Sunday, March 2, 2014

A John Lott Study Says there has Never Been Frozen Firearms Research

via ssgmarkcr

 Gun control advocates often bemoan the restriction on using federal funds for research on firearms issues and gun violence.  I had recently posted a comment on one of your threads in this regard and then today, I read this article on the dreaded Fox News website.
   

"Study aims to shoot down media narrative on frozen firearms research"

   
"The Crime Prevention Research Center study examined how a 1996 decision by Congress to strip funding for firearms research actually impacted the world of academia. To hear national media outlets tell it, the decision led to a drought in research from 1996 to 2013 -- when such funding was once again allowed. Stories from The Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters and other outlets all have claimed that Washington, with the backing of the National Rifle Association, basically banned gun studies during that period.

Far from it, the study claims. “Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased,” the authors wrote. 

The study, though, acknowledges that “firearms research in medical journals did fall as a percentage of all research.” In the relevant period, the total number of published medical journal pieces has climbed from about 450,000 to 1.1 million a year – gun-related articles did not increase nearly as much."


    One possible area where I might differ is that if this affects research conducted by governmental agencies, When studies are released by a governmental agency, there is at least an initial presumption of accuracy, though that might be wishful thinking on my part.  For example, we tend to male a presumption of accuracy when looking at FBI crime statistics, or injury reports from the CDC.  Though we have had some discussions based on inaccuracies on the part of the CDC.  I'm guessing there are similar errors in the FBI's numbers since all of their data is sent by other agencies which can lead to those errors.  But there is at least an initial assumption that the government doesn't necessarily have an ax to grind.

    So in the case of gun research, this restriction might have been a good thing because it addressed the perception that the research was starting to take on the appearance of a bias in the direction of one side of the debate.

    I will give you a heads up that the Crime Prevention Research Center is headed by John Lott, and therefor can be inferred to have at least some bias as does The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.  I actually believe that the preconceived assumption of bias can be a good thing, because if the data can survive such a confrontational review process, then it makes the study much more credible.


Can we really compare an organization associated with John Lott with one associated with one of the most prestigious universities in the world? I don't think so. Can we really say they are both equally biased in opposite directions?  No.

John Lott's research reminded me of what our own TS can do when faced with uncomfortable reports. In the end you have to still ask yourself if the original proposition was really addressed.

19 comments:

  1. "Can we really compare an organization associated with John Lott with one associated with one of the most prestigious universities in the world?"

    Again Mike, this deals with the world of perception. Johns Hopkins has long been a world renown center for medical research. The question is does the addition of Bloomberg's name add to, or detract from its credibility.
    While I applaud the school for its honesty, it still has to contend with the negative perception of the Bloomberg name. One has to wonder if they chose to accept his money before, or after the former Mayor's support for the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" policy or the merely silly ban on big gulp sodas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is Mary Rosh, ssgmarkcr?

      If I were to say Michael Bellesisles said something--what would be your reaction?

      At least Bellesisles didn't fake the reviews praising his work.

      www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/gun_policy_fraudster_john_lott036987.php

      And you wonder why I don't do a lot of interaction with people like you.

      I'm not a sheep--I'm a goat.

      Delete
    2. In the light of the points Laci brought up, I ask again, "Can we really compare an organization associated with John Lott with one associated with one of the most prestigious universities in the world? "

      Delete
    3. Don't forget this article about Lott:
      www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/10/double-barreled-double-standards

      Lott is not taken too seriously by anyone with a brain that actually functions.

      Delete
    4. I'm not arguing Lott's issues with some of his studies, though if the same results can be repeated with verifiable data, then the study is valid. As I said in my previous comment, does the Bloomberg name add to? Or subtract from the university's prestige?
      I've noticed in several articles we've discussed here that for some reason Bloomberg's name gets left out when a study from the prestigious school is discussed. I cant say why, and I'm not familiar with any etiquette in shortening names, but it does seem strange.

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/02/study-missouri-murders-spike-after.html

      Delete
    5. We can also add that the research done at Johns Hopkins is replicated by research at Harvard and University of Pennsylvania.

      http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/
      http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/

      While someone with limited critical thinking skills such as ssgmarkcr can be diverted by saying "Squirrel", er "Bloomberg", any further inquiry shows that is merely a diversion.

      There is more than enough evidence from reputable people--as opposed to liars such as Lott, to show that funds for "Gun Violence Research has been frozen since any "funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

      IOW, the facts are against you.

      http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

      Delete
    6. The problem is, Laci, that these sources you cited are not doing the same kind of work Lott did. Instead, they are only looking at "gun violence" of various kinds. There are valid criticisms against Lott, but what we don't see is a contradictory conclusion from a different study (relating guns to all crime, violence, murder, etc., and not just when those things happen with guns). In other words, they only do studies that look at the bad side of guns, so their conclusion will only say "guns are bad". That's flawed from the beginning.

      As an exception, the UPenn link does have an "age adjusted suicide rate" map on their home page. It does not appear to be a "gun suicide" stat. But as I explained before, there is a correlation with guns and overall suicide. There is not a correlation to overall murder, or overall violent crime. So when we see a study show us only suicide, it is clear they are selectively omitting murder- a clear indication of their bias.

      Delete
    7. ss, do you really think it's strange or somehow inexplicable why they sometimes change "The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health" to simply and briefly, "John Hopkins?" C'mon, man, don't pretend there's maybe, just possibly, some conspiratorial tricky shit going on.

      Delete
  2. What exactly are you calling me out for, Mike?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't get it, really? I'll explain. When John Lott produces a lengthy study supposedly debunking the long-standing belief that gun violence research has been stifled by the NRA, in the end you have to shake your head and wonder if he really succeeded in debunking it. This reminds me of what you did with the Missouri report that came out recently. It reminds me of all your lengthy debunkings. After reading them, I shake my head and wonder if you really succeeded in doing what you claimed.

      Delete
    2. I thought you said I did a good job with Missouri, but I guess you were being sarcastic. That hurts. But yes, shaking your head in disbelieve is usually all you can come back with. As with Missouri, I can't even seem to convince you of what you told me you already believe- that state gun laws don't work because criminals are not confined by state boundaries.

      Delete
    3. Well, to clarify, I never said state laws don't work AT ALL because of the porous borders. What I often say is the high incidents of violence in places like Chicago and many cities in California is partly explained by the proximity to lax gun states.

      And yes I was being sarcastic. I thought you knew that my facetious compliment was not in acquiescence but in humor.

      Delete
  3. The fact remains that you gun control freaks are welcome to waste your money together in any way you wish. You just can't use our tax dollars to push your agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We will see a lot more research, federally funded, about the huge problem that guns pose to normal non-gunsuck Americans. The fact is that guns, like other evil artifacts, kill and maim hundreds of thousands of normal non-gunsuck Americans. We will continue to see more and more evidence documenting this obvious fact.

      Delete
  4. John Lott is a liar, cheat, and statistical ignoramus. He fudged his data. He made up coauthors. He is a moron. Anyone who believes this turd is probably a gunsuck, because gunsucks like anyone who tells them helpful lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. But just like they never fail to come to the defense of Ted Nugent, they also support John Lott right down the line. They may lack honesty, but they're nothing if not loyal to one another.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, they never fail to support Nugent. That's why everyone supported what he said this last time and nobody said he was wrong...oh, wait...well that's inconvenient...

      Delete
  5. Laci the Dog: The link that you cite goes back to the Bloomberg funded Mayors Against Illegal Guns claims. Sorry, not new evidence. Lott replicates the MAIG claims and notes that they only looked at the share of medical journal studies on firearms, not the number of firearm studies that everyone claims that they are measuring. Possibly Mike B can referee this and tell us if that is wrong. The MAIG report talks in terms of number of firearm studies, but the only evidence that they supply is on the share of all medical journal studies. Is that right?

    ReplyDelete