• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Harvard professor: "scientific consensus"--guns Я bad

new guy said:
Yeah, I know, but I'll take an opponent who can't form a coherent argument over one who can any day. Stupid people are going to eat what they're fed regardless. [smile]
Click to expand...
This guy is more than capable of forming a coherent argument. In fact, he is very capable, but chooses a more terrifying path of intentionally forming an incoherent argument slathered with emotion that will sway stupid people (and there are plenty of them out there).

This is how Bloomberg, Gabby, Newtown-Everything, MDA, etc... function. The people you see talking know they are full of it. They are not telling you what they really want. They are telling you what you want to hear to convince you to give them what THEY want.
 
I admit I didn't bother to read more than the first few paragraphs of the article. I was more curious about the comments. Even in the LA Times, a rag more liberal than even the NY Times, the comments seem to be at least 3-1 negative to the premise, content and methods of the author.
 
CWulf said:
I admit I didn't bother to read more than the first few paragraphs of the article. I was more curious about the comments. Even in the LA Times, a rag more liberal than even the NY Times, the comments seem to be at least 3-1 negative to the premise, content and methods of the author.
Click to expand...
As I've mentioned, he even failed to sway the MA Public Safety Committee, so, thankfully, he's so used to talking to an echo chamber that he doesn't do well in the wild.

He may learn and he will continue to foment the choir...
 
I worked At HSPH full time for 4 years.

I was the only LTC-A holder in the entire school.

Mention "gun" there and get surrounded and chastised.
 
I didn't spend a significant amount of time reading the article, however, it sounds like the Professor sent out an opinion survey and is attempting to call it something else. There is a difference between concensus among the scientists included in an opinion survey and scientific consensus. Scientific consensus would require a random sample of people included in a survey where the questions asked scientists to provide hard figures of the impact of firearms on society. I certainly hope this guy isn't teaching anyone's kids principles of conducting surveys.
 
Last edited:
Hemenway appeared at a forum hosted by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation and made the following statement in April 2013, "Instead of it being the mark of a real man that you can shoot somebody at 50 feet and kill them with a gun, the mark of a real man is that you would never do anything like that. . . . The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss. They aren’t anybody to be looked up to. They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun."[12]
Click to expand...

I guess he's talking about thugs and criminals no?

I mean I get it.. He thinks that he's got some new and innovative way to dismantle the "gun culture" by tackling the imagery or psychology of the firearms community at large. Perhaps he's operating under some misguided perceptions about the firearms community and industry, based on what I imagine can be attributed to hollywood sensationalism. For example, are there industry advertisements out there that communicate the message that "having a gun makes you somehow a man"? Has any gun mfg'er ever made that commercial? If anything this message is conveyed by the Hollywood leftists over and over again. I don't see the NRA or any industry group backing this kind of message in their advertisements. I definitely didn't see that kind of message in Eastwood's Gran Torino. In fact it was exactly the OPPOSITE message that was conveyed in that movie. So his methodologies are not unlike the approach that the anti-tobacco movement used in targeting tobacco use. Instead of Smoking advertisements that depicted the "marlboro man", or that of the famous cowboy image to make using cigarettes look "cool", their advertisements created the exact opposite effect.

There are two failures (if not many more) to his approach:

First, I've never seen such advertisements. I don't know a single person who decided to purchase a firearm for these kinds of reasons. IRL most people I know who've bought firearms bought them because they want to be able to defend themselves, not to commit crimes with them. Certainly not to bully anyone! Where are all these "wimps with guns" that he's describing, I haven't seen any. The only wimps with guns I've seen are the nutjobs who commit random (and yet rare) acts of mass murder.

Second, I'm not discounting the fact that there actually are some of these sorts of people out there, who buy firearms based on stereotypes. I think they are the minority in most cases, and most of the law abiding citizens who own firearms are nothing of the sort.

This "professor" is pigeonholing the entire "gun owner" community into some false caricaturization, either based on criminal gang related street violence, or what might be the perception that gun owners are all John Wayne wannabes? I think in his bubble world he fails to recognize just how widely varied the 2A constituency really is. The other problem with his approach to tackle gun ownership from this angle is that unlike 2A and the RKBA, smoking is not enshrined in the constitution.

Last but not least, we tried prohibition once and it didn't work. Even if you could eradicate every single gun from the law abiding, here in the states, criminals would still find a way to bring them in. Just look at how successful our drug war has been.
 
Last edited:
new guy said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hemenway



I think he's saying that nobody ever has a right to protect themselves with deadly force, even in the face of deadly force being brought against them, their loved ones or others. Talk about a myopic, idealized worldview.

Does this sentence even make sense, logically?: "The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss." It's only OK if people who have skill and bravery are dangerous?
Click to expand...


So my wife is a wuss? "War On Women" [rolleyes]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whore getting paid by the word , and will say anything to appease the ban crowd editors of the la la land fairies .
 
The level of intellectual sophistication ranks right up there with telling your opponent in a debate "you know I am right".
 
Lcstyle said:
I guess he's talking about thugs and criminals no?

I mean I get it.. He thinks that he's got some new and innovative way to dismantle the "gun culture" by tackling the imagery or psychology of the firearms community at large. Perhaps he's operating under some misguided perceptions about the firearms community and industry, based on what I imagine can be attributed to hollywood sensationalism. For example, are there industry advertisements out there that communicate the message that "having a gun makes you somehow a man"?

This "professor" is pigeonholing the entire "gun owner" community into some false caricaturization, either based on criminal gang related street violence, or what might be the perception that gun owners are all John Wayne wannabes? I think in his bubble world he fails to recognize just how widely varied the 2A constituency really is. The other problem with his approach to tackle gun ownership from this angle is that unlike 2A and the RKBA, smoking is not enshrined in the constitution.

Last but not least, we tried prohibition once and it didn't work. Even if you could eradicate every single gun from the law abiding, here in the states, criminals would still find a way to bring them in. Just look at how successful our drug war has been.
Click to expand...

As a woman I find this professor to be very dehumanizing and insulting to women. The chances of him ever being beaten, abused, raped or attacked by a man are zero. How could he ever understand my point of view? I can tell you first hand the stories I have heard from other women who have survived abusive relationships including being raped and not being reported to police. Violent crime is real and it doesn't always involve boogey men. Sometimes it's much much closer. My right to self defense is not just for a "potential" of a threat from some kind of fabricated boogey man. I have seen what acts of violence do to people and their psyche.
 
The article says scientific- I do not see a valid explanation of where the word "science" comes to being used. A polling of opinion is not science, and is considered hands down to be the most unreliable and borderline shit study you can attempt. Source: I've worked on a couple of studies. With that said, I wish they'd linked the study and cited some references so some proper research can be done on it.
 
Hemenway appeared at a forum hosted by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation and made the following statement in April 2013, "Instead of it being the mark of a real man that you can shoot somebody at 50 feet and kill them with a gun, the mark of a real man is that you would never do anything like that. . . . The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss. They aren’t anybody to be looked up to. They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun."[12]
Click to expand...

I like how the good professor is using gender shaming (you're not a real man if you use a gun!!) to make his argument--I wonder if any of his progressive cohorts had to retreat to their safe spaces after hearing that statement?
 
Last edited:
If I'm not mistaken, Isn't Harvard the "school" that Ted Kennedy cheated his way through and still got a diploma?
 
Hemenway appeared at a forum hosted by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation and made the following statement in April 2013, "Instead of it being the mark of a real man that you can shoot somebody at 50 feet and kill them with a gun, the mark of a real man is that you would never do anything like that. . . . The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss. They aren’t anybody to be looked up to. They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun."[12]
Click to expand...

Heh heh, heh heh.....he said wood Johnson....heh heh, heh heh

small-bnb.gif
 
people's consensus: douche bag limp dick Harvard professors Я bad!

If I were going to dig a hole to plant a tree, would I use my fingers to claw at the dirt, or grab a shovel from the barn? I would use the shovel.

If I were going to go fishing up at the Connecticut Lakes, should I walk up there, or should I ride in my car? I would ride.

If some knife wielding douchebag attacks me or my family in a dark alley, or one of Tsarniev's relatives come to avenge him, should I fight them off with my bare hands, or shoot them center mass?? hmmmm, let me think about that....

are Harvard professors REALLY that dumb, or is he distorting obvious facts to make some leftist point??? Now THAT I am torn between
 
Last edited:
I really don't understand the correlation here, are they saying that guns have magical negative auras that cause depression and suicides? Are they saying that guns are possessed?

So, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84%, said yes.


This result was not at all surprising because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. It includes a dozen individual-level studies that investigate why some people commit suicide and others do not, and an almost equal number of area-wide studies that try to explain differences in suicide rates across cities, states and regions. These area-wide studies find that differences in rates of suicide across the country are less explained by differences in mental health or suicide ideation than they are by differences in levels of household gun ownership.
Click to expand...

So they're saying I am more likely to try to commit suicide because I own a mechanical piece of metal, or because I am around one? I mean if you were to argue it as a more successful method of committing suicide, then I might be more inclined to listen, but to say that just being around or owning a gun increases the odds that you will commit suicide, is sheer insanity!

Does that mean then that you'll find a higher suicide rate for gun shop owners, or collectors who've amassed a significant amount of firearms over the years? Are these people really more likely to commit suicide? Also, does this "suicide effect" somehow rub off on your non-gun owning neighbors, i.e. will your collection affect them because they are in (relatively) close physical proximity? I mean what kind of magical thinking is this?

A 2014 meta-analysis, conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco, of the scientific studies on guns and suicide concluded that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that's exactly what they're saying. But don't they really mean instead that access to firearms increases the chances of a successful suicide rather than increasing your chances of attempting suicide? I'm so sick of this suicide angle to gun control. First of all I understand that most people who attempt suicide and survive agree that they made a mistake (duh) and that people who try suicide with a gun most of the time don't get that chance. But, and I know this might sound cruel, is it the government's job to save everyone from themselves? Real freedom means that man has a right to destroy even himself, if he so chooses. Gov't shouldn't have a say in it. Suicide should not be illegal.

Anyways I digress, but be careful out there folks, that gun in your safe could make you shoot yourself at any moment. Don't listen to your guns anymore. They're just evil.. [rofl]
 
Last edited:
DispositionMatrix said:
Author claims he now has science on his side, so reporters should report on firearms with the preferred bias.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html
Bloomberg Star awarded for getting "Sandy Hook" into first sentence.

The author, David Hemenway, teaches at the Harvard School of Public Health. He is also the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
Click to expand...

He's right.

When you give the government a bunch of guns - really bad things happen. The human race has proved that over and over and over again thruout history.

I will wholeheartedly support any movement this professor has to completely and totally disarm governments all over the world. Now that we have the scientific evidence there shouldn't be any more arguments.








Oh wait...............................
 
more non-sense, boy I'm glad I'm not a scientist that's actually paid to think, I might come up with some conclusions to these facts.

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)
Click to expand...

I would actually tend to agree! But it misses a huge point: Are guns used more so for offensive purposes in high crime areas and by criminals, probably. Are law abiding citizens EXTREMELY judicious in invoking lethal force, ABSOLUTELY.

and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with this statement either, at face value. However there is a counter-point to this, which is that taking away ALL guns from the population probably has a negative effect on crime rates, and by negative, I mean it INCREASES it. If criminals know people are disarmed, there's no longer any fear of personal harm in the equation. So basically, this is a detriment to those who are physically incapable of defending themselves, for whatever reason (disability, physical stature, etc.)

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that's an outright lie. I don't think that people who commit homicide really care about gun laws. They don't care about killing other humans and going to jail forever, why would they care about a silly little gun law?
 
For the suicide part, maybe people who are sure they want to commit suicide chose the most effective means of doing so while people who just want attention chose ways that won't actually kill them. I did not see that possibility given any weight or accounted for at all.
 
Let me get this straight: A poll of pink panty-wearing ultra-liberal anti-gun professors teaching at ultra-liberal universities was done by a pink panty-wearing ultra-liberal anti-gun Harvard professor funded by Michael Bloomingturd and that is supposed to be "science"? [thinking] WTF??? [rolleyes]
 
EJFudd said:
Let me get this straight: A poll of pink panty-wearing ultra-liberal anti-gun professors teaching at ultra-liberal universities was done by a pink panty-wearing ultra-liberal anti-gun Harvard professor funded by Michael Bloomingturd and that is supposed to be "science"? [thinking] WTF??? [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up
 
Back in high school, while visiting colleges, my folks and I made the obligatory stop at MIT (no, I didn't end up there). We had breakfast at a coffee shop in Harvard Square. Looking out the window, my mother saw a small decorative windsock flying from the awning of one of the nearby shops. Now those things are ubiquitous, but back then they weren't, and she had in mind getting one for our front porch. She asked the waitress (obviously a Harvard student) if she knew where we could buy one.

"Um, I think you need to consult an architect" was the answer. My mother made it clear she was talking about the little windsock and NOT the awning. The answer remained the same, followed by a lecture about architectural lines, ... Ours is the classic "New England House That Jack Built" - and included (then) an old barn that was dragged up next to a house and built on (and then finished). There ARE NO "architectural lines" here.

Architect. For a seasonal yard decoration.

That was my introduction to Harvard.

(Then again, around these parts, we have Yalies. Go to downtown New Haven and you can always point them out. They have this certain way of dressing, walking, ..., that screams "I'm a Yalie!")
 

Similar threads

Black Harvard professor who challenged woke orthodoxies needed armed protection:The 2016 study refuted the narrative that racism is involved in police
Replies
2
Views
163
1sern
1
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Buck F
Buck F
Bad news LTC holders, can't buy ammo at BassPro
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Illegals get guns, and badges and arrest powers.
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Migrants can carry guns
Replies
23
Views
723
KBCraig
KBCraig
Back
Top Bottom