government pressed the issue escalation may have occurred. The ability to own weapons designed to do more than drop a rabbit is necessary to equalize force between the government and citizenry. If the citizens are clearly in the wrong then the government will inevitably win, but even in winning the government must alter its tactics to do so. A guy wielding a knife in store threatening people is going to be walked on much easier than the same guy wielding an AK-47 semi-auto variant. He may still be walked on by local or federal LE, but it won't be as easy.

The abuse of any right can have severe and damaging consequences. Look at Rwanda, where the main radio station kept dehumanizing the victims by calling them cockroaches. Over 900,000 murdered, many by machete.. How many less would be dead if the freedom of speech weren't abused? I don't know but I'm willing to bet it would be more than 100. By dehumanizing the Tutsi's in the media and blaming them for all the problems it gave justification to their murder.

All we need to kill a bunch of people is to make them defenseless. That is, no matter the how and why, step number one. No mass shooting goes into a police station guns blazing. Maybe that's because they're not defenseless.

Just a few thoughts for discussion.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

Then why do his biases matter? If someone has challenged either his data or his analysis of those data, I welcome to see/read it. Otherwise, calling his findings into question merely on the basis of his alleged biases is the textbook definition of an ad hominem argument.

I'm saying bias doesn't make something true or false. But bias can make you believe something that's not true, or make you disbelieve something that is true.

Do ford bias matter? Yes and no. When Shannon Watts publishes mass shooting statistics, do we automatically assume they're wrong? When John Lott publishes his findings, do we automatically assume they're right? Bias matters when you accept without the same scrutiny the truthfulness of your worldview as the truthfulness of the other.

Bias doesn't matter when you've scrutinized the claims equally, and found some or all of them to be accurate or inaccurate or somewhere in between. Facts are facts regardless of personal biases. So if you've thoroughly researched Lott's findings, and found that he omitted no relevant data, and didn't "fudge" any numbers, and you have researched all the common criticisms and claims from his detractors, and then you've concluded that Lott is right, or, probably more accurately, mostly right, well okay then. Bias doesn't matter.