Previous Post
Next Post

Well, maybe not Harvard Law School, et all, but certainly one student there, at the very least. Hence, this scholarly paper, entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? By Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser. For members of the TTAG Armed Intelligencia, that’s akin to asking “Is Water Still Wet,” i.e., “Not just ‘no,’ but HELL NO!” Still, it’s nice to see the hallowed halls of higher learning open to what must be a dissenting voice right up there with those that (from the Ivy League P.O.V.) think that Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, there’s nothing wrong with profiling if it saves lives at airports, and “Drill Baby, Drill” should be more public policy than private bumper sticker. Fair warning – this is a very dry, scholarly-type paper. But if you’re a fan on the œvure of John Lott, this will be an exciting read for you. Still, I’ve got to wonder, given all that I’ve heard about the academic thought police and the political correctness that is en vogue at our universities, how in the Sam Hill did this paper get published at Harvard?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Because the “academic though police” and “political correctness” memes are way overblown. There are a few departments that are that way ({Fill-in-the-bank}-studies are usually the biggest offenders), but most are NOT.

    Facts and evidence count for a LOT in academia, especially in the more reasonable departments and fields such as economics, law, and public policy. This holds doubly so for peer reviewed and scholarly articles, such as those you’d find in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

    Most of those spreading such memes about academia are in the right wing conservative camp, a part of the intellectual discourse which has a great disregard for facts and evidence (see Climate Change, WMD and Iraq, etc…).

    • Oh, really? What about conservative speakers literally being assaulted, run-off campuses, or dis-invited because the prevailing, “Progressive” thought disagrees with their position? I can cite chapter and verse for these incidents. Can you refute this? I doubt it. College campuses are, on average, far to the left of political thought. Every poll I’ve seen confirms that the academics (as a group) lean towards Liberal doctrine.

      And if you’re going to use the “climate change” debate to bolster your position that colleges and universities are sanctuaries for the free expression and exchange of ideas, you’ve obviously NOT been paying attention. Professors that have questioned the methodology and findings of the global warming crowd have been denied tenure or lost their tenured positions, simply because they dare disagree with the climate change groupthink.

      If you’re going to debate something here, at least have to courtesy to be intellectually honest about it.

      • Well as we know, reality has a liberal bias.

        Regarding professors losing tenure for disagreeing with climate change, maybe they lost their tenure because they were extremely wrong and were peddling crackpot theories that fly in the face of all scientific reasoning.

        Also, schools are populated by younger people (such as myself) who often disagree with the status quo. The very definition of “conservative” is basically one who doesn’t want to see things change. Liberals like me see the problems in the world and know that “drill, baby, drill” as public policy would just make things worse.

        But whatever. This is the Truth About Guns, and I’d rather read about, y’know, guns then I would discuss non-gun related politics.

        • Mark Twain once remarked that at 17, he thought his father was an idiot. By the time he turned 21, he was amazed at what the old man had learned in four years.

          Ah, the self-confidence of youth in their own infallibility.

          Crispin, when someone makes a comment – even one that gets off-topic, I feel duty-bound to leave no ridiculous, unfounded, unsupported claim un-refuted. Yours are no different. Although the technique of making unfounded claims and using hyperbole, then hiding behind “I’d rather read about, y’know, guns is a nice touch. Unoriginal, but cute.

          I am unclear on how “Liberal” solutions have made the world a better place, or America more secure, either financially or physically. Up until this January, you guys had both houses of Congress AND the White House. And yet, I’d bet if you ask ANYONE if they are better off now than they were two years ago, you’d hear a resounding “NO!”

          Problem is, the Progressive, Statist dogma doesn’t just affect guns and our 2nd Amendment rights. It is a fundamental rethink of the very ideas upon which our country was founded. These ideas have failed everywhere they have ever been tried. Yet, the one thing you can count on, is that their believers will insist that these failed policies did not fail because they are utter crap, but because they weren’t given a chance, sufficient time in which to work, or some other vacuous excuse. If we allow this nonsense to continue, we won’t have a country left to defend. And you can quote me on that.

        • Problem is, the Progressive, Statist dogma doesn’t just affect guns and our 2nd Amendment rights.

          Progressive, Statist? Huh? Didja miss 8 years of the last administration?

          You know, the one that with the aquiescence of many fools (save for 10 Senators and 66 Reps) voted for the ultimate Statist Bill, the ‘Patriot Act’?

          Didja miss that EVERY YEAR since the late 60s the US has has a TRADE DEFICIT?

          You want to talk ‘duty bound’ to refute ridiculous unsupported claims unrefuted?

          Please, I welcome any debate of actual facts.

          Ronnie grew the government and doubled the deficit. Bill cut the government and still raised the deficit. G.W. grew the gov. and again doubled the deficit.

          Erosion of Constitutional Rights? One of the greatest offenders in US history is Bush jr. Obama is no better, following in his footsteps.

          The people who are CINOs (conservative in name only) are stealing our rights and giving our income to the rich. This country was not founded on those principles. Nor will it thrive without following them.

          While I welcome an informed debate, your talking points are sounding like Michelle Bachmann’s…

  2. This paper was published so the Harvard libtards would have someone or something to vilify who wasn’t involved in the Louis Gates deal.

  3. A little slow on the uptake. That was from 2007.


    And yes, I’m working on an avatar. I’M WORKIN’ ON IT!!

  4. Porschespeed: If you’re going to resort to Argumentum ad populum, to bolster your position, you’re dealing with the wrong Conservative. Bush (I AND II) were both RINOs, in my book. (I’ll fight you on Reagan – he was a pragmatist, and chose results over a strict adherence to ideology. He tried to CUT the size of government, but was forced into many compromises – many more than he wanted – because Congress was controlled by the Dems.) Bush the Younger did indeed sell us down the river, regarding our Constitutional rights, expansion of government, and so on. Unlike a lot of people on the right, I was screaming about this in Bush’s FIRST term. And don’t get me started on Bill “I feel your pain” Clinton.

    The one thing that jumps out at me is the Leftist meme that you believe those on the right are “stealing our rights and giving our income to the rich. ” That idea is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Pitting one socio-economic group against another is classic Marxism. And I don’t mean the kind with Groucho, Chico, and Harpo. In the Nation envisioned by our Founding Fathers, we have certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Essentially, we have the right to better ourselves and try to get rich. We do NOT have the right to another man’s riches. Here’s a question for you (and it’s a trick question): Who did more to improve the wealth and happiness of mankind – Mother Theresa or Mike Milken? Milken’s activities created jobs, increased earning power, and raised thousands of workers’ standard of living. Mother T fed some poor – who remained poor after she fed them. Class envy has no place in America, unless it’s used as a motivating factor to spur someone to better themselves.

    So how, exactly, does that make it right for the ObamaNation to be sacking the Constitution and pillaging our rights?

    • Porschespeed: If you’re going to resort to Argumentum ad populum, to bolster your position, you’re dealing with the wrong Conservative..

      Ahh, do bring it…

      Do you know what happened when Reagan was Gov of CA? Obviously you missed it. He did exactly what he did as Prez. He raised taxes, and grew the gov. And the debt. Then he told the idiots that regardless of the facts, it didn't happen. Only the idiots believed. Look it up, it is easy to find the official figures.

      In the Nation envisioned by our Founding Fathers?Really ? You have not clue one. Read a lot of Jefferson's letters, take a Constitutional Law class. Then get back with me. You have absolutely no clue what The Founders wanted or indicated through their hundreds of letters. You are stuck in the Bachman/Palin/Oreilly/ zone of pathetically ill-informed.

      America was never intended to be a plutocracy, if you think it is, the educational system failed you badly.

      • Actually, Porschespeed, seems like there’s a lot of ‘ignorance’ going around – especially as to your knowledge of my understanding of and education regarding our Constitution and the History of the founding of our country. I don’t get all my news from one source (or in the case of the left, multiple sources all singing – in lockstep – from the same hymnal). And I read. A lot. I have a lot of friends in academia. Far as I can see, the America the founders envisioned was one of the least amount of government we could manage and still get the job done. Read the Federalist Papers? I carry a copy of it with me on my iPhone. Ditto for the Constitution and the Declaration.

        Unfortunately (or fortunately, in the case of Obama), nobody can govern in a vacuum. That nasty real world keeps getting in the way. Reagan was not perfect. I wish he’d had not just a mandate from his landslide elections, but a Congress that was willing to turn back years of bureaucratic growth. Reagan was a pragmatist. He realized that he would accomplish nothing without some compromise. He was responsible for turning back far more government growth (both in people and dollars) than he was for allowing it to grow. Had he enjoyed a Congress that was controlled by like-minded Conservatives, I imagine his Presidency would have been responsible for an even larger reduction in the size of government. I would have loved to see him gut Carter’s Dept. of Education, for instance – a bureaucratic boondoggle if there there was one.

        If you believe that the Founding Fathers would even recognize the Federal government of today as something that grew out of what they created, it would ONLY be to bewail how their brilliant creation has come off the tracks. When Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman “what kind of government have you given us?” he replied, “A Republic, madam…if you can keep it.” Sadly, the Progressive movement, beginning in the 1920s, perverted our government, changing it into a neo-Socialist beast that threatens to devour our productivity as well as our Constitutionally-protected freedoms.

        You want to live in the kind of world where we all work for the government, in one way or another? A world where the government no longer works for us, but controls and regulates virtually every aspect of our lives? No thanks. That’s not the America I know, it’s not the one I grew up in, and it’s not one I care to live in. I am doing everything within my power to turn back the rising tide of Socialist thought and “Progressive” agendas and return our country to the place where we can all pursue happiness, and not expect our government to provide it for us. The price to be paid for that kind of largesse we can ill afford, for the cost is our freedom. And I am not alone. Take what little comfort you can in your insular world of your “mainstream media” and liberal politicians that tell you what you want to hear. Your Socialist world is crumbling. It is a philosophy that can exist only on the pages of a book. It is not viable in the real world. America – the REAL America – has awakened to the threat of Statism, and we will not rest until it has been beaten back.

        • Sorry been busy…

          Ignorant of your education, I certainly am. I can however, easily draw valid conclusions from your stated views. I don’t get all my news from one source either – but I know as sure as the sun will rise that FOX is nothing but Statist agitprop. Wanna sit down with me someday and bury 90% of FOX stories with actual, verifiable, earth-is-round facts? I’m buyin’ lunch…

          (BTW, most Conservatives get their news from NPR. Mostly objective, fact-based reporting and all that…)

          If you do actually carry copies of The Declaration, The Constitution, and The Fedaralist Papers on your IPhone, perhaps you should read them sometime. Also, please read some Jefferson. He’s got a big pile of work that you are obviously unfamiliar with.

          Me? Though mom blew off her DAR membership as ‘too pretentious’, I have a family tree full of those who were actually here for 100 years as Subjects Of The Crown. I’ve been steeped in the founding of our Nation since I was 6, as I’m directly related to those who participated in it.

          (Admittedly they were merely lawyers and soldiers. They didn’t sign their name to The Dec, but they were rather familiar with [and to] the players.)

          Claiming Reagan was anything but someone who raised taxes and grew government tells me all there is to know about your education. The facts are easily obtained and incontrovertible – whether as Gov. of CAL or Pres of US, Reagan did 2 things – he grew government and raised taxes. Oh yeah, and at a greater rate than he predecessors. Look it up, the data is easy to find if you are actually interested in the facts.

          As to the claims that our gov is neo-socialist – wow. Just wow.

          Our gov is more corporatist/plutocratist than anytime since the last Great Depression. At this point, our country has wealth and income distribution that puts us on par with dozens of other Third World countries. (Once again, IRS and GAO numbers, easy facts to find.)

          As per usual with anyone so ill-informed you toss out “MSM’ and “liberal politicians” and “Socialist World” to attempt to demonize someone who actually has read and does know the principles our country was founded on.

          I am a real Conservative – I know that if there is nothing left to fish or hunt, we are in trouble. I know that if we drill recklessly we ruin the environment. I know that if you actually have any children, or give a shit about anyone else’s, you’ve accepted global warming as fact 20 years ago.

          Were you an actual Conservative you’d know that the rest of the world is out-educating our children by leaps and bounds. How do we compete when we can’t work for a dollar a day, nor can we out innovate the RoW?

          Please explain, because to this point you are spewing the illiterate populist blather of Bachmann and Palin.

          BTW, perhaps you should go hang out in Japan near a reactor. Your stated hero Ann Coulter said that radiation is good for you.

        • Wow. Hardly know where to begin. But since I’ve only got a few minutes between trying to earn a living before the ObamaNation outlaws freelancers or earning a living, I’ll take a stab at a few of your more outrageous distortions…

          Please cite your source (B.S. or not) for your claim that “most Conservatives get their news from NPR.” (BTW – I needed a good laugh today, but warn me when you’re gonna say something like that before hand…I damn near choked on a glass of milk.) I don’t know ANY conservative that takes NPR seriously. And keep in mind, this is the place that just lost their two top-ranking officials, one for spilling the beans over the percentage of funding that they actually count on from the government, and the other for screwing up over things like dismissing Juan Williams (one of the left-leaning guys I respect, because he’s never in lock-step with the Left and is obviously a well-educated, intelligent and insightful guy) over his “inappropriate comments.” You remember. She’s the one that actually questioned his sanity. Nice.

          I’ve read the Declaration, the Constitution, most of the Federalist Papers, and works by and about most of the Founding Fathers. Like all the Founders, Jefferson was a human being, and therefore, not entirely infallible. Brilliant guy. But I don’t agree with his every word. I have a brain. I like to use it regularly.

          I’m not really concerned with your family tree. Half mine was traced back (like yours, I’m sure) to Plymouth Rock. The other half were immigrants. I’m more mutt than thoroughbred. How is that germaine to this conversation again?

          I met Reagan on several occasions as a part of the news media. Covered two of his campaigns. Fascinating guy. And no, he wasn’t the perfect manifestation of Conservatism as he’s now portrayed. Again – human. He was also a pragmatist. He had to make many compromises to accomplish what he did. Name another politician who hasn’t? Even Obama (who by most Conservative’s count is, hands down, the most far-Left, Socialist President EVER) has had to compromise his ideology in the real world. Just ask Michael Moore and the rest of the braying bullies on the Left who are calling for his head. (Maybe next time they should institute a Liberal Purity Test as a plank in the party platform.)

          Our government is not neo-socialist. It is, in fact, heading towards classical Fascism (we’ll be there when the chairman of GE accepts a position in Obama’s cabinet – wait for it…it’s coming). However, the ADMINISTRATION is controlled by a bunch of Socialists and Marxists. When you’ve got people in the administration admiring Chairman Mao and Obama talks about wealth redistribution as a goal of his administration, just exactly what more proof do you need?

          You are not (by just about any reasonable definition) a “Conservative.” A “conservationalist,” perhaps. But when you start waving that Global Warming B.S. as “fact,” you need to open your eyes and smell the effluvia. There are far too many VERY credible scientists and climatologists that do not see “global warming” or “climate change” as anything even approaching “settled science.” And they are being persecuted for their ideas. Add to that, the admissions by the Brits that they cooked the books on the basic sensory data and then deleted all the raw numbers, you’ve got a smoking gun that makes Matt Dillon’s look pretty cheesy by comparison.

          I agree with you on the education thing. I’ve taught in public schools and taught privately. It’s scary. We’re doing a CRAP job teaching our kids. I tutor my daughter on a regular basis, and expose her to as much knowledge as possible. As a result, she read at a 12th grade level back when she was in the 4th grade. But I suspect you believe the answer is more top-down solutions, through the Dept. of Education, Head Start, No Child Left Behind (a Bush mistake) and more government edicts and unfunded mandates. I believe in vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling (as long as there is a standardized curriculum and standardized testing).

          So…that clear things up for you? Get back to me on that NPR thing. I suspect that one will get picked up by conservative blogs. You may have your 15 minutes of fame, yet.

  5. Ahh…

    This’ll be fun til’ you get O’Reilly/Savage/Coulter and shout/shut me down for actually knowing the facts.

    Let’s start with alarmist assertion one that somehow the “ObamaNation” is gonna shut your freelance income down. Really? ‘Cuz I haven’t worked for anyone but me-myself-andI-Inc. since the early 90s. Please explain to me how I’m gonna lose my income. I’m losing no sleep since my clientele is the upper 2%, but go ahead. ‘Splain. Please. Personally, I like paying more taxes, as it means I’m making more money – not GE tens-o-billions where you pay NO taxes, but I’m doing ok.

    As to NPR, yup, NPR sacrificed a couple of top folks for (pathetically) kowtowing to funding (the board is no longer as cautious as Klose was). BFD. From Tucker Carlson to Newt Gingrich on, most conservatives with an IQ over 120 openly tell any media (including in countless live interviews actually live on NPR) that they get their news from NPR. They do also openly dislike that it ain’t a lapdog like FOX, but still they donate their own cash to keep it running. They do realize that objective reporting matters…

    Bonus points – since this ‘scandal’ NPR funding is doing just great. The discontinuation of funding nonsense will never pass the Senate as we all know. If it were, you may have had a small issue funding a whole day of setting cash on fire in IrAfPakLib.

    (Oh, BTW, I’m not an Obama fan…)

    FWIW, like the rest of the intelligentsia I also get news from Al Jazeera and the BBC, and a dozen other sources.

    Juan Williams dismissal? Agreed, a strategic error, and one that had no basis in fact. But really. Dig up the r-tard sad trainwrecks tapes that were TOTN when JW took over from Suarez. It was like listening to a Palin interview show. Complete junior high drama class joke painful. That NPR bigwigs looked for an out in his contract was completely understandable. Not forgivable, but logical. Klose shoulda hung for that contract, and all the cognoscenti knows it…

    Reagan accomplished what he did? Please tell what he accomplished. He raised the debt, deficit, and grew the gov – I fail to see how any of those items were “positive”, “conservative”, or good for our Country. Please enumerate. He didn’t kill the Soviets (everyone knew we’d spend them to death, ’twas only a matter of time coupled with the predicted collapse of oil prices…).

    Please explain how Obama, while keeping taxes ridiculously low for the rich, pissing away cash like water in two+ military engagements, and following all of GW’s human rights abuses from GITMO to Patriot and beyond is somehow a socialist. What “conservatives” are you following?

    Once again, Obo ain’t on my Xmas list either.

    You might want a visit to the GDR to enlighten your views about tax policy, universal healthcare, a social safety net, and the fact that the rich survive regardless in an environment where the average guy makes a living, doesn’t have to worry if his kids get sick, and the top 2% still lives very large.

    If you don’t get that “wealth redistribution” is hardly a problem then I guess you must be a Millenial. Way back in the early 70s we had a top marginal tax rate of almost 90%. Guess what? There were still plenty of dudes buying Lambos, Masers, and RRs. I wasn’t one of them, but I knew plenty.

    Back then the average CEO made around 14 times what the average worker made. Now, even though we have reduced our production by offshoring, the average CEO makes well over 120 times what the average worker makes. That “death tax” that was so horrible? Yeah, that Obama givaway helped about 400 of the top families. Ya know, the ones that own more than the the other bottom 40% of the country.

    Please name all these “credible” scientists that somehow disprove global warming. From NASA to JPL to thousands of indies it is settled fact. “Climategate”? Uhh yeah. A few kids bitchin about figuring out their data. Ooh, scandalous. Or not. Really, climate change deniers have always been found to be (easily discovered) oil industry shills. Just look at historical pictures from Glacier National Park (which will have no glacier in about 30 years) or Mount Fuji, or ANY effen glacier on this damn planet.

    Give an eff about that daughter of yours? Get some science in your life. How ’bout we start frac’ing for all that “clean natural gas” where your water supply is?

    Family trees relevant? Meh. Did your grandfather and uncles spend time telling you about the folks who created the Country and their interaction with your own relatives? Do you have letters from the FFs to your relatives floating around family attics? I read letters from Jefferson, Adams, et. al. to my family complete with backstory. How ’bout you?

    Doesn’t make me your better, nor am I trying to imply that. But, when you start making statements that the FF would call me a ‘conservationalist’ well it just screams that you have either not read enough, or maybe you aren’t old enough to get it yet.

    Glad your tutoring your daughter. 12th in 4th is a decent start for world reading levels. (12th in the US is well behind what our international competition does in 4th, but hey, being smart in in the US isn’t cool. We have States not only teaching creationism but deleting actual science from their curriculum. Ugh.)

    Oh yeah. “My 15 minute of fame?”. Nothing personal, but if I really wanted to be bitch slappin’ Hannity/Rush/Coulter’s ass on a site burying their cat-turd propaganda piles in a litterbox every day, point-by-point, I’d be doing it. Frankly, it would bore me in short order. I’ve been fact burying Rush for 20+ years – fish in a dixie cup and all that.

    I have other priorities. Hence, why I appear when I have spare time.

    BTW – How’s that radiation thing working out? Since your heroine Coulter said “much higher levels than gov says” are not only NOT BAD for you, but, in fact, GOOD for you, I assume you and your daughter are on a plane to Japan…



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here