Diving In To Find The Pearls

So, after having spent time responding to other nonsense from the king of nonsense, I now turn back to his "plan" to see how far I can get for this installment.  I must first deal with a couple of statements that preceded his list of suggestions.  The first is this:

"They've lied, avoided, made excuses, but, obviously cannot refute the data, culled from experts on gun policy effectiveness and supported by Americans."

Unfortunately, there is no data presented whatsoever.  Nothing that ties any of the suggestions with any provable results...nor even implied results.  Note the following:

"For our effectiveness survey, we asked experts in gun policy to evaluate each idea on a scale of 1 to 10, according to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities."

Did you catch that?  "According to how effective they thought it would be in reducing fatalities."  Are the opinions of these alleged "experts" supposed to satisfy an obligation to provide "data"?  I suppose, since feo demanded Craig and I seek out the various bits of his plan to assemble it ourselves, we're to research who these "experts" are and then the various and sundry studies that somehow support the implementation of these many "effective" policies.  That's not how it works.  In my several posts dealing with feo's first listing of suggestions, I provided much more in the way of data, facts and evidence to show how impotent they are than the mere "thoughts" about probabilities of effectiveness.   It's very much the way leftists speak of the next version of a failed socialist idea...there's no evidence that suggests it could possibly work.  There's only their "opinion" or "thoughts" that it will.  Not good enough to warrant infringing upon a clearly stated Constitutional right.  Moving on...

"The key is that never have these policies been instituted in any one jurisdiction all at the same time. "

So what?  Are we to assume that ineffective policies work better when combined with other ineffective policies?  While I suppose that's possible for some policies, what does feo present to suggest it's at all possible with any of these?  While I wouldn't say feo's list contains absolutely no policies that should be implemented (assuming those I have in mind aren't already implemented most everywhere), most are clearly absurd for the purpose of preventing or reducing murders or suicides and thus, their addition to any plan won't increase the plan's effectiveness one iota.  I'll point out the absurd later on...

"Expectedly, the impact on gun violence of all of these 37 statistically effective policies would be impressive and save hundreds of thousands of live over a decade."

Oh look!  There's absurdity right there!  "Expectedly"?  Based on what?  This statement implies that ANY of the suggestions are "statistically effective", but no such stats are provided anywhere in feo's "plan".  Again, are we supposed to seek them out ourselves?  Is this how they taught students to put together and present a plan at the correspondence school from which feo got his diploma?  The above is  a wish and nothing more.

"For our measure of popularity, Morning Consult conducted an internet survey of 1,975 voters, who were asked whether they approved of the possible laws."

Absolutely useless for imposing an infringement on a Constitutional right.  If the majority of those voters approved of reinstating slavery....

This is what passes for "data"?

"Special thanks to the Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association for distributing the survey to their membership."

I like this part.  Those of us who actually read the article can see that the cops generally opposed most of these suggestions, particularly those that impacted the ability of the law abiding to possess and carry weapons.  Far more compelling than the imaginings of "current or retired academics".

Next time I will examine the actual suggestions themselves.