Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10987 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Mar 29, 2013, titled Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square. In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

Two local organizations are hosting a Second Amendment Freedom Rally on from noone to 2 p.m. April 6 on Courthouse Plaza in downtown Chambersburg.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11593 Feb 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There are standards within each field. What evidence do you have that the standards of peer review are unreliable or inaccurate here?
And I answered your question. Could you answer mine please?
You made the generalized statement:
"This is absolutely true of the pro-gun "research" crowd. Objective sources however have reported their findings accurately."

How do you KNOW that those findings are accurate, or do they just fit your anti-gun agenda. Because a LOT of the anti-gun "research", such as that done by the VPC {spit} is BS and they cook their numbers to fit that agenda.

Objective research to me would be research that is done and the conclusions are ddrawn AFTER completion. Not where a hypothesis is formed and stats are gathered to try to prove the assertion.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11594 Feb 24, 2014
Julia wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think Danny will show up to answer your question?.
Not everyone gets to sit around the couch collecting checks and food stamps like you, BottleQueen.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11595 Feb 24, 2014
Julia wrote:
There were a lot of posts deleted and they belonged to that liberal pervert, barefoot.
Those were your posts, Shug.

I know you don't keep track of your posts... why would you?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11596 Feb 24, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Will he show up? Yes.
Will he address the question? No.
Will you show up?

Yes.

Will you move the goal posts?

Yes.

Will you paraphrase and pretend it is is a quote?

Of course. It is what you do.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11597 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
Just because they are attached to a prestigious university does NOT mean that they are objective in their research and do not have an agenda.
Like Klock and Lott.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11598 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
Objective research to me would be research that is done and the conclusions are ddrawn AFTER completion. Not where a hypothesis is formed and stats are gathered to try to prove the assertion.
I agree completely.

But the question remains: How do you KNOW that any findings are accurate? Do they just fit your pro-gun agenda? Because a LOT of the pro-gun "research" is BS and they cook their numbers to fit that agenda.

And how do you KNOW these findings aren't accurate? I trust them because I trust Hopkins and know they don't have an agenda. You don't like the results so you are hunting for ways to dismiss them without naming anything specific that gives you legitimate cause to do so.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11600 Feb 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There are standards within each field. What evidence do you have that the standards of peer review are unreliable or inaccurate here?
And I answered your question. Could you answer mine please?
What "standards" do you think your 'hero [the zero]'obama' used here?-

CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

July 17, 2013 - 9:54 AM
By Alissa Tabirian

"CDC gun study

"President Obama signs executive order for CDC gun violence study.(AP photo)

"( CNSNews.com )–“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January...."

"...The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research..."

- cnsnews.com

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11603 Feb 24, 2014
Let's let Kleck tell you in his own words whether he is objective or not:

Gary Kleck describes how he became a gun control skeptic:(Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?)

"Up until about 1976 or so, there was little reliable scholarly information on the link between violence and weaponry. Consequently, everyone, scholars included, was free to believe whatever they liked about guns and gun control. There was no scientific evidence to interfere with the free play of personal bias. It was easy to be a "true believer" in the advisability of gun control and the uniformly detrimental effects of gun availability (or the opposite positions) because there was so little relevant information to shake one's faith. When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most academics, I was a believer in the "anti-gun" thesis, i.e. the idea that gun availability has a net positive effect on the frequency and/or seriousness of violent acts. It seemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to be empirically tested. However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (and an enormous body of not-so-reliable evidence) accumulated, many of the most able specialists in this area shifted from the "anti-gun" position to a more skeptical stance, in which it was negatively argued that the best available evidence does not convincingly or consistently support the anti-gun position. This is not the same as saying we know the anti-gun position to be wrong, but rather that there is no strong case for it being correct. The most prominent representatives of the skeptic position would be James Wright and Peter Rossi, authors of the best scholarly review of the literature.
[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence--it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims,(2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero. The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse. Gun availability does affect the rates of gun violence (e.g. the gun homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun robbery rate) and the fraction of violent acts which involve guns (e.g. the percent of homicides, suicides or robberies committed with guns); it just does not affect total rates of violence (total homicide rate, total suicide rate, total robbery rate, etc.). "
---Gary Kleck, Address to the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on the Understanding and Prevention of Violence (Apr. 3, 1990)(prepared statement, on file with the Tennessee Law Review).

In other words.....he was anti-gun before his research convinced him otherwise.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11605 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
Let's let Kleck tell you in his own words whether he is objective or not:

In other words.....he was anti-gun before his research convinced him otherwise.
Regardless of what he self-reports, his "research" has been thoroughly reviewed and, as a result, thoroughly debunked. He used sloppy methods and dishonest reporting.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11606 Feb 24, 2014
[QUOTE who="2ndAmRight"
Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime
[/QUOTE]

This is not a "Harvard study". It's a non-peer-reviewed article printed in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which is a conservative Law Review edited by conservative Harvard Law students.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11607 Feb 24, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’
July 17, 2013 - 9:54 AM
By Alissa Tabirian
That was not the CDC's conclusion - that's the spin the pro-gun crowd gave it. The report itself says that the data are conflicting and there needs to be more study. IOW they did not reach any conclusion that supports this misleading headline.

And the part of the CDC report that talks about self-defense entirely referenced the thoroughly discredited "research" of Gary Kleck to reach that conclusion - who was in turn citing himself when he arrived at the numbers he used. No serious researcher considers Kleck's work as anything but pro-gun propaganda.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11609 Feb 24, 2014
From the CDC report the pro-gunners love so much:

“CONCLUSION

The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial— not a conclusive or all-encompassing—set of questions critical to devel- oping the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States. No single agency or re- search strategy can provide all the answers.

This report focuses on the public health aspects of firearm violence; the committee expects that this research agenda will be integrated with research conducted from criminal justice and other perspectives to provide a much fuller knowledge base to underpin our nation’s approach to dealing with this very important set of societal issues.”

IOW - no conclusive conclusions, merely a set of questions as a starting point.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11611 Feb 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of what he self-reports, his "research" has been thoroughly reviewed and, as a result, thoroughly debunked. He used sloppy methods and dishonest reporting.
Reeeaaallly? How about this response from one a top ANTI-GUN criminologist regarding Kleck:

"Marvin Wolfgang, who was one of the most prominent criminologists, commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use (see How often are guns used in self-defense?):

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people....
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research....

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies....

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it....

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. "
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

DOH!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11613 Feb 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not the CDC's conclusion - that's the spin the pro-gun crowd gave it. The report itself says that the data are conflicting and there needs to be more study. IOW they did not reach any conclusion that supports this misleading headline.
And the part of the CDC report that talks about self-defense entirely referenced the thoroughly discredited "research" of Gary Kleck to reach that conclusion - who was in turn citing himself when he arrived at the numbers he used. No serious researcher considers Kleck's work as anything but pro-gun propaganda.
"pro-gun propoganda" from someone who was anti-gun???

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11614 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Reeeaaallly? How about this response from one a top ANTI-GUN criminologist regarding Kleck:
"Marvin Wolfgang, who was one of the most prominent criminologists, commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use (see How often are guns used in self-defense?):
Sorry, but one voice in support doesn't outweigh the chorus pointing out the flaws.

So how do you KNOW that any findings are accurate? Do they just need to fit your pro-gun agenda? It sure seems like you've just pre-decided that any research that contradicts what you already believe is flawed and any that confirms your beliefs is legitimate.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11616 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
"pro-gun propoganda" from someone who was anti-gun???
LMAO!
LOL! What verb did you use again? "WAS"?

That's past tense. You know that, right? Meaning his PREVIOUS stance - you know, BEFORE he started publishing pro-gun propaganda.

You never answered - how do you KNOW that the Hopkins research isn't legit? And how do you KNOW Kleck's is? Because they confirm what you already believe, right?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11620 Feb 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! What verb did you use again? "WAS"?
That's past tense. You know that, right? Meaning his PREVIOUS stance - you know, BEFORE he started publishing pro-gun propaganda.
You never answered - how do you KNOW that the Hopkins research isn't legit? And how do you KNOW Kleck's is? Because they confirm what you already believe, right?
I never said that John's Hopkins research was "legit". I do question its OBJECTIVITY. Who paid for the research? What agenda did THEY (those who put up the $$) have, if any?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11621 Feb 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! What verb did you use again? "WAS"?
That's past tense. You know that, right? Meaning his PREVIOUS stance - you know, BEFORE he started publishing pro-gun propaganda.
You never answered - how do you KNOW that the Hopkins research isn't legit? And how do you KNOW Kleck's is? Because they confirm what you already believe, right?
Yes......WAS. He WAS an anti-gun criminologist before his own research convinced him that he was WRONG! Funny how you consider his findings "propoganda" just because it doesn't fit YOUR agenda, Dannyboy.

See ya.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11622 Feb 24, 2014
Correction: "I never said that John's Hopkins research WASN'T "legit".

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11624 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes......WAS. He WAS an anti-gun criminologist before his own research convinced him that he was WRONG! Funny how you consider his findings "propoganda" just because it doesn't fit YOUR agenda, Dannyboy.
See ya.
You continue to avoid my question. Why is that?

I answered you as to how I decide what's legitimate and what's not. Why can't you do the same?

Is it because you are guilty of what you're accusing me of? You've pre-decided your position and you dismiss anything and everything that contradicts it while accepting anything that supports it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Secret Service Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Heavy security at Trump Tower not going away an... Nov 22 Lawrence Wolf 27
News Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sp... Nov 7 RushFan666 30
News Russian man convicted of hacking into US busine... Aug '16 Mizike67 5
News Russian man faces US trial in lucrative hacking... Aug '16 Nu Wor Order 4
News Cleveland prepares for RNC convention protests (May '16) May '16 Hostis Publicus 9
News Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offen... (May '16) May '16 Jelly Belly Popcorn 3
News Man shot outside White House remains in critica... (May '16) May '16 WeTheSheeple 2
More from around the web