Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Types of Gun Grabbers (by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms):
- Thread starter The2ndAmendment
- Start date
Never mind that The Obama, with substantial support form the anti-gun loons, openly supports banning rifles, handguns and shotguns.The myth of the 'gun grabber' is among the more bizarre lies most conservatives seek to propagate.
Link?In his new book, At the Brink, economist and author John R. Lott Jr., assesses the presidency of Barack Obama and recalls conversations regarding gun laws they had while working at the University of Chicago.
In Chapter Three, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then-professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.
"I don't believe people should be able to own guns," Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.
Author Quotes Then-Professor Obama Saying I Don t Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns CNS News
John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.
Ernie S.
Diamond Member
barack obama is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one. Believe only what fits your agenda much?
Shocked, I am.Never mind that The Obama, with substantial support form the anti-gun loons, openly supports banning rifles, handguns and shotguns.The myth of the 'gun grabber' is among the more bizarre lies most conservatives seek to propagate.
Link?Author Quotes Then-Professor Obama Saying I Don t Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns CNS NewsIn his new book, At the Brink, economist and author John R. Lott Jr., assesses the presidency of Barack Obama and recalls conversations regarding gun laws they had while working at the University of Chicago.
In Chapter Three, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then-professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.
"I don't believe people should be able to own guns," Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.
Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.
Ernie S.
Diamond Member
He's not a Progressive drone.Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.
Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.
He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.
He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.
barack obama is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one. Believe only what fits your agenda much?
I don't "believe" much of what Obama says, either. Do you have any other strawmen you'd like to erect?
Do you have anything substantive to back this up?He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.
He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
Do you have anything substantive to back this up?He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.
He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
The Mystery of Mary Rosh - Reason.com
To see the process in action, consider the case of John R. Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, which argues that concealed-carry gun laws reduce crime. In 1999 the sociologist Otis Dudley Duncan questioned Lott's claim that "if national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack."
The major research on defensive gun use, Duncan objected, had shown firing rates ranging from 21 percent to over 60 percent. Lott replied that "national surveys" actually referred to his own heretofore unknown survey of 2,424 households. When Duncan pressed him for the survey data, Lott demurred, saying a hard drive crash had destroyed his data set and the original tally sheets had been lost. In fact, there seemed to be no record at all of the study, nor could Lott recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Some people began to suspect the study, which is tangential to Lott's conclusions in More Guns, didn't exist.
Meanwhile, several of the bloggers who had been writing about the controversy -- a group that included me -- drew the ire of someone called Mary Rosh. Rosh, who identified herself as a former student of Lott's who had long admired his fairness and rigor, said that it was irresponsible to post links to the survey debate without calling Lott first. This sounded odd, not only because bloggers very seldom do that kind of background research before posting a link, but because Lott had made precisely the same criticism several times in e-mails to bloggers covering the story.
A Google search revealed that Rosh had for several years been a prolific contributor to Usenet forums, where she regularly and vociferously defended the work of Lott. On a whim, I compared the I.P. address on Rosh's comment to the one on an e-mail Lott had sent me from his home. They were the same.
I posted all of this, and to his credit Lott confessed. "The MaRyRoSh pen name account," he explained, "was created years ago for an account for my children, using the first two letters of the names of my four sons."
So... nothing substantive.The Mystery of Mary Rosh - Reason.comDo you have anything substantive to back this up?He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.
He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
Thank you.
So... nothing substantive.The Mystery of Mary Rosh - Reason.comDo you have anything substantive to back this up?He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.
He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
Thank you.
What do you mean by "substantive"?
That's certainly more "substantive" than Lott's memory of a conversation that he claims to have had 25 years ago, yet you accept that without question.
Could it be just because you really want it to be true?
You can start with information from an unbiased and verifiable source.What do you mean by "substantive"?So... nothing substantive.The Mystery of Mary Rosh - Reason.comDo you have anything substantive to back this up?He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?
He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
Thank you.
You can start with information from an unbiased and verifiable source.What do you mean by "substantive"?So... nothing substantive.The Mystery of Mary Rosh - Reason.comDo you have anything substantive to back this up?He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.
He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.
Thank you.
Since Lott is neither unbiased, nor are his claims about Obama verifiable - why should I be held to a higher standard than him (or you, for quoting him)?
I'll take this as your admission that you do not have information from an unbiased and verifiable source upon which you can reasonably and objectively build a position such as yours, regarding Lott.Since Lott is neither unbiased, nor are his claims about Obama verifiable - why should I be held to a higher standard than him (or you, for quoting him)?You can start with information from an unbiased and verifiable source.What do you mean by "substantive"?So... nothing substantive.The Mystery of Mary Rosh - Reason.comDo you have anything substantive to back this up?
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'll take this as your admission that you do not have information from an unbiased and verifiable source upon which you can reasonably and objectively build a position such as yours, regarding Lott.Since Lott is neither unbiased, nor are his claims about Obama verifiable - why should I be held to a higher standard than him (or you, for quoting him)?You can start with information from an unbiased and verifiable source.What do you mean by "substantive"?So... nothing substantive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Since it's clear that you're just going to reject any source I post, what's the point?
You really, really want Lott to be telling the truth, so you're going to believe him no matter what I show you.
The onus of proof is on Lott, not me.
And he hasn't provided any.
And he hasn't provided any.
i asked you to reasonably and objectively substantiate your expressed opinion of Lott.The onus of proof is on Lott, not me.
Seems like we both know you cannot
i asked you to reasonably and objectively substantiate your expressed opinion of Lott.The onus of proof is on Lott, not me.
Seems like we both know you cannot
Well, that's the thing.
From my perspective, I have - and you are simply refusing to accept it because you just really want to believe Lott.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 80
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 141
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 97
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8054
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-