John Lott and research about firearms

[YukonGlocker]

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.

I entered ideology, partisanship, and polarization metrics into the model as controls, and the damn computer melted.

 

[Shadowrider]

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'm kinda in the same boat. But here's my take. You mentioned "consensus". This is a dangerous word because while there those of us who are not so quick to take the word of others as gospel, the masses tend to do just that. There is no consensus in science. Sorry there just isn't. It's strictly a true/false proposition. Science is not up for a vote. If a bunch of scientists get together and say that they "think probably something is xxxxxx" that just means that they don't freaking know. Politicians tend to take that as a yes, it's indisputable scientific fact because there is a "consensus". Then they go off and act on it. That's precisely why we can't even buy freon now and how they came up with a "carbon footprint" and the dire need to regulate it. They will use the same regurgitated ******** methodology/philosophy out of academia get our guns if we let them.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Science is a method. Many people make mistakes in the process, and correcting those mistakes are one of the main tenets of the method (one that Lott isn't incorporating into his program of research). And, for the most part, it isn't a true/false proposition either...it's mostly probability based.

 

[MadDogs]

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

LOL. Credibility is an issue if you don't back up what you say.

 

[chuter]

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

I trust that you have more expertise than me (it wouldn't take much), but no matter what you come up with, I'm sure there will be someone, another expert, who can refute it.
So how am I to know who to believe?

 

[Glocktogo]

I entered ideology, partisanship, and polarization metrics into the model as controls, and the damn computer melted.

LOL, as do most people's heads when those factors are internalized!

 

[Shadowrider]

Science is a method. Many people make mistakes in the process, and correcting those mistakes are one of the main tenets of the method (one that Lott isn't incorporating into his program of research). And, for the most part, it isn't a true/false proposition either...it's mostly probability based.

Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods also known as SCAMs!

 

[Dale00]

There are areas which are not in the realm of judgement by the scientific method. Human rights for instance.

 

[MadDogs]

There are areas which are not in the realm of judgement by the scientific method. Human rights for instance.

The anti-gun zealots that oppose the work of Lott and others do not agree with God given rights if they are not politically convenient.

“Gun control” is a liberal wet dream that does not work because it does not address the root of what drives violent crime nor does it remedy the “quality” of violence certain cultures have. This is one of the reasons why “gun control” has never worked as advertised.

Liberals and the progressively challenged find it easier today to blame the gun instead of failed fiscal policies and the collapsing black family because they can’t admit failure or alienate voters on the Democrat plantation.

Subsequently, hit pieces from liberal coloring books will try to discredit any work that runs counter to their (failed) ideology.

 

[Dale00]

Suppose that there was research that proved that people were more likely to commit a violent crime following a major negative life event (divorce, death of a family member etc). Does that mean that society is justified in taking away the firearms of people who have just experienced a major negative life event?