Wednesday, April 8, 2015

More from rhe Recent Harvard Research

Media Matters

A new survey of firearm experts reveals a consensus debunking the myths the gun lobby and conservative media use to try to infect the national dialogue on gun safety to create the appearance of legitimate debate.

Firearms Experts Debunk Conservative Media's Favorite Gun Talking Points

New Harvard Research Shows Clear Expert Consensus Against Gun Lobby And Conservative Media Talking Points. New research from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center shows that firearms experts are in consensus against many of the most prolific talking points from conservative media and the gun lobby. According to an April 2 analysis of the research by Mother Jones, the study revealed that the arguments pushed by the gun lobby "don't stand up to scrutiny." Quoting David Hemenway, the center's director, the article noted that some in the media have continued to promote myths about guns, treating them as "legitimate points of debate" and inserting doubt where there is in fact a consensus among experts in the field (emphasis added):
Anyone familiar with the gun debate has heard the talking points of the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates: "Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer." Or: "If only more ordinary citizens were armed, they could stop mass shootings." As we've shown in our reporting, these arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. After the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, commented on another long-running assertion from the gun lobby: "There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime," he told the New York Times.
Yet, Hemenway says that some in the media have continued to treat such assertions as legitimate points of debate. That leaves the public thinking, "Okay, so there's disagreement on this," he says. [Mother Jones4/2/15]

4. Are Guns Used More Often To Commit Crimes Or In Self-Defense?

Conservative Media: Guns Are Mostly Used As Tool For Self-Defense. Right-wing media frequently promote the myth that guns are primarily used for self-defense, despite guns rarely being used for that purpose. Fox News has claimed that guns could "deter more crimes than they cause" while NRA News has daily features on The Sportsman Channel and their SiriusXM radio program promoting the myth. [Media Matters1/3/141/9/13]
Experts: Guns Are Not Used In Self-Defense More Often Than They Are Used In Crimes. Seventy-three percent of experts disagreed with the claim that guns are used "in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime":
image4

17 comments:

  1. So this is a different article discussing the same survey we've already discussed.

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2015/04/more-fun-with-polls.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Again, this isn't data on the actual topics, e.g. number of gun uses for defense vs. crime; it's data on the opinions of researchers who have done studies on guns--studies typically financed by anti-gun administrations, activist groups, etc. Their opinions are neither surprising nor all that probative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So they are all just lying?

      Delete
    2. They are giving their opinion. At least the half that responded at all. Just like people give their opinions in other surveys such as the one we discussed where gun rights are more important to the majority than gun control.

      Delete
    3. Jack,

      With regards to their studies, they could be lying and fabricating data, or their studies could be suffering from confirmation bias. Or, it could be something in between the two.

      As for this poll, this is asking their opinions. I'm sure they're sincere about their opinions, but their consensus doesn't establish fact one way or another.

      Delete
    4. Of course, they aren't lying. Nor are they giving an opinion.

      What they are doing is summarizing their research. They are relating the conclusions and findings of research they have done.

      Delete
    5. They are giving an experienced opinion based on years studying the problem and the facts they gathered. So I give them a higher acceptance than the average person's opinion.

      SJ, they have gathered facts and reached an opinion based on those facts. Your complaint (With regards to their studies, they could be lying and fabricating data, or their studies could be suffering from confirmation bias. Or, it could be something in between the two) is an opinion not based on facts.

      Delete
  3. "There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime," he told the New York Times.

    And yet again, I will concede that gun control is merely useless if it makes them happy.

    Seventy-three percent of experts disagreed with the claim that guns are used "in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime"

    And yet again, I will point out how irrelevant this is. It’s funny though, that they phrased the question in such a way that if you believe guns are used in self-defense more often than in crime, but not far more often, that your answer would be “disagree”. Talk about stacking the deck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And yet again, I will concede that gun control is merely useless if it makes them happy."

      Of course TS has no research or evidence to back up his claim.

      "And yet again, I will point out how irrelevant this is"

      I see. So, all research that doesn't support your beliefs is irrelevant. Good to know.

      Delete
    2. Jadegold - the validity of your rights is not based on how often you use them. That should be pretty obvious right? If a newspaper decided to stop printing for a year would they lose their right to freedom of the press and not be allowed to start back up?

      Delete
    3. JF: What are you talking about? I made no statements about frequency.

      The point here is that firearms are used more often for ill rather than self-defense as gunloons often claim.

      Delete
    4. Jade: "Of course TS has no research or evidence to back up his claim."

      Well, there is my own research which we have discussed many times, and where you have never been able to refute the lack of correlation between gun laws and violence or murder. Then there is also this anti-gun blogger I know who has sagely noted on many occasion that "we have no gun control"- and he is "always right" by his own claim. Shall I introduce you to his work? You'd like him.

      Delete
    5. Jade: "I see. So, all research that doesn't support your beliefs is irrelevant. Good to know."

      That particular statement is irrelevant. How you turn that into "all research" is pure Jadegoldism.

      If someone buys a gun for self-defense but is never attacked, why should that be a condemnation against their right? Women still have abortion rights even if they never get knocked up, wouldn't you agree?

      Delete
  4. "you have never been able to refute the lack of correlation between gun laws and violence or murder."

    I have done so many times. Both concerning the US and other nations.

    " this anti-gun blogger I know who has sagely noted on many occasion that "we have no gun control"- and he is "always right" by his own claim. "

    It's a gift. And, yes, we have no gun control in the US.

    "If someone buys a gun for self-defense but is never attacked, why should that be a condemnation against their right?"

    There are, of course, other factors. As we all know, guns are far more likely to be used in an illegal manner than in self-defense. Are you seriously claiming the @A is about a right to use a weapon illegally?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jade: "I have done so many times."

      No you haven't. Take state gun laws and state murder rate. I have shown that there is no correlation. You have never shown that there is a correlation. Never.

      Jade: "Both concerning the US and other nations [...] And, yes, we have no gun control in the US."

      So... We have no gun control, but that lack of gun control managed to work at reducing murder? You should really give your posts a brief proof before hitting the "post" button.

      Jade: "Are you seriously claiming the [2]A is about a right to use a weapon illegally?"

      Buying a gun for self-defense is a legitimate use of the right whether or not you end up getting attacked. Shall we add up all the people who own a gun, never harm someone, but are also never armed at a time when facing a mortal threat? How many good uses of guns would you say that is?

      Delete
  5. Jade - you are being really dense here. The 2nd Amendment states that there is a right to own a gun regardless of how many guns are used to commit crimes. Even if in the recorded history of America there was not one instance of a gun being used in self defense, the right to own a gun would still be there. That is why it is irrelevant how many times guns are used for crimes vs. self defense. It has no bearing on whether or not there is a right to own a gun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think we're talking about the right to own guns here. The topic is whether guns are used more often in crime or in self defense.

      Besides, if what you say is true, why do gun rights folks spend so much time pushing the ridiculous idea that there are millions of DGUs.

      There are a couple more recent posts about the 2A. You should check them out.

      Delete