have their expert witnesses that they trot out when needed to support their arguments.

Both siderism here on DU?

Tell me, do both sides make up alter egos to praise their work? Do both sides make up data? Have both sides have been panned by every other respected researcher?

truth, when inconvenient, isn't applicable if it does not adhere to/meet orthodoxy?

Good to know.

I ask because that is almost a direct quote about how the NRA and other gun rights groups treated Lott. His research was bogus and refuted but none of that mattered BECAUSE IT MET THEIR NEEDS for legitimacy.

"truth, when inconvenient, isn't applicable" Yeah, that's what prize winning journalism uncovered in the gun rights movement.

Way overdue.

Mary Rosh was an ancronym for his four children I think it was, or family members. He took the first two letters of his kids and put them together. I think MArk, then guessing for example, RYan, ROse, SHaron

The reason for the ~30% decline in gun crime & violent crime durning the Clinton years 1992 - 2000, was the corresponding ~30% decline in gun ownership rates. Not more gun less crime but the opposite. Lower gun ownership rates = less crime.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=210897

Not insinuating anything, just kinda speculating outloud . . .

Did you read the article? If you did how could you miss that it was a compilation of other articles from a wide array of established journalistic sources?

Yet all you can see is conspiracy to defame gunz and Lott.

Sheesh! "I'm not saying, but . . ."

I no longer have any idea if you're reading my posts or not.