10-10-2001, 04:59 AM
Picked this up from NRA-ILA this morning.
10-10-2001, 05:52 AM
.... and from FoxNews, on the same subject;
10-10-2001, 08:21 AM
i've heard about that book. fact is, arming america is a pro-gun book, and the author himself loves guns.
the historical stuff, i dunno. i wouldn't consider myself anywhere near qualified to comment on, but it would be interesting to see how he draws his conclusions.
10-10-2001, 09:19 AM
I'm confused. If you've only heard about the book, but haven't read it, how do you know it's pro gun? How do you know the author loves guns?
Wouldn't the articles posted above cause you to have doubts?
10-10-2001, 09:26 AM
If he did, he'd realize the book was, in fact, a 578-page love letter to firearms.
Do you have a political agenda or are you just into guns?
I am into guns. I am also a historian trying to uncover an aspect of American history. That's what historians are supposed to do.
10-10-2001, 12:50 PM
I'll admit that I had time to read very little of the article. And since I've got more irons in the fire than I've got coals to cover today to be able to completely read it I should not even respond.
But based on the little I did have time to look at is does in deed appear that the author may be biased. But it does not appear as though he was attempting to be blantanly deceive or convince the reader or interviewer that he does not have a vested interest.
However, in the below case this author, who is obviously vehemently anti-gun/constitution he was deliberating attempting to manipulate history, create false information and distort facts to promote his own agenda.
Gun Control Book Based on Faulty Data
Wednesday, October 10, 2001
Glen Harlan Reynolds
Respond to Editor
Email this Article
Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles caused quite a splash when he published Arming America: The Origins of the National Gun Culture, a book that ostensibly turned our understanding of the Second Amendment on its head.
The book was enthusiastically received and celebrated by the media establishment, who welcomed it with rave reviews and awards and pronounced the book proof that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun ownership.
Bellesiles' thesis was that the framers of the Constitution must not have intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to own guns because private gun ownership was exceedingly rare at the time—and stayed that way until after the Civil War when the NRA nefariously created the "gun culture" that we know today and that we ascribe, incorrectly, to the framers.
Bellesiles backed up his theses with claims that he checked thousands of probate records and discovered that guns were scarce at the time of the framing.
This thesis was provocative, but it also appears to be wrong. In fact, it appears to be worse than wrong. People who have checked Bellesiles' claims against the probate records that he says he consulted have found that he drastically under states the number of guns they show.
Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren, an expert in probate records who has closely examined Bellesiles’ work, told the Boston Globe that "in virtually every part of the book examined in detail, there are problems."
"It's clear that this book is impressive to legal and social historians who do not check the background. Law professors and quantitative historians have been suspicious about the book since its release."
The data sets Bellesiles' drew from the probate records he claims to have examined are unavailable; Bellesiles says they were destroyed in a flood. Even more damning, one set of records that Bellesiles says he relied on were destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and have been unavailable to anyone since then without access to a time machine.
Various scholars have been criticizing Bellesiles' research for months, but on Sept. 11, the Globe—fresh from breaking the tale of historian Joe Ellis’s Vietnam falsehoods — published a story revealing that the paper had investigated the claims against Bellesiles and found them to be true.
This was little noticed at the time, owing to other events, but on Oct. 3, Emory University decided that the criticisms constituted "prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct," and ordered Bellesiles to account for himself. What explanation Bellesiles will offer is unclear, but a finding of unforgivable sloppiness seems to be about the best he can hope for.
But for our purposes, it doesn’t matter whether Bellesiles is a fraud or merely exceedingly careless. Because there’s another failure here, one that in some ways was far more serious than Bellesiles’.
Extraordinary claims, Carl Sagan said, require extraordinary evidence. And that evidence itself requires extraordinary examination. Yet Bellesiles’ claims – which counted as "provocative" precisely because they were in conflict with everything we thought we knew about the history of guns in America – got just the opposite. The people who should have examined his evidence rushed to embrace it, because it told them what they wanted to hear.
Writer Garry Wills, who reviewed the book for the The New York Times Book Review, wrote that "Bellesiles deflates the myth of the self-reliant and self-armed virtuous yeoman of the Revolutionary militias."
The Chronicle of Higher Education featured the book on its front page, with the headline "Exploding the Myth of an Armed America." The American Prospect wrote that "The image of . . . the American founders believing in an individual’s right to keep and bear arms . . . turns out to be a myth."
Arming America even received the (up to now) prestigious Bancroft Prize from Columbia University.
Instead of reviewers who might be skeptical of Bellesiles’ research, mainstream publications assigned reviewers who were antigun.
Wills, for example, has had a reputation as rabidly antigun for years.
Carl Bogus, who reviewed the book for The American Prospect, is a longtime gun-control activist. Richard Slotkin, who praised Arming America in The Atlantic Monthly, has referred to the notion of guns as instruments of liberty and equality as "self-evidently crazy."
That such reviewers would not expend any great effort in checking out Bellesiles’ claims should come as no surprise, and in fact they didn’t. But this raises an interesting question about the claim that mainstream, traditional media organizations always make in defense of their importance: that they are careful and responsible, while alternative media and the Internet are not. The Internet, they tell us, is a domain of hype and hoaxes, while traditional media can be trusted to check things out and get them right.
Yet if one looks at Amazon.Com’s reviews of Arming America, it is immediately evident that Amazon reviewers found the problems with Bellesiles’ book a year ago, while the establishment was still smitten.
On Oct. 24, 2000, for example, Amazon reader Sondra Wilkins did something that Garry Wills did not: she checked some of Bellesiles’ sources and reported: "In checking his sources, often the ones he lists, even the particular pages that he lists, contain evidence that contradicts his claims. He quotes parts of sentences from those sources and ignores the contradictory information on that same page."
Another reader, David Ihnat, said he couldn’t believe Bellesiles’ claim that it took 3 minutes to load and fire a muzzle-loading rifle. His report: "Never having fired a flintlock before, I tried to load and fire 10 times in succession, and was able to average 50 seconds per load." His conclusion: "Bellesiles has an axe to grind, and worked it throughout this book."
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Internet, amateur scholars were posting long critiques of Bellesiles’ work, only to see those critiques dismissed by Bellesiles and his defenders as the work of those ignorant yahoos on the Internet.
It appears, however, that the Internet is sometimes harder to fool than the establishment. Five days after the Globe story appeared, the New York Times was repeating Wills’ praise of Arming America in support of the paperback version.
Keep this in mind the next time the establishment is rallying behind a "provocative" scholarly analysis that just happens to echo views that the establishment has always held.
10-10-2001, 12:58 PM
IMO Bellesiles is pro-gun like Clinton didn't inhale.
Eric of Indiana
10-10-2001, 05:12 PM
I have read the book, and the only thing pro-gun about it is that it does indeed contain the word gun, instead of "nefarious-flame-spitting-child-killing-object-of-evil" which is clearly what he would like to have said.
10-10-2001, 08:31 PM
This is what ticks me off the most about some people. They have an opinion on everything and never went to or read what they are now "expert" on.
As my dad used to say, "If you don't know what you're talking about, keep your mouth shut or else you'll look like the idiot that you are."
Geez. (this isn't an attack on anyone, but folks should look before they leap, myself included).
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.