PDA

View Full Version : Idiotic new study


jeffm223
10-06-2009, 3:49 PM
From the bowels of AlterNet falls this nugget:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

More junk science FTW!

Glock22Fan
10-06-2009, 3:55 PM
A new study estimates that people with a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

I don't think that this is the whole story, as usual. That website is full of junk about guns.

Reducing Gun Violence By Addressing Heavy Drinking And Off-premise Alcohol Outlets (Mar. 10, 2009) — New research has found that heavy drinking and being near off-premise alcohol outlets, such as take-out establishments and delis, can increase the risk of gun violence. Reducing the density of ... > read more

Gun Shows Do Not Increase Homicides Or Suicides, Study Finds (Oct. 6, 2008) — A new study finds no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun-related homicides or ... > read more

Regulation And Oversight Of Gun Sales Reduces Trafficking To Criminals, Study Finds (July 7, 2009) — Comprehensive regulation of gun sellers appears to reduce the trafficking of guns to criminals, according to a new study. The study is the first to incorporate measures of the enforcement of gun sale ... > read more

States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates (Jan. 14, 2007) — In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm owenrship and state level rates of homicide, the Harvard Injury Control Research ... > read more

One (half) common sense one (I guess heavy drinking does lead to more violence, with or without guns but I doubt that being near a deli is a risk factor).

The authors suggest that reducing the density of off-premise alcohol outlets and better training servers in these outlets may help to reduce gun violence.

Didn't we try reducing them (to zero) in during prohibition?



Two we just plain know is wrong and one we know is just plain right

woodsman
10-06-2009, 3:58 PM
Talk about skewing information.

dantodd
10-06-2009, 4:00 PM
Someone on a mailing list I sub to point to Reason.com's take on this:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-skydivers-would-be-better

thomashoward
10-06-2009, 4:03 PM
Proves liars figure and figures lie

Glock22Fan
10-06-2009, 4:15 PM
Someone on a mailing list I sub to point to Reason.com's take on this:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-skydivers-would-be-better

Great (rebuttal) article, fantastic comments.

This is like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off unemcumbered by safety equipment designed to slow their descent.

soundwave
10-06-2009, 5:06 PM
Well if Science Daily says it's true, that's good enough for me.

Getting rid of all my guns as I do not want to get shot.

HowardW56
10-06-2009, 5:23 PM
From the bowels of AlterNet falls this nugget:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

More junk science FTW!

Did you notice where the study came from....

Adapted from materials provided by Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health (http://www.jhsph.edu/).

ANd it was funded by....

The research was supported by grants from The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and The Joyce Foundation


Would you expect any other result?

M. Sage
10-06-2009, 5:25 PM
Yeah, if people are carrying crap as loosey-goosey as that guy's Beretta in the photo, it's no wonder people are getting shot. You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if you were standing inside it with that pistol! Sheesh.

halifax
10-06-2009, 6:27 PM
The rampant intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors should be enough to get their degrees revoked. :mad:

HowardW56
10-06-2009, 7:18 PM
The rampant intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors should be enough to get their degrees revoked. :mad:


Why bother, Bloomberg will just buy them new ones...

zcrehan
10-06-2009, 8:11 PM
Here is the best rebuttal that I have seen, with math and methodology.

http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/

gazzavc
10-06-2009, 9:45 PM
Being near a deli leads to incresed gun violence ??? WTF Is there going to be a riot over the chopped liver ?? Perhaps the corned beef on rye was a little too greasy ?? Is that any reason for gun violence ??

Whoever dreams up this rubbish needs to take a serious reality check........

JTecalo
10-06-2009, 9:57 PM
A Bad Guy with a gun may be 4.5 time more likely to get shot if he assaults an armed citizen.

I think that's what they meant

Mssr. Eleganté
10-06-2009, 11:12 PM
That study reminded me of the fact that people who arrive at the hospital via ambulance are 80 times more likely to die there than people who arrive at the hospital in their own cars. So if any of you have life threatening injuries, be sure to insist on driving yourself to the hospital. Also, be sure to wear a white coat. People wearing white coats while inside hospitals are 99.95 percent less likely to die there compared to people who aren't wearing white coats. :p

Mitch
10-07-2009, 6:43 AM
The rampant intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors should be enough to get their degrees revoked. :mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

B Strong
10-07-2009, 6:46 AM
Flat out crap science.

Kid Stanislaus
10-07-2009, 7:50 AM
Yeah, if people are carrying crap as loosey-goosey as that guy's Beretta in the photo, it's no wonder people are getting shot. You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if you were standing inside it with that pistol! Sheesh.

I saw that, the fit of the barrel to the slide is practically non-existent!

7x57
10-07-2009, 8:11 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

Bellesiles is a near-Biblical example of how dishonesty and fraud can destroy the very position you're trying to promote. Lucky for us the smell is so bad that I suspect nobody will touch his thesis again for any reason. We'd have to spend a lot longer dealing with it if he'd been a competent liar. As it is, he seems to have just made stuff up without any thought to whether it could be disproved easily or not.

Of course, more competent liars probably prefer to pick a lie that has a bit more of an element of truth to work with. :D

7x57

ETD1010
10-07-2009, 8:49 AM
Lets not forget about cars. Those with cars are 99% more likely to be in a car accident than those who walk. They may be struck by a car, but you can only be in car accident if you're in a car. And something like 33% of a person's first car crash is the most severe. No more cars!

jeffm223
10-07-2009, 8:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

Was this guy involved with the research for this article? I didn't see his name anywhere.

chaled
10-07-2009, 9:24 AM
I read half and had to stop before I puked. The article is basically saying it's pointless to try to defend yourself. Seems like a lot of "studies" and "finds" are aimed to turn common sense truths into politically motivated lies.

This just in:A new study shows drinking more than two glasses of WATER daily may increase your risk of **fill in the blank**

Mitch
10-07-2009, 9:31 AM
Was this guy involved with the research for this article? I didn't see his name anywhere.

No, he's just an example of how not only will academics simply lie to press their agendas, but their colleagues will happily go along with the lie, if they feel the same way.

It wasn't Bellesiles' thesis that surprised me, after all, all kinds of nonsense gets published as original research; it was the large number of academics who welcomed his research and showered him with plaudits, people who really should have known better.

After all, how many American historians have never read Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography? In it, Franklin describes how he set up the Pennsylvania Militia during the French and Indian War, and how Militia members were obliged and expected to have their own arms.

Anyone who ever read the Autobiography would understand instantly that Bellesiles' thesis was horse****.

jeffm223
10-07-2009, 4:30 PM
No, he's just an example of how not only will academics simply lie to press their agendas, but their colleagues will happily go along with the lie, if they feel the same way.

Funny you should mention that, as they spent a lot of print in the Alternet source article's comments trashing the Lott studies. I guess when it's their junk science it's one thing...........

Mitch
10-08-2009, 6:24 AM
Funny you should mention that, as they spent a lot of print in the Alternet source article's comments trashing the Lott studies. I guess when it's their junk science it's one thing...........

Lott is controversial. Like Bellesiles, he came at his research with an agenda. His methods are indeed open to criticism. In fact, James Lindgren, the Northwestern University scholar who was the first to publicly gut Bellesiles and his methods, found similar problems with Lott's work (http://slate.msn.com/id/2078084/). It doesn't help Lott that he has been caught using handpuppets on Internet forums and blogs.

One thing that is clear from Lott, though, is that while you can dispute his numbers with regard to self-defense uses of firearms, what is indisputable is that relaxation of concealed carry and other firearms laws does not result in more violent crime, contrary to the continuous grabber mantra.

Gary Kleck, to name one example, is a lot harder to shoot down, since he began his research hoping to prove the opposite of what he eventually learned. Once he did the numbers, he saw the light.