A Serious Question -not sure where we go

[2A_Tom]

John Lott is a professional Economist that publishes data with deep documentation.

Shannon Watts is a Professional Bull S*** artist that Publishes Bull S***.

Prove me wrong.

 

[jamil]

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

Yeah. How many people did that nutter kill in Japan with gasoline? A few dozen?

 

[jamil]

John Lott is a professional Economist that publishes data with deep documentation.

Shannon Watts is a Professional Bull S*** artist that Publishes Bull S***.

Prove me wrong.

No. That's true. Shannon Watts is a marketing expert, and doesn't really know anything about understanding gun related statistics. There's also ample evidence that she's a anti-gun zealot. Plenty of reasons for her to lie. The reasons for Lott to lie aren't anywhere near as apparent as hers. He's a researcher, and says he doesn't really know anything about guns. He knows economics and statistics.

So a shortcut to due diligence I think is to assume Shannon Watts is full of ****. Much longer than making the assumption than it does to prove she's full of ****. With Lott, the shortcut is to assume that the opposing researchers (the real ones, biased as they are, not the idiots like Shannon Watts) have combed over Lott's findings looking for anything they can use to discredit him. So then all you have to do is check their criticisms to see how much, if any, truth is there.

 

[Libertarian01]

No. That's true. Shannon Watts is a marketing expert, and doesn't really know anything about understanding gun related statistics. There's also ample evidence that she's a anti-gun zealot. Plenty of reasons for her to lie. The reasons for Lott to lie aren't anywhere near as apparent as hers. He's a researcher, and says he doesn't really know anything about guns. He knows economics and statistics.

So a shortcut to due diligence I think is to assume Shannon Watts is full of ****. Much longer than making the assumption than it does to prove she's full of ****. With Lott, the shortcut is to assume that the opposing researchers (the real ones, biased as they are, not the idiots like Shannon Watts) have combed over Lott's findings looking for anything they can use to discredit him. So then all you have to do is check their criticisms to see how much, if any, truth is there.

First, not arguing with you here or the premise, only making an observation.

If Mr .Lott truly claims not to "...know anything about guns..." then I do have a serious problem giving him a high degree of credibility.

If I were doing a study of car accidents then I'd better damn well understand: cars, physics, road design, motorcycles, trucks, impaired driving, distracted driving, etc etc etc. It is critical, to my way of thinking, to have a practical and in depth knowledge and understanding of all of the various nuances to gun related crime, deaths, etc. The antigunners use the false statement of gun deaths every year without explaining that the majority of them (60% I believe?) are suicides. That's fine to a point as most of them are not claiming to be studying the statistics.

He IS claiming to study the numbers. The more you understand firearms the better the numbers can and will be.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

 

[BugI02]

Yeah. How many people did that nutter kill in Japan with gasoline? A few dozen?

Over 80 with the truck at the Bastille Day celebration

 

[Bill of Rights]

With respect, Doug, I have to disagree. If John Lott (isn't he a PhD?) says he doesn't know much about guns, that's fine with me. As I read it, he's saying: I'm not a shooter or a collector. I wouldn't know a Beretta from a Sig nor a Kimber from a Hi Point.

I don't need to know those things. I do need to know crime numbers and trends. I do need to know ballistics, or at least be able to interpret the numbers from someone who does. I do need to understand the differences between a wheelgun and a semi-auto handgun.

There is much data ABOUT guns I can understand without "knowing guns".

As for myself, I can respect that. The man knows his limitations and uses them to his advantage. "I don't know anything about guns", to me, means, I can't look at a photo of a rifle and tell you all of that particular firearm's history. ("This was carried by Custer's top sergeant at the battle just before Little Big Horn.....") but I can tell you it fires a .30-06 cartridge over a distance of X miles and can fire X rounds a minute." As a researcher, I don't think he has to have an intimate knowledge of what it means to have a sore right shoulder from a day at the range.


Blessings,
Bill

First, not arguing with you here or the premise, only making an observation.

If Mr .Lott truly claims not to "...know anything about guns..." then I do have a serious problem giving him a high degree of credibility.

If I were doing a study of car accidents then I'd better damn well understand: cars, physics, road design, motorcycles, trucks, impaired driving, distracted driving, etc etc etc. It is critical, to my way of thinking, to have a practical and in depth knowledge and understanding of all of the various nuances to gun related crime, deaths, etc. The antigunners use the false statement of gun deaths every year without explaining that the majority of them (60% I believe?) are suicides. That's fine to a point as most of them are not claiming to be studying the statistics.

He IS claiming to study the numbers. The more you understand firearms the better the numbers can and will be.

Just a thought...

Regards,

Doug

 

[Libertarian01]

With respect, Doug, I have to disagree. If John Lott (isn't he a PhD?) says he doesn't know much about guns, that's fine with me. As I read it, he's saying: I'm not a shooter or a collector. I wouldn't know a Beretta from a Sig nor a Kimber from a Hi Point.

I don't need to know those things. I do need to know crime numbers and trends. I do need to know ballistics, or at least be able to interpret the numbers from someone who does. I do need to understand the differences between a wheelgun and a semi-auto handgun.

There is much data ABOUT guns I can understand without "knowing guns".

As for myself, I can respect that. The man knows his limitations and uses them to his advantage. "I don't know anything about guns", to me, means, I can't look at a photo of a rifle and tell you all of that particular firearm's history. ("This was carried by Custer's top sergeant at the battle just before Little Big Horn.....") but I can tell you it fires a .30-06 cartridge over a distance of X miles and can fire X rounds a minute." As a researcher, I don't think he has to have an intimate knowledge of what it means to have a sore right shoulder from a day at the range.


Blessings,
Bill

IF what he means by "not knowing guns" is how you are defining it then I am fine with that, for the most part. Studying car accident statistics wouldn't necessarily require one to know what engines were in a 65 Mustang v/s a 65 Corvette, I get that. But I would still contend that you better know the difference between a sports car and a pickup truck, and you better understand the general uses and designs of such vehicles.

The same would go for guns. I am fine if he can't look at a WWI picture and tell the difference between a Springfield 1903 and a M91 Mosin Nagant, but he'd better be able to have a reasonably founded knowledge in the general design and firepower of a WWI military rifle v/s a 1990's military rifle.

There is more to understanding the general nature of firearms than just the numbers behind them. There also should be the general increase in knowledge by studying firearms statistics simply by osmosis.

I do concede my position if his "not knowing guns" means what you say it means. There is a vast amount of knowledge regarding firearms that I am woefully ignorant of myself, so I would like to better understand what he means when he says he doesn't know guns.

There are many PhD's out there arguing that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete and is no longer necessary. Just because they have a PhD doesn't make them right, or wrong. (Although they would be wrong in my example)

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

I think, if you look at the UCR it lists pistol or rifle but does not break it down farther than that.

it goes into demographics and locality.

I am not sure where he and Kleck get their numbers on DGU's.

I really think they probably know the difference between a pistol and a rifle.

 

[breakingcontact]

We slowly over decades build strong people who build strong families who build strong people.

 

[2A_Tom]

Second law of thermodynamics.

 

[jamil]

IF what he means by "not knowing guns" is how you are defining it then I am fine with that, for the most part. Studying car accident statistics wouldn't necessarily require one to know what engines were in a 65 Mustang v/s a 65 Corvette, I get that. But I would still contend that you better know the difference between a sports car and a pickup truck, and you better understand the general uses and designs of such vehicles.

The same would go for guns. I am fine if he can't look at a WWI picture and tell the difference between a Springfield 1903 and a M91 Mosin Nagant, but he'd better be able to have a reasonably founded knowledge in the general design and firepower of a WWI military rifle v/s a 1990's military rifle.

There is more to understanding the general nature of firearms than just the numbers behind them. There also should be the general increase in knowledge by studying firearms statistics simply by osmosis.

I do concede my position if his "not knowing guns" means what you say it means. There is a vast amount of knowledge regarding firearms that I am woefully ignorant of myself, so I would like to better understand what he means when he says he doesn't know guns.

There are many PhD's out there arguing that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete and is no longer necessary. Just because they have a PhD doesn't make them right, or wrong. (Although they would be wrong in my example)

Regards,

Doug

I think it depends what is claimed. If he’s reporting his findings in which having a detailed understanding of firearms is necessary, sure. I think he would have to demonstrate the knowledge needed to make those claims.

However, I don’t recall any of his studies that require specific firearms knowledge, more than what he would have already. For example, if he were claiming that more people were murdered with hammers than rifles during a given time period and in a specific jurisdiction, he would need to have only the knowledge needed to define the terms and tabulate the statistics.

In a practical example, he’s claimed there are more murders in gun free zones than places where guns are allowed. He doesn’t need to know anything about firearms for that, other than to define GFZ, and murder.