A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent.

Sez

The Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science. Says the NAS Firearms
and Violence Panel.

Notorious anti-gun polemicists.

snicker

You just are the stereotypical, ignorant gunhugger, aren't you?

" WASHINGTON * While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents
that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new
U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253
journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80
different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short,
the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower
rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one
of its members were known to favor gun control."

WorldNet Daily


"It should come as no surprise to most readers that "objective" government
studies are often anything but. In fact, the game is an old one: If you put
the right people on a panel, and ask them the right questions, you can
pretty well be assured of getting the answers you want. That appears to be
what is going on with a Clinton administration-inspired National Academy of
Sciences study bearing the innocuous title of "Improving Research
Information and Data on Firearms," which opens its formal hearings on
Thursday.

According to the NAS, "The goals of this study are to

1.) assess the existing research and data on firearm violence;
2.) consider how to credibly evaluate the various prevention, intervention
and control strategies;
3.) describe and develop models of illegal firearms markets; and
4.) examine the complex ways in which firearms may become embedded in the
community."

Conspicuously absent from these goals is any research into the benefits of
firearms becoming "embedded" in communities, as demonstrated by the research
of scholars like John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute and Gary
Kleck of Florida State University.

Most of the people selected for the panel have reputations as good scholars,
but none of them have specialized in firearms policy. Most of them have
reputations as being antigun. Steven Levitt, has been described as "rabidly
antigun."

The panel also includes former Jimmy Carter Attorney General Benjamin
Civiletti ‹ a long-time antigun advocate, and a strong supporter of
America's leading gun-prohibition group, Handgun Control, Inc. (formerly
known as "the National Council to Control Handguns," and recently renamed
"The Brady Campaign").

The closest that anyone on the panel gets to not being entirely antigun is
James Q. Wilson ‹ a distinguished scholar (but no specialist in gun policy),
who has said that most gun control doesn't work, but who expresses almost no
concern for the rights of legitimate gun owners who are harmed by
ineffective laws, and who supports high-tech spy cameras to find people
carrying guns. (Notwithstanding the fact that handgun carrying is legal in
33 states by statewide law, and is allowed in many of the rest, on a county
by county basis.)" By Dave Kopel & Glenn Reynolds.

You can say the NAS study wasn't biased all you want, and it will be a lie
still.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser