-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Feinstein to introduce AWB in January
- Thread starter nittany03
- Start date
Posted this in the Current News thread as well...certainly applicable to this discussion...bring your stats hat...it gets thick.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637##
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637##
Unfortunately, it is clear to me that anything John Lott puts his name on will automatically be dismissed by the pro gun control folks regardless of how scholarly, balanced, or quantitative.
Sadly, that's how ridiculous the whole thing has become…but I repeat myself. Emotion trumps factual and unemotional every time…lately.
Incredibly, today Americans think credible debate can be waged by non-partisans or neutral parties. To hell with facts and definitive statements publicly challanged by opposing facts. That much of the press holds itself out as neutral and unbiased and dominates debate gives them more influence than they deserve. If you hold a strong opinion it doesn't matter that the facts are on your side. A partisan, or advocate is considered untrustworthy, dishonest, ignorant, or closed minded, never to be rehabilitated or validated. It isn't unreasonable to consider a person's possible bias or ulterior motives. But suspicion and verification is one thing. That worthy advocates with the facts on their side should be dismissed as hacks and liars is more than unfortunate. America is getting to the point that it is unseemly to hold a strong opinion. Somehow, being wishy washy, uninformed, and vacillating has been elevated to enlightened, open minded, independent and honorable. Facts be damned! If what you promote is too hard, too inconvenient, too unpleasant, too difficult to understand, takes too long or isn't already a near majority view, you will be shouted down as extremist, unrealistic and closed minded to the enlightened who can always see both sides but never see the truth in facts or a solution.
As I have said repeatedly on this site before........John Lott relies on surveys and not facts for the bulk of his research. Big difference, at least in the real world. And when some of the figures he gets from those surveys are absurdly unrealistic in calls into question his conclusions.
Good post. Consider yourself untrustworthy, dishonest, ignorant, or closed minded, never to be rehabilitated or validated.
Better nowadays to be "compliant and reliant on others" for your safety and well being, not to mention all else that society now demands for the common weal.
I suppose there is a middle ground whereon most stand. The"neutrals" remain remarkably silent, although they probably cast the most votes…and hold the most sway. We need to spend less time convincing the other side (a fool's mission…), and more time convincing those in the middle. Dispassionate, consistent, thoughtful, and factual may yet win the day.
Since you're apt to reference the British crime rates for a counterpoint, how does John Lott's surveying differ from the British Crime Survey that they report their crime rates with? Both are surveys so both will have inherent inaccuracies.
I understand there are good surveys and bad surveys, accurate ones and inaccurate. But why the hate on surveys? Can't facts be derived from surveys? They should stand on their own to be criticized on their merits. Isn't the Census a survey that provides the factual basis for a shit load of domestic policy and spending?
If you read my post I specifically pointed out that I didn't use the British Crime Survey but reported crimes to police, the British link I used has both in it, just like the FBI's crime figures which use crimes reported to police and not the US's NCVS. I know my post was long but at least I left that part somewhat near the top.
If you read my post I specifically pointed out that I didn't use the British Crime Survey but reported crimes to police, the British link I used has both in it, just like the FBI's crime figures which use crimes reported to police and not the US's NCVS. I know my post was long but at least I left that part somewhat near the top.
Well, that's the rub, in previous posts (this is just one of several examples I found), you have in fact linked or referred to things that have directly used info from the British Crime Survey to make or back up your arguments.
I'm not trying to call you out as much as I'm trying to prove a point that surveys can and do provide good information. However, how the information is evaluated or interpreted is where discrepancies come into play.
Simply saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Which brings up an important question: What is the plural form of gander?
I don't particularly 'hate on surveys' but crime surveys in particular can be measured against factual crime and even medical data unlike many other surveys. Maybe a good comparison would be political polls where the survey data can be measured against the actual vote.
The problems highlighted by crime surveys is that apparently many people claim that something happened, self-defense with a weapon for example, that are completely unrealistic when compared to the actual crime data. In the school shooting thread I pointed out that one of the surveys people claimed to have shot criminals in self-defense at a rate that exceeds all people treated by gunshots across the country in hospitals. The people being treated by gunshots is a pretty reliable figure since hospitals are required by law to report such incidents to police and not many people, even criminals, can get away with an untreated gunshot. Not everyone ends up with just flesh wounds like in Hollywood.
The Census is a survey as well but the most comprehensive one we conduct in this country by far and that includes hundreds of thousands of in-person interviewers that ask detailed and straightforward questions. Pretty hard to get "Are you you male or female?" and where you live wrong. And when compared to the government's National Crime Victimization Survey the ones done by gun advocates are much more limited in their scope, scale and consistency (the NCVS is done annually). Finally there is credibility, and when one of the most prominent 'pro-gun' researchers gets caught using a fake on-line persona to trumpet his own work.......well, that is a credibility issue.