| Hippikos |
10-29-2006 05:01 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
It is not junk science. It has never been even rebutted, let alone debunked. Read More Guns, Less Crime and you will enjoy enlightenment. Until you do, you will be victimized by any crime and any genocidal episode that comes along. See Simkin, Zelman, and Rice for the connection between gun "control" and genocides. They haven't been rebutted either.
I have enjoyed this enlightenment, and am thereby proof against any and all antigun arguments -- the progun arguments are too solid and too good. Couple billion dollars too good. General gun ownership is also the only known genocide preventative, and genocide is best dealt with ahead of time. The force of the State is not, and cannot be, a bulwark against an episode of genocide.
|
Never rebutted? Try reading this article. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Have many more if you like.
Quote:
The Stanford Law Review critique, authored by Yale's Ayres and Stanford's Donohue, analyzed more recent crime statistics, extending Lott's original 1977-1992 crime dataset to include data through the late 1990s. As it turned out, after 1992, partly due to the end of the 1980s' crack cocaine-related crime wave, crime rates dropped dramatically in states with large urban centers, many of which had not passed right to carry laws. This fact proves highly inconvenient to the "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. After testing Lott and Mustard's analysis with more years of data and different econometric tweakings, Donohue and Ayres conclude, "No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states"; their analysis even suggested such laws might increase violent crime.
|
Can we take a junk-scientist like Lott serious, a rolling stone who used aliasses and sock puppets to post several five star reviews of his books on Amazon.com or to attack his critics and defend his work online? Creating a false identity for a scholar usually goes down as fraud in science circles. Furthermore Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics earlier this year. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey, which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack", that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition.
Quote:
See Simkin, Zelman, and Rice for the connection between gun "control" and genocides
|
I believe Simkin and Rice are not on speaking terms with Zelman anymore? They write this on their website:
Quote:
Zelman forced his earliest and strongest supporters to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers, which outlays could have been avoided entirely. In his zeal to brutalize those who had been kind to him for many years, Zelman spent many thousands of his contributors' dollars not to fight "gun control", but to try to keep control of a book - LETHAL LAWS - that he claimed had so little value that it was not worth republishing properly. If LETHAL LAWS were worth so little, why did Zelman spend so much to keep it? And, even if Zelman knew it had more value than he was willing to admit, why should Zelman have been so nasty to those, who had done so much to help him destroy "gun control"?
We think that "fighting 'gun control'" is a business for almost all of those who earn their living from it. We have further concluded that most of those who oppose"gun control" do not actually want to see it destroyed, because they would then have to get real jobs, producing real goods or real services. Giving time or money to help any "pro-gun" group with full-time, salaried officers, is simply building someone else's retirement nest-egg. It doesn't make any difference whether the group is "effective" or not. "Pro-gun" groups with employees simply provide a nice standard of living to those employees. JPFO, Inc., is simply an unusually clear example of this. It is by no means alone. The "pro-gun" groups worth supporting are those staffed by volunteers, who are simply reimbursed for their expenses, or by part-timers, i.e, by those who have jobs - or own businesses - from which they get the bulk of their income.
|
Re genocide: the claim that Nazi gun control law in 1938 to maintain their power is false. Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was already introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the Nazi SA. Hence the Nazi came to power by the ballot box (and some By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg.) and not by an armed coup. |
