2 good articles in "Skeptic" magazine

I had never heard of this organization or its magazine, but I came across it in a B&N the other day. According to their website, "The Skeptics Society is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific and educational organization whose mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for those seeking a sound scientific viewpoint. Our contributors—leading scientists, scholars, investigative journalists, historians, professors and teachers—are top experts in their fields. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals."

True to their self-professed mission, these articles appeared balanced and well-researched for the most part, and I was surprised to find the full text online. The online comments are mostly well-reasoned and -supported as well, although there are a few of the usual "everyone knows" fallacies. http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-sandy-hook-effect/

Similarly, another article in the same issue, http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-mass-murder-problem/ focuses primarily on the mental health aspect of violence. I can't say I agree with all the author's proposals (e.g. mandatory annual mental health screenings), but at least he's focusing the debate where it beongs: on the mentally ill, not LACs.

Bottom line, these look like good sources to point to when debating with ill-informed antis. Enjoy.

I was relatively impressed with him up until he said that limiting magazine capacity is a good way to reduce mass killings while completely ignoring the VA Tech mass killing where 10 round mags were used.

He also completely ignored the 2A argument that we have the right to defend ourselves not only from crime, but from our own gov. He focused only on the "safety" aspect and how to reduce gun violence. Which is to completely blind yourself to an entire aspect of the debate. He tried really hard, but was not very successful in being "reasoned."

mobiushky said:

I was relatively impressed with him up until he said that limiting magazine capacity is a good way to reduce mass killings while completely ignoring the VA Tech mass killing where 10 round mags were used.

He also completely ignored the 2A argument that we have the right to defend ourselves not only from crime, but from our own gov. He focused only on the "safety" aspect and how to reduce gun violence. Which is to completely blind yourself to an entire aspect of the debate. He tried really hard, but was not very successful in being "reasoned."

Click to expand...

I don't care if 250 rd mags increase violence or not - its an irrelevant examination. Barring them is a violation of the 2nd amendment..period.