Gun Control & RKBA

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

8. Except gun control is not an "industry". There's no profit motive.

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:22 PM

May 2012

This is exactly the same as the global warming denialists, who try to claim that global warming is all some ivory tower conspiracy for research grants. I guess, when the bulk of the scientific evidence goes against you, denialism is the only play you have left.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is it proper for a "scientist" to be seen with an advocacy group [View all] gejohnston May 2012 OP

Yes, as long as there's full disclosure to everyone concerned, elleng May 2012 #1

but is it science? gejohnston May 2012 #2

I think a better question to consider: truedelphi May 2012 #4

You just made my point gejohnston May 2012 #6

Except gun control is not an "industry". There's no profit motive. DanTex May 2012 #8

Those in charge of gun control do have a profit motive. truedelphi May 2012 #9

LOL. Yeah, you better stock up on "guns" to protect you from the "man"... DanTex May 2012 #11

Bears are the #1 threat to America. ellisonz May 2012 #59

you missed the point gejohnston May 2012 #12

How is it different than climate change denialists? DanTex May 2012 #16

you have it backwards gejohnston May 2012 #19

Do you ever say anything that's true? I mean even by accident? DanTex May 2012 #21

what I said was true gejohnston May 2012 #23

As usual, you provide no proof of anything you say. DanTex May 2012 #25

Gee I don't know...... gejohnston May 2012 #26

LOL. I guess this is what passes for backing your statements with proof in pro-gunner land... DanTex May 2012 #27

kind like falsly claiming that gejohnston May 2012 #29

Change of subject to a different false allegation. You lose. DanTex May 2012 #31

nope gejohnston May 2012 #32

Must be fun living in that fantasy world of yours... DanTex May 2012 #34

That was an example and you do know gejohnston May 2012 #35

Finally, something true! DanTex May 2012 #36

your post regurgated something a UK paper said gejohnston May 2012 #37

No, mine was correct! Mine is based on more evidence! DanTex May 2012 #38

fuck if I know gejohnston May 2012 #39

The people in it seem to be in it for political points... krispos42 May 2012 #42

I agree with some of what you said. DanTex May 2012 #43

Oops, forgot about this discussion we were having krispos42 Jun 2012 #61

Interesting comment from you Lurks Often May 2012 #58

And I assume you're equally opposed to scientists working with the American Cancer Society... DanTex May 2012 #3

show me evidence Hemenway is actually valid gejohnston May 2012 #5

LOL. "Evidence that Hemenway is actually valid"? DanTex May 2012 #7

let me repprase that gejohnston May 2012 #10

Now you're doing that thing you always do... make false statements. DanTex May 2012 #14

that is not a false claim gejohnston May 2012 #18

And it continues... No substance. Joyce! Something you made up! Kleck is your hero! DanTex May 2012 #20

as soon as you do gejohnston May 2012 #22

Still waiting for you to make a single substantive point. DanTex May 2012 #24

that would require a long post gejohnston May 2012 #47

... DanTex May 2012 #49

and gejohnston May 2012 #50

LOL! A good job of backing up what you claim! DanTex May 2012 #52

that is the truth gejohnston May 2012 #56

Sometimes patience does not lead to resolution... ellisonz May 2012 #60

OK, other than gejohnston May 2012 #46

Wow, you're linking to something by Gary Kleck! Shocking! DanTex May 2012 #48

really? gejohnston May 2012 #51

Blah blah blah. DanTex May 2012 #55

I suggest you read some older posts gejohnston May 2012 #57

"gun violence charities"? PavePusher May 2012 #13

Yes, that's what right-wingers say about global warming advocacy groups also... DanTex May 2012 #15

I noticed that you did not refute what he said, but chose to play the "right-winger" card friendly_iconoclast May 2012 #40

Well done, thanks! PavePusher May 2012 #54

I refer you back to your own words.... PavePusher May 2012 #53

No - it is absolutely **not** proper. Simo 1939_1940 May 2012 #17

I don't see a problem with an interest group in a particular area honoring a researcher petronius May 2012 #28

Not being a scientist gejohnston May 2012 #30

That's certainly the risk an academic takes in this situation - but a free dinner petronius May 2012 #33

You ask this question ... GeorgeGist May 2012 #41

Please explain gejohnston May 2012 #45

Research on gun control is not really science. Remmah2 May 2012 #44