New Harvard Research Reveals How Conservative Media Infects The Conversation On Guns

[Electric Monk]

Firearms Experts Debunk Conservative Media's Favorite Gun Talking Points

(big snip)

Anyone familiar with the gun debate has heard the talking points of the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates: "Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer." Or: "If only more ordinary citizens were armed, they could stop mass shootings." As we've shown in our reporting, these arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. After the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, commented on another long-running assertion from the gun lobby: "There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime," he told the New York Times.

Yet, Hemenway says that some in the media have continued to treat such assertions as legitimate points of debate. That leaves the public thinking, "Okay, so there's disagreement on this," he says. (Mother Jones, 4/2/15)

much more
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/02/new-harvard-research-reveals-how-conservative-m/203156

[ileus]

1. It's time for a progressive 2A stance from our side, let's take this advantage away from the GOP.

[Electric Monk]

2. I don't think that word means what you think it means, and I doubt you read the article I linked to.

pro·gres·sive (n) a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

[gejohnston]

3. so Hemenway is resorting to whining

to Media Matters when people listen to the FBI and read valid peer reviewed research by honest, objective researchers instead of his "advocacy research" aka shill studies.

"Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer."

said nobody. They said it gives you chance. Also, it doesn't make you more dangerous. It can make society safer because of the deterrence effect, including those who don't carry. See free rider or shell game.

Or: "If only more ordinary citizens were armed, they could stop mass shootings."

Actually there is, they just don't get the chance to become "mass" shooters. It takes four dead bodies to be mass shooter. Yet the Secretary General of Interpol said that. What advocates have really said is have a chance to defend themselves. Come to think of it, some "ordinary citizens" licences to carry did successfully defend themselves and others in the mall.

No, the media has never made it "legitimate points of debate", which they are. The problem is that his studies are shit, and his Joyce Foundation funded chair needs him to come up with something new after getting his ass spanked by real researchers.

[Electric Monk]

4. "Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer." said nobody?

[blueridge3210]

6. Yes.

It also doesn't make one more dangerous. Reading (comprehension) is fundamental.

[GGJohn]

7. Has anyone here said that? eom.

[Electric Monk]

9. All the time. Your pretend "ignorance" of this is hilarious. Here's one from yesterday.

This is why my wife carries

[GGJohn]

10. WRONG.

He never said it makes her safer, so again, you mis-represent what members say.
Par for the course.

[Electric Monk]

12. Your posts are starting to smell of desperation. Readers can decide for themselves. nt

[GGJohn]

26. My posts are starting to smell of desperation?

Funniest thing I heard all day, especially coming from the host of the group that constantly insults and belittles gun owners on this board, and allows it, and you often join in.

Desperation?

[ManiacJoe]

23. Yes, lots of people here say it.

Unfortunately, all of them are anti-gun.

Guns do not make anyone safer (reduce the odds of an attack happening).
They will increase your odds of surviving the attack. (The less common meaning of safer.)

Unfortunately, the link to post 6 does not support your claim since the post does not claim (nor does it suggest) that carrying a gun makes you safer.

[gejohnston]

8. I believe in the free rider or shell game effect

For example if you don't carry but wear clothing that could conceal a weapon, you would have the same deterrent benefit of someone who does.
The actual carrying if attacked is dependent on several factors. However, Hemenway likes to claim that he "debunked" Kleck. Truth is, every other peer review supported Kleck. Hemenway didn't do any actual research but just speculated.

[flamin lib]

14. Yeah, but you believe that Moms Demand Action

Is a CIA style psyops operation and you KNOW this because you have moles there.

[gejohnston]

16. I said it is a

Americans for Prosperity style astro-turf group. One could argue that it is a distinction without a difference since we are talking about many of the same propaganda techniques.
But then, you believe a round commonly used in target competitions are not allowed on ranges.

[flamin lib]

17. Do I have to dig up your post? It was really a funny exchange.

I don't know where you shoot, but not a single range in my area will allow steel or other magnetic rounds on the premises. But then there are fewer people in your state than in my suburban city.

[gejohnston]

19. I'm sure anyone who is interested will find it.

Your range is likely the only one, or one of few. That round actually penetrates less than some FMJ lead rounds. Chances are, your range bans specifically rounds from high power rounds like 7.62x54R. One reason could be money, like would rather you buy their over priced ammo or they have shitty traps instead of berms. If the ranges allow high powered rounds like the Mosin or .30-06 but not a .223 with the steel tip, I would have to question their knowledge and reasoning.
My state, we just to public land. Not that it is relevant.

It was funny only to people with poor reading comprehension or critical thinking skills. Given that you failed to make a single valid point, but relied on logical fallacies like appeal to ridicule, the only person making a fool out of themselves was you.

Change the name from Kochs to Bloomberg and Joyce Foundation, it is exactly the same. That is what I said, that is common knowledge outside of the echo chamber.

[flamin lib]

20. The ranges here don't like ricochets which the hard metal does.

It also damages the equipment.

You are the one who said you had moles inside MDA. You are the one who said they were a CIA style psyops.

It was funny to anyone following the thread. Psyops! Really! You said that! And you have moles!

[gejohnston]

21. when did I say I had moles in the MDA?

There has to be a membership in order put moles in. Otherwise, they would really stand out wouldn't they? Facebook "likes" is the nearest thing to a membership they have. A few people might turn out for a protest, some if not all are paid.

ricochets? Any FMJ does that. I'm guessing they are all indoor ranges? Can you name some of these ranges?

[flamin lib]

22. No, you said you had moles inside MDA. You said that MDA protesters were all

paid participants and you knew because you had moles in the organization.

I'm tired of arguing with you about ranges and banning magnetic ammo. Get over it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Wearing a seat belt doesn't reduce your chances of being in a car accident.

[GGJohn]

5. 2 words.

David Hemenway?

[virginia mountainman]

13. Interesting comment from Mr Hemenway..

Hemenway appeared at a forum hosted by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation and made the following statement in April 2013;

"Instead of it being the mark of a real man that you can shoot somebody at 50 feet and kill them with a gun, the mark of a real man is that you would never do anything like that. . . . The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss. They aren’t anybody to be looked up to. They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun."

http://www.rwjf.org/en/blogs/culture-of-health/2013/01/gun_violence_liveh.html

Wonder if we got a bit of confirmation bias here?

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

[flamin lib]

15. You mean like here in the gungeon? nt

[Eleanors38]

18. Experts. Waded through ten comments on hairdos before the "experts" are even mentioned.

Result: Opinions.

Said it before, say it again: There is no reliable research indicating the ownership/possession/carrying of firearms has an effect on crime rates, one way or the other. But the old gun ban shibboleth ("more guns=more crime&quot has demonstrably not been proven.

Crime rates are dropping; number of guns going up.

Note also steady drop in rate of childhood (<15) death-by-gun accident.

[ManiacJoe]

24. The "experts" are expert researchers, not subject-matter experts.

I am not sure if the author meant to be that honest in the write up.