Harvard Study: WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE ?

[arnisador]

Yale didn't offer the JD until 1971.

Yup. Some schools offered to let older grads. refer to it as a J.D., if memory serves, because of complaints. He earned the two-year Bachelor of Laws degree common in most common-law countries but may have been granted permission from Yale to call it a JD.

When the lawyers chose to upgrade their credentials via the "professionalization" process that had turned bachelors degrees in medicine etc. into doctorates like the MD--you can still find just a few people who earned a BVM and became veterinarians or a BPM and became podiatrists, but not many--they chose to make it a 3-year J.D. that was intended to be the "scientific study of the law". You can see its legacy in the fact that for physicians, dentists, and lawyers, the next degree in sequence is a master's degree. You don't often see the medical versions but many JDs will get a LLM--Master of Laws, in thinks like tax law esp. After the JD and a LLM they can apply for a SJD (Doctor of Juridical Science) program, which is a research doctorate like the PhD. If you look at the Wikipedia article on the JD you'll see that it is explicitly not considered the equivalent of a research doctorate. It's in line with other 2-3 year masters degrees like the MPH, MFA, and until recently the MPT.

Anyway, this guy earned a bachelor's degree--probably two of them, actually--but not a doctorate, and certainly not a research doctorate. He has the qualifications necessary for writing on the law but wouldn't have had even the minimal research education that comes with a JD.

 

[arnisador]

Uh, what?
What are you picking on me for?

I wasn't--I was just referring to what you had quoted being wrong. It hyped the alleged qualifications of these men--wrong--and said it was a Harvard study--simply false--and misstated their conclusion by taking it from some random website, which is why I went to the journal and quoted the actual Conclusion section of their article in my reply, rather than the conclusion as filtered through the conservative/libertarian/they're-coming-to-get-my-guns mind. I was only pointing out that what you were responding to was nonsense and falsehoods.

It only required going to the actual article to see that these were not both PhDs and it wasn't a Harvard study (first page) and that their conclusion was waffling (last page before refs.). But the Breitbart-style reporting was being posted here again, and that's what I was deconstructing. Since it was apparently important enough that these were highly-qualified PhDs and no students were involved to shout it in the announcement, I assume the falsity of these will cause the credulous to reconsider and read the article that they are claiming supports their side. I know I'd be embarrassed to be so very wrong so very often.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Anyway, this guy earned a bachelor's degree--probably two of them, actually--but not a doctorate, and certainly not a research doctorate. He has the qualifications necessary for writing on the law but wouldn't have had even the minimal research education that comes with a JD.

Opinion. Speculation. Not fact.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I know I'd be embarrassed to be so very wrong so very often.

Ah, so you're finally admitting you've been repeatedly embarrassed by getting debunked regularly here. Good. Good. That's progress.

 

[granfire]

I wasn't--I was just referring to what you had quoted being wrong. It hyped the alleged qualifications of these men--wrong--and said it was a Harvard study--simply false--and misstated their conclusion by taking it from some random website, which is why I went to the journal and quoted the actual Conclusion section of their article in my reply, rather than the conclusion as filtered through the conservative/libertarian/they're-coming-to-get-my-guns mind. I was only pointing out that what you were responding to was nonsense and falsehoods.

It only required going to the actual article to see that these were not both PhDs and it wasn't a Harvard study (first page) and that their conclusion was waffling (last page before refs.). But the Breitbart-style reporting was being posted here again, and that's what I was deconstructing. Since it was apparently important enough that these were highly-qualified PhDs and no students were involved to shout it in the announcement, I assume the falsity of these will cause the credulous to reconsider and read the article that they are claiming supports their side. I know I'd be embarrassed to be so very wrong so very often.

I just said that stoner and PhD is not necessarily mutually exclusive.....

 

[arnisador]

I just said that stoner and PhD is not necessarily mutually exclusive.....

Well, no argument there! Heck, there are PhDs that don't believe in evolution--I work with one.

 

[Carol]

I found the differences in degrees (or lack therof) to be interesting! I thought seriously about becoming a lawyer myself -- I did well on the LSAT but not quite well enough for a good school to "show me the money". I decided I didn't love the law enough to go that far in to debt :lol:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/28/why-did-law-schools-switch-from-llbs-to-jds/

 

[arnisador]

I think NH still allowed one to become a lawyer by apprenticing for 7 or so years--no degree needed--as late as the 90s, but I'm not sure if it's still so. It would have been wildly impractical, but possible!

It used to be possible to still get a LL.B. in some LA colleges (because of the French influence on their civil laws), but again I'm not sure if that's still so. The trend in many places (Canada, Australia) is toward more schools offering a JD as a second degree, though the majority are still first-entry LLBs (you start law or med. school as a freshman, in essence).

But the point remains that if the PhD degree is so important to this article, as was claimed, then it's worth noting that JD isn't the same type of degree (a research doctorate) and the LLB isn't even close, and that anyone who had even glanced at the article would have seen that Kates identifies himself as having an LLB as his highest degree. That's a (second-entry, most likely) bachelor's degree.

 

[arnisador]

[h=1]PA Medical Society Says Gun Violence Is A Health Problem[/h]

The Pennsylvania Medical Society has joined the ranks of physician and scientist groups calling gun violence a public health problem.

The declaration came out of the Society’s annual meeting over the weekend.


Medical Society president Dr. Bruce MacLeod says gun violence should be studied the same way doctors study diabetes and heart disease.


“We really need to understand what we can do to mitigate it,” he said. “Is it the users? Is it the guns? Can you engineer guns to be safer? All of these are questions that should be studied.”


MacLeod says the Society hopes the CDC will begin funding research soon.


National Rifle Association (NRA) backed legislation has forbidden federally funded gun research since 1996.
[...]

McLeod says the lack of research makes it difficult to develop a prevention plan:


“We want to get data so we can understand it, because that’s the best way you can make the right decision.”


The Society represents 20,000 physicians and medical students statewide.

 

[billc]

Actually, criminals are a health problem...not the guns. Drunk drivers are a health problem, not the cars...

Keep in mind, gun violence is decreasing, not increasing...with no help from these doctors...

 

[Big Don]

PA Medical Society Says Gun Violence Is A Health Problem

The only cure is an injection of lead, at high speeds...