5 replies [Last post]
bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
NAS: No benefit to Restricting Gun Ownership

This is sort of old news, but I've found that a lot of people haven't heard of the National Academy of Sciences gun control study results...

Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies

This is heavy hitting results against the gun-control movement, the NAS is a reputable unbiased organization.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
NAS: No benefit to Restricting Gun Ownership

I wouldn't get too excited. The article says all but one of the members favor gun control. I wouldn't call that independent. They're not saying gun laws don't work. They're saying there's no information to show that they work. There's a difference, and the difference reveals itself when they say we need better databases before they can say it. This doesn't shoot down gun laws -- it's a complaint that there's not enough data to support the agenda.

John Lott says it well, and it's amazing the lengths these people will go to in order to avoid saying what they don't want to. This is a cop-out by the NAS to avoid upsetting the people who put them in the position. When you've been chartered to support an agenda and the data suggests otherwise, you simply say the data doesn't support the conclusion. Blame it on the data and you're in the clear. This is abstaining to avoid voting "no."

In other words, we couldn't find what you wanted us to, so you need to show us better data in order for us to support your agenda without looking like academic buffoons. We saw what happened to Michael Bellesiles; if you want us to help you, you need to give us a way to do it without being exposed as charlatans.

This is the classic problem associated with politically based science. Rather than extrapolate conclusions from data, they create data to support conclusions.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Wa.
Joined: 03/31/2004
Posts: 1300
NAS: No benefit to Restricting Gun Ownership

Good article to bring up.
We need to remember that the world is full of people with to much time on their hands and hidden agendas. Maybe even on someones payroll, whether it be guns, alcohol, tobacco, taxes, etc....
It is good to see unbiased reporting.
The whole truth and nothing but the truth only works when we have the whole truth and nothing but the truth and all of the facts.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
NAS: No benefit to Restricting Gun Ownership

I was reaching with that link, it wasn't the best write up on the NAS report. The final NAS report is more specific; from their own studies and from a literature review they cannot find anything that correlates lower-crime w/ stronger gun control laws.

This basically means that all the gun control laws based on "sound scientific research" of the last decade (or so) are crap. I have respect for the NAS, they tend to release apolitical findings based firmly on scientific due process.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
NAS: No benefit to Restricting Gun Ownership

If the actual NAS report says it stronger, I'd be more impressed. I guess I'm just a little skeptical given the announced political leanings of the researchers and the article's implication that they abstained rather than ruling.

It's awfully tough to be unbiased, because research funding for stuff like this is almost always driven by politics.

It's pretty bloody out there. If you present research (no matter how kooky) that supports the left-wing agenda, you get all kinds of accolades. But if your research supports a conservative cause, you're instantly branded an industry stooge who prostituted himself to special interests.

So aside from the funding streams, there's a social deterrent in academia. These folks rely on each other for mutual intellectual backscratching, which is why there's so much effort into attacking a "traitor's" academic integrity -- they want to ostracize him/her to prevent anyone else from being able to use his/her material. If you don't destroy the person's reputation as a scholar, there's a chance the info will keep popping up. But if you destroy the reputation of the source, you kill the whole idea forever.

Bear in mind these are the same types of people who circled he wagons and were so reluctant to see any wrongdoing whatsoever by Michael Bellesiles, yet raked Steven Ambrose over the coals because he didn't properly attribute a quote in one of his books.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
NAS: No benefit to Restricting Gun Ownership

Hummm....good article, however there is a serious lack of "data" in this article so I must refrain from commenting further on it at this time.

I will research this topic in-depth, to the point of redundancy, until I find suitable "data" that supports my own opinions on this topic. I will then respond accordingly to this thread.

expatriate said it correctly, "academic buffoons" are what this panel sounds like when giving such answers as those quoted here in this article.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like