The Science is Settled: Gun Laws Do Not Reduce Violent Crime or Suicides

Hemmingway has long been debunked with multiple critiques in the literature and has been discussed at length several times here. You like him because of confirmation bias. I suppose you will want to rehash that debate that has consumed dozens of posts from which your defense has never be accepted as credible.
And, how many Graduate degrees do you have... which, BTW, doesn’t make you an authority of anything. Sure we could stand and measure size, or acedemic or science related credentials, but that doesn’t necessarily bestow any particular wonder on you... we have a history of your posts which is evidence of your track of credibility, or lack there of.
You are fond of asserting superiority of other countries over the US, what is the Harvard study that shreds making those comparisons... go ahead and post it if you want others to review the Harvard studies...or should folks only read what you think of value?

 

Debunked? Are you kidding? He is widely respected and has received numerous awards for his academic work. You lose all credibility when you say such nonsense. This is harvard... not Larry's bait shop and college.

I am happy to stack up my CV against you any day.

Go ahead ....make it personal....you will lose

 

Harvard has destroyed their credibility and exposed themselves as partisan hacks with great hostility against the Constitution.

 

Hemenway is only respected by those that use his studies to support their GCA agenda, like the L.A. Times, because they think having a PHD adds authority recognized by the low information drones; His work has been long debunked, not given any credibility the CDC’s latest study. The only credibility he has be given is by those GCA types that accept his studies merely for their anti-gun Titles.
His work was known, why was there no credence give in the CDC’s study? Kleck’s work Was.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3

His work has been, as I posted, discussed numerous times in this forum. Btw, Awards aren’t a measure over the work, but that would entail an entire discussion on the politics, financial and other factors associated with Academia, where I spent 30 teaching (20 of it at a graduate level) and conducting research.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3

I will lose what? I don’t need to get personal, your credibility is on this forum and self admitted gaming is well known.
As for comparing CVs or firearms knowledge, that would be fun over drinks if you ever leave Thailand. Until then, I figure the forum participants can judge between the two.

So, what are your graduate degrees? And, where is the article I suggest you share given your vast knowledge of relevant Harvard publications.

BTW, there has been a study published by the Harvard Business Publishers about my work and I have been published by them as well as having several publications of original work in several other publications, including one of the early discussions (1970’s) on climate change. Come... have a drink... you can try and read a couple.

 

Feel free to quote from post #13 all of the aspects that you are having difficulty understanding.

 

There was no CDC report which explains why you can't post it.

 

The aspect of "NRA gun culture of death" at the end of the aforementioned post.

Everything other than that is just more confirmation that the supposedly "universal" background check for the state of California, is not truly universal, has incomplete records, and fails to prevent firearm-related incidents from occurring.

 

That has already been supplied to you on multiple occasions so I suggest that you go back and reread them if you can't recall what they said.

 

It has also been rebuked by forum staff as a violation of established forum rules.

Do you need to be reported yet again?

 

Anyone who says Hemingways work was discredited has lost all credibility. He is widely respected and Harvard is not going to attach their name to work that is discredited. It's why Lott has no academic institution that will back him anymore. He has disgraced himself. Even Kleck calls his work garbage.

But Hemingway is a scientist....you may not like his research but his work can not be questioned

 

You are wasting your time. There are some people here that should just be ignored

 

Discussion of moderator actions in open threads is a PF Rule Violation.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

Comes a very very poor second to the actual research done by Harvard

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Blog versus research........hmmmm

 

And you have been shown to have cherry picked the Wording to make it appear it says what it does not

 

The CDC recommended more research yes and the research it threw most doubt on was DGU

 

Gun control schemes encourage violent crime.

“A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported online in January
that England's firearms restrictions, including its 1997 ban on handguns, "seem
to have had little impact in the criminal underworld". Guns are virtually outlawed,
and, as the old US slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. And what is worse,
they are increasingly ready to use them.

Five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent
crime has been climbing ever since, and armed crime -
with banned handguns the weapon of choice - is now
described as "rocketing". In the two years following the
ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 per cent.
From April to November 2001 the number of people
robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 per cent.

In the course of a few days last summer, gun-toting
men burst into a court and freed two defendants; a
shooting outside a London nightclub left five women
and three men wounded; and two men were
machine-gunned to death in a residential
neighbourhood of north London. On New Year's Day,
2002, a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the
head by a thief after her mobile phone.” FINANCIAL TIMES, Trigger unhappy,
By Joyce Lee Malcolm, Jun 21, 2002.

When will they ever learn.

 

It has been posted many times, several times by me, and I posted it again yesterday.

 

Ah...no, that statement is false. Read the report yourself.

Why is it none of the GCAs actually read the report, but tend to accept the spin of GCA sources.

 

The CDC recommending more research being carried out does not mean there is more information that can be uncovered. It is simply a way of guaranteeing job security as more funding is provided.

 

First, how would you know, you haven’t read the report or you wouldn’t have made the statement you did in post #43 misrepresenting what was in the report.
You want to debate it? Read it.
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#R1
Then come back.

 

Which section are you debating because this looks like more misrepresentation to me

 

Read it all. Then come back and explain what I have misrepresented. Until you do, you are hopefully guessing.

I could send you a summary, but you’d discount the source as biased,so the best thing is to read it for yourself. On any study, presented by anyone, I don’t accept the words of others on any side of a debate...I read the original for myself and make my own mind up.

How can you engage in the Debate if you haven’t read one of the largest studies, funded by the Obama Admin in hopes of supporting his anti gun position, in the last 20 years?