so how are u guys doing on your homework?

[FUNKED1]

Sorry, too busy with anti-zombie preparation.

[Arlo]

Hell .... who needs book lernin' ta know that ifluff'n ya don't got yer own M-16 with grenade launcher attachment yer just flat askin fer the guvment to tattoo th' mark o' the beast on yer pee-pee.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Arlo
Hell .... who needs book lernin' ta know that ifluff'n ya don't got yer own M-16 with grenade launcher attachment yer just flat askin fer the guvment to tattoo th' mark o' the beast on yer pee-pee.

lol

[deSelys]

From the article linked by Ravells
...One type of faking that apparently is Lott's style is the assumption of a fictional identity on the Internet...

OMG!! Could Lott be MrBlack??

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by deSelys
OMG!! Could Lott be MrBlack??

you may Be onto Something there.,.lemme investigaTe

[Dune]

Besides, Gary Keck's research is even better than Lott's.

[lazs2]

guys.. read the book... there are thousands of facts and reams of data.   If you look at the two articles supposedly debunking it they show only two possibly shaky data points that have nothing to do with the overall points.  Note that both articles are allmost word for word.   Only two points seem shaky that they uncovered.. the rest is just ... "our reserchers say the data is flawed but we hve none of our own nor can find anything not factual about his."

The brady bunch consitently get caught in massive lies like the "10 children killed every day by gun accidents" ones.  the brady bunch lied about how many people were killed with "assault rifles" and called 17-19 year old gang menbers with rap sheets "children murded with guns".

When you read the book you will see that the important data has never been sucessully chalenged and.... Why hasn't it?  I mean.. most of what he says is far more damaging than some poll...  Perhaps the FBI is in cahoots with him?

read the book and then tell me why those articles are the best the combined forces of all the lefty anti gun nuts can come up with.

If everything not in those articles is still accurate (saying that those things may not be) then 99.9999999999% of the book is still accurate.

one thing is certain... no one else has ever done such a massive and comprehensive work on the subject.

I was glad to see that the brady bunch has no retracted their foirmer fawning adoration of besllies work of total fiction tho.

look whos work they praised and whose the brady bunch is condeming.... the brady bunch have allways been buffoons and continue to be.

lazs

[lazs2]

Put it in perspective... take the most respeted WWII autor you know and say there are 1,000 facts or points of data in his book and say it is proven that 2 of em are not that well researched or not even right.   Would you side with a rival who hammered on those 2 points to discredit the entire book?

then take a book that had maybe 500 facts  or a "documentary" that had maybe 30 "facts".... say the book had maybe 450 errors or faked data and the movie had 25.

Would you tar all of them with the same brush?

lazs

[ravells]

Lazs,

That is exactly the impression that I got when I read the first Article I posted. They were trying, by innuendo, to devalue everything Lott was saying by casting aspersions on one or two statistical samples he had provided.

What is interesting is why his critics have been so quiet on his other data. You can bet that they looked at it to try to question its accuracy.  It would have been more balanced if they had said that his other data was valid.

I don't think I'll buy the book, but I'll read up more about it on the net.

Ravs

[gofaster]

Originally posted by lazs2
Several people with views differing from mine on firearms rights told me that they would read Proffessor John Lotts new book about firearms and the media..  I offered to buy them a copy but they said it was in their loca  library's and that they would check it out and tell me wht they thought about it.

Anyone finish yet?  Anyone start?  Opinions?

lazs

I had scheduled a trip to the library a couple of weeks ago but the wife wasn't up for it. Then we left town, then Memorial Day weekend hit.  Now Summer's here and the time is right... for beach volleyball season, which means no time for reading until the rainy season kicks in.

edit: while we're on the topic, what's the value in the "concealed carry"?  I mean, if the whole point is that guns deter crime, wouldn't we want the criminals to know that we're armed?  Wouldn't it be more effective to wear holsters in plain sight?  If the deterrance is that the criminal thinks "maybe that guy has a gun in that briefcase, so I won't attack him", then it becomes more cost-effective to not have a gun, since guns cost money to buy.  Just a thought.

[Dune]

Originally posted by gofaster
If the deterrance is that the criminal thinks "maybe that guy has a gun in that briefcase, so I won't attack him", then it becomes more cost-effective to not have a gun, since guns cost money to buy.  Just a thought.

Only if you live in a state where people are allowed to carry concealed.  I don't care if you own a gun or not.  What I don't want is to be restricted unConstitutionally in my gun ownership.

So if some criminal doesn't attack you because they think you might be me, ie. armed, bully for you.  And you can buy me a beer later for being armed and saving you from a robbery.

[lazs2]

rav... you are exactly on target with your point.  I feel exactly the same way.  The anti gun crowd is large and powerful with many influential people in the media...  the books (lotts) are jammed with data... half the books are footnotes and index....

Believe me... if there were any earthshaking errors in the book that could be proved the left would be all over em... they have had years to examine the data and gone over it with a microscope... they continue to decline debate opportunities.

if you wish to read some of his side to it try http://www.johnrlott.com/

but rav..  If you email me I will buy you a copy and send it to you if you can't find one in a library.

more proof of what you say is in the bellise (sp) book about the arming of America...  it came out and the left showered it with the most prestigious awards that can be given... every newspaper gave the book rave reviews...

in less than a month the data came into doubt... by six months the data was shown to be completely fraudulent.   Awards were recinded.    the left is still smarting over that one.  

So far as I know... every anti gun book written is either based solely on "feelings" or proven to contain nothing but fraudulent data.

lazs

[lazs2]

go faster.. you are exactly ritght too..

it is cheaper and less trouble and less risk to not carry a gun and hope the deterent effect of right to carry laws in your state protect you under their umbrella..

the way it works is...  probly not more than 10% or so people will even get cc permits even if they are easy to come by but... if 10% of the population is armed then criminals know that in a crowd of 10 there is about a 100% chance they will come up against a law abiding citizen that is armed.

If you help get right to carry laws in your state then you are in effect helping to protect yourself an loved ones even if you never get a gun yourself.

best of all... there is no downside since the cc people cause no problems.

voting for more gun restrictions actually endangers yourself and your loved ones.

right to carry states have 70% less multiple victim public shootings for instance.

conversely.... there has not been one single gun restriction that has been passed that has been shown to do any good whatsoever.

boils down to... more guns win/win... more restrictive laws... at best, stay the same.. at worst.. make things much worse.

lazs

[ravells]

That's incredibly kind of you Lazs. Thanks.

I have about 12 books in the queue to read at the moment. Once I get the number down to a managable level I'll come back to you.

Ravs

[lazs2]

rav.. no problem.  While we don't agree a lot of the time I do believe that you give most peoples arguements a fair reading.   There are several on this board that I wouldn't make the offer to but most of the brighter (and usually older) semi-liberals on this board have some decent thought processes going on.

Either way... I would like your opinion.  

lazs