John Lott's organization to thwart the antis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Merry Christmas,

The internet is an interesting place. It is pretty common to see some folks grab onto bits of another's postings and type replies that assume that the original poster is up to some dark nefarious activity. And we see the opposite, that someone sees a negative post about a peer that they view as having views similar to their own and types a response that suggests that the party being criticized is next in line for sainthood and the critiquer must be an envious low life. In reality, neither position is even close to the truth. And the posts say a lot more about the poster than the subject of their post.

One observation that I would contribute is that it is not a winning strategy to say that the other side can be as misleading, devious, and fraudulent with facts and data as they want to be, but all of our "friends" must be perfect and never misplace a comma or period in what they write. Was it Pogo who said "We have met the enemy and it is us?" I am told that in the middle east they say "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Given the state of current affairs, I will suggest that the latter sentiment is more effective. We can argue about who is more worthy of admiration after the big struggles are settled in our favor and the historians are writing up nice articles for Wikipedia. Energy today spent fighting amongst friends is energy not directed at the Bloombergs and Hudaks.

Its the Christmas season and next year is an election year. There will be no perfect candidates. But if you can decide that firearms rights are THE most important issue for you, and you look for the most electable and firearms friendly candidates in your area, and volunteer to work the phones, fold and mail brochures, etc., you might be happier next Christmas. So consider giving your friends and fellow travelers a pass for a while and aim your energy at the folks who want to take away and restrict your rights.

Merry Christmas,

Wes
 
Buzzcook, the Reason story had many false claims. But it is good that you raise the postings on Wikipedia as a false example of the claims of pseudonyms.

Professor Jim Purtilo at the University of Maryland put together these posts:
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/namecalling.htm
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/details.htm
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/

As to the claim that I have started this center because I am desperate for money, "Jammer Six" is really quite amusing. I suppose that you are making the same claim about John Whitley, who was the research director at the Department of Homeland Security for three years and is serving as the CPRC's research director. The point is that on my own it is simply impossible for me to evaluate to anything more than a tiny fraction of the very poorly done studies that are coming out, let alone the avalanche of public health research that is now being funded with hundreds of millions of dollars from everyone from Bloomberg to these large foundations to the federal government.

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...de-rates-in-the-united-states-1981-2010-ajph/
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org

If one were to use the types of arguments posted here, we could claim that someone such as "Jammer Six" is a gun control advocate using a pseudonym to post in this forum.
 
Last edited:
If you're saying that the person posting under JohnRLott is not, in fact, Mr Lott, you'd better have real evidence ready to post. Otherwise, my research says otherwise.

Get back on topic.
 
Mr. Lott said his organization could use as much financial help as possible to...

As to the claim that I have started this center because I am desperate for money, "Jammer Six" is really quite amusing.

Okay. This is my "proof", such as it is.

I suppose Lott could say one thing to an interviewer and another to us. But in a thread repeating his plea for money, I don't see the point of implying that he doesn't need money after all.

So one or the other of these claims that are attributed to Lott isn't true.

Since I don't think even Lott is that disingenuous, I conclude our new poster isn't Lott.

To get back on topic, when we spend research dollars, we need someone else to head it.
 
We have wandered off topic, and we're down to personal accusations. I daresay we could have conducted ourselves in a much better fashion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top