= new reply since forum marked as read
promoting guns?
Two words: Steve Forbes. Coincidentally, it rhymes with predatory capitalism! Who would have thought!
I'm strangely comfortable with it.
Would you care to share your sensation of being "strangely comfortable" with it in General Discussion? 
I just don't share "sensations" on the internet. You never know where those data packets have been.
Isn't all capitalism 'predatory' in the larger sense?
You know you want to go have to defend that statement with the rest of DU. Why so timid?
No. Predatory capitalism construes an intent to unjustly profit at the expense of others.
That's redundant.
Architecture professor and columnist Larry Bell has a new book of climate science disinformation out, Climate of Corruption. You can save yourself the trouble of buying it by reading RealClimate’s evisceration of a recent column by Bell in Forbes. The RC debunking is reprinted with permission below.
Guest commentary from Michael Tobis and Scott Mandia with input from Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Kevin Trenberth
While it is no longer surprising, it remains disheartening to see a blistering attack on climate science in the business press where thoughtful reviews of climate policy ought to be appearing. Of course, the underlying strategy is to pretend that no evidence that the climate is changing exists, so any effort to address climate change is a waste of resources.
A recent piece by Larry Bell in Forbes, entitled “Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts”, is a classic example.
Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The Gish gallop raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on closer examination do no such thing. In real-time debates the number of particularities raised is sure to catch the opponent off guard; this is why challenges to such debates are often raised by enemies of science. Little or no knowledge of a holistic view of any given science is needed to construct such scattershot attacks.
More: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/07/207304/forbes-larry-bell-and-the-climate-of-corruption/?mobile=nc
Whadda ya say SecularMotion, let's take the word of a climate-change denier on gun control?
Man, the description of the "Gash gallop" sounds like a lot of the argument proffered by the pro-gun crowd here. I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya!
But when the OP posts some non-sense from a climate change denier the credibility of the author ought to be questioned. Does knowing that the author is a climate change denier effect how you view his arguments? How do you feel about climate change denial?
Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Why would you listen to someone who can't get climate change right on dismissing gun control? Seriously, I'm sorry, but a right-winger is a right-winger period. I don't believe in right-wing bullshit.
...to liberal candidates. But when it's served up by right-wing douchebags I just say hell no - I'm just not into their junk science and bullshit sociology. Sorry. 
If the guy's main job is being a shill for right-wing climate denial, well then he's probably being a shill for right-wing anti-gun control. It speaks to his ability to reason. Why waste the effort rehashing the entire gun control debate - the author of this article just isn't credible.
As if Tom Delay's press secretary wasn't enough of a nutcase for y'all, as if FOX news and WorldNetDaily weren't loony enough, now you pick to global warming denier Larry Bell to "debunk" the "myths" of the gun control lobby.
I've made the point many times on this board that pro-gunners and global warming deniers are very similar in their fundamentally anti-intellectual outlook -- they seem to exhibit a certain resentful pride in ignoring scientific evidence, as if the very act of denialism is a way of sticking it to those elite ivory tower liberals and their "science".
And I've actually been criticized for this on this board, as if it were somehow unfair to compare the anti-intellectualism of the pro-gun movement to the anti-intellectualism of the global warming skeptics. And yet, as illustrated here, not only are pro-gunners just as oblivious to empirical evidence as global warming deniers, for the most part, they are the exactly the same people.
Oh, and since you mention, the fact that there are more guns in the hands of less gun owners is not an "unsourced allegation". It's just that right-wing pro-gun morons like Larry Bell don't know what the General Social Survey is -- that would be the survey which social scientists consider the most reliable source of data for social trends. And GSS has shown a substantial drop in gun ownership rates since the early 90s.
But that's more of that "sciency" stuff which I know y'all hate. Probably better to just stick with the denialism...
that said some outfit had a deal, prove global warming a fraud and win a free gun. 
I'll have to check around for it.
and asked me if I owned firearms, I would likely tell the truth. However, I personally know many gun owners who would simply lie and state that they didn't own any. Many gun owners have a distrust of the government especially over the issue of gun control.
The GSS may be the "most reliable source of data for social trends" but that doesn't mean that it is accurate.
I also find it fascinating that the Gallup Poll reports gun ownership is up in the U.S.
October 26, 2011
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
Majority of men, Republicans, and Southerners report having a gun in their households
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.
**snip***
Bottom Line
A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws. However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling.emphasis added
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
Anyway, re: your attempt at making a rational argument... there's no evidence that gun owners today are more loony and paranoid than they were in the days of McVeigh and Waco. It's just as likely that gun owners were more paranoid in the 90s than today, and this paranoia is hiding an even greater decline in gun ownership than shows up in the polls. On top of that, despite what your gun buddies might say, GSS is in fact a more accurate survey than Gallup, and GSS shows a more significant decline in gun ownership.
But both show a decline. Enjoy your denialism!
