Wow. The gun nuts are already using the PA stabbing to push the "guns don't kill people" argument.

[MicaelS]

131. You are obssessed with peer reviewed studies.

You harp on it in almost every post related to gun ownership. You use the same phrase about "cherry picking the data". You act as if we should live our lives to according to peer preview studies.

You made it your position quite clear a while back the pro-gun position is purely a Right Wing / Libertarian ideological position, such that apparently in your worldview, you can't be a Liberal / Progressive and be Pro-Gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=83659

The pro-gun position is comparable to things like global warming denial and militarism. First, it glorifies violence. It also exploits paranoia and fear -- it's not a coincidence that the militia nuts are mostly far-righters. I've seen people on this board argue that using deadly force to protect property, even when there is no risk to life, is justified. Also, the dehumanizing of petty criminals ("thugs" as the gunners like to call them) is incompatible with a progressive view that, while holding people responsible for their actions, also understands that a teenager trying to steal a car stereo or a wallet is not some kind of sub-human animal whose life is worthless.

All this is all very similar to the attitudes of right-wingers towards war, and also towards things like torture. In addition to glorifying violence as a solution to problems, it also involves a simplistic "good guys versus bad guys" view of the world in order to avoid any kind of moral ambiguity.

The pro-gun ideology also puts public safety at risk for some phony concept of "freedom". The idea that lax gun laws make us safer because criminals will be deterred by armed citizens is an Ayn Randian fantasy. The idea that it's worth suffering higher levels of homicide and gun violence as a society in order to provide individuals the right to try to defend themselves is perhaps not quite so crazy, but it certainly has libertarian underpinnings. If you just look at what is in the best interest of society, it makes no sense to have gun laws so lax that even with a gun, you are more likely to be murdered than a person without a gun in a low-gun country.

And finally, there is the denial of reality. I've had many discussions with people here in the Gungeon, all of whom seem convinced that every single gun violence researcher, that Harvard, Johns Hopkins, UCDavis, Duke, etc., and that the editorial boards of the peer reviewed journals are all somehow part of an anti-gun conspiracy. The refusal to accept empirical reality, the silly cherry-picking of data to defend an ideological agenda, and the general distrust of science is pretty much identical to what I've seen from global warming deniers. In fact, right now there is an OP presenting a non-peer-reviewed article, published in a right-wing law review, written by two pro-gun advocates who have no evident background in science or statistics, and which contains serious factual errors. The article is masquerading as a "Harvard study" and is receiving rave reviews from the pro-gunners.

Progressives on the whole are more scientifically literate than that. It is not a coincidence that people who would put climate at risk to preserve the "right" to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are the same people who can justify enduring epidemic levels of gun violence to preserve the "right" to virtually unfettered gun access

Those are your words.

So let me make something perfectly clear. When it comes to gun ownership or the RKBA I don't give a damn about any and all peer reviewed studies you trot out. They are approaching gun ownership as a Public Health issue, not an issue of personal freedom, because that is the only hope you have for getting the type of Gun Prohibitionism you want exacted in this country. You are not going to get what you want otherwise. And I, and other gun owners are not going to let our rights and freedoms be eroded in this manner.

Advocates of Public Health fail to impress me with many of their studies. This or that causes cancer, this or that prevents cancer. Don't eat that, eat this. Don't drink this or that, it cause cancer. According to these "advocates" almost everything is hazardous in some way. When I read about advocates of Public Health in "Progressive" nations like the UK, seriously advocated that all knives have rounded ends to prevent stabbing, it shows how outlandish their positions can become.

I fully accept Global Warming exists, so do not lump me and other Gun Owners with Global Warming Deniers because we refuse to accept the ideological driven data you spout about Gun Ownership. I am not going to let you or any other Advocate of Public Health tell me how to live in my personal life.