… debunk this study a few weeks ago? Oh yeah, we did. And then we discovered the organization that funded it was funded by Joyce. I’m glad Thirdpower is on this, because Bryan is starting to bore me.
3 thoughts on “Didn’t We Already …”
Comments are closed.
Dear Bryan:
In as much as CeaseFireNJ works to reduce criminal violence in society, I applaud your efforts. Yet, we are skeptical of your efforts and statements, because what usually passes for “fighting violence” with organizations like yours is a relentless assault on the right and the ability of people to own firearms for lawful purposes.
The trouble with your article can be illustrated with a couple of simple, analogous questions:
Do people trust research funded by big tobacco that concludes the risk of smoking is small?
Do people trust research funded by coal companies that concludes the pollution risk of coal-fired emissions is small?
No, they don’t, and they are justified in their disbelief.
Yet you believe studies published by the University of Chicago’s “respected” National Opinion Research Center. The NORC is funded by Chicago’s Joyce Foundation which, for all practical purposes, is a gun-control advocacy group. Yet it somehow bolsters your legitimacy to tied NORC to the respected University of Chicago. This is exactly the same as the situation with Saul Cornell’s Second Amendment Researech Center (also funded by Joyce). That center, and the “scholarship” it produces likewise draws it’s false academic legitimacy from being affiliated with the Ohio State University.
Bryan….what gives with these smoke-and-mirror tactics? They are dishonest. That gig is up…over. It’s been exposed and Joyce-funded research that fits your gun control agenda will simply not pass the intellectual standards that are required for informing public policy debate.
Just look at the DC merits brief in Heller, and look at the amici briefs in support of DCs gun ban. The scholarship they point to comes largely from these controversial and unethically funded “law reviews”…funded ultimately by Joyce Foundation, and gun control advocacy group. The Respondent’s team in the Heller case sure as hell understand these dynamics, and the Supreme Court of the United States is sure to recognize such scholarship for what it is…fraud biased by special-interest advocacy groups.
Please….work to meaningfully reduce criminal violence, not to infringe the rights of good, law abiding Americans.
Here is my comment to Bryan’s article. Don’t know if they will approve it, so I wanted to post it here….
Dear Bryan:
In as much as CeaseFireNJ works to reduce criminal violence in society, I applaud your efforts. Yet, we are skeptical of your efforts and statements, because what usually passes for “fighting violence” with organizations like yours is a relentless assault on the right and the ability of people to own firearms for lawful purposes.
The trouble with your article can be illustrated with a couple of simple, analogous questions:
Do people trust research funded by big tobacco that concludes the risk of smoking is small?
Do people trust research funded by coal companies that concludes the pollution risk of coal-fired emissions is small?
No, they don’t, and they are justified in their disbelief.
Yet you believe studies published by the University of Chicago’s “respected” National Opinion Research Center. The NORC is funded by Chicago’s Joyce Foundation which, for all practical purposes, is a gun-control advocacy group. Yet it somehow bolsters your legitimacy to tied NORC to the respected University of Chicago. This is exactly the same as the situation with Saul Cornell’s Second Amendment Researech Center (also funded by Joyce). That center, and the “scholarship” it produces likewise draws it’s false academic legitimacy from being affiliated with the Ohio State University.
Bryan….what gives with these smoke-and-mirror tactics? They are dishonest. That gig is up…over. It’s been exposed and Joyce-funded research that fits your gun control agenda will simply not pass the intellectual standards that are required for informing public policy debate.
Just look at the DC merits brief in Heller, and look at the amici briefs in support of DCs gun ban. The scholarship they point to comes largely from these controversial and unethically funded “law reviews”…funded ultimately by Joyce Foundation, and gun control advocacy group. The Respondent’s team in the Heller case sure as hell understand these dynamics, and the Supreme Court of the United States is sure to recognize such scholarship for what it is…fraud biased by special-interest advocacy groups.
Please….work to meaningfully reduce criminal violence, not to infringe the rights of good, law abiding Americans.
Sebastian, somehow I double-posted. My apologies. Please remove the first (and third) post at your discretion.