PDA

View Full Version : Question on Pro-2A Researchers and Peer-reviewed studies


Wildeman_13
01-04-2013, 1:48 PM
I have done some site searches and browsed through here specifically looking to see if this question has come up at all, and I am not seeing anything. So if this has been covered and I missed it, please direct me to the right place. Also, this is 2A related because of the nature of me trying to find Pro-2A research papers written by University level academics like those always sited by SacBee and other media sites.

During a FB discussion about gun violence in the US versus Australia, UK, et al a very liberal friend of mine kept pushing a "Peer Reviewed" study having to do with Stand Your Ground laws actually inciting people to gun violence in cases like bar fights and the like. My response was to point out counter statistics showing that states like Florida showed marked drops in almost all crime areas post SYG laws, and that the murder rate hadn't changed in the ways that the "peer reviewed" article said it did. She of course kept coming back to how it was a peer reviewed articles so it had to be true and when I called her on it, she called me on the science behind peer reviewed articles.

I am not educated in the peer review process. I do not know how it goes in details, only that person A writes a research paper. Person B in theory reads that paper and tried to replicate or verify the data used and the results. If everything checks out, they give a thumbs up. Additional Persons will also be asked to review in the same fashion. When I called into question the data sources used or the persons who conducted the peer review, she blew her lid and removed me from her FB friends.

So my question is sort of two fold:
First, are there any peer reviewed University/Academic level researchers out there doing Pro-2A studies using the same or similar data that is being used by the Anti-2A researchers? If so, can links be provided?

Second, how far off base am I in the peer review process when verifying a research paper? I realize that bias is a fact of life, but how does one ensure that they are getting a truly peer reviewed research paper and as unbiased a review as possible? Do they even try?

Kukuforguns
01-04-2013, 2:12 PM
John Lott is a professor and author of peer-reviewed research that generally supports the conclusion that more guns result in less crime. His research is strong enough that even critics concede that there is little validity to the belief that the proliferation of concealed carry has led to blood running in the streets. In short, most serious academics believe, in some part due to Lott's research, that the proliferation of concealed carry has not increased violent crime.

"Peer review" is a rather nebulous concept. For purposes of academic writing, it generally means that another academic with expertise in the relevant field reviewed an article before the article was published. The reviewer isn't expected to be convinced that the article's conclusions are correct, but rather that the research was properly conducted.

Kukuforguns
01-04-2013, 2:26 PM
Lott's original paper on this subject is:
John R. Lott and David B. Mustard, 'Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns'. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26 (1997), pp. 1-68.

He expanded his research into a book called "More Guns Less Crime" that is now in its third edition (http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=pd_sim_b_1#sf).

An article concluding that Lott's research has convinced virtually all scholars that that concealed carry does not substantially increase violent crime:
Glenn, David (May 9, 2003). "'More Guns, Less Crime' Thesis Rests on a Flawed Statistical Design, Scholars Argue". The Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (35) ("Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime.").

Wildeman_13
01-04-2013, 2:43 PM
Thanks for the info. Reading your post, I have heard of Lott and will do some more research myself on his writings and research

"Peer review" is a rather nebulous concept. For purposes of academic writing, it generally means that another academic with expertise in the relevant field reviewed an article before the article was published. The reviewer isn't expected to be convinced that the article's conclusions are correct, but rather that the research was properly conducted.
So I was basically correct in that a Peer Reviewed paper can still be fundamentally flawed or incorrect but written well enough to support its conclusions such that the reviewer can pass it as good research.

Mitch
01-04-2013, 3:27 PM
John Lott has baggage.

Gary Kleck is a better example, all the more because (if I am not mistaken), his research began as an attempt to prove guns cause problems, but the facts proved precisely the opposite. He was man enough to report the results.

NoJoke
01-04-2013, 3:59 PM
a very liberal friend of mine kept pushing a "Peer Reviewed" study having to do with Stand Your Ground laws actually inciting people to gun violence in cases like bar fights and the like. My response was to point out counter statistics showing that states like Florida showed marked drops in almost all crime areas post SYG laws, and that the murder rate hadn't changed in the ways that the "peer reviewed" article said it did. She of course kept coming back to how it was a peer reviewed articles so it had to be true and when I called her on it, she called me on the science behind peer reviewed articles.

I am not educated in the peer review process.

I'm no expert, but while in school peer reviewed stuff was preferred when looking for an opinion since it is less biased when compared to a company paid for study (if we were talking about products). Basically, you have a panel of individuals who are experts in whatever field and state their research opinions - which again, is a defined process.

The kicker here for the 2a is that it's a topic that isn't discussed at the college level and most, if not all, colleges are anti-2a/gun. So, in as much as your friend is correct in that the peer review article would be nice to have - I would doubt an unbiased pro-2a - or at least potentially neutral - school backed research exist.

You might try extremely conservative schools in conservative states as a starting point - maybe a conservative law school on constitutionality?

Basically, take the flip side of any radicle viewpoint - and try to dig up peer reviewed opinions (truly conservative) and you'll probably come up short.

Also, the peer reviewed articles are usually limited to "members only". For medical peer reviewed articles I would need to be a part of "med-line" - which I could access through my school's library.

Tarn_Helm
01-04-2013, 4:48 PM
I have done some site searches and browsed through here specifically looking to see if this question has come up at all, and I am not seeing anything. So if this has been covered and I missed it, please direct me to the right place. Also, this is 2A related because of the nature of me trying to find Pro-2A research papers written by University level academics like those always sited by SacBee and other media sites.

During a FB discussion about gun violence in the US versus Australia, UK, et al a very liberal friend of mine kept pushing a "Peer Reviewed" study having to do with Stand Your Ground laws actually inciting people to gun violence in cases like bar fights and the like. My response was to point out counter statistics showing that states like Florida showed marked drops in almost all crime areas post SYG laws, and that the murder rate hadn't changed in the ways that the "peer reviewed" article said it did. She of course kept coming back to how it was a peer reviewed articles so it had to be true and when I called her on it, she called me on the science behind peer reviewed articles.

I am not educated in the peer review process. I do not know how it goes in details, only that person A writes a research paper. Person B in theory reads that paper and tried to replicate or verify the data used and the results. If everything checks out, they give a thumbs up. Additional Persons will also be asked to review in the same fashion. When I called into question the data sources used or the persons who conducted the peer review, she blew her lid and removed me from her FB friends.

So my question is sort of two fold:
First, are there any peer reviewed University/Academic level researchers out there doing Pro-2A studies using the same or similar data that is being used by the Anti-2A researchers? If so, can links be provided?

Second, how far off base am I in the peer review process when verifying a research paper? I realize that bias is a fact of life, but how does one ensure that they are getting a truly peer reviewed research paper and as unbiased a review as possible? Do they even try?

Look up:

Gary Kleck
Don B. Kates
John Lott
Howard Nemerov

Peer-reviewed journal articles are supposedly the gold standard.

But an article repeatedly cited by the Anti-Gun crowd is the Kellerman article, a fraud that was debunked years ago--but still gets cited again and again.

Keep your research going.

There is a lot to learn.

I don't have a ready-made come back for, but ask your friend whether she has personally verified the methodology and experimental design of the articles she cites.

Ask her if she has determined whether the articles have been debunked.

Check this out: Disarming the Data Doctors: How to Debunk the "Public Health"
Basis for "Gun Control" by Richard W. Stevens. (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/doctors-epidemic.htm)

And this: http://www.guncite.com/

The fraud against the Second Amendment has been going on for years.

It started in the courts and is well documented.

A historian recently lied at length about the Second Amendment.

He got debunked AND FIRED.

Read the whole story:

Bellesiles: The historian who can't shoot straight? (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles.html)

More Bellesiles: "Cite Correction" (http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-more-bellesiles.html)

Keep up your research.

There is a lot to learn.

And pass it on!
:cool:

Wildeman_13
01-04-2013, 5:03 PM
Thanks for all the info! It will help me better convey the facts without letting anyone resort to my lack of knowledge on the subject being their "I Win" card.