TomAiello

Yes We Can! Launch another war! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It only suggests that once the assault has actually taken place. If the assault never happened (i.e. the gun was brandished to prevent the assault), then the data are excluded from the study, as no shooting took place. In other words, they're not useful for defense against assaults--but only if you consider avoiding the assault altogether not to be a successful defense. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm not sure I understand (you're not saying that it's ok to forcibly vaccinate people without their consent?)

to those not in power, and being oppressed by it, any exercise of power would seem illegitimate (but then, to those who control it, all power appears legitimate, doesn't it?)

the state has always been, and always will be, an instrument by which those in power exercise their will upon those not in power (who else but those in power would control the apparatus of the state?)

I fail to see how that is even relevant when studying the effects of carrying guns and not the effects of having a CCW permit. The eventual policy decisions which could be based on the data are about gun laws. As such, it's useful to subtract out data that pertains to people who would ignore the laws anyway, since those policy decisions will not actually change the behavior of those individuals. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't understand your question. Without one or the other what? Without the intervention of one superpower, would the actions of the other have been desirable? Or do we only like the one action because it balances the other? Would we have been better off with neither? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

One example of good foreign policy that comes to mind is the USSR's support of Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it was countered by an ill advised foreign policy on the part of the US, supporting the mujahideen groups. Without the one, would the other have been desirable, or even necessary? Or are we talking about "two wrongs make a right" on a global scale? Edit to add: I'm actually asking your opinion, not firing off rhetorical questions to argue. My knowledge of the pre-(Soviet)invasion government of Afghanistan is pretty limited. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Any word on whether the subjects were examined to determine whether they were legally in possession of a firearm (i.e. not felons, and separately possessing a CCW permit)? Was there any examination of the subjects for criminal record (unrelated to their possession of the firearm)? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I agree. But I'd also make the same statement about Soviet foreign policy. And I'd argue that between them, US and Soviet foreign policy more or less defined foreign policy in the world in the last half century. I'm hard put to think of any state actor that I'd say has exercised a positive influence with it's foreign policy in the last half century. Those with less influence might have been less bad, but who's been good? Seriously, if you have some places to look for a positive influence, I'd love to hear your suggestions so I can go research them. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Surely. As the Viet Cong can attest, there is no way that a grassroots uprising could ever survive a violent confrontation with the world's most powerful military, let alone force it to leave them alone. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are also obviously powerless in the face of the mighty US military, and have clearly surrendered their right to self-determination and bowed down before the guns of the United States in abject submission. Since they obviously have so many fewer resources than the people of Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, the US people could definitely never do anything like that. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

And today we call those landowners "the state." (perhaps the names have changed, but the underlying injustice remains?)

You really don't think that US state action played any role in the creation and rise of Al-Qaeda? I think the whole idea of state "foreign policy" has been a disaster since 1945, with a massively negative net effect on the overall welfare of the world, and a large contribution to violence suffered by individuals. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm sure it means "random people we have no relation to and who's views we in no way share." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Almost all wars, and certainly all wars today, involve state actors. (to reduce the incidence of war, shouldn't we try to reduce the incidence, or power, of states?)

Their grant application is ambiguously worded, but it appears to include "firearms reduction" (note: not injury reduction) as one of the criteria for awarding grants. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

For the sake of argument, what relation do either of those things have to do with the 2nd Amendment? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

"Bad" and "biased" aren't the same thing. Reviewing their articles, presentations and staff, it looks to me like F.I.C.A.P. has a political agenda. That tends to warn me that their research could have bias, whether they are aware of it or not. If their research, presentations and staff showed a variety of different views (on what is obviously a political topic), then I'd be a lot more comfortable with their impartiality. That's not to say that people who have strong views on a subject shouldn't be researching it--in fact, they are the most likely to be interested enough to research it. But when they are part of an organization that appears to have a pre-set viewpoint dominating it's internal culture, I worry that the group bias will be reflected in the research conclusions. It would be more appropriate, especially on such a hot-button political issue, to recruit co-authors (or co-staffers) who hold a diversity of views, to try to prevent bias creeping into the research. I don't see that happening here. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

How about being listed on their web site as part of their "core team"? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Would you say that taking their money to give a presentation would indicate that you generally agree with them? How about being listed on their web site as part of their "core team"? If that's not an indication that you share their agenda, than what is? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What makes you say that? Do you have some information about whether or not they've received grant money from any particular group in relation to this study? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You're saying that F.I.C.A.P. has no agenda on this issue? Have you reviewed their various publications? It looks to me like the vast majority of the research they've sponsored has come to the same sort of (anti-gun) conclusions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Like the USA. Which is a big reason not to trust our government to be the largest and most powerful actor in our society. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Huh? How is that related? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I've been getting "Friends of the National Parks" junk mail for Carl Boenish for some time now. I guess the NPS sells the names of people who take out wilderness permits in Yosemite.