New York Times: FAIL - Who'd of Thought?

This is a discussion on New York Times: FAIL - Who'd of Thought? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: New York Times: FAIL - Who'd of Thought?

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,429

    Post New York Times: FAIL - Who'd of Thought?

    In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

    There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.
    Ann Coulter - January 9, 2013 - DOING THE RESEARCH THE NEW YORK TIMES WON'T DO

    So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock's crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.
    She does have a way with words.

    Please do not turn this into a "Coulter Bashing" or "Hate Coulter" Thread. Even if she has Pterodactyl-like arms.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,703
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array JDE101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,505
    Good article. Thanks for posting the link. I'm sending it to a bunch of people I exchange emails with, most of whom are pro-gun. There is one idiot thinks nobody but the police need "assault" weapons, but I'm working on him.
    Live to ride, ride to live. Harley Road King And keep a .45 handy Kimber Custom TLE II

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array Tzadik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Suffolk, Virginia
    Posts
    609
    Didn't there use to be standards of professionalism amongst journalists?
    Where are their co-workers critiquing poor methods?
    Don't they realize that shoddy work reflect on all of them?
    Is there no shame anymore?
    Rock and Glock and surefire7 like this.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,349

    Re: New York Times: FAIL - Who'd of Thought?

    Great story...

    Interesting, I just did my own "study" on the success of Australia's gun ban, comparing it to Texas...

    And they have had mass murders in Oz since the ban. One with a gun... One with an arson...

    Today's useful factoids: gun control - AU vs. TX
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,283
    Nice rebuttal.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,368
    Why mess up perfectly good propaganda with facts??? The liberal left anti-gun politicians KNOW this stuff, they just don't care. They are brainwashing the weak-minded who will gladly drink whatever flavored kool-aid they are pushing regardless of the poison it is laced with. You can't fix that, but it is incumbent upon all of us to continue the effort to educate those who have the capacity to engage their mind.

    Great article, thanks for posting it.
    wmhawth likes this.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    Very interesting read. Thanks for posting.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Tzadik View Post
    Didn't there use to be standards of professionalism amongst journalists?
    Where are their co-workers critiquing poor methods?
    Don't they realize that shoddy work reflect on all of them?
    Is there no shame anymore?
    In short, I believe there is still shame, but the "bar" at where one feels it has been significantly raised (these days).
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by JDE101 View Post
    Good article. Thanks for posting the link. I'm sending it to a bunch of people I exchange emails with, most of whom are pro-gun. There is one idiot thinks nobody but the police need "assault" weapons, but I'm working on him.
    - We don't "need" to post on Facebook either, but that doesn't matter. It's one of our rights.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote." ~ Benjamin Franklin

  12. #11
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    I won't use the thread to rip Ann Coulter. I will point out that to cite John Lott is to cite a paid Fox News hack. If he was a paid MSNBC hack, we'd question his credibility. Don't be upset when anti-gunners question his.

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by torgo1968 View Post
    I won't use the thread to rip Ann Coulter. I will point out that to cite John Lott is to cite a paid Fox News hack. If he was a paid MSNBC hack, we'd question his credibility. Don't be upset when anti-gunners question his.
    Do you have any crictism of John Lott's research or statistcal methods? He is an economist employed by the University of Chicago (hardly a bastion of conservatism). Or do you just not like the fact that he gets padi by FOX? I have asked repeatedly what is wrong with John Lott's research and his critics only refer to his previous "issues". When I research his previous "issues", all I can find is that at one time he used a sock puppet (fake name on the internet) to praise his own work. While that is not the most virtuous type of thing to do, it does nto discredit his work in of itself.


    Coulter also cites Landes who works for Yale University. Do you have a problem with his research?

  14. #13
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by phreddy View Post
    Do you have any crictism of John Lott's research or statistcal methods? He is an economist employed by the University of Chicago (hardly a bastion of conservatism). Or do you just not like the fact that he gets padi by FOX? I have asked repeatedly what is wrong with John Lott's research and his critics only refer to his previous "issues". When I research his previous "issues", all I can find is that at one time he used a sock puppet (fake name on the internet) to praise his own work. While that is not the most virtuous type of thing to do, it does nto discredit his work in of itself.

    Coulter also cites Landes who works for Yale University. Do you have a problem with his research?
    Look at his Wiki under "Controversy." There isn't enough there to out and out dismiss anything the man says, but there's enough that citing him gives antis an opening for going after his results. And again, I don't care who a man takes his paycheck from, but when on one hand he publishes research that is supposed to be objective and on the other he works for an extraordinarily partisan organization whose views seem to line up nicely with his research on pretty much everything, I think using him as a source (particularly when there are other "cleaner" researchers) is unnecessary and counter-productive. We would think exactly the same thing if a prominent anti-gun researcher, say David Hemenway, took a job with MSNBC. Citing him would be stupid on the part of antis because his employment would leave his objectivity in question.

    I said nothing about Landes because I know nothing about Landes. He wasn't relevant to my point.
    Cazadores likes this.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    It was a well written opinion piece, but most of the anti-gun crowd will dismiss it simply because it was authored by Coulter. Likewise, the pro-gun crowd doesn't need another article to substantiate their beliefs. Now, if Sarah Brady had written the same article; boy that would have gotten some knickers in knots.
    "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by torgo1968 View Post
    Look at his Wiki under "Controversy." There isn't enough there to out and out dismiss anything the man says, but there's enough that citing him gives antis an opening for going after his results. And again, I don't care who a man takes his paycheck from, but when on one hand he publishes research that is supposed to be objective and on the other he works for an extraordinarily partisan organization whose views seem to line up nicely with his research on pretty much everything, I think using him as a source (particularly when there are other "cleaner" researchers) is unnecessary and counter-productive. We would think exactly the same thing if a prominent anti-gun researcher, say David Hemenway, took a job with MSNBC. Citing him would be stupid on the part of antis because his employment would leave his objectivity in question.

    I said nothing about Landes because I know nothing about Landes. He wasn't relevant to my point.
    I started with his wikipedia and then went on to read every source document that I could find. I have found no legitimate criticism of his research. We are way too quick to throw out people on our side. If the antis find one little thing wrong in their life, we accept it and dismiss whatever they say. No-one is perfect and we need to stand up for the people on our side. You say you don't care where a man gets his paycheck, but in your first post you did just that because he was on FOX. Pick a postion and stick with it.

    John Lott did an incredible amount of research on gun crime vioilence and self-defense. If we throw his work out, we will be left with whatever the CDC or the anti's produce which will ignore any benefit from guns at all.
    Last edited by phreddy; February 17th, 2013 at 04:15 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •