4 ms·

Where is the underyling data to that Rand study? I havent found it yet. I see the methodology links, and the link to the book, but no underlying data so far. Li

Where is the underyling data to that Rand study? I havent found it yet. I see the methodology links, and the link to the book, but no underlying data so far. Like what studies they included/excluded and why. I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far. Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom. Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one? EDIT: (since comments are limited, I wont be able to post a new one for hours likely). You linked to https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html which does _not_ have the underlying data I asked for. "what analysis" Really? here I'll re-paste it: So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study". "Again, I'm not saying anything about the data." Ya. I know. By "time and time again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study? Because if so, you now have used "every analysis" and "time and time again" to mean "at least one study". Gymtime. I'll check back later, maybe you will say something specific.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> Where is the underyling data to that Rand study? The paper prominently links to it. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html > I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far. What analysis? > Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom. Single variable analysis without including obvious covariates is about the laziest possible analysis I've seen, which is why it leads to ridiculous results. > Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one? Again, I'm not saying anything about the data. It's the utterly incompetent analysis of the data that I take issue with. As far as the first one, as a matter of public policy, it doesn't matter what the predominant use is, it matters what the net effect is, which has been shown to be negative time and again. Response to your response. > So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study". Let me get this straight. Your argument is that because there is at least one methodologically sound analysis of the data that shows concealed carry leads to violent crime at the time of the survey and no analysis otherwise, you remain unconvinced? > Ya. I know. Then why did you bring it up? It seems obvious to me that you didn't know. > By "time and time [sic] again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study? As I said, the Rand paper is a survey. Check the bibliography for the data. As far as "at least one," for one thing, you only need one, and for another, the other relaxed gun laws have even more methodologically sound analyses showing negative effects. That's what I meant by "time and again."
- jakeogh 7y ago
  You admit you need only one study, that you dont even know the name of and obviously havent read. "even more methodologically sound analyses" Link please. Why having access to the underlying data is not optional: https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-bo... Sorry about the misquote.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > You admit you need only one study, that you dont even know the name of and obviously havent read. Why should I? The survey authors are professional econometricians who know what they're doing referring to peer-reviewed research. Meanwhile, you don't have any studies at all to back your side. You're like a creationist who wants to see specific papers, not understanding that the proper venue for correcting papers is through the journals. Just like a creationist, you discard the scientific process when its conclusions don't fit your worldview. > Link please. I linked to the survey paper. As I said, it has a bibliography. Do you need me to explain how to use it?
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Ah, the inevitable personal attack. Anticipating your no-data repoinse is why I linked to the crimeresearch.org study, if you cant check the data then the study is meaningless, and you are not doing science. Odd that you deflect to creationism since you admit relying on a Rand faith-based argument while I am asking for the data and willing to discuss it in depth. You keep referring to the biblography: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/references.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/references... as if it has the data on what studies were included and (critically) excluded to generate row 4 column 8 at https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html obviously it does not, which is why you are unable to even name the (possibly single) unread study you are basing your faith on.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

> Where is the underyling data to that Rand study? The paper prominently links to it. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html > I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far. What analysis? > Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom. Single variable analysis without including obvious covariates is about the laziest possible analysis I've seen, which is why it leads to ridiculous results. > Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one? Again, I'm not saying anything about the data. It's the utterly incompetent analysis of the data that I take issue with. As far as the first one, as a matter of public policy, it doesn't matter what the predominant use is, it matters what the net effect is, which has been shown to be negative time and again. Response to your response. > So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study". Let me get this straight. Your argument is that because there is at least one methodologically sound analysis of the data that shows concealed carry leads to violent crime at the time of the survey and no analysis otherwise, you remain unconvinced? > Ya. I know. Then why did you bring it up? It seems obvious to me that you didn't know. > By "time and time [sic] again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study? As I said, the Rand paper is a survey. Check the bibliography for the data. As far as "at least one," for one thing, you only need one, and for another, the other relaxed gun laws have even more methodologically sound analyses showing negative effects. That's what I meant by "time and again."

jakeogh 7y ago
You admit you need only one study, that you dont even know the name of and obviously havent read. "even more methodologically sound analyses" Link please. Why having access to the underlying data is not optional: https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-bo... Sorry about the misquote.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > You admit you need only one study, that you dont even know the name of and obviously havent read. Why should I? The survey authors are professional econometricians who know what they're doing referring to peer-reviewed research. Meanwhile, you don't have any studies at all to back your side. You're like a creationist who wants to see specific papers, not understanding that the proper venue for correcting papers is through the journals. Just like a creationist, you discard the scientific process when its conclusions don't fit your worldview. > Link please. I linked to the survey paper. As I said, it has a bibliography. Do you need me to explain how to use it?
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Ah, the inevitable personal attack. Anticipating your no-data repoinse is why I linked to the crimeresearch.org study, if you cant check the data then the study is meaningless, and you are not doing science. Odd that you deflect to creationism since you admit relying on a Rand faith-based argument while I am asking for the data and willing to discuss it in depth. You keep referring to the biblography: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/references.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/references... as if it has the data on what studies were included and (critically) excluded to generate row 4 column 8 at https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html obviously it does not, which is why you are unable to even name the (possibly single) unread study you are basing your faith on.