Hey guys, haven't been that active here for awhile but thought some of you might be interested in this email I received. It's quite a ways out so if enough of you planned to attend it might help even the sides of the beliefs/values scales. Even though it's open to the public I'm sure the event info wouldn't make its way around right leaning circles and through experience with the student base/staff I'd suspect this discussion to not have "freedom" at the focal point. Feel free to spread the word, I'll be posting this information on a few other outlets as well. That being said, I'm not sure if this is worthy of being stickied due to how far down the road it is or hopefully people post and keep it active. Also, I hope this isn't a double post.

Info in link and picture below but here's the quick rundown:

"Join experts from across the country, including Robert J. Cottrol, Adam Winkler, and Sally Yates to discuss Second Amendment rights, gun-related crime and enforcement, mass shootings, and mental health policy. (There is no charge to attend this public event, to be held in Emory Law's Tull Auditorium.)"

Emory Law Symposium - Exploring Gun Violence in Modern America

Having worked in epidemiology I can tell you this is already fundamentally flawed by its wording.

It will be a biased scientifically as it will in essence draw an already bonded correlation of gun deaths with guns - ( no further science needed) every gun death is caused by a gun - Duh!.  What is then done is fuzzy statistics (figures don't lie but liars figure) that then say via a linear regression show less guns = less gun deaths. and "Won't someone think of the children etc." and it appears so scientific.

What will be completely absent is an important element - those deaths and violent crimes prevented by the existence of firearms.  One cannot easily determine the effect of such "non events".  The presence of a gun literally is a deterrent by existing and never having to be used.  There are some people that won't engage of crime because of the risk of gun injury or death - therefore they avoid the choice to act.

Venezuela is a wonderful example of how crime escalated after guns were taken away - In fact it is the murder capital of the world and per capita more gun deaths occur - How can this be?  Its simple - take away the defense = creates an opportunity for criminals.  They can get illegal guns as they can get illegal drugs etc.  Only the innocent that have assets other than guns become targets of violence.

question from the audience “how many private guns have been added in the last 30 years in the US. What have crime rates done for the last 30 years? Doesn’t this show (using the same method in this study) that the more guns you add, the safer society becomes?”

If you want to get all mathy and technical, cite this:

https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

Folks, you can see from the list of panel members that they have all sides represented.  I expect it to be a vigorous and lively debate.

I'm genuinely surprised by the slated length and hope that it won't entirely be a group session of self affirmation. Emory certainly has a few law professors capable of objectivity and willing to have honest debates. However, I don't see anyone from the school on that list that I could knowingly expect that from.

You are being sarcastic, right?

nooooooooooo

No, I am not.  Research some of the names, if you do not know them already.

Just because it has the name "Emory" attached to it does not make it automatically bad.

When I was President of the Federalist Society there, we had several great debates with various sides of issues presented.  I have also been invited there later, as a lawyer, to debate a gun control topic with a law professor on the other side for a student audience.  You missed out.

I have done the same at other universities in Georgia.

I meant what I said.  It should be an interesting debate.