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

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,336
Likes
1,885
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
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
After the Sandy Hook tragedy,...
Bloomberg Star awarded for getting "Sandy Hook" into first sentence.
...reporters often called me to ask for information on firearms. They wanted to know whether strong gun laws reduced homicide rates (I said they did); and, conversely, whether permissive gun laws lowered crime rates overall (I said they did not). I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening, and that it was caused by humans.

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.
The author, David Hemenway, teaches at the Harvard School of Public Health. He is also the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
 
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.
)
His is the most ridiculous argument and I can't believe he has the audacity to make it. He is basically saying facts be damned, what matters is what professors think (not have proven, but their opinion) at liberal Universities who make their living from grants from State Agencies.
 
Climate change, balanced coverage. [rofl]

Reporters are always balanced that's why they vetted obama as if he were Reagan's step child.
 
"So I decided to determine objectively, through polling" made me snort coffee out my nose. He polled all the gun haters he knew and came to his conclusion. And this asshat is from Harvard. So much for the best and brightest. So much fail.
 
Wasnt that Groucho's line
Probably. I watched "an inconvenient truth" the other day and he said it about 10 times. Probably took the credit like he did for the Internet ;). And before anyone asks, there was nothing else on and I felt like a good laugh.
 
)
His is the most ridiculous argument and I can't believe he has the audacity to make it. He is basically saying facts be damned, what matters is what professors think (not have proven, but their opinion) at liberal Universities who make their living from grants from State Agencies.

Oh come on now, he's from harvard, you need to believe eveything he says, just like obama![laugh2]
 
So I decided to determine objectively, through polling.

So in the year 1300 AD it was scientifically proven that the world was indeed flat. At sometime after that the world became round, because science. FFS.
 
So in the year 1300 AD it was scientifically proven that the world was indeed flat. At sometime after that the world became round, because science. FFS.

Seriously. Science is all factual until it's time to change the facts, to be scientific. Ya know?
 
This is the guy the MA public safety committee chastised for spending 18 months and having no data right?

So much for "science"...

His response was that the NRA prevented him - the Public Safety committee blanched at that BS too.
 
This is a statement from a sheep from a communist organization in the most communist city in America and it actually caused you to take 5 minutes of your life to start a string. Ignore the noise.
 
and, the history we need to remember and remind people is that when Dr's and Professors get into politics claiming they have "science on their side" to drive public policy against civil rights - VERY BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

A list of offenses this Harvard Professor's ilk have to answer for here:
1. Phrenology
2. Eugenics
3. Racism
4. Forced Sterilization
5. Forced Experimentation (Tuskegee/Syphilis, radioactive dust, excessive x-rays, radioactive milk to ophan children, etc...
6. The holocaust in Europe.

ALL of these atrocities were committed in the guise of "public health" with Dr's, Politicians and leading universities of the day working hand-in-hand to slaughter and maim.

Sorry Hemminway, your field has lost its privileges to play in the field of politics with any credibility permanently.

Garbage science, even worse politics and unimaginably bad public policy.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hemenway

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]

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?
 
Last edited:
I like reading ludicrous things like this. Then when I debate my
commie friends I can reference what they read and eviscerate them with common sense.
 
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?
He's either delusional and has constructed an alternate utopian reality in his head or he's a propagandist looking to disarm people.

either way, trying to apply logic to his statements outside the assumption of an agenda or a mental defect is pointless. The only logic to be applied is either:
a. His beliefs and statements are based on a deeply flawed set of base assumptions and an invalid understanding/grasp of reality.
OR
b. He knows he's full of beans and is looking for the best sales pitch for disarmament and enslavement and will continue tossing things at the wall until he finds one that sticks.
 
Truly an unbelievable read from someone labelled as a scientist at a premier university.
 
I will not debate or even converse with some one I know to be a commie, And I certainly would not have them as "friends".
Commie was too strong, I'll say socialist. Doesn't bother me though. I mean, I dislike leftism for sure, but whatever someone's personal/political beliefs are are there own, for their own reasons. Talking with him and others allows me to more effectively get to my point since I understand theirs better if that makes sense.
 
Don't forget that this chump was on the supposedly impartial "gun violence task force" House Speaker DeLeo appointed to come up with 'recommendations' for changes to Mass law.
 
I'll sleep better at night knowing that these are the intellectual powerhouses on the other side of the issue.
 
I'll sleep better at night knowing that these are the intellectual powerhouses on the other side of the issue.
History has shown you don't have to be a super-genius to do a lot of damage. Charisma, the right title or name and just a few IQ points above local average can take you to genocide (shown over and over again).

You need their ear, knowledge of their fears and how to play on them and whatever is turned off in predatory political types that stops the rest of us from hurting people on purpose (or even worse, the self-delusion that the damage you are inflicting is "good for them").
 
History has shown you don't have to be a super-genius to do a lot of damage. Charisma, the right title or name and just a few IQ points above local average can take you to genocide (shown over and over again).

You need their ear, knowledge of their fears and how to play on them and whatever is turned off in predatory political types that stops the rest of us from hurting people on purpose (or even worse, the self-delusion that the damage you are inflicting is "good for them").

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

Seriously. Science is all factual until it's time to change the facts, to be scientific. Ya know?

I wouldn't call political stances "science". That's an insult to nature.

I've noticed society is increasingly saying "science is stupid". It's like watching Idiocracy unfold before my very eyes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom