Firearms Experts Debunk Conservative Media's Favorite Gun Talking Points

I'm curious... if guns are such a big problem and responsible for so many homicides, why is the U.S. ranked 91st in murder rates when we're #1 in private gun-ownership by far?

Why is the U.S. 30th on the list of suicide rates if guns and suicide are related?

originally posted by: CB328
So we should distrust all educated people and instead trust people with no education or qualifications instead?!
That sure sounds intelligent.

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying.

It couldn't possibly be that we're saying not to trust people with an agenda.

While I will agree that MM and mother jones is bias. Harvard did a study in 07 that would go against this so seems they aren't as bad as some think.

originally posted by: CB328
So we should distrust all educated people and instead trust people with no education or qualifications instead?!
That sure sounds intelligent.

A Large majority of college kids are no longer educated in the hard sciences any longer, they are instead indoctrinated into dopey political correctness where they believe the government is their to manage every aspect of their miserable lives. When they don't succeed the look around for a convenient target to blame usually a white, religious male.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

LOL...leave it to the libtards to even skew the actual title to make it sound like they are "firearms experts".

If you follow the links to the actual study it says this:


"Expert firearms researchers were defined as those individuals that 1) publish in peer-reviewed journals and 2) publish specifically about firearms in the public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology literature. Expert researchers were defined as first authors on at least 1 peer-reviewed journal article from 2011 to the present (February 2014). It was felt that including all authors would overweight the public health/medicine area of research since articles there tend to have more authors."

So they are expert firearms researchers....not firearms experts....and from the qualifications to be an expert firearms researcher, I am pretty sure they have no real world experience with firearms other than what they read....

Harvard Source

The author of the OP source and the OP could at least TRY to keep it on the up and up without skewing the titles so much that they have a completely different meaning.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


The author of the OP source and the OP could at least TRY to keep it on the up and up without skewing the titles so much that they have a completely different meaning.

When the data disagrees with their opinion, they fabricate new data.

seems to me that China..who has no guns..still have a rash of crazies running around with butcher knives.
if knives are banned there will be a bunch of crazies running around with baseball bats...
if baseball bats are banned...........

a reply to: DAVID64

Funny...it just so happens that in my post above, the link to the actual Harvard research is directly referencing Chan....it is the division of the school he directly was named to...even says it in the title bar when you click the link.

originally posted by: autopat51
seems to me that China..who has no guns..still have a rash of crazies running around with butcher knives.
if knives are banned there will be a bunch of crazies running around with baseball bats...
if baseball bats are banned...........

Japan, where private gun ownership is practically non-existent, is ranked number 7 on the list for suicide rates.

I hate these articles as much as I hate the conservative-side articles that say "They're outlawing your guns, stock up and run for the hills." Suddenly certain firearms in question become hard to get and stores run out of ammunition.

This Mother Jones article is just as stupid. Perhaps even more so. In the Harvard survey #2, the statement is: “In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Really? That is so stupid I can't image Harvard would even own up to publishing the results of such a survey.


-dex

I love how OP stated he did not want to take guns away...and that becomes the battle cry of everyone else. This is why gun rights debates go nowhere..strawmanning and false dichotomies everywhere....

originally posted by: CB328
So we should distrust all educated people and instead trust people with no education or qualifications instead?!
That sure sounds intelligent.

Ha..nice....you bought the source hook line and sinker. They are not firearms experts. It says nowhere in the actual Harvard source what educational level these researchers have, but it does state their qualifications for a researcher, and none of them have anything to do with actual experience, they are simply people who read and write about them.

And are you suggesting that firearms owners have no education or qualifications? I would say that my college degree and years of firearm ownership and training put me in much more qualified/educated position to research firearms than ANY of these researchers Harvard has chosen.

But hey....if your only qualification to be a firearms researcher is to have a degree and be able to read about guns, I guess you can roll with that.

I guess experience is no longer required to be an expert in anything....I am going to go read about flying the F-35 now....

originally posted by: DexterRiley
I hate these articles as much as I hate the conservative-side articles that say "They're outlawing your guns, stock up and run for the hills." Suddenly certain firearms in question become hard to get and stores run out of ammunition.

This Mother Jones article is just as stupid. Perhaps even more so. In the Harvard survey #2, the statement is: “In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Really? That is so stupid I can't image Harvard would even own up to publishing the results of such a survey.


-dex

Yeah...gotta love this quote from their page too:

In March 2014, a total of 1180 citations were reviewed. The following categories of citations were removed:

Book reviews
Case studies
Articles without a clear author

So they took out case studies? Wouldn't that be a VERY pertinent piece to a researcher? I mean case studies are from directly related cases. Wonder why these were left out?

originally posted by: autopat51
seems to me that China..who has no guns..still have a rash of crazies running around with butcher knives.
if knives are banned there will be a bunch of crazies running around with baseball bats...
if baseball bats are banned...........

Yes, but if we could save just ONE child ...

If that were all it required, then we would ban cars, stairs, bathtubs, bicycles, walking, breathing ... life in general.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

So they took out case studies? Wouldn't that be a VERY pertinent piece to a researcher? I mean case studies are from directly related cases. Wonder why these were left out?

Oh yeah. You gotta love that. I'm sure they weren't interested in authors who might have actual firsthand knowledge about the issue. That would certainly have skewed their results too much in favor of reality.

So, Harvard University must have a new marketing campaign: "For $350 million dollars, you too can have an Ivy League school prove your pet theory."


-dex

YES onslaught I do think keeping guns out of the hands of mentally defficent individuals IS a good idea.
Criminals have LAWS that are being ignored to stop them.
Who decides the deficencies?
HOW can politics or sciological intrusion be limited from access to that?
Unless these questions are COMPLETELY defined legally ALL they will do is blow smoke.
And all YOU do in pursuing this is cause more attacks on your position as a result.
As gun owner we already are experts on gun so OUR replies to you,in fat are the best authority on the planet for firearms,yet you continually ignore us.
EXPECT the current paradigm to continue and nothing to change unless of course WE get fed up and take over as we have the most guns on the planet.
Wouldn't be MY first choice but here are the facts as they now stand.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So they took out case studies? Wouldn't that be a VERY pertinent piece to a researcher? I mean case studies are from directly related cases. Wonder why these were left out?

Oh yeah. You gotta love that. I'm sure they weren't interested in authors who might have actual firsthand knowledge about the issue. That would certainly have skewed their results too much in favor of reality.

So, Harvard University must have a new marketing campaign: "For $350 million dollars, you too can have an Ivy League school prove your pet theory."


-dex

And just to think, what could that $350 million have done to help people in need....nah....lets use it for agenda.....

Just more bashing responsable gun owners over the head with stats & studies.The people who did the study should strap a damn Glock to your hip and Open Carry and exercise your right & see if anyone #"s with you. Works for me.

Next, the experts at Ole Miss will write an unbiased report on racism, and NYU on homosexuality.

Harvard published a report on guns you say?

Really, you mean, they could actually use the word "gun"?

I'm surprised the Dean didn't have them all suspended from the college for even THINKING of guns.

With all the fear around schools about guns and all, ya know.

/sarc

Honestly, that report is so skewed, I can't finish it. With a large family of gun owners, and almost all my friends being firearms owners as well, it just makes me sigh. The ignorance, it burns.