Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Ohio: Buckeyes for Concealed Carry President Uses Handgun to Defend Family [View all]4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)160. . . . .
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
So this study does not measure the actual number of guns in a region. But rather uses a proxy that he believes is correlated. And one of the measures he uses to test this correlation is to compare rate of magazine purchases to gun deaths. So his model for predicting the number of guns (to see if they lead to more deaths) is validated in part by comparing that to the number of deaths.
He used the variable he's measuring to validate his methods. You can't do that.
Does not separate suicide from homicide. And does not differentiate legal from illegally owned guns.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
Measures gun ownership by suicide rates.
IANSA.org is an anti gun organization.
For someone who accuses everyone else of repeating NRA talking points you sure are eager to reference an advocacy group of your own when you feel it convienent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf
Makes no attempt to control for relevant variables (the US has both higher murder rates and higher gun ownership rates than the netherlands. Is that the only difference between our two countries?) also makes no mention of legal versus illegal and doesn't attempt to differentiate legal from illegal usage.
So yeah, all the points people keep telling you about your flawed studies. But you won't realize this because I doubt you got past reading the titles of those studies.
Again, this
In this paper I propose a new way to measure
gun ownership at both the state and county levels on an annual basis.
Specifically, I argue that state- and county-level sales data for one of the
nations largest gun magazines, Guns & Ammo, provide a much more
accurate way to measure both the level and the change in gun ownership
within an area.
So this study does not measure the actual number of guns in a region. But rather uses a proxy that he believes is correlated. And one of the measures he uses to test this correlation is to compare rate of magazine purchases to gun deaths. So his model for predicting the number of guns (to see if they lead to more deaths) is validated in part by comparing that to the number of deaths.
He used the variable he's measuring to validate his methods. You can't do that.
Does not separate suicide from homicide. And does not differentiate legal from illegally owned guns.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
Measures gun ownership by suicide rates.
IANSA.org is an anti gun organization.
For someone who accuses everyone else of repeating NRA talking points you sure are eager to reference an advocacy group of your own when you feel it convienent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf
Makes no attempt to control for relevant variables (the US has both higher murder rates and higher gun ownership rates than the netherlands. Is that the only difference between our two countries?) also makes no mention of legal versus illegal and doesn't attempt to differentiate legal from illegal usage.
So yeah, all the points people keep telling you about your flawed studies. But you won't realize this because I doubt you got past reading the titles of those studies.
Again, this
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
198 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Ohio: Buckeyes for Concealed Carry President Uses Handgun to Defend Family [View all]
rDigital
Sep 2012
OP
This sounds like a made up story- why would a white man call another white man "white honky"?
kimbutgar
Sep 2012
#1
Do you have another source for this besides "Students for Concealed Carry - Ohio"?
SecularMotion
Sep 2012
#3
I'm sure there's a police report. We can make that your responsibility to go and fetch it.
rDigital
Sep 2012
#8
Funny how he'll post anti gun articles from the VPC, Huffington Post, or the Brady org.
glacierbay
Sep 2012
#15
Make sure you keep all these posts in mind the next time you consider calling a gun owner...
Clames
Sep 2012
#22
The story sounds suspicious, not the gun owner. I too own a handgun, but the story sounds made up.
bluecoat_fan
Sep 2012
#83
It seems to me that this is the first statistical study you have ever seen in your life.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#43
LOL. With the way you take things out of context, you ought to work for the Romney campaign.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#86
Why, are you his recruiter? No thanks I'll stick with Obama, but my condolences on your desperate,
TPaine7
Sep 2012
#88
Maybe Ron Paul is more your speed -- one of those "it's unconstitutional" wackos you seem to like.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#89
Until you showed up to try and settle some old scores, this was, in fact, a discussion about a
DanTex
Sep 2012
#92
Let me guess, the Brady campaign is the only sufficiently unbiased source of information
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#33
If you must ignore the FBI's studies on this then I think we have nothing to discuss
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#53
Excellent. Do you acknowledge that while it was dropping total guns owned
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#59
LOL. Ignoring me again. I guess when you have no evidence on your side, that's the only play!
DanTex
Sep 2012
#64
Yeah, that guy tends to make a lot of noise and then hide when evidence is presented.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#128
LOL. The "creationist" charge by the guy who's intent on ignoring the scientific evidence.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#131
Still dodging. Whatever you do, make sure you don't try and make a substantive point!
DanTex
Sep 2012
#180
Still dodging! Proxy variables, peer reviewed studies. Any of that ring a bell?
DanTex
Sep 2012
#188
"Peer Reviewed" garbage is still garbage. Everyone has an axe to grind, especially those in your
rDigital
Sep 2012
#84
I deny your brand of opinion-based science. I quite enjoy the fact-based science though.
Clames
Sep 2012
#119
Those with a fear of instruments have more of a theological view on gun control than logical.
rDigital
Sep 2012
#122
Funny you bring up "theological view" when you are the one denying the empirical evidence.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#124
Well that's just like your opinion, man. You're peer-reviewed tripe is "peer reviewed" by people
rDigital
Sep 2012
#126
So many characters to say so little. Ignore the inconvenient truths, keep your head in the sand.
rDigital
Sep 2012
#144
Because keeping people from killing themselves is really a possibility and by extension a valid
rDigital
Sep 2012
#146
I'm not arguing with the numbers of that site. I'm saying that suicide isn't a valid gun control
rDigital
Sep 2012
#148
Yes, and the assault rates are similar to ours. Not nearly as far out of line as homicide.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#190
Don't know about gun robberies in Canada. I've seen 40% for the percent of Canada's murders by gun
DanTex
Sep 2012
#195
I don't know if it actually made the news. The link in the OP is to Buckeyes for Concealed Carry.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#70
They are at the link in the OP. I include them as they answer questions raised on this thread:
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2012
#103