Crack Research From New York Times

I think I’m supposed to be horrified by this, but it actually makes me proud to be an NRA member. And if the Times wonders why we’ve prevented “research” into this, they answered their own question right here. It’s quite easy to make statistics say things they really don’t, and to draw inappropriate conclusions based on them.

I only use statistics for arguments sake. I could care less what the true causation is, because my rights aren’t subject to the outcome of any scientific paper, or statistical regression. If NRA is preventing my tax dollars from going to politically charged “research” ultimately aimed at undermining my constitutional rights, they are doing exactly what I want them to do.

Would we tolerate studies that show certain kinds of speech are dangerous, and contribute to crime, who’s conclusions implicate limitations on First Amendment rights? No. We shouldn’t tolerate it for the Second Amendment either.

3 thoughts on “Crack Research From New York Times”

  1. The VPC has proven you can do cutting edge research with just Google. See their newly released “Accessories to Murder,” consisting of six reproductions of retail ads for high volume bullet clips. No need to water these reports down with things like expensive statistical techniques, or “writing.”

  2. I wouldn’t underestimate the impact Clayton Cramer’s takedown of Emory Professor Bellesiles in this regard.

    No longer can “researchers” take Joyce/Bloomberg money and reach the conclusion for what has been paid for. Now, the cost is much higher, personal reputation. Clayton Cramer’s example has empowered mini-researchers willing to challenge the so-called experts.

Comments are closed.