John Lott and research about firearms

[YukonGlocker]

Hey scientist, I couldn't find any citations in that article.

They are embedded links instead of (citation) style.

 

[MadDogs]

How amusing.

This article adds to the long-lasting discussion about John Lott's questionable research and statistics ..

“Long lasting” according to who? You and other progressively challenged liberals who only rely on DNC coloring books like “Think Progress” and the serial losers at Occupy Democrats for your shrill talking points?

… and reliability as a scientist in general. It isn't short, but very interesting.

How would you know what a scientist does beyond “Dexter’s Laboratory”? Wouldn't a scientist utilize sound methodology and statements from fact-based research to back up what they say?

Reason why I say that is that you have a track record of making comments right out of liberal coloring books and then not backing what you say up which is not very scientific. Example … when you were challenged (by two people) on another thread to backup your comment that “The republican platform still (i.e., today; currently) has policies that are prejudicial and discriminatory in regard to brown and black people …” you whined and ran away from your statement.

I'm not a fan of thinkprogress either …

Not that you have any credibility, but that was ripe. Did you get your shrill talking point of the Republicans having a racist platform from Think Progress?

Are ya'll saying the known problems with Lott's statistical analyses, or his posing as his own student to support himself, or saying one thing in public when his own papers say otherwise, are ok?

“Ya’ll”? Are you trying to share an idiomatic bond with those reading your posts? How flip’n cute. Should I add a "hon" at the end of my comments to you to do the same?

Back on point, you sourced a liberal hit piece that had zero merit (factual identification of “known problems”) that was intended to discredit the pro-gun rights side. And you still trying to sell that you are not a fan of Obama or Think Progress?

 

[YukonGlocker]

What we're saying is that we're not going to waste time vetting source material cited by and entity as unscrupulous and biased as TP.org, or anyone it would be willing to associate with. When you can come up with an independent, unbiased source saying this I might be willing to critique it, but that article is fatally flawed. You might as well be citing Infowars! Seriously man! Stop trolling us!

Fair enough. This is important enough to me that I need to write a piece on it myself. The are major flaws in some of Lott's methods and analyses, and also major flaws in some of the critiques of his work. This is an important discussion because the anti-gun people aren't taking anything beyond face value (and neither are the pro-gun people)...but the problem has become using Lott's findings as evidence (in either direction), and that needs to be fully fleshed out and gone through public review. Just as people here are refusing to consider anything posted in thinkprogress, other people are refusing to consider anything coming from Lott, just because of the source (i.e., the genetic fallacy). Thanks for the motivation to do more...I now have another project for the coming semester!

 

[YukonGlocker]

Self abuse is a no-go YG. You should know that. If your house is burning down, are you going to pick a fight with the fire fighters?

Not a good analogy, but I get what you're saying. I want to know what's going on in reality, as accurately as we can represent it, even if it doesn't align with my values. That is, I want all the information I can get, including the information that contradicts my current thinking.

 

[Shadowrider]

What major flaws are there in Lott's work? I've heard criticism for years, but have impartial peers vetted it and concluded these flaws are legit? Did they cite their basis? Could be, but I've never taken the time to investigate myself, all that I've seen were just accusations by clearly slanted liberals who hate guns and love government.

 

[YukonGlocker]

How amusing.



“Long lasting” according to who? You and other progressively challenged liberals who only rely on DNC coloring books like “Think Progress” and the serial losers at Occupy Democrats for your shrill talking points?



How would you know what a scientist does beyond “Dexter’s Laboratory”? Wouldn't a scientist utilize sound methodology and statements from fact-based research to back up what they say?

Reason why I say that is that you have a track record of making comments right out of liberal coloring books and then not backing what you say up which is not very scientific. Example … when you were challenged (by two people) on another thread to backup your comment that “The republican platform still (i.e., today; currently) has policies that are prejudicial and discriminatory in regard to brown and black people …” you whined and ran away from your statement.



Not that you have any credibility, but that was ripe. Did you get your shrill talking point of the Republicans having a racist platform from Think Progress?



“Ya’ll”? Are you trying to share an idiomatic bond with those reading your posts? How flip’n cute. Should I add a "hon" at the end of my comments to you to do the same?

Back on point, you sourced a liberal hit piece that had zero merit (factual identification of “known problems”) that was intended to discredit the pro-gun rights side. And you still trying to sell that you are not a fan of Obama or Think Progress?

This discussion would be more productive if you would stop lying about me.

 

[MadDogs]

This discussion would be more productive if you would stop lying about me.

How is asking you to back up what you said "lying" about you?

All I have done is ask you to backup why you stated that the Republican Party platform is prejudicial and discriminatory (I.e., "racist") towards people who are of color.

You have not done that, have you?

Just explain your statement.

 

[chuter]

The problem I have with this subject and a lot of others (economics, etc.) is that I don't have extensive education in any particular area; stats, economics, or whatever, so I have to rely on experts to trim it down and put it in language I can understand.
But there are few areas where all the experts agree (even though some claim consensus).
So I'm left on trusting my gut feeling and the experts that make sense to me, and going with the side that supports my values.

Is my view of reality skewed? Maybe, but I don't think there is one final, absolutely accurate view of any one thing.

 

[YukonGlocker]

The problem I have with this subject and a lot of others (economics, etc.) is that I don't have extensive education in any particular area; stats, economics, or whatever, so I have to rely on experts to trim it down and put it in language I can understand.
But there are few areas where all the experts agree (even though some claim consensus).
So I'm left on trusting my gut feeling and the experts that make sense to me, and going with the side that supports my values.

Is my view of reality skewed? Maybe, but I don't think there is one final, absolutely accurate view of any one thing.

I have the background to do it justice, and will give it a go.

 

[Glocktogo]

A mathematician, a statistician and an accountant apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks, "What does two plus two equal?"
The mathematician replies, "Four."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and poses the same question, "What does two plus two equal?"
The accountant says, "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average four."

Then the interviewer calls in the statistician and asks the same question, "What does two plus two equal?"
The statistician gets up, locks the door, closes the shades, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal?"

If we look at the accuracy of Lott's statistical work and compare it to the accuracy of the left's statistical work, the peak accuracy of the statistical curve is going to be far closer to Lott than the left. That's how statistics work.