In-reply-to: liberty@panix.com's message of 21 Jun 1995 16:33:03 -0400
References: none+4
In article none+4 liberty@panix.com (liberty) writes:
>In <tnpwk7r95k.fsf@alboka.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU> lambert@alboka.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>In article <3s5bji$fpl@panix.com> liberty@panix.com (liberty) writes:
>>> That the Bureau of Justice Statistics is part of a
>>>Justice Department division which promotes HCI orgs like CPHV and other
~~~~~~~~
>>>programs dedicated to "gun-free zones" and "public health" approaches to
>>>gun violence (which always involve massive restrictions on gun rights)
>>>does not increase one's confidence in the reliability and validity of BJS'
>>>firearm-related reports (to say the least).
>>Don't forget that you can now also dismiss the FBI's UCR statistics
>>showing 12,000 with gun homicides per year as fabrications because the
>>FBI is part of that "rabidly anti-gun" DOJ.
>Sorry, Tim, but the FBI isn't part of the Office of Justice Programs - the
>division in which BJS and PAV reside.
According to your logic, if PAV, BJS's sister division, is "rabidly
anti-gun" this proves that the BJS is "rabidly anti-gun". By the same
reasoning, all the other divisions within the Office of Justice
Programs are "rabidly anti-gun" and consequently the Office of Justice
Programs must be "rabidly anti-gun". The FBI is a sister division to
the OJP so according to your logic it must also be "rabidly anti-gun".
> PAV endorses CPHV - a Handgun
>Control, Inc. organization - as a "promising program." This is prima facie
>evidence that the BJS has the same PC anti-gun slant as PAV. You can
>continue to deny this, but your denials are ringing increasingly hollow.
The posting to which liberty followed up contained a detailed
refutation of this claim. We see once again liberty's approach to
arguments he cannot counter: he ignores them and hopes they will go
away.
To summarize my refutation: only 7 of 574 programs even mention guns
at all (and then most commonly by saying "promote gun safety"). If
PAV has a slant on guns it seems to be towards the position that guns
are irrelevant.
>The BJS directory contains numerous summaries of studies on "gun
>violence"
"numerous" here means 3 (out of 75 items)
> that, in aggregate, paint a picture of rampant criminal misuse
>of firearms.
I hate to break this to you Mr liberty, but criminals DO misuse
firearms. Estimating how often this happens is part of the BJS's job.
> They seem ideally suited for use as anti-gun propaganda
>pieces, since they never tell the whole story about civilian gun ownership
>in the U.S.A. - none of the summaries I saw said anything about the
>benefits of gun ownership, for example.
Apparently you did not bother to look at the summary I cited at the
start of this thread which discussed defensive use of firearms.
Either that, or you do not consider defensive use to be a benefit.
> Moreover, from what I could
>gather, the studies themselves seemed sloppy and unscientific - in-house
>jobs that would never make it past peer-review in a respectable
>journal.
Well then, you should be aware that a referee cannot just say "seems
sloppy and unscientific -- reject" he or she must give specific
reasons. What, specifically, is sloppy and unscientific about the
study I cited?
>But of course, when I expressed reservations about the survey results Lambert
>posted, he never responded.
Ahem, you asked some questions. You could have found out the answers
to most of them by a tiny bit of effort. This comment also shows that
liberty was aware that the survey covered defensive uses of guns.
>From your comments above it seems that you do not consider defensive
use to be a benefit of gun ownership. Odd.
Tim