John Lott talks about the hoax “online graduation” a gun control group produced.
The extraordinarily well-funded group that put on the hoax claims no edits were made – but they refuse to release the original video. Further proof, were any needed, that the typical Democrat voters is terminally gullible and incapable of critical thought.
Also proof that, when you are a conservative, you always record your own media and public appearances, so that when, not if, leftists try to yank you out of context, you can stuff it down their yappy little throats sideways.
(And if they balk at letting you record the session yourself – as “legitimate” media most often will? Walk away).
You mean the American left is a bunch of lying f**king crapweasels? The deuce you say!
Lotsa news stories about the New York election debacle in the lamestream media? NO?
Who could have foreseen that?
Why, we have the fairest, cleanest, most honest elections EVAH!
🚨🚨As I live and breathe—a thread-jack from kinlaw..
Remember The _Arming America_ scandal?
_Arming America_ was a book by historian Michael Belleisles. Belleisles claimed that American gun culture was a hoax that originated after the Civil War. Belleisles’ research showed that gun ownership was rare in America before 1860.
Since there wasn’t an accurate count or gun registration in the early US, Belleisles’ evidence was court & probate records.
The book was published in 2000. It won the Bancroft prize for non-fiction. I knew about the back then because a Lefty coworker went on and on about how it demolished the idea that gun rights and ownership were a big thing in early America.
I read it and something seemed off about it to me.
To make a long story short, Bellisles was found to have fabricated a lot of his “evidence,” which included records lost long ago in fires and floods, even the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Belleisles’ Bancroft prize was revoked.
Dishonesty and outright lying is an acceptable tactic on the left.
Because they are better than you, you know.
MO, is it still a lie if you really believe it?
There are three things that rarely show up in probate estates: cash on hand, jewelry and guns. The heirs cleaning out the house take that stuff long before probate lawyers get involved.
Belleisles’ theory would be like claiming Americans never eat leftovers because nobody lists “leftover hotdish in the refrigerator” when the heirs file the Inventory for the Probate Estate. Ridiculous.
The people who defrauded Lott didn’t believe that what they were doing was honest.
This reminds me as well of the Patterson study that found that it was more dangerous to live in a home with guns than without. The errors that were quickly found was that only gun deaths were measured, not overall deaths, and when the data were released, others quickly determined that the homicides were generally committed with a gun not owned by the family.
In other words, those families that suffered the deaths of members due to “gun violence” had a reason to own a gun for self-defense. Sadly, this study is still being cited by doctors around the country.
Bikebubba, that is an example of why so much social science is a fraud. It is not done in the spirit of inquiry. The result is determined ahead of time, the research is really “research.” It is narrative-building, not an examination of the natural world, but an exercise of human nature.
I once complained about the lack of reproducibility in social science research to a sociology prof. He explained that was the nature of things in sociology, you can’t go back in time and re-survey people from fifty years ago.
He told me that if you used the same rigor in the social sciences as the hard sciences, you couldn’t get anything done.
Which was an odd turn of phrase. Science is about discovery, not doing things.
MO, there is no such thing as “social science”, as you so nicely put yourself. Only “social studies” The words “social” and “science” cannot be used together. Anyone who does, elevates social studies to a realm it has business to be in.
Glad to have a name for that (Patterson) study. Not only was it deeply flawed, it did not conclude what gun grabbers say it found.
The conclusion of the study: if you own a gun you are more likely to SHOOT (NOT kill) someone you KNOW (not necessarily family), rather than defend yourself with it. Grabbers insist it had all kinds of other conclusions (children shot, accidents, etc). I have heard at least 5 different, and INCORRECT, conclusions of the study, which grabbers say proves owning a gun is much worse for your safety than not owning a gun. And they say it smugly as if to say “argument over, game set and match”.
Flaws: only one county studied (one with a gang violence ridden big city, Chicago), over only one year. It also did not control for murder, which by definition is being shot (and killed) by someone you know.
Buy guns and ammo. You will be safer.
Oops, I looked it up, and it’s the “Kellerman” study. I guess I got the number of syllables right!
But to the point of preordained conclusions, since yes, they were counting suicides, of course they were going to find a positive correlation between gun deaths and owning a gun, since no one is going to lend a gun to a friend so he can shoot himself. At least I hope not.
Dishonesty and outright lying is an acceptable tactic on the left.
Because they are better than you, you know.
The ends justify the means. This is one of the basic tenets of leftism/progressivism. It explains all the leftist protest violence and rioting of the last 50+ years. Altho the looting that went into overdrive last year was simply theft with the justification of “oppression”.
Speaking of records of guns, I had an insurance review and the agent asked if I wanted to upgrade our Personal Articles policy covering jewelry and firearms. Why, what is the limit now? $2,500.
Dude, that’s . . . not even in the ballpark. What’s it take to raise it? Appraisals, photos, serial numbers, to prove you own the articles and what they’re worth.
So . . . does the insurance company fax that information directly to ATF the instant you receive it, or is it a quarterly report? How does that work? Because the one thing I will never believe, is the record of my guns is kept entirely confidential.
JD – didn’t you already file the insurance claim for those firearms that were lost in a boating accident?
Those were hypothetical firearms, NW