Dear NRA, There Is A Scientific Consensus On Guns And Safety. And You Won't Like It.

[Dante]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

"Polling" Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!

survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?

This should be all sorts of funny....

from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.​

Again --- you jazz up this "poll" anyway you please. My objection is to your (and the authors) hokey characterization of a poll as science. IT's not -- as Westwall remarked. FURTHERMORE --- this jerk flippantly EXCLUDED any scientists from the polling when he pruned out all the forensics, medical, psych, engineering folks from his sampling. That's TRULY ODD isn't it Dante?? To exclude all the scientists in the field and yet dress this poll up as "science" ????

Knock your bad self out with a poll of pure academics publishing OPINION and playing loose with statistics.
Just don't color it as "science"..

When you speak to the author's motives you loose me. The author hid nothing and gave explanations for how and why he did what he did.

I guess your objection is one of ideology where you think any researcher who posits things about guns and gun culture you disagree with is a flaming leftist.

there are lots of folks like Dante who support the idea of licenses to carry and who agree or disagree with most proposed gun laws on the basis of it being good or bad law.

What Dante is against is extremists in the NRA kook squad

 

[Dante]

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

above is just one more in a long string of imbecilic posts

mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states

mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states

It's a shame when your local laws don't work. LOL!
Have the easier CCW laws over the last 20 years caused a spike in homicides?
Or are national laws the only ones that work in liberal imbecile world?

tough gun regulation in states that border neighboring states with loose or few gun laws

it;s ridiculous

We need a conversation on gun laws. Many cities and towns and some states should be able to regulate guns in a tougher manner than others, all within a national framework.

Dante is not anti-gun ownership or anti concealed weapon permit

 

[Derideo_Te]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

How does the gun do that?

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?

 

[westwall]

"Polling" Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!

survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?

This should be all sorts of funny....

from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.​

Again --- you jazz up this "poll" anyway you please. My objection is to your (and the authors) hokey characterization of a poll as science. IT's not -- as Westwall remarked. FURTHERMORE --- this jerk flippantly EXCLUDED any scientists from the polling when he pruned out all the forensics, medical, psych, engineering folks from his sampling. That's TRULY ODD isn't it Dante?? To exclude all the scientists in the field and yet dress this poll up as "science" ????

Knock your bad self out with a poll of pure academics publishing OPINION and playing loose with statistics.
Just don't color it as "science"..

When you speak to the author's motives you loose me. The author hid nothing and gave explanations for how and why he did what he did.

I guess your objection is one of ideology where you think any researcher who posits things about guns and gun culture you disagree with is a flaming leftist.

there are lots of folks like Dante who support the idea of licenses to carry and who agree or disagree with most proposed gun laws on the basis of it being good or bad law.

What Dante is against is extremists in the NRA kook squad

Yes, I fear you have been lost your whole life. As far as the authors motives go, they are a rather essential part of the whole mess don't you think? Oh, right, you don't think. I keep forgetting that. You only parrot what your masters tell you to. Regardless, the use of the word "scientific" with a popularity poll is humorous, but certainly not scientific. Plus the 'consensus' part is a term of politics, not science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

above is just one more in a long string of imbecilic posts

mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states

mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states

It's a shame when your local laws don't work. LOL!
Have the easier CCW laws over the last 20 years caused a spike in homicides?
Or are national laws the only ones that work in liberal imbecile world?

tough gun regulation in states that border neighboring states with loose or few gun laws

it;s ridiculous

We need a conversation on gun laws. Many cities and towns and some states should be able to regulate guns in a tougher manner than others, all within a national framework.

Dante is not anti-gun ownership or anti concealed weapon permit

tough gun regulation in states that border neighboring states with loose or few gun laws

People broke those "tough gun regulations"?
Even in Australia?

We need a conversation on gun laws.

We had one.

Many cities and towns and some states should be able to regulate guns in a tougher manner than others

Chicago and DC tried that. It didn't work. And it violated the Constitution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

How does the gun do that?

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?

 

[Derideo_Te]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

How does the gun do that?

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?

Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".

 

[westwall]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

How does the gun do that?

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?

Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".

They already have been. Or don't you follow the news?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

How does the gun do that?

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?

Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".

State and local laws restricting CCW have been eliminated all over the country.
Even in Chicago and DC. Despite resistance by local politicians. Why?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?

Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".

State and local laws restricting CCW have been eliminated all over the country.
Even in Chicago and DC. Despite resistance by local politicians. Why?

Your failure to answer the question is duly noted and will be held against you in the future.

I recommend that you return to the OP topic since you are in danger of being accused of derailing the thread with your latest deflection.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?

Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".

State and local laws restricting CCW have been eliminated all over the country.
Even in Chicago and DC. Despite resistance by local politicians. Why?

Your failure to answer the question is duly noted and will be held against you in the future.

I recommend that you return to the OP topic since you are in danger of being accused of derailing the thread with your latest deflection.

There, there, don't cry.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Polling" Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!

survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?

This should be all sorts of funny....

from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.​

Again --- you jazz up this "poll" anyway you please. My objection is to your (and the authors) hokey characterization of a poll as science. IT's not -- as Westwall remarked. FURTHERMORE --- this jerk flippantly EXCLUDED any scientists from the polling when he pruned out all the forensics, medical, psych, engineering folks from his sampling. That's TRULY ODD isn't it Dante?? To exclude all the scientists in the field and yet dress this poll up as "science" ????

Knock your bad self out with a poll of pure academics publishing OPINION and playing loose with statistics.
Just don't color it as "science"..

When you speak to the author's motives you loose me. The author hid nothing and gave explanations for how and why he did what he did.

I guess your objection is one of ideology where you think any researcher who posits things about guns and gun culture you disagree with is a flaming leftist.

there are lots of folks like Dante who support the idea of licenses to carry and who agree or disagree with most proposed gun laws on the basis of it being good or bad law.

What Dante is against is extremists in the NRA kook squad

Don't know how I could lose you on something that obvious. The AUTHOR and you lept to the connection about "scientific consensus" on this polling excersize. It's all thru his remarks. Yet he decided to EXCLUDE every professional with a scientific sounding job from his poll.. How f-ing ridiculous is that?

Maybe we could rig up one of those kid leashes so that I don't lose you over the obvious..

 

[westwall]

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

Which part of the term "national" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "unconstitutional" don't you understand?

Which part of the term "failure" don't you understand?

Onus is on you to prove that national gun laws are "unconstitutional".

State and local laws restricting CCW have been eliminated all over the country.
Even in Chicago and DC. Despite resistance by local politicians. Why?

Your failure to answer the question is duly noted and will be held against you in the future.

I recommend that you return to the OP topic since you are in danger of being accused of derailing the thread with your latest deflection.

He ANSWERED the question. Your inability to comprehend is duly noted and while it would be fun to hold it against you in the future that is against my principles as I don't abuse mentally handicapped people.

 

[Zander]

Anti gun nuts - please feel free to not own a gun. Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to own or (gasp!) use a gun.

The funniest thing is that gun grabbing scrawny necked leftists, metrosexual eunuchs, and assorted other wimps actually believe that not owning a gun makes them "safer".

 

[Dante]

Yes, I fear you have been lost your whole life. As far as the authors motives go, they are a rather essential part of the whole mess don't you think? Oh, right, you don't think. I keep forgetting that. You only parrot what your masters tell you to. Regardless, the use of the word "scientific" with a popularity poll is humorous, but certainly not scientific. Plus the 'consensus' part is a term of politics, not science.

Stop it. The author clearly state what his motives are.. You add on motives out of the blue, or out of your uptight arse.

You cannot debate the authors points rationally because he is upfront and states the how and why of it all. So knowingly or unknowingly you end up looking like a big fat fool

All you can eat around the corner

 

[westwall]

Yes, I fear you have been lost your whole life. As far as the authors motives go, they are a rather essential part of the whole mess don't you think? Oh, right, you don't think. I keep forgetting that. You only parrot what your masters tell you to. Regardless, the use of the word "scientific" with a popularity poll is humorous, but certainly not scientific. Plus the 'consensus' part is a term of politics, not science.

Stop it. The author clearly state what his motives are.. You add on motives out of the blue, or out of your uptight arse.

You cannot debate the authors points rationally because he is upfront and states the how and why of it all. So knowingly or unknowingly you end up looking like a big fat fool

All you can eat around the corner

His points, and his bias, are self evident. One plus one still does equal two you know.

 

[Dante]

His points, and his bias, are self evident. One plus one still does equal two you know.

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
​

So what is there to attack?

Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His points, and his bias, are self evident. One plus one still does equal two you know.

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
​

So what is there to attack?

Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The 97% AGW fake statistic that lefties love so much made him think he could do the same for guns.

 

[Conservative65]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

That gun haters don't like the 2nd amendment is their problem. Tough shit if you don't. I have GUNS and bet you don't have the guts to try to take a single one of them.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

His points, and his bias, are self evident. One plus one still does equal two you know.

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Yes, that was the whole point of his article. He stated up front his search for a scientific consensus determined objectively, through polling. Rather than cherry pick one side or the other he...sought out researchers who were active scientists, recently (4 year window) published on firearms in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

He added he was interested in social science and policy issues, and wanted articles that were directly relevant, so he ruled out scientists who were active in research in "forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns)."

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. ...I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
​

So what is there to attack?

Your anti-scientific consensus people state upfront an agenda

Just because one does a poll among scientists does not make it scientific it's simply a poll. If the poll is conducted over an issue that is political in nature and most likely has leading questions...

Hawthorne effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The very fact that a poll is being taken on the issue can skew the results dramatically. Especially if, like the global warming issue, the people taking the poll are afraid of possibly losing their jobs.

*****SMILE*****