@mkolken @marcela_elisa "analyzed national government surveys involving more than 14,000 people..." it's the crime *victimization* survey, so it excludes those who weren't victims because they had a gun! https://t.co/iAzXPvUKYP https://t.co/7Ym6VdZq56
@chillywillers https://t.co/Ix9ehbcmqh “...firearms are used defensively many times per day”
@AdamPiersen @glenn_wofford @badjin_rank @AMarch4OurLives @NRA LOL Kleck's study (he's at a 3rd rate university, namely Florida State) was shown to be utterly bogus by real scholars at Harvard. Yet you believe what you want to believe because it supports y
@SifuEdition @bonhomme37 @mjfree I put in the leg work for you the study: https://t.co/gVLnWNssnW the rebuttal: https://t.co/pEyhEp2EtR
@WesleyG60777542 @lnnrtz @CYDharta @vegasrenae @4YrsToday Lott is a well known apologist and pseudo-researcher for pro gun research. His work has been largely discredited by un biased researchers like https://t.co/4ww73In8KX Gneiss try, but it’s a swing a
RT @Avatardelcaos: Todos esos datos provienen de los estudios Lott, está de más decir que él ya fue ampliamente refutado. 1) https://t.co/…
@BrianMc91835111 @MelissaFoersch1 @LovedByaDove @NRA Even the lowest estimates show tens of thousands of Defensive Gun Uses per year. https://t.co/O7845TuUqj https://t.co/5YbqxErE1a
@the_conniver @NRA Even the lowest estimates show tens of thousands of Defensive Gun Uses per year. https://t.co/O7845TuUqj https://t.co/5M3Vw0X1Aq
@peb310 @NRA Even the lowest estimates show tens of thousands of Defensive Gun Uses per year. You're delusional. https://t.co/O7845TuUqj https://t.co/O5VDkiUl0V
@edge_li @StuartEtc @sapinker Ms. Libresco may be interested in these links. Guns and suicides https://t.co/HXkCA1XaDz https://t.co/qYA9fb8uI1 https://t.co/BO0yj1Ntv8 https://t.co/z9WdPeMgWJ
@lucas17447315 @reichmmj @radionz The methodologies used by the CPRC have been consistently debunked/criticised from the earliest editions onward. https://t.co/vKHuYXomcX
@peter_masiakos @davidhogg111 @HarvardHPM @HarvardChanSPH @UCDavisEM Effective defensive gun use doesn't need to lead to the perpetrator being wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self defense, one needs to measure crime & injury averte
RT @DarthFanboi: @SenClaireCelsi How about deterrent factor? https://t.co/0EhufcFknl https://t.co/Oh0bMGHcrl
"Effective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance." https://t
@WaGunResponsib They are, perhaps, ignoring the deterrent factor of open carry. If you were going to assault someone, would you target the one with a weapon? Even if you were "sneaky" & tried to get the gun, what are the chances of success? They tend
@SenClaireCelsi How about deterrent factor? https://t.co/0EhufcFknl https://t.co/Oh0bMGHcrl
@sacrebleu14 @RedFizo1 @paramedic9514 @_MoCowBell_ @Jerry_Ratcliffe @bluesRchamps91 @JViscoNJ @JukkaSavo I’ve read this one in full, as part of my doctoral studies. What’s your take on this NAS meta-review of the evidence from multiple studies? https://t.c
@LeasingDriver @trevorlaffan @piersmorgan No, he’s a fraud. https://t.co/Y8IxCNhVOK Here’s a peer review of what he writes: https://t.co/JsVjJuv6g4
@md_painter @George_Wible @GunDeaths Effective defensive gun use doesn't need to lead to the perpetrator being wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self defense, one needs to measure crime & injury averted. The particular outcome of an
@cheezeus @Usexme @XposeGunControl @MattMears501 @designmom @MomsDemand A nicely readable summary with original sources cited: https://t.co/4E9q7ZE1Zp Reports from the National Academies of Science, which are dense but cite the same sources and much more:
@bpoppap @Usexme @XposeGunControl @MattMears501 @designmom @MomsDemand Got a citation? This summary has many, with context: https://t.co/4E9q7ZE1Zp So do these from the National Academies of Science (a bit harder to read, but citing the same and more ori
@alsup_paige @XposeGunControl @designmom Ash, I know the numbers and was trying to spark conversation about them. Mental illness accounts for a very small percentage of gun homicides (though a lot of suicides). Even so, increasing refs and reducing gun acc
@AmberFrmThVault @Karax9699 There is still a lot of good research out there: RAND corporation has a good overview. (https://t.co/NUe9TsDTbq) as does the National Academies of the Sciences (https://t.co/FWzxQ43Zpm) As for civil rights and women's suffrage,
RT @JohnRLottJr: @TravisAllen02 @RepThomasMassie If you count murders, not homicides, suicides make up 70%. Gun control "has not yet been s…
RT @JohnRLottJr: @TravisAllen02 @RepThomasMassie If you count murders, not homicides, suicides make up 70%. Gun control "has not yet been s…
RT @JohnRLottJr: @TravisAllen02 @RepThomasMassie If you count murders, not homicides, suicides make up 70%. Gun control "has not yet been s…
RT @JohnRLottJr: @TravisAllen02 @RepThomasMassie If you count murders, not homicides, suicides make up 70%. Gun control "has not yet been s…
RT @JohnRLottJr: @TravisAllen02 @RepThomasMassie If you count murders, not homicides, suicides make up 70%. Gun control "has not yet been s…
@TravisAllen02 @RepThomasMassie If you count murders, not homicides, suicides make up 70%. Gun control "has not yet been shown to reduce the OVERALL risk of suicide in any population." https://t.co/SlNVEnfp4l As to most of the rest of murders, they are dru
@ElectObama2020 @Swift9013 @JoeBiden @NRA In relation to a 2001 study the National Research Council in 2005, stated "evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." ht
This is why you should only read and trust peer reviewed articles or studies. Any journalist can drum up bull 💩 https://t.co/QYXxDJVzOr
@nosenkow @ebashneft @b_genbach ето цитата из исследования National Research Council of the National Academies https://t.co/n5Th2S0DNE Committee on Law and Justice Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education — ето достаточно квалифицированны
@FadetoChris @jacobflores78 @BernieSanders Very well - since you're far too lazy to do your own research: https://t.co/T3P5dY4R8P https://t.co/I6PxKKZWWZ https://t.co/RtJsTg93Ka https://t.co/cbtqJUI6jE https://t.co/6YrwhgREES https://t.co/95EIWIj11f https:
@p1nt1nh0 @LadyJessMacBeth @parkerrm39 NAP contradicts that. https://t.co/Efx74hKgAx
@HaroldBradfor14 @charliekirk11 What has race got to do with this? https://t.co/l1h22gXXMs and https://t.co/oDnziE2tas. 64% in federal prison are non citizens.
@DouglasDucote @NASCAR @KVARCorp @YouTube @HighImpactFlix https://t.co/evtq6ESQBA page 102 defensive gun use show over 100,000-2.5 million DGU in the US. @KVARCorp is given until 8/20 at 2 pm to change their ad. @NASCAR I was a Chiefs fan for 35 years un
At @nascar has written a letter to @KVARCorp shifting their views on guns will not run their ads with”assault/sniper rifles. We have members of congress refusing to denounce HAMAS, Al-Qaeda, and ANTIFA and you pull this! https://t.co/evtq6ESQBA pg 102 100
@SubotaiRacoonis @SenFeinstein Been busy @ endocrinologists. Dealing with issues. Tweeting is easy to do finding the backup data took some time. https://t.co/oDnziE2tas https://t.co/Guua6f553w
RT @tylerblack32: @drjessigold @amybarnhorst @WYCDinitiative @meganranney @Consortium_RBFP @shannonrwatts A very good summary of the data i…
@drjessigold @amybarnhorst @WYCDinitiative @meganranney @Consortium_RBFP @shannonrwatts A very good summary of the data is here: https://t.co/0ZgmzklRWO
@RepThomasMassie The same one the National Research Council repudiated, right? https://t.co/RmXnQFX3GA
Does anyone else read NRC consensus reports? You have any faves you'd recommend? I've recently read substantial portions of some of the ones on crime. While not perfect, they give such readable overviews of the literature and issues involved! Guns: htt
RT @AtticusLee6: @Chestys_Ghost @integrumwm @thehill Yep Here's the definitive summary of all studies by dozens of researchers it was imp…
This means: 1) Do something that will have no effect on violent crime (p.97 https://t.co/y5KU8Hhvtz) 2) Government list of people with mental issues 3) Government list of all legal gun owners (not criminal gun owners) 4) Create a way for enemies/oppone
@Angel85377 @Tpinkfloyd @chicagoMike_ @JThomasAlbert @KamalaHarris also, using your "source": https://t.co/xZMki2xX02
@Angel85377 @Tpinkfloyd @chicagoMike_ @JThomasAlbert @KamalaHarris In relation to a 2001 study the National Research Council in 2005, stated "evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on g
@greg_coggin @kiswanson @CAMx502xS @DrJenGunter https://t.co/Gjwp7mKVAY National Research Council. America. Comprehensive review. Chapter 7.
@OrdyPackard @GordonShuckrow3 @dmb1031 @CAMx502xS @DrJenGunter https://t.co/Gjwp7mKVAY Whooooole chapter on firearms and suicide for you to read.
@SeanTweet @SkepCdnChick @CAMx502xS @DrJenGunter https://t.co/7bhmLOkt3z Chapter 7: suicide "Therefore, the probability of suicide among nongun owners = ... 6.67 per 100,000 persons per year; and the probability of suicide among gun owners = ... 15 per 1
The amount of guns per person has risen drastically 1950: 381.3 Firearms per 1,000 Persons 2019: 1205 Firearms per 1,000 Persons And it is *much* easier to obtain a weapon designed for war than it was in 1950s when AR-15s were 1st sold to the public ht
So when people say “why doesn’t CDC research gun violence?”...the research is there.
@JustinReady From *15* years ago. https://t.co/vqCrvhELi9
@HirsuteWitch Here's two important ones from two extremely prestigious and reputable sources, I'm happy to hear your educated opinion about why you know better: https://t.co/K1rnqvxJSG https://t.co/SBI2Y9qWjR Also check out the Johns Hopkins Center for
RT @jenniferdoleac: National Academies critical review of the evidence on firearms & violence (2004) https://t.co/wGd8YUYZv9 https://t.co/u…
@lineflyer9 @DLoesch Other studies indicate 100,000 uses for defense. https://t.co/LNmcDy2SJR and about 500K crimes involve guns. Too damn many guns any way you cut it.
@corder_sherrie @AOC @BajheeraWoW https://t.co/K1rnqvxJSG https://t.co/SBI2Y9qWjR Is two extremely prestigious and well-respected entities both concluding that guns are the problem enough? Or should I provide the hundreds more?
@hardon_collider https://t.co/SBI2Y9qWjR https://t.co/K1rnqvxJSG And many more you can just Google. I provided two from reputable sources, the latter being Harvard.
@MikeFaganTaiwan @katzenschwanzz @StephenGutowski National Academy of Sciences, Chapter 7. https://t.co/GFaufB4QuE
RT @Sammyjkramer: Dear @MissouriGOP: you & totally sane Kaitlin seem unaware that the “study” you’re quoting has been debunked. Do better.…
RT @Sammyjkramer: Dear @MissouriGOP: you & totally sane Kaitlin seem unaware that the “study” you’re quoting has been debunked. Do better.…
Dear @MissouriGOP: you & totally sane Kaitlin seem unaware that the “study” you’re quoting has been debunked. Do better. #moleg https://t.co/USoxv3bpiV https://t.co/2MfFVwfGon https://t.co/oXyrZzAaNc https://t.co/rah9EAcWwC https://t.co/OpAQY1G8Y
@jwoodatty1 @JohnRLottJr John- if you are interested in the topic, I’d recommend this. I’m not a partisan here. I actually want real solutions and answers. Problem is, neither ‘side’ seems interested. So we all lose. https://t.co/vLGmwtxaz8
@bschapiroMD As you are likely aware, John Lott's "research" has been thoroughly debunked time and time again. He's an academic fraud. https://t.co/4BH9nxvzVc
@JacobCouvillon @BestyDeVos The number of crimes has not increased, only the lethality in the instance of crimes, ie the rate at which crimes are committed statistically has not changed however the consequences of said crime are more likely to end in death
@2AWisdom Not really, we are not in europe in the 12th century. This is much more applicable: https://t.co/4QwKwjSoiX
@JohnRLottJr @NRA @Everytown I won’t call you a troll or lazy, but I will call you a fraud: https://t.co/WzZeHjdpQO
@guille16102000 Encontré un analisis bastante exaustivo de la NAP a los papers de Lott y Mustard, que revisa sus datos y agrega algunas variables que fueron omitidas. Te lo recomiendo para cuando tengas un rato libre. https://t.co/OPHK3nWRFI
@BradRob03550961 @FASTERColorado @TellSackett03 @RallyRights @MomsDemand @lauracarno @NRA As far as I know, I haven't "quoted" anyone on this thread, but here you go: https://t.co/nrOaaqcmkm https://t.co/NRT26AqELr https://t.co/AzbFcnjd2p https://t.co/3BVU
@JohnRLottJr @Normalguy0986 @GoonSquadSTL @EnglishTeach07 @shannonrwatts @EricBurlison @mmfa @MomsDemand So you resort to personal attacks instead of defending your research with facts? Did you not create and use the fake persona of Mary Rosh to defend y
And more on Lott's debunked "research": https://t.co/USoxv3bpiV https://t.co/2MfFVwfGon https://t.co/oXyrZzAaNc https://t.co/fek8xHUpYk https://t.co/rah9EAcWwC https://t.co/OpAQY1G8Ys https://t.co/teIOdCoyGF https://t.co/veYVc6cpIf