In her reporting, Ms. Cruz asserts the op/ed piece by Don Kates and Gary Mauser was "recently published."
This is true if you believe "recently published" means over six years ago.
Second, Ms. Cruz insinuates this op/ed was a "study"--it isn't, it is an opinion piece. It was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy in 2007, which doesn't publish studies but commentary on various issues concerning the law and public policy. Thus, the article did not have to face peer-review or other scrutiny as actual studies would.
Despite these glaring errors, Ms. Cruz seems more than content to amplify them. For example, Ms. Cruz tries the neat tactic of comparing small sample sizes to larger ones; she writes: "For example, in Luxembourg handguns are completely banned and gun ownership of any kind is extremely rare. However, the country’s murder rate is nine times that of Germany’s, despite Germany having gun ownership rates 30,000 times higher than Luxembourg."Where to start? In Luxembourg (population ~520,000), annual gun homicides rarely exceed 3. And the per capita gun homicide rate is usually around .5. In Germany (population ~82 million), gun homicides annually are about 150-200 with a per capita gun homicide rate of about .2. Statistics Pro Tip: comparing very small populations against much larger populations is very risky since, in the smaller samples, a a small movement either way will unduly skew any inference.
Ms. Cruz also glosses over the fact Germany's and Luxembourg's gun laws are very similar. She pretends Luxembourg has no guns while Germany is awash in them. In point of fact, Germany prohibits automatic firearms and requires both registration and special authorization of semi-automatic and handguns. The per capita rate of gun ownership in Germany is less than 2.5 per 100,000. The per capita rate of gun ownership in Luxembourg is 0.5 per 100,000. so, Germans tend to own guns at about 5x more than the people of Luxembourg. Yet, gun homicides are 50-150X greater in Germany. So much for gun ownership rates being "30,000 times higher than Luxembourg."
In Part 2, we will have more. Meanwhile, let's remember Ms. Cruz is part of the crowd asserting vaccinations are bad for children despite all the evidence to the contrary.
"Thus, the article did not have to face peer-review or other scrutiny as actual studies would."
ReplyDeleteFortunately Jade, I've been set straight on the value to peer review and what I should be using to evaluate the validity of a study.
"MikeB September 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM
The peer review process is political bullshit. "
"MikeB September 2, 2013 at 7:25 PM
We need to take them all with a grain of salt and some of them we can dismiss outright.
That's why I rely more on common sense and analytic thinking."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-problem-with-harvard-study-which.html
What's that got to do with Jadegold's post?
DeleteJadegold, you did not just tell us that when the numbers are small, any change represents a huge percentage, did you? I've made that very point to Mikeb, and he rejects it. Perhaps he'll listen to you.
ReplyDeleteGreg, the post contained a bit more than that. And you're attempt at a gotcha is pretty weak anyway. I've never denied that surveys are only estimates.
DeleteWhat Jadegold pointed out is the whole brouhaha about this "Harvard study" is total lies and bullshit. This is what your side excels in.
With Jadegold, it's just too easy to play gotcha. Anything he says is wrong. But the thing for you to realize is that just calling something "lies and bullshit" doesn't make it so. You don't like the study because it disagrees with your pet narrative. That doesn't make it false.
DeleteWhat specifically was wrong with Kates/Mauser?
ReplyDeleteAllow me to rephrase: what specifically is wrong with Kates and Mauser's work? Mike already said what's wrong with the people.
DeleteMaybe by now you've read Jadegold's parts 2 and 3 and have answered your own question.
Delete