Exploding Knife Violence on the streets of London

Super! There's no reason for you not to read the criminology research! God bess you.

I don't care about your beliefs. I only care about the evidence. Please show a love of education and read it!

 

What need have I to read about what I have experienced as a working Police Agent ?

 

A celebration of tabloidism is not a love of education.

 

So now Police work is Tabloidism ?
How is that the case ?

 

Tabloidism takes one position and suggests reality. You do that all of the time. Its a shame you can't twin your experience with educated comment.

 

What has one to do with another ?

When I worked U.C. and sat in a pub waiting for any bloke to suggest an illegal something, then signal an arrest, and in general that is what Policemen do, beside inscribe much paperwork, how does that relate to your vaunted studies ?

 

You adopt tabloidism You don't use your experience to help you understand the research. Except for prog-gunner sheep, it ensures your irrelevance. I suggest you widen your outlook

 

That there is such vehement defense of inaccurate, unreliable, biased opinion pieces by those who hide behind their credentials to mislead the public as reasonable authority figures, does little more than illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of the position of yourself.

 

I already know you're a post truther. Whining about shcolars isn't needed.

 

It is yourself that is the only post-truther present, due to the refusal to acknowledge that the basic human nature cannot be nearly typified, codified, and accounted for in a form where a box can easily be checked.

 

Except I do understand the research and I do not agree, after a preponderance of the evidence.
Overall crime and criminal mischief involving Guns is insufficient grounds to restrict guns from law abiding citizens.

And FYI, a Sheep is defenseless against a Wolf, I am NOT a Sheep, I defend myself, with a Gun.

 

Given I bother to read the evidence, including Kleck and Lott, how do you work that out? Post-truthing is ridiculous.

 

Given the fact that here in the U.S. people are allowed to own Firearms and carry such for personal defense in almost all States, licensed concealed carry, and that the majority of Firearms owners are law abiding citizens as proved by actual numbers and Police Departments issuing those licenses, this speaks much louder than any study.

Actual statistics of gun use Defensive or otherwise are compiled by Law Enforcement Agencies Nationwide, and centrally tabulated by the F.B.I. in the annual Uniform Crime Report.

 

By the continual citation of so-called "studies" that are nothing more than politically-motivated opinion pieces, which do nothing to reflect what is actually reality.

 

Mere puff pastry presented as Beef.

 

Blame the Tories, they gutted police numbers.

 

I don't see "blind allegiance towards the NRA"; just an understanding the NRA is the most politically powerful organization dedicated to preserving our rights, so people stick with them. I do see "blind hatred towards the NRA" from the gun banners, who defame and deride the NRA and its membership at ever turn.

The NRA is, like most organizations, a flawed institution. I find them too willing to compromise and to be more interested in maintaining political power than actively protecting our rights; but that's just me.

 

Again, they are in quality journals and use respected scientific methods. They also typically use data available to everyone, enabling replication if deemed appropriate. Note also you can't give any grown up critique.

That's the trouble with post truthing. While there is a stench of righteousness, it's really.uust childish ranting.

 

The fact they are posted in "quality journals" does nothing to bestow them any level of credibility when judged upon their own merits, especially when their intellectual and methodological shortcomings are so significant and go unaddressed even by those conducting the peer review process.

The same statement can just as easily be applied to the position of yourself, due to the refusal to address the presented shortcomings of the various so-called "studies" that are cited and hidden behind.

 

Let's set you a challenge. Get yourself published in one of these journals. Good luck.

 

As no personal details pertaining to myself have ever been introduced into the topic of discussion, who is to say that such has not already occurred?

 

Yep, it's Kleck himself!

If you were Gary: "Gary, I must say that you come across as much more cerebral in your publications"

 

Right.
An Anti Gun Journal supporting the Right to keep and bear Arms.
Sure....

 

Or perhaps David Hemenway.

 

You'd perhaps need to triple your vocabulary to pull that off?