3 ms·

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. Wh

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
    > Odd that you deflect to creationism since you admit relying on a Rand faith-based argument Science is fundamentally not faith-based. You can verify it yourself, as I have repeatedly invited you to do. You are making the argument that the current scientific consensus is wrong. If so, publish. Saying that your argument is not scientific is not a personal attack. It is simply a statement of fact. Which papers to look up in the bibliography is in the Rand study. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/unintentional-injuries.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-...
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      The Rand meta-analysis disagrees with your conclusion. Specifically, row 4 column 8 at https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html is "LIMITED". Rand was specific in their labels, and Rand does not assert "MODERATE" or let alone "SUPPORTIVE". So while you pretend to have a "consensus", the meta-analysis you hold in high regard does not say that. In fact it's 2 levels below "SUPPORTIVE". I.e. not "SUPPORTIVE". Since you linked to the unintended injuries section, I'll point out the same thing, Rand's own conclusions dont rise to the level of "SUPPORTIVE", again, it's 2 levels below that at "LIMITED". ----------------------------------- For anyone else catching this thread: Updated stats for the graphic I originally posted with hyperlinks to sources at the bottom: https://americangunfacts.com https://americangunfacts.com Justice Scalia gave a fascinating overview of the history of American gun law in Heller vs. DC (2008): https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... Yep that's a multitool: https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Limited refers to how many studies have been done at the time of the survey, not to whether there is a consensus. We have already gone over this. If you include types of gun control other than disallowing concealed carry, there are many more studies that apply, and every single one shows negative effects. Again, this is something that we've already gone over. You continue to report "stats" like they're something that a journal would publish. We've already gone over that as well. You have a long way to go before you understand the scientific process.

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
  > Odd that you deflect to creationism since you admit relying on a Rand faith-based argument Science is fundamentally not faith-based. You can verify it yourself, as I have repeatedly invited you to do. You are making the argument that the current scientific consensus is wrong. If so, publish. Saying that your argument is not scientific is not a personal attack. It is simply a statement of fact. Which papers to look up in the bibliography is in the Rand study. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/unintentional-injuries.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-...
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    The Rand meta-analysis disagrees with your conclusion. Specifically, row 4 column 8 at https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html is "LIMITED". Rand was specific in their labels, and Rand does not assert "MODERATE" or let alone "SUPPORTIVE". So while you pretend to have a "consensus", the meta-analysis you hold in high regard does not say that. In fact it's 2 levels below "SUPPORTIVE". I.e. not "SUPPORTIVE". Since you linked to the unintended injuries section, I'll point out the same thing, Rand's own conclusions dont rise to the level of "SUPPORTIVE", again, it's 2 levels below that at "LIMITED". ----------------------------------- For anyone else catching this thread: Updated stats for the graphic I originally posted with hyperlinks to sources at the bottom: https://americangunfacts.com https://americangunfacts.com Justice Scalia gave a fascinating overview of the history of American gun law in Heller vs. DC (2008): https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... Yep that's a multitool: https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      Limited refers to how many studies have been done at the time of the survey, not to whether there is a consensus. We have already gone over this. If you include types of gun control other than disallowing concealed carry, there are many more studies that apply, and every single one shows negative effects. Again, this is something that we've already gone over. You continue to report "stats" like they're something that a journal would publish. We've already gone over that as well. You have a long way to go before you understand the scientific process.