Quote of the Day
Duke University researchers embarked on a comprehensive journey to dissect the effectiveness of gun laws across the United States.
Their focus? The relationship between stringent gun regulations and homicide rates. The results were unexpected—they found “no difference in homicide rates” between states with tough laws and those with more lenient ones.
Georgia Mckoy
July 12, 2024
Bombshell Study Finds Gun Restriction Laws Do Not Lead to Homicide Decrease Nationwide
Anyone paying attention knew this decades ago.
But do they trust the science? See for yourself:
Gun ownership in America has surged, with over 82 million Americans now owning at least one firearm—a 28% increase since 1994.
This uptick illustrates the growing urgency for effective gun regulation to keep pace with rising ownership rates.
In other words, “Gun ownership is increasing! No harm done! We must do something!”
These people are members of an evil, religious, science denying cult with an unshakable faith in gun control and the benevolence of government. They belong in the dustbin of history.
The more credible result is the one from Prof. John Lott, which found that an increase in legal gun ownership produces a decrease in violent crime. I wonder what the Duke guys did differently to obtain a different result.
We know that “researchers” have a track record of twisting their data to obtain the answers they want. In a notorious example documented by Prof. Lott (in an addendum to the second edition of “More guns, less crime”) fake researchers at, I think, CMU took the full data set Lott published and carefully deleted 85% of it, then had the audacity to report that they had “reproduced” the opposite conclusion. Well,, duh. If you take a national survey and carefully pick 1/7th of the data, it’s no great surprise that you can twist the outcome to say anything you might desire.
Shoot first, paint the target later, miracle of miracles, a perfect score.
For all the denigration of the Religious right for believing in a all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipresent, all-powerful, always- benevolent entity whose name starts with a “G” and lives in the sky, the Left has a disturbing mirroring of this in THEIR all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipresent, all-powerful, always- benevolent entity whose name starts with a “G” and lives in Washington D.C., and every state, territory, county, city, and town in America.
Well said Windy!
“Those that have driven God from themselves, have only put themselves in his place.”
(I know I’ve read or heard something similar to that to that anyway.)
Your absolutely correct, a place for God is baked into our nature.
What the commies are doing is like obtaining master’s degree in self-esteem.
Not a master’s degree in self-esteem rather a Ph.D in self-delusion or conceit.
“The results were unexpected—they found “no difference in homicide rates” between states with tough laws and those with more lenient ones.”
That’s all because of what was not/cannot be talked about in our country today.
Quantity and quality of persons in any give population sample, + density.
Strict gun laws can do almost nothing against a lawless population.
Conversely, neither strict or lenient gun laws are needed in a lawful one. As people naturally go around murdering each other.
Population density only increases and decreases opportunity.
As Joe points out, none of this has anything to do with the proposes of gun control.
“These people are members of an evil, religious, science denying cult with an unshakable faith in gun control and the benevolence of government. (So, they can murder anyone they want with impunity.) They belong in the dustbin of history.”
Won’t say I fixed it. Only adding my thoughts to something spot on.
I’ve read numerous studies such as this where the cited result is unexpected.
How many times does a result have to repeat itself for sociologists to finally start expecting it?!!
What makes Superman the beloved super hero figure?
Is it the super strength, the super speed, the x-ray vision, the flying, the impenetrable toughness, the costume?
Or is it Truth, Justice and the American Way, the credo of a Boy Scout from a midwest farm?
What makes scientific research valuable, and the researcher worthy of social prestige and reward?
Is it the white coat, the academic credentials, the complex jargon, the smooth continuous graphs of discrete datapoints in the white paper, the peer review of friends and colleagues in the same field?
Or is it the reproducibility of results, the testing of a hypothesis either way, the humility of error bars and statistical significance, the restraint of not overstating conclusions, the recognition of the difference between truly proving something and the suggestion of an interesting correlation, and ultimately the expansion of human knowledge, not only knowing something new but being able to explain how we know that thing?
Sociology is putting on the super suit and thinking that means they can fly to a fancy restaurant and get a meal on the house. They don’t know they’re Homelander, not Superman. Actually, they’re aspiring to Hawkeye, and delivering Kick-Ass.
How many times? That’s only a reasonable question if you’re dealing with science and scientists, which isn’t the case for topics like sociology.