Tuesday, January 8, 2013


Completely and insanely legal right now in the United States.

This is what our crazy gun laws allow.


Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

"This is what our crazy gun laws allow."

Yes, I'm sure.

On the other hand, let's talk about reality.

We know that the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. I wonder how our "crazy gun laws" allowed this sort of thing to happen?


"But it does appear that guns, when it comes to murder, at least on a planetary basis, are much less of a factor than the civilizational advancement of a particular locale.

I leave it to astute readers to decide for themselves how the variation of same within the conterminous United States and its population centers is a factor in local murder rates."

How, then, shall we proceed? Perhaps we should start by changing our "crazy gun laws" so that residents of certain population centers would be banned from ownership?

Dave Ribar said...


And fully automatic assault rifles help how?

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

They help you make an irrelevant point regarding reduction of gun violence in this country.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

And then we have this:

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is 'no.' And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases."

scharrison said...

"...the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard."

Hopefully those justices are wise enough to figure out the study wasn't "out of Harvard", but simply published in the Journal by a Harvard student.

The study was actually done by a couple of Koch-funded astroturfers from the Pacific Research Institute and the Fraser Institute, a fact that took me about 12 minutes to dig up.

I find it ironic that some skeptics are selective in where they point that skepticism. Maybe if they did, just once in a while, the money for all that pseudo-scientific bullshit would dry up.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

"Hopefully those justices are wise enough to figure out the study wasn't 'out of Harvard', but simply published in the Journal by a Harvard student."

No, Servie, that is incorrect. Do your research before you comment.

Also, produce the evidence for your other assertions, and provide material that refutes the conclusion.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

I know how lazy you are when it comes to academic and intellectual integrity, Stevie, so let me help you out.
Here's the bio on your first "astrorturfer".

Here's the second, and an approprite comment from him:

"It's not easy telling the Emperor he has no clothes. In order to discredit my findings, my critics have ridiculed my results and attacked me personally. My reply is that research studies should be judged by methodology, not by one's beliefs."

Whether you like it or not, the study was published in the Harvard Law Review. Perhaps you would like to impugn their motives too.

I find it ironic that True Believers like you go spastic with the typical kind of bullshit found in your comment, particularly when it shoots down your attempt to assume the non-existent moral high ground on issues like this.

But then again, this isn't the first time someone like you has posted hysteria intended to distract from the the material presented.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

Oh, I give up! Ribar and Little Stevie Wonder are obviously right.

Here's why.

scharrison said...

Since I'm so lazy, I'll just use Wikipedia:

"The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is a student-edited law review of conservative and libertarian legal scholarship. It was establisheded by Harvard Law School students Spencer Abraham and Stephen Eberhard in 1978, leading to the founding of the Federalist Society, for which it is the official journal."

*yawn* That was tiring. I think I'll take a nap.

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

You do that, Stevie.....make sure your body gets to close the disparity it suffers in sleep time compared to that enjoyed by your brain.

And please, step up the level of academic integrity you display in these comments. You provide all sorts of nonsense in distraction to the research performed by the author. It's likely that you know deep down inside that their conclusions are right, but you're just not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

On the other hand, you're hardly alone in that failure among your Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" peer group, are you?

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

And in conclusion, it becomes more obvious every day that "Progressives" are not interested in improving the safety of the public when they talk about "gun control".

They're only interested in accomplishing another one of the agenda items designed to keep the American public poor, broke, and dependent on the never-ending expansion of federal power over EVERY aspect of our society. It's just second nature, and Business As Usual for them.

Should they get their way on "gun control", it's quite likely that public safety will be further compromised, as is evident by the study's conclusions.

scharrison said...

Okay, let me get this straight: I'm lazy, hysterical, intellectually dishonest, and my academic integrity is at some unspecified yet obviously low level. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah. Spastic.

Thanks for the feedback!

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

Somehow, you can't seem to bring yourself around to discuss the contents and the conclusion of the Harvard-published study.

Why is that, Stevie? Doesn't fit the preferred meme, and therefore can be presumed not to exist if ignored?

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

Here's a follow up on why "gun control" advocates never bother to discuss how low the murder rates are in the US.

Of course, these murder rates don't include people killed via abortion, so perhaps we will need to re-think how we discuss murder and violence in this country.

I thought the conclusion was appropriate: "Numbers don’t lie, but anti-gun extremists often do."

Dave Ribar said...


The National Research Council recently came to a much different conclusion.

"The panel was struck by the gravity of its findings. For many years, Americans have been dying at younger ages than people in almost all other high-income countries ... This disadvantage has been getting worse for three decades, especially among women. Not only are their lives shorter, but Americans also have a longstanding pattern of poorer health that is strikingly consistent and pervasive over the life course -- at birth, during childhood and adolescence, for young and middle-aged adults, and for older adults."

They cited violence as an important contributor to these disparities.

From the executive summary,

"More specifically, when compared with the average for peer countries, the United States fares worse in nine health domains:

...Injuries and homicides: Deaths from motor vehicle crashes, nontransportation-related injuries, and violence occur at much higher rates in the United States than in other countries and are a leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults. Since the 1950s, U.S. adolescents and young adults have died at higher rates from traffic accidents and homicide than their counterparts in other countries."

Bob Grenier (@bubbanear) said...

That's wonderful, Dave, but it's contradicted by the UN numbers, and the evidence presented By Sevakis, The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, and by the Kates/Mauser study. Plus, the NRC piece is not directly analogous to the situation under discussion.

Here's another point to consider -- we do not even bother to enforce most of the gun laws we already.

Why is it logical to think that any new gun laws will fare any better in the level of enforcement?

There are many more reasons that make it clear that "gun control" is not the answer to whatever problem you think exists.