America's Great Gun Game--a new book on gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on the evidence available to the mods and admins, it appears that the professor is who he says he is.

Thank you. Wow, it seems almost impossible for the poster to be the professor since he did not even bother to debate anyone. He only used the common tired argument for supporting gun control. Any six grader could make an argument using that tired argument. Comment removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am reminded of what we used to say about male and female fleas. You can't tell the difference between male and female fleas? So what? The male and female fleas know the difference, so who else matters?

Dr. McDowell may have engaged THR in discussion before he knew who he was talking to. And apparently his intent was to gather material for what is known as a "content analysis." This is certainly legitimate, as the institutional research review boards which approve or disapprove faculty research designs are mainly charged with protecting human subjects of research. Consequently analyzing discussion board posts is a neat way to circumvent such tiresome regulation of professors's God given right to conduct research however we want to.

I'm serious. Posts are public. Public speech. We make them and professors (or anyone else) may analyze them. That's research, from the researcher's point of view. We human beings sharing our thoughts, but are not harmed any way. Our POSTS are the unit of analysis, not OURSELVES, so Dr. McDowell is quite within his rights and there is no cause to ask if his research on THRoaders has been approved by his IRB.

I am hoping the boys and girls on this thead (please see Dr. McDowell's earlier posts for this form of address) will stay with me as I return to the topic of male and female fleas.

Dr. McDowell writes in this thread as if all of us black gowned PhDs employed as professors and scholars are as alike as an infestation of fleas. As if fleas of the world were united, polite, and of one mind.

Well, we're not. I don't have to stand up for the genuine "gun scholars," THR responders have already listed them and quoted them. They are real. They are men and women who have taken these issues as their main line of study and pursued the developments over years, over decades. Those men and women already have their books in print. They speak for themselves.

I'd like to stand up for genuine social researchers, the people who have the -ologists tacked onto their names. It is not enough for us to present good arguments. It is not enough for us to debate cheerfully in good humor, seeing scholarly interaction of any kind as a battle of wits and a marshalling of argument. In short, social scientists don't give rhetoric points.

We give points for truth, uncovered.

The so-called "gun control debate" has separated the social scientist from the social engineer for years. Every social scientist who has done their RKBA research, says, "whoops, there is no mistake in what the constitution says and means." Every RKBA advocate who follows social science into the labyrinth of the centuries old debate comes to a central conclusion: "It's not about guns, it's about the right to self defense."

The social engineers, however, wander away. They demand answers to questions that always begin, "So how can we....." fill in the blank with some social engineering objective.

How do you tell one -oligist from another? By the questions they ask in their pursuit of new truth, new light in the areas that carry them on a burning journey of interest in knowing, in at least one small area of all of the knowledge open to men and women, SOMETHING that is certifiably and verifiably TRUE.

That's one reason shooters make great scientists. Targets don't lie. If shooters can't lie (very much) about their targets, why should we lie about anything else?

In short, you can take it from this flea, Dr. McDowell is not a shooter and he's not a social scientist. He is a scholar and a researcher cheerfully and lawfully making us his research subjects, and asking us to buy his coffee, cheerfully.

In the name of happy rhetoric,

Fran Fuller
 
Dr. Fran Fuller,

Welcome to THR!

Good post as well.;)

Edit:
Dr. McDowell may have engaged THR in discussion before he knew who he was talking to

Either that or he knew exactly who he was talking to...Other, more low-road sites with posters saying "get off of our site you bleepity bleep bleepin bleep" may not have been the content he was looking for.
 
Bart Roberts wrote:

Based on the evidence available to the mods and admins, it appears that the professor is who he says he is.

But it is equally obvious that he is not a lawyer, does not have a legal degree and is not licensed to practice law anywhere in the world.
 
Earl Again!
There have been 325 comment. I believe I have written 12 to 15. I obviously can not answer your questions. I resent the statement that I have been rude to you. Name-calling is not part of my vocabulary. Let's take all of your statements and mine and have them analyzed for rudeness and accuracy. I entered this dialogue in the spirit of good will. Unfortunately, I have been belittled, critized, etc. As I indicate before I will look at your comments this week and disclose my own.

I wish it were early in the summer, and I would look up everything you say to check its accuracy.

You still have not answered my question. The best answer I heard was lock the criminal up. Great idea. I'm tired of you liberals critizing me.

The quote from 1923 about man killers is even more relevant today. I believe you just care about your guns. My mother told me that my grandfather slept with a pistol under his pillow. Some people in my area of Pennsylvania do the same. These are sick peope.

If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so. My statisitics can not be refuted when using neutral sources. We can stop the gun violence. Let's join together to solve the gun problem.

If you don't care about others, just say so, but I still care about your safety.
 
The quote from 1923 about man killers is even more relevant today. I believe you just care about your guns. My mother told me that my grandfather slept with a pistol under his pillow. Some people in my area of Pennsylvania do the same. These are sick peope.

:uhoh:
 
Thank you Dr. Fuller, and welcome THR.

Earl McDowell says;
You did not tell me how we are going to lower the firearm death rate in our great country. So all of this other babble doesn't answer the question. I'll give you some more time.

Alright. I`ll give one example. There should be the right to carry concealed weapons in all 50 states and reciprocity agreements between all states as well. This, of course applys to legal citizens that pass background checks and had training on firearm use. Watch the murder rates and crime go down.

BTW, who on this board has said they don`t care about people getting murdered.? I think you are saying these things to try to get us to say something we will regret.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ---Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
 
Last edited:
Dr. McDowell,

Name-calling is not part of my vocabulary.

To many of us, being called "boys and girls" is insulting. At the very least, you misjudge your audience.

I resent the statement that I have been rude to you.

That is my perception, and that's how I call it. Were I to address a group and call them "boys and girls" and call myself their "uncle", they might very well think I was being condescending, which is rude. Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder.
 
I resent the statement that I have been rude to you. Name-calling is not part of my vocabulary
One of the many reasons people have stopped responding to you is whether in your book, letters-to-the-editor, or posting on this forum, you twist other people's words.

Some have claimed that your refusal to engage in ANY significant dialog is rude. Regardless of your reasons for not responding, they are not referring to that behavior as name-calling, but they do consider it rude.
 
Ha

If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so.
Nice try. That number is up for debate.

I don't consider your responses rude, though they do have a slight odor of condescension to them (which some would construe as rude).

Truthfully, I am rather disappointed. I was expecting better.

*Yawn*
I think I'll go to bed early tonight.
 
Ieyasu, thank you for pointing out the link. But since I've already ordered the good Dr.'s book (did so before the link was made known to moi), I'll enjoy reading it and learning new and wonderous things, I'm sure.

Good to see Earl (the Pearl... love the sense of humor McDowell) is back and shirks not from spirited discourse.
The goal of my book is for the debate to end...
Good luck there.
If the gun laws proposed by Homer Cummings had be (sic) implemented...
The architect of the failed Roosevelt Court Packing scheme? Another good idea killed before it's time I guess, eh?

Anyway, good to have you back Uncle Earl. (you're crackin' me up here) Where were we? Oh yeah... Way back when, mankind needed to protect themselves from saber-toothed tigers and such. Life was dangerous. It was brutal. Only the strong, the lucky and the fast movers survived. If G-d was on your side you had to go out and slay all the hittites and canaanites and whoeverites, because He told you that your very being depended on it. Or this tribe or clan had a feud going with that tribe or clan because... well, just because. We're talking survivial of the fittest here.

You want us to solve this age old problem?

Discounting suicide, which has no solution, 99% of the problem in this nation related to guns/shootings/deaths are male teens who travel in cliques, many with no valuable, disciplined male role model, who have little, if any remorse or respect for others or law (social contract), many of whom deal and dabble with illegal drugs and make good money doing so. Hmmm. There's that prohibition thing again. Couple that with lack of good family values and civic morals. Add a gun to the mix. I'm surprised our homicide rate is as low as it is. (Sad, isn't it?)

We solve that one, instill value of life and self, pride in family, the desire to work hard, to cherish learning and education... and there'll still be some idiot who wants to be a saber -toothed badazz just because he's... an evil and self-centered dolt. (maybe that's a little too harsh)

But should anyone be successful and prohibit firearms from the law-abiding, I predict blood in the streets, cats living with dogs, A Clockwork Orange madness as the young run amuck armed to the teeth with (shudder) honest to goodness "illegal" guns. Look at the UK and multiply their problem tenfold, a hundredfold. You think it's bad because a city feels the need to add 40 cops? The numbers of LEO's required in the future if law-abiding citizens have zero firearms would be staggering, which will require more funding which will mean more taxation... but then, I'm a pessimist about some things, like lions laying down with lambs. Or someone telling me to solve a problem that has been around (murder) since Cain slew his brother, allegorical or not.

Fran Fuller. Excellent post. Welcome to THR.
 
I think it's clear to many THR posters, but not all.

The main reason the professor appeared on this board was to get recruits into the gun control movement, period. It has virtually nothing to do with 'analyzing discussion board posts' unless one thinks he faked his book and deliberately screwed-up a letter-to-the-editor.
 
The level of erudition displayed by THR members in this thread is - well - awesome - as is the eloquence of the writing and the civility of the writers.

That said:

Think Bull...
Think Nose...
Think Ring...
Think being lead by...
Think - Uncle Earl...

You're being used but because you are all trying so darn hard to be civil and give this man the benefit of the doubt it seems you just can't see it.

A famous man - don't remember who - once said:

None are so blind as those who will not see...
 
If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so.

You have failed to establish how support for more gun control would reduce that number or how my personal ownership of a firearm contributes to it.

My statisitics can not be refuted when using neutral sources

I've yet to see much in the way of cites or scholarly sources for many of your assertions in this thread.
 
If you don't care about others, just say so, but I still care about your safety.
I think what most of us on this site would say is. my safety is my business, I'll take care of it myself. The problem with you taking care of my safety is that you have to meddle in my business and tell me how to live, if you are going to take care of MY safety.

Socialism doesn't work, never has, never will. But that doesn't seem to deter those who would profit from it, or those ignorant enough to believe them.

And, Dr. Fran, welcome to THR. I knew we would see you here eventually.
 
Werewolf said:
Think Bull...
Think Nose...
Think Ring...
Think being lead by...
Think - Uncle Earl...

You're being used but because you are all trying so darn hard to be civil and give this man the benefit of the doubt it seems you just can't see it.

Respectfully, I think every member that has posted in this thread knows the score.

We get it.

But it is a very worthy exercise.
 
Werewolf said:
Think Bull...
Think Nose...
Think Ring...
Think being lead by...
Think - Uncle Earl...

You're being used but because you are all trying so darn hard to be civil and give this man the benefit of the doubt it seems you just can't see it.

Respectfully, I think every member that has posted in this thread knows the score.

We get it.

But it is a very worthy exercise.

Also...it has brought several lurkers into the open and into discussion.
 
Yes I have a problem with the quoted number of murders by people who use guns in the course of a year, that is why I believe and know that we must punish those who who do the murders in a swift and final manner. The problem is not the implement of the murder, it is the fact that the the murder was done and will it be punished. Sadly using the Good Uncle Dr's logic us boys and girls will have to remove all sorts of implements of murder from our society, something that stinks of1984

I wish that he would spend his time and money that the university gives him to find a good and solid answer to the problem of murderers and not their weapons.

Then while he is at it he could then follow up with Thievery and Rapists. Using his logic we then need to control or register the thief's hands and the rapist's penises. Last I looked there are no serial numbers for them.
 
Earl Again!
There have been 325 comment. I believe I have written 12 to 15. I obviously can not answer your questions. I resent the statement that I have been rude to you. Name-calling is not part of my vocabulary. Let's take all of your statements and mine and have them analyzed for rudeness and accuracy. I entered this dialogue in the spirit of good will. Unfortunately, I have been belittled, critized, etc. As I indicate before I will look at your comments this week and disclose my own.

Sir it's not you who I wish to criticize. You are an interesting person on your own merits. However I must harshly criticize many of your ideas. There is a difference. And as you must be free to express them I must be free to express my dissatisfaction.

I wish it were early in the summer, and I would look up everything you say to check its accuracy.

Fair enough, I have a life too, I can't check every last statistic myself.

You still have not answered my question. The best answer I heard was lock the criminal up. Great idea. I'm tired of you liberals critizing me.

Sir many people have answered your question or at least spoken to the root cause of the problems. It doesn't help that, to be fair, you haven't explicitly enumerated the problem. I assume you're referring to violent crimes occurring too often in the US.

And what do you mean by liberals? And to be frank sir, if your ideas did not elicit any criticism, that would mean we didn't think it was worth the time. You should take that as a compliment.

The quote from 1923 about man killers is even more relevant today. I believe you just care about your guns.

Well you are wrong sir. I care about freedom, and the principles behind the right to keep and bear arms. I care about my family and my university and my community. The guns themselves are just some objects I happen to own.

My mother told me that my grandfather slept with a pistol under his pillow. Some people in my area of Pennsylvania do the same. These are sick peope.

Why is that sick? You know, never mind, it doesn't matter if it's "sick" or not.

In a free society, you have the responsibility of coexisting with people who are different colors, different religions, people who are gay, and people who choose to sleep with a pistol under their pillow (which I personally don't recommend, I use a mini vault). Just because it makes you uncomfortable or you don't like it, that gives you no right to try to control people who choose to live differently than you do.

If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so.

Sir, nobody dies from guns. No gun can animate itself and kill people on its own.

My statisitics can not be refuted when using neutral sources.

That just depends. If the study or whatever in question was bungled, it doesn't matter who conducted it.

We can stop the gun violence. Let's join together to solve the gun problem.

If you don't care about others, just say so, but I still care about your safety.

Sir I'm quite willing to not shoot anybody and I assume you are too. I'm quite willing to punish those who need to be punished, and I assume you are too.

Dr., I do not question that you do care about people. However, what you want to do is try to force people to be "safe" to make yourself feel better. You can't make people safe unless you eliminate free will and in the process humanity. It's impossible. It's an innately dangerous world we live in, watch a nature documentary if you don't believe me.

What I care about is that people are going to be subject to violence no matter what we do. We can take better care of the people around us to help keep that from happpening as often, but we can never eliminate it. The only sensible thing to do is to let people have the freedom to make their own decisions. Maybe you are safer without any guns, that's your life, it's your decision.

But I feel differently, and I have just as much right to go buy six guns at a time and carry them on my person as you do to not buy any guns. Even if you were right, which I don't think you are, quality of life is still a relevant issue. A life without freedom, even if it is "safe", is worse than death.

Patrick Henry said:
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
 
If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so. My statisitics can not be refuted when using neutral sources. We can stop the gun violence. Let's join together to solve the gun problem.

People don't "die from guns", they die from violence. Ask the Rwandans. We all care about crime... that's why we don't want to selectively disarm the law-abiding. As you know, serious crime (including crimes with guns) have skyrocketed recently in England after they "banned guns"... from the possession of non-criminals.

There is also the far larger issue that the Second Amendment was supposed to address... the issue of governments that commit genocide against "their" people. Over 200 million people were murdered in "peacetime" by their own governments. Your calls to disarm the peaceful and law-abiding are calls to forget all the various Holocausts of the 20th Century, from the Armenians to the Ukrainians.

You could indeed increase sales of your book by posting here... if you could post something that indicated that you had studied the issue. So far all you've done is show that one can hold a post in academia without ever reading the basic source documents in the field.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top