I generally try not to make overall generalizations, but as an Irish Ex Pat (once considered a Brit subject) I have witnessed the effects of selective privilege, class discrimination, elitism and the absence of civil rights over individual liberty. Living as one subject to the imposition of laws designed to sustain class privilege, social control, institutionalized discrimination, and the ethnic oppression of colonialism justified by elitism as exemplified by Britain has often led to a generalization by many of in the world to characterize Brits as having a superiority complex, one used to rationalize dominion over their supposed lessor’s even as their empire continues to shrink.
If one does not question the results of the study, and how the research was actually conducted, if all they do is repeat talking points, then they are not educated to begin with.
I love education, I have been saving lives for A solid 20 years in combined medical practices, and if you understand anything, medicine is not very forgiving, people tend to die from, malpractice, mistakes, erroneous decisions. Personal defense is too fluid to be simply defined by mathematical formulas, Science is related to constants that can be replicated in a standard laboratory. How can you predict anything in relation to personal defense when circumstances can change in the blink of an eye ? How can you talk of empirical evidence as far as Crime, when things change from one moment to the next ? First, learn the difference between law abiding citizens, and law breaking criminals, statistics are for end results, as pork futures, nothing is written in stone.
Since neither of our collective DGUs or those of millions of other Americans have been accounted for or related by MSM, it is impossible to measure how many homicides, rapes, robberies have not occurred simply because of firearm ownership. Unless the millions of unreported DGUs are accurately figured into all research claiming to assess the impact of gun ownership on crime, that research is flawed. The fact that most all DGUs or positive publicity about America's widespread shooting sport competitions go unreported (1), most Americans are presented with only negative publicity about firearms. Some who have gone so far as to claim that: "Guns are only good for killing people." are pitifully unaware that the widely varied Shooting Sports are open to anyone regardless of size or strength and enjoyed by millions. Therefore, it's not surprising that Competitive Shooting is a sport that is increasingly popular among women(2). Because MSM fails to publicize the millions of DGUs & the Shooting Sports, the average reader is exposed to only the negative impact of firearm ownership in America giving them an incomplete, inaccurate & negative impression of firearms in general. I think it is safe to conclude that due to MSM's anti gun bias, hoplophobes are made, not born. (1) "The Shooting Club App Is Fired Up For Gun Lovers And Gun Safety" https://www.forbes.com/sites/montym...p-for-gun-lovers-and-gun-safety/#793dfbfe79af EXCERPT "While high gun ownership is generally reported as the major reason for gun crime in the US, there is another under-reported story and that is the popularity of the sport compared to other sporting hobbies and avocations. Shooting ranges are widely popular in the country. According to theNational Sports Goods Association, American target shooters spend more than $10 billion a year on their sport, more than the annual revenue of the NFL." CONTINUED (2) "Top 50 Women in Competitive Shooting" https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2017/6/19/top-50-women-in-competitive-shooting/ EXCERPT "From action pistol and bullseye champions, smallbore, high power and precision rifle masters, trapshooters and Olympic gold medalists—SSUSA has compiled this list of 50 (52 to be exact) female athletes that are influencing the ever-changing landscape of competitive shooting—for the better. Note: This isn’t a ranking, though we purposely grouped the first four women at the front in recognition of the attention generated by their respective shooting careers. Otherwise it’s a random selection, with the goal of presenting female shooters from as many disciplines as possible."CONTINUED
Or.... You can get back to me when you can articulate your argument & support it with credible research instead of Gun Ban Group Think that omits DGUs.
That you think peer reviewed research is group think is a little disturbing. Perhaps it's a wonky effort at referring to publication bias (reflecting how statistical significance is more likely to be submitted for refereeing?)? The problem here is that I adopt literature review methods. You do not.
The fact that it is apparently impossible for yourself to address the group-think issue, and instead dismiss it out of hand as a physical impossibility, does not add credibility to the position of yourself.
I'm all in favour of discussing group thought. Ignoring the importance of peer reviewed research is your basic error. Start spreading the research and then get back to me!
It is a waste of time discussing such topics with somone that has no first-hand knowledge, he can only quote links to so called studies of scant value. You cannot place all fun owners and users into a category and talk about gun effect etc... Because not all situations are equal. You can't equate law abiding citizens with dealers of illegal drugs and talk about gun effect. There are benefits to guns among law abiding citizens, and detrimental effects among criminals. To merely place the blame on guns is misleading and does NOT solve the underlying problems.
Peer reviewed ? If peer reviewed research concludes Luna is composed of cheese byproducts, does that make it true ?
The peer review process is useless and devoid of meaning, if those who are in charge of actually doing the reviewing of the presented subject material, are incapable and unwilling of exercising individual thought and questioning what is presented.
There isn't one process. You demonstrate an ignorant need to ignore all scholarly research, nothing more.
You have an overwhelming need to insult people out of turn. You are the ignorant one here ignoring all Truth.
The scholarly research process being exclusively relied on by yourself is inherently unreliable, as it is easily tainted by political bias on the part of those carrying out the research, executing the peer review process, the providing the funding for the research to be conducted in the first place.
The problem with much scholarly work is it fails to distinguish between criminality and law abiding citizens legitimate use of firearms. Take N.Y.C. for instance, (it) is assumed the average person does not "need" to carry a handgun, need defined as handling large amounts of cash or valuables, or be in a professional position that is required to be armed. These are people that place money and valuables over the ability to defend oneself.
Ignoring scholarly research is the search for truth? You fellows have some properly strange arguments. However, what's worse is that no one pulls you up to effectively remark "for the love of education, pull your socks up"
Education is not what is was fifty years ago. Dissenting opinions are not welcomed and debated, they are shunned and those who hold them are punished regularly until they learn to keep their mouth shut. Both on the part of the educated, and the educators themselves.
Is the above assertion being presented on the part of yourself a statement as to disbelieving the notion of modern day education being nothing more than indoctrination and hostility towards dissenting opinions?
Irrelevant and off topic nonsense. The question being presented to yourself is a simple yes or no question, to establish whether or not you believe that the modern education system in the united states is indoctrination via intolerance of differing ideas. Why is it so hard to provide a simple yes or no answer when presented with a simple yes or no question?
Given his part in realigning disciplines according to a pluralist context (where conflict of idea becomes the norm in education), your response isn't cunning! It does, however, indicate how your make up scenario isn't an educated one.
