1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Gun Control (NIU)

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by AbeBeta, Feb 17, 2008.

  1. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,766 Messages
    1,657 Likes Received
    The whole rationale behind going to the 5.56 was weight. Later on a claim was made that wounding the enemy was better since it forced them to allocate more resources to take care of the wounded. That was ALWAYS a bogus claim since who of the enemies we have fought since then gave a damn about their wounded?
  2. Hostile

    Hostile Tacos are a good investment Zone Supporter

    118,907 Messages
    2,728 Likes Received
    The M16 I shot wasn't the A2. So I have no basis of comparison but I agree on the round being a factor in why the AK47 is better.
  3. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,557 Messages
    984 Likes Received
    Here's a bit more for you.

    A 2005 meta-analysis -- now a meta analysis is a study that takes in data from all relevant analyses (generally those published in peer-reviewed outlets) -- addressed the RTC issue.

    Their conclusions -- again, these provide a summary and statistical review of the all previous large scale studies using multiple means of analysis (cross-sectional, longitudinal, etc.) on these issues were....

    a) Underreporting was prevalent -- references to other work by Maltz and Targonski (2002) notes that "The crime rates of a great many counties have been underestimated, due to the exclusion of large fractions of their populations from contributing. Moreover, counties in those states with the most coverage gaps have laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons."

    b) and "The effects of shall issue laws on homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and homicide of police is not sufficient to determine the effectiveness of these laws in reducing the rate of these crimes"

    -- That underreporting problem is pretty damaging to the "analysis" you presented as it means that agencies that failed to complete their Uniform Crime Reports (UCR -- on which your analysis is based) - tended to be from counties in states that were RTC states.


    -- also please note that I DID provide you with several references and summaries of articles that make similar points earlier, but just like the "analysis" you present ignores factors that raise or lower crime rates that have nothing to do with RTC laws -- you seem to have ignored those works as well.

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine
    Volume 28, Issue 2, Supplement 1, February 2005, Pages 40-71
    Firearms laws and the reduction of violence A systematic review

    Robert A. Hahn PhD, MPHa, et al. Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Oleg Bilukha MD, PhDa, Alex Crosby MD, MPHb, Mindy T. Fullilove MDc, Akiva Liberman PhDd, Eve Moscicki ScD, MPHe, Susan Snyder PhDa, Farris Tuma ScDe, Peter A. Briss MD, MPHa and Task Force on Community Preventive Services Epidemiology Program Office , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    bNational Center for Injury Prevention and Control , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, cDepartment of Psychiatry and Public Health, Columbia University , New York, New York, dNational Institute of Justice , Washington, DC, eNational Institute of Mental Health , Bethesda, Maryland
  4. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    61,111 Messages
    4,438 Likes Received
    Yep...I have talked to many vets and they said the only good thing about the switch to the m16 was the weight issue. Everyone said it was less accurate, prone to jamming and was an overall piece of crap.
  5. sacase

    sacase Well-Known Member

    4,292 Messages
    75 Likes Received
    The A1 was next to useless. Automatic fire had no point. I remember seeing a drill sergeat take an A1 and put it in his crotch and fire it on auto....didn't bother him since the M16 kicks up not back.
  6. Hostile

    Hostile Tacos are a good investment Zone Supporter

    118,907 Messages
    2,728 Likes Received
    That's what I was saying about it climbs. Point it at the feet and it will climb to the head.
  7. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,278 Messages
    1,297 Likes Received
    some day this year i'll tell you how my XD9 shoots. : )
  8. Hostile

    Hostile Tacos are a good investment Zone Supporter

    118,907 Messages
    2,728 Likes Received
    Please do because I may want one of those. Calico posted about them last year and I'm still intrigued.
  9. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,278 Messages
    1,297 Likes Received
    it's got a LOT of safety features. metal marker in back to let you know a bullet is chambered, grip on back that has to be down to fire - in all it made me feel comfortable buying a gun. now to feel comfortble firing it...
  10. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,133 Messages
    2,331 Likes Received
    It's painfully clear I misunderstand your pleas to discuss like an "adult." I assumed you would include intellectual honesty as a necessary component of any such discussion. Clearly, I gave you "too much credit.";)

    Your contention about my lack of forthcomingness is completely wrong. I've provided you with authors, articles, graphs, charts, and links where applicable. I don't always have a link because I'm using books at my house. I've even provided you with the location of the source material that those books were using.

    The only legitimate complaint that anyone could possible levy against me is that I'm not bibliographizing my sources in accordance with academic standards--a practice that I've yet to see from you.

    Your argument here is only relevant if I was arguing in support of Professor Lotts's more guns, less crime thesis.

    I'm not.

    As I've stated twice now, I'm presenting this data solely for purposes of showing the complete absence of correllation between increased gun regulation and lower crime rate, anywhere. There's simply no substantive evidence that gun control reduces crime. The inverse is actually more common.

    In fact, it seems this lack of evidence has forced anti-gun advocates into an almost completely defensive position. Their primary tactic at this point is finding flaws in their opposition's research solely because the evidence for their own position is so scarce.

    Consider the study you've posted:

    Case in point: This study disproves nothing, nor does it corroborate the position that gun laws reduce crime. It merely exposes possible flaws in the research of Second Amendment advocates.

    No statistical study is perfect or without flaws, and any statistician will concede as much.

    For instance, your above study seems to ignore that underreporting and misreporting of crime is fairly common in big cities, regardles of their gun laws. As we've already established, Washington DC possesses some of the most strigent gun laws in the United States. It also has an established history of underreporting its crime.

    According to the Washington Post, the Washington DC police is still sorting through thousand of crimes that were went missclassified or completely uncounted. When audit was conducted to correct these problem, officials discovered a 9 percent increase in violent crime when crime was originally thought to be dropping.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102648.html


    The 50,000 population classification is merely a starting point. In fact, if you had read the article, you would've seen that Nemerov evaluates metropolitcan crime rates based on a far more graduated population classifcation, starting with cities of populations over 1 million:

    Table 1 – Violent Crime Rates, 2005
    City Size Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault
    Over 1M 827.9 11.1 32.2 355.9 428.7
    500k-1M990.2 13.9 45.4 367.6 563.3
    250k-500k1015.0 12.9 53.4 370.3 578.4
    100k-250k615.1 8.2 38.8 209.0 359.1
    75k-100k525.1 6.0 36.9 162.3 319.9
    50k-75k443.2 4.1 32.8 134.4 271.8
    25k-50k373.4 3.6 32.5 102.6 234.7
    10k-25k306.0 2.7 28.8 71.7 202.9
    5k-10k313.6 2.5 28.8 52.7 229.6
    2500-5k289.6 2.5 26.0 39.4 221.7
    1k-2500296.4 2.2 22.9 30.0 241.3
    Under 1k355.9 2.5 22.6 59.6 271.2[U.S.]469.2 5.6 31.7 140.7 291.1

    Nemerov rightfully concludes that population is a far greater determinent in a city's crime rate than gun laws.

    http://newsbusters.org/node/9140



    I'm not getting puffy about anything.:D

    I'm merely stating that many of your concerns have already been addressed by the articles and sources I've provided. You're either overlooking or ignoring it.

    Speaking of "puffy," this is an interesting command from someone who rarely supports any of his arguments.;)


    It's quite clearly that both studies have their flaws despite your claims of "finer grained analyses."

    You contradict yourself. On one hand, you claim that my sources are presenting the FBI data in too simplistic a manner without detailed analysis. Now, you claim that the analysis has nothing to do with the FBI's raw data.

    You can't have it both ways.:)

    In the book Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man (a title that parodies one of Moore's works), David Hardy and Jason Clarke point out that many anti-gun advocates who rely on information from heath centers (especially the Center for Disease Control) make the mistake of including all gun-related fatalities.

    For instance, in Bowling for Columbine, Moore states that the United States averages 11,127 gun homicides in 1999. However, the FBI's number was 8,000. Moore number is only applicable if we include gun deaths resulting from police and self-defense shootings.
  11. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,557 Messages
    984 Likes Received
    I cited sources several times and at the very least attributed information to the authors


    If that is the case then you are barking up the wrong tree with your focus on RTC vs. Non-RTC states. Right to carry does not necessarily mean a lack of gun regulation -- for example PA is ranked right below IL by the Brady Campaign's state report card regarding restrictiveness despite being an RTC state while IL is not. There are far more control issues than RTC


    When the "research" you post is from a conservative web site without peer-review or actual science behind it, then it is important to critique otherwise the ignorant will reference it as if it were fact. Real research appears in peer-reviewed journals.


    If you actually read the study, you'll find the primary conclusions are a call for more research. A meta-analysis, as a study that aggregates across completed studies, however provides far stronger evidence than a single study and a peer-reviewed article of this nature beats the tar out of a column on a conservative web site.



    Actually, the other study reference I posted notes that under reporting is FAR more prevalent in the RTC states. You can claim all you want that DC has under reporting but again, real research shows that on the whole the RTC states are more likely to under report.

    Again, you cherry pick rather than examining National studies that address and compare under reporting in all states

    No, I said the analysis is BASED on the FBIs raw data but that you presented the information as if the FBI had conducted the primary analysis comparing the RTC and non-RTC state which it did not. Any schmuck can get those data -- they are publicly available. Don't try to deflect the argument.


    In short, you presented RTC data based on a conservative web site writer's analyses and suggested that they showed RTC reduced crime. Of course, now you say that wasn't what you were saying at all. You equate right to carry with "non-regulation" whereas that is not the case at all. Many RTC states actually have relatively strong regulation. You claim now that this means there is no evidence that ANY regulation affects crime -- of course, you ignore the research showing that the FBI stats you cling to represent under reporting that systematically biases results toward showing lower rates of crime in RTC areas.
  12. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,278 Messages
    1,297 Likes Received
    i don't think you can make a post like that and end it with "in short". : )
  13. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,133 Messages
    2,331 Likes Received
    So I examined this Brady Campaign state report card, and lo and behold, I discover that it largely corroborates my position here.

    Currently, only 10 states deny right-to-carry permits to law abiding citizens: California, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. Every other state is a shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC) state.

    Now, when we examine your Brady Campaign state report card, we discover that 8 of the 10 non-ROTC states listed above are ranked in the Brady top 10: California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Illinois. All but two non-RTC state rank in the top 10, and not a single non-RTC state is ranked in the bottom half.

    The Brady state report card--your own source--reveals that non-RTC states tend to have more stringent gun regulation than RTC states; therefore, according to your own source, the RTC vs non-RTC comparison is perfectly valid for purposes of my comparison.

    Your focus here on Pennsylvania and Illinois is the very defininion of cherry picking. You're completely ignoring the implications of the placement of other 48 states.

    This statement is completely false. I've posted only one link to a conservative publication. Every other link has been to the FBI crime data webpage, a website that presented both sides of the gun debate, or to the Washington Post.

    And when I used the Nemerov article, I also provided a link to his source data at the FBI website. You're certainly welcome to compare Nemerov's work against the FBI crime data, and explain how and where the two conflict. Until then, all you have is conjecture, unfounded accusation, and appeals to faulty reporting that may or may not exist.

    I did no such thing. I presented the Nemerov article and its corroborating evidence as soon I used them.

    If anyone is engaging in deflection here, you are. It's been 22 pages, and you have yet to produce any substantive argument, evidence, or analyses suggesting that gun control actually reduces crime.

    Incorrect.

    I asserted that right-to-carry states generally have "less regulation" than non-RTC states. And your source above (the Brady rankings) seems to support that assertion. I said nothing about "non-regulation."

    And I have addressed your meta-analysis, and nothing has changed since then. It still has very little bearing on my central argument. Judging from what you've provided, your meta-analysis has two implications:

    1) RTC states tend to underreport their crime. (Of course, historically, all major cities underreport their crime, even those without right-to-carry laws such as Washington DC, hence my reason for posting the Washington Post article. Consequently, I'm forced to wonder if your meta-study isn't subject to the same criticism you levied against Professor Lotts's study: a failure to consider populational differences between different regions. If New York City and Washington DC underreport their crime, the consequences are far worse than if the states of Montana and Idaho had underreported their crime.)

    2) More analysis is needed.

    Even if both points are completely true, my underlying premise remains unscathed; there is still no substantive evidence that gun control reduces violent crime. Your study doesn't even disprove the notion that more guns equal less crime.

    In short, after 22 pages, you have to yet provide any evidence that gun control actually reduces crime. We can safely assume even the biggest "schmucks" among us have stopped holding their breath.:D
  14. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,766 Messages
    1,657 Likes Received
    Gun Control Is Hitting The Target.
  15. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,557 Messages
    984 Likes Received
    You miss the point -- non RTC does not mean strong gun laws -- it tends to but breaking states down that way is far too simplistic as it leaves out 100s of other factors with stringency of other laws being only part of it.

    The cherry-picking comment is also not relevant as it shows there is a huge state with a relatively low crime rate. Is this an RTC result or is it because of other strong laws that influences your data far more than little states with weak laws? Your analysis is far too quick to attribute PAs low rates to RTC.

    The Post article discusses reporting in DC, not throughout the nation, you use that to make broad claims that are untrue about reporting.


    First, the FBI is not providing analysis relevant to your argument - Nemerov is the one who used those data to perform an analysis. The FBI provides the RAW data. Nemerov has a thesis and a test of the thesis. You continually misrepresent my claim about the FBI data – I suspect this is intentional as you can’t be dumb enough to not understand the distinction I’ve noted above. Nemerov is making an analysis BASED on the FBI data.

    Within Nemerov’s thesis there are several unexplained aspects of his methodology. First, he defines RTC in a specific manner – this may seem like a cut and dry issue but the fact is that even the published studies on RTC differ in terms of what they consider to be RTC and what they don’t – in fact an argument over whether a state should or shouldn’t be included as RTC was one of the major issues with Lott vs. others. Without that information it is nearly impossible to evaluate Nemerov’s claim. Good research describes how these definitions are constructed and what states fall in those categories. Perhaps Nemerov anticipated that others would try to reanalyze his data – and that is why key pieces of information about the methods are not present – so that those who critique it have to listen to BS claims of ‘unfounded’ accusations. Let me make this even more clear – without the information that Nemerov fails to provide there is no way to redo his analysis. Further doing an appropriate analyses of these data is not something that is accomplished via simple spreadsheet summaries. It is something that requires the level of detail found in a peer-reviewed research article. Of course, that is why Nemerov chooses to write for a conservative web site and not for peer-reviewed outlets where his work would receive adequate scrutiny.

    Second, and a bit more disconcerting is the failure to note how the data are weighted. I suspect strongly that Nemerov gives each state an equal weight in the analysis (i.e., like in the Senate) rather than weighting by population (i.e., like in the house of reps).

    Finally, is Nemerov’s reliance on simple comparisons of percentages across states. Even if the approach were perfect, he would still be engaging in a huge error. That is failing to take into account margin of error. Go back and look at your intro stats notes. When asking if two groups differ do you a) simply look at the %s in each group or b) perform some form of significance tests to address whether the observed differences are not likely to occur by chance. I think you know the answer but again purposely ignore it.



    And you fail to show that legitimate gun control does not reduce crime.


    Historically you say all major cities underreport their crime – of course that isn’t what the research says. You want to paint the story as one of harried big city cops who can’t keep up with their reports because the bodies are piling up. When the true story is more like Andy Griffith is making his UCR filings a low priority and Barney Fife still can’t work the computer to make the report.

    As the meta analysis focused on critiques of the Lott study and excluded Lott from several analyses because of those very issues, I’d say that no, they did not fail to consider those issues. I think if you knew what a meta analysis was you wouldn’t be making this silly claim.


    And after 22 pages the point the you have failed to address was my initial point – that we need STRONGER controls that integrate better education, stronger background checks, and longer waiting periods. Your central argument is that there is no evidence that control works. That is correct in the sense that there is no evidence that the minuscule levels of control found in the U.S. currently work. You point several times to the Brady Initiative data – but what you don’t mention is that even the best states have mediocre reports, suggesting that better control is necessary. The present comparisons do nothing but show that weak controls don’t do much and that the handful of state who have more control actually don’t have particularly restrictive laws.

    Since you continue to misrepresent my stance here it is from pages 1 and 2.

    There you go – call me if you want another methodology/statistics lesson. The next one isn't free.
  16. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,133 Messages
    2,331 Likes Received
    The Brady rankings (a source that YOU PROVIDED) conflicts with your above assessment. They suggest that non-RTC states tend to have stronger firearm regulations than RTC states.

    Your personal opinion on the strength of non-RTC state firearm laws is irrelevent in the context of our discussion. As someone with a background in statistics, you should know that studies based on comparisons are entirely relative. And according to the Brady rankings, non-RTC states have relatively stonger gun laws.

    If the Brady rankings are indeed too simplistic, you should never have used them in the first place. As I peruse my old statistics notes (by your request), I can't find anything stating that a researcher can use source material only where it benefits him and then arbitrarily dismiss it where it begins contradicting him.

    Once again, you can't have it both ways.

    Now, if you wish to retract this source, be my guest.

    Here's the terminal flaw in this argument: So much of it is predicated on the existence of hypothetical crime-causing/crime-reducing factors that may go unanalyzed. Although it's highly possible such factors exist, you have yet to qualify or define them in any substantive way. And there's absolultely no indication anywhere that these factors would alter the implications of the FBI crime data or challenge my central premise concerning the lack of correlation between crime reduction and gun control.

    In effect, all your pleas for greater complexity in statistical analysis are worthless if you produce no additional crime-causing/crim-reducing factors to test.

    And the cherry picking comment is highly relevant. You reached a conclusion based on the placement of two states while completely ignoring the placement of the other 48 states, which largely contradicted your conclusion.



    And I find it difficult to believe your reading comprehension is this porous. Each time I've used information, stats, or graphs from the Nemerov article, I've attributed it directly to Nemerov. Linked below is the very post in which I pull a graph Nemerov article. If you click it, you'll see that I attribute the graph to Nemerov and provide links to both his article and his source data from the FBI.

    http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1961756&postcount=279

    You're manufacturing a problem where there simply isn't one.

    Over the course of their research, statisticians are often required to create and define their own categories and terms in order to present their findings in a meaningful way. This is a vital part of statistics.

    You infer that Nemerov fails to adequately and clearly define his meaning of RTC state. This simply isn't true. If you had actually read the article, you would know that Nemerov provides a clear definition of RTC state: any shall-issue right-to-carry state. Shall-issue simply means that any law abiding citizen can obtain an RTC permit if they take a one day course. This practice is markedly different from may-issue states, which only only distribute permits to celebrities and persons who can prove a need, and no-issue states, which only allow law enforcement officers to carry firearms.

    Currently, there are 40 states that fall into Nemerov's RTC category.

    Nemerov's RTC definition is perfectly logical and coincide with other usages of the term. Most importantly, he uses this definition in a consistent manner throughout the article.

    Using Nemerov's definition and the raw data provided by the FBI, any competent statistician should be able to repeat Nemerov's analysis and reconstruct his charts and graphs with very little problem.

    Actually, if you had read the article (or even my synopsis of it), you would've noticed that Nemerov does consider population in his analysis. Once again, here's the chart:

    Table 1 – Violent Crime Rates, 2005
    City Size Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault
    Over 1M 827.9 11.1 32.2 355.9 428.7
    500k-1M990.2 13.9 45.4 367.6 563.3
    250k-500k1015.0 12.9 53.4 370.3 578.4
    100k-250k615.1 8.2 38.8 209.0 359.1
    75k-100k525.1 6.0 36.9 162.3 319.9
    50k-75k443.2 4.1 32.8 134.4 271.8
    25k-50k373.4 3.6 32.5 102.6 234.7
    10k-25k306.0 2.7 28.8 71.7 202.9
    5k-10k313.6 2.5 28.8 52.7 229.6
    2500-5k289.6 2.5 26.0 39.4 221.7
    1k-2500296.4 2.2 22.9 30.0 241.3
    Under 1k355.9 2.5 22.6 59.6 271.2
    [U.S.]469.2 5.6 31.7 140.7 291.1

    He rightly notes that crime rate is almost always a function of population.

    Peer-review is certainly desireable but it's no guarantee of accuracy, nor is this ambiguous greater complexity to which you appeal.


    Also, I'm forced to wonder if your state weighting criticism isn't also applicable to the meta-analysis that you provided. I can't be certain because you provided no link to the study, but your synopsis suggested that the analysis was conducted on a strict state-by-state basis, not accounting for the populational difference between those states. A single heavily populated states that underreports its crime would have far wider ranging implications than a few sparsely populated states that underreported their crime. This concern becomes even more valid when we consider that...

    a) ...the number of RTC states currently exceeds the number of non-RTC states by a wide margin and

    b) ...the number of non-RTC states includes two of the three most populous states in the US (including Washington DC).

    Quite the contrary, actually.

    I've produced numerous sources, studies, and raw data suggesting that gun control has absolutely no bearing on crime reduction and may actual be detrimental.

    However, as you have yet to define what you mean by "legitimate" gun control in any substantive way, your point here is mostly empty bluster.


    Of course, because you have no proof of this and you're merely guessing, you should probably just admit you don't know.

    I think if you knew what a meta analysis was you wouldn’t be making this silly claim.[/quote]

    Oh, Please.

    A meta-analysis is a study that examines and combines the results of several studies on a common topic. Of course, meta-analyses have one major drawback: They're only as valid as the studies from which they draw. Consequently, if the group of studies failed to account for a specific variable, any meta-analysis that examines those studies will be flawed as well, no matter how rigorous the research is. Therefore, in order for you to substantively address me concerns, you would need to review every study involved the meta-analysis and ensure that they accounted for the variable in question.

    Actually, I've addressed these issue multiple times, and my response remains the same: There's absolutely no evidence that any of your measures would reduce crime. And the preponderance of statistical data on this issue suggests that increased gun regulation seldom, if ever, lead to a lower crime.

    Miniscule compared to what? It seem you're trying to inject some absolute standard for gun control into this discussion - a standard that you have yet to qualify or define.

    As we're already established, you can only assess the effectiveness of gun control in the United States by analyzing its impact within the United States. Therefore, any truly analytical study of gun control must be completely relative, not contingent up some arbitrary standard that you've contrived.

    Once again, the Brady Initiative data was your source material from which you tried to cherry pick. I merely revealed that, taken in its entirety, the Brady point actually supported my position.

    Once again, by what standard are you determining that our controls are weak? They can only be weak relative to some other controls - controls that must exist within the US...unless you're again appealing to gun control laws in other countries. Of course, we've already discussed the folly in using crime data from other countries.

    I haven't misrepresented anything. I merely made the following statement: In short, after 22 pages, you have to yet provide any evidence that gun control actually reduces crime. We can safely assume even the biggest "schmucks" among us have stopped holding their breath.

    What's misrepresentative about that. It's the truth.

    And what do each of these statements have in common? You have yet to support any of them with any kind of evidence.

    You should definitely charge, in my opinion. Your efforts at using statistics in such a conflicting and arbitrary manner are worth the price of admission.;)
  17. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,133 Messages
    2,331 Likes Received
    If anyone actually read my above post, you definitely deserve a cookie.;)

    Is anyone even paying attention to this thread anymore?
  18. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    61,111 Messages
    4,438 Likes Received
    [IMG]

    ;)
  19. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,766 Messages
    1,657 Likes Received
    I dink mahbe this one is done.
  20. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,557 Messages
    984 Likes Received
    This is my last post in the thread. Since you keep crying for me to analyze Nemerov's data, I have.

    Here is what I found. I used the NRA's definition of RTC, yielding 10 states and 1 district as non-RTC.

    I as suspected, Nemerov gives each state an equal weight. That means that means somewhere like DC which and has been the murder capital of the Nation is given the same weight as CA. What this means is that if you average DC with a rate of 35 murders per 100k with CA who has a rate of around 7 per 100k, using this technique you get an average of 21 murders per 100k.

    This clearly is not an appropriate technique as DC has roughly 500k people living there where CA has 36 million -- a correct average is based on the overall # of murders divided by total population -- in this case that averages to 7.4 per 100k. Of course, it is very likely a technique used intentionally.

    This weighting problem is found throughout and really kills more of Nemerov's #s -- for example, looking at violent crime. Nemerov finds that non-rtc states report 504 per 100k vs. only 394.4 for RTC states. Weighted appropriately, that is 487.7 vs. 460 -- a negligible difference when you consider that the margin of error for these estimates (based on the fluctuation of these %s within each type of state) is around 50 per 100k. Similarly, Nemerov reports murder rates of 6.9 vs. 4.8 whereas the correctly weighted difference is 5.9 vs. 5.5 per 100k, again not a big difference when the margin of error is considered.

    Of course, proper peer-review eliminates most, if not all of these idiotic and misleading mistakes. But I guess that is why Nemerov writes for on-line anti liberal bias web sites rather than actual research journals.

Share This Page