Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/11/2001 4:41:40 AM EDT
Cut and paste into your browser: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/254/nation/New_doubts_about_gun_historian+.shtml New doubts about gun historian Research to receive hard critique today By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 9/11/2001 hen Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles published his sweeping historical study of guns in Colonial America last fall, the reaction was electric. His thesis that guns were relatively rare in Colonial households, and that the American ''gun culture'' didn't take hold until long after the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment's ''right to bear arms,'' was immediately hailed by gun control advocates and by a host of historians impressed by his bold rewriting of conventional wisdom. But even as publication of ''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' won Bellesiles plaudits - and, in April, Columbia University's prestigious Bancroft Prize for historical excellence - some of his academic doubters were poring over evidence Bellesiles cited and finding multiple instances in which he seems to have misused historical records. Today, at Harvard Law School, Bellesiles's most adamant critic, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren, plans to detail evidence that Bellesiles may have stretched or distorted the historical record in trying to prove his claim. The Boston Globe has reviewed substantial portions of records Lindgren will cite: 18th-century probate records in Vermont and Rhode Island. The Globe has also checked into Bellesiles's claim to have studied certain records in San Francisco, records county officials say were destroyed by fire in 1906. In each case, the records appear to support Lindgren's accusation and suggest a disturbing pattern of misuse of data by Bellesiles in his book and in an article defending his thesis which he published on his Web site. (snip)
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 12:29:33 PM EDT
Is this the guy who claimed his research papers wer "destroyed" when a pipe broke in his building? The pipe break was true but I saw no evidence that any water even got in his office. It's interesting that the Globe wasn't harder on him about having supposedly reviewed records in San Francisco that were only destroyed back in 1906. This guy sure seems to have problems with the "factual" concept, especially as applied to records and destruction thereof (or not).
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 12:40:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/17/2001 12:35:08 PM EDT by Skibane]
Interesting side note: In his dissenting opinion on the just-released Emerson case, Judge Parker cited Bellesiles' work. "Oh, he made everything up? Well, I wasn't aware of it at the time I wrote my opinion, and by the way, [b]DON'T BE CONFUSING ME WITH PESKY LITTLE DETAILS LIKE THE FACTS!!!"[/b]
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 7:49:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/17/2001 7:46:45 PM EDT by prk]
Originally Posted By Skibane: Interesting side note: In his dissenting opinion on the just-released Emerson case, Judge Parker cited Bellesiles' work. "Oh, he made everything up? Well, I wasn't aware of it at the time I wrote my opinion, and by the way, [b]DON'T BE CONFUSING ME WITH PESKY LITTLE DETAILS LIKE THE FACTS!!!"[/b]
View Quote
Maybe the Judge would like to change HIS bullshit story. Oh yeah, this also shows us how little "peer reviewed" can mean. You all caught the fact that his made-up research won him an award from Columbia University, right?
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:06:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:10:46 PM EDT
The Judge quoted it because he is an idiot. But, interestingly the Prosecution submitted Bellisle's Book as evidence in U.S. vs. Emerson. I wonder if this will help in a future appeal to know that the Prosecution's evidence was false.
Link Posted: 10/17/2001 8:18:31 PM EDT
The book being shown as false could cause a mistrial or motion to reconsider......could have the same court overturn it.
Top Top