This is a placeholder for now because I have not had ads on this blog for years. In case I ever start up again, this will be the policy in effect:
The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don't think we're getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you're stupid, too. I have had a few ads on this site in the past and may do so again if I think it's worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn't buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don't mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now--you're not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer.
About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
Comment House Rules
Keep them on topic. No spam. No threats against anyone except me. Do not feed trolls--I'll take out the trash. Try to keep it clean. I'm the final arbiter. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn blog.
Link Policy
WarOnGuns reciprocates links with liberty-oriented sites promoting the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable individuals. If you have linked to me and don't see your site below, it's probably just because I haven't noticed it yet. Shoot me an email via the "Contact Form" (see above in this sidebar) if you want to fix that.
As a general rule I remove links for blogs that have been inactive for over one year.
I'm as anti-guncontrol as anyone, and I want to like that piece, but the citations are troubling. Specifically the citations relating to post-Heller crime rates in DC and Chicago (#74 & 75). They refer to blog entries where they should be citing some type of official crime statistics.
At least the link to the blog article about the Chicago crime rates gives a link to the data on the Chicago PD site, but the other doesn't even mention where the data came from.
As I said, I desperately want to like that article, but if the citations are that sloppy, how can the rest of the information be trusted?
I have long mentioned all of those genocides when trying to convert those who are on the fence about gun control, but I would be very reluctant to mention this piece out of fear that those I am trying to win to our side might also notice how insubstantial the citations are. Those need to be primary source citations, not links to a blog.
Please don't be offended by comments about blogs. A blog certainly can be a primary source. I think in a paper about the history of Fast & Furious your words in the early days would certainly qualify. However, in the case of statistics not actually gathered by the blog author it does not count as a primary source.
Eh. I'm not seeing this making any pretenses to being a scholarly research paper so much as just a general audience position piece with corroborating end notes. I think John Lott's blog is good enough for those purposes.
4 comments:
That is has a German soldier on the cover and not a photo of a Red Army soldier tells me all I need to know about this publication.
The ACLU is run by the same tribe that ran the Bolsheviks, who murdered over 70 million Christians in Russia and elsewhere.
Too bad you dismiss even looking at the evidence on the erroneous assumption that the ACLU is behind this.
I'm as anti-guncontrol as anyone, and I want to like that piece, but the citations are troubling. Specifically the citations relating to post-Heller crime rates in DC and Chicago (#74 & 75). They refer to blog entries where they should be citing some type of official crime statistics.
At least the link to the blog article about the Chicago crime rates gives a link to the data on the Chicago PD site, but the other doesn't even mention where the data came from.
As I said, I desperately want to like that article, but if the citations are that sloppy, how can the rest of the information be trusted?
I have long mentioned all of those genocides when trying to convert those who are on the fence about gun control, but I would be very reluctant to mention this piece out of fear that those I am trying to win to our side might also notice how insubstantial the citations are. Those need to be primary source citations, not links to a blog.
Please don't be offended by comments about blogs. A blog certainly can be a primary source. I think in a paper about the history of Fast & Furious your words in the early days would certainly qualify. However, in the case of statistics not actually gathered by the blog author it does not count as a primary source.
Eh. I'm not seeing this making any pretenses to being a scholarly research paper so much as just a general audience position piece with corroborating end notes. I think John Lott's blog is good enough for those purposes.
Post a Comment