Is it proper for a "scientist" to be seen with an advocacy group

[gejohnston]

especially on a subject he or she works on?
The larger issue, is advocacy scholarship really scholarship? I say no. I say it is propaganda dressed up and sold as science. Unfortunately, it is bought by "sophisticated" public assuming "it comes from some guy at Harvard, so it must be true."

LCAV is proud to announce our 19th Anniversary Dinner, marking nearly two decades of defending the right of all Americans to live in safe communities, free from the fear of gun violence. Join us as we honor United States Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and Harvard Researcher David Hemenway, Ph.D. for their distinguished leadership.

http://www.lcav.org/
Leadership? I thought he was a credentialed scientist doing objective research.

How would some here react if Kleck, Wright, or Rossi showed up at an NRA convention or was awarded the Outstanding American Handgunner Award?

[elleng]

1. Yes, as long as there's full disclosure to everyone concerned,

including the public.

[gejohnston]

2. but is it science?

and to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any such disclosure of any mention of Hemenway's work. He is simply mentioned as "Harvard researcher".
FWIW, Hemenway is an economist. The listed criminologists are not gun owners, gun lovers, conservatives.

[truedelphi]

4. I think a better question to consider:

Is it science when industry funds it, when industry rewards it, when industry culls the results they don't want out of the data, so that the conclusion of the research ends up being to industry's liking, when industry fires outright anyone who doesn't take the "hints" about how their research could be "improved."

It happens every day of the week inside the university/industry labs that continue to tell the American public what industry wants us to hear.

[gejohnston]

6. You just made my point

The gun control "industry" funds Hemenway et al.
The listed criminologists are not funded by either side.

Edit to answer your larger question, no it is not science, it is academic prostitution. Real science asks the question, and deals with the answer inconvenient or not, and publishes the result regardless of personal opinion or politics.

[DanTex]

8. Except gun control is not an "industry". There's no profit motive.

This is exactly the same as the global warming denialists, who try to claim that global warming is all some ivory tower conspiracy for research grants. I guess, when the bulk of the scientific evidence goes against you, denialism is the only play you have left.

[truedelphi]

9. Those in charge of gun control do have a profit motive.

Their profit motive is of living through their next illegal entry onto your property.

As long as the American public keeps its right to have arms, then the weapons and attitudes at DHS, and at the local police department, at the state agricultural offices, at every one of the agencies that would come onto your property and take your raw milk, or your medical marijuana plants, or your friggin' warm body, all those people have to be a little bit afraid. All that is standing between the "Man" is the "gun."

A person I know who lives in Alaska stated in an email to me that the citizens of Alaska would never allow what has happened to the medical marijuana clinics here in California happen to marijuana smokers in Alaska.

And she is right. Why is that? Because Alaskans are armed to the teeth - simply in order to survive the next grizzley or moose that breaks through their fencing.

[DanTex]

11. LOL. Yeah, you better stock up on "guns" to protect you from the "man"...

[ellisonz]

59. Bears are the #1 threat to America.

[gejohnston]

12. you missed the point

industry is this example is an analogy. Hardly the same as climate change denialists.

a·nal·o·gy/əˈnaləjē/
Noun:

A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.

[DanTex]

16. How is it different than climate change denialists?

It's almost exactly the same! A right-wing lobby dismissing mainstream science, suggesting that it's a conspiracy for research grant money.

[gejohnston]

19. you have it backwards

It is closer to say that the "gun violence charities" are equivalent to the climate change denialists because they fund a couple of economists (most of the climate change denial "researchers" are also) along with a couple of MDs for a political purpose.
You have not provided evidence that Hemenway et al are in the mainstream of criminal science.

You are the one dismissing mainstream science suggesting that it is a conspiracy of nay sayers.

[DanTex]

21. Do you ever say anything that's true? I mean even by accident?

Seriously, I don't think I could post as many blatantly false statements as you even if I tried. A "couple of economists". LOL!

[gejohnston]

23. what I said was true

your claim that one "curmudgeon" is false. By the way, use the word correctly. Simply calling me a liar does not make it so.

cur·mudg·eon/kərˈməjən/
Noun:
A bad-tempered or surly person.
Synonyms:
niggard - miser - skinflint - tightwad

[DanTex]

25. As usual, you provide no proof of anything you say.

What you said was not true. Can you back it with proof? No. You never do. Because almost everything you say is false.

[gejohnston]

26. Gee I don't know......

funded chair...... Being a leader...... you know.

[DanTex]

27. LOL. I guess this is what passes for backing your statements with proof in pro-gunner land...

[gejohnston]

29. kind like falsly claiming that

McClatchy News is a gun blog.

[DanTex]

31. Change of subject to a different false allegation. You lose.

[gejohnston]

32. nope

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117228481#post1
Here I provide my evidence, none are from a right wing source or gun blog.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117228481#post6
Here you rant and whine about Fox and gun blogs.

You make another personal attack and false claim, you lose.

[DanTex]

34. Must be fun living in that fantasy world of yours...

Notice how I never actually said that McClatchy is a gun blog. What I posted there was spot on. You are simply lying about what I said. The gejohnston method: never worry about the truth.

[gejohnston]

35. That was an example and you do know

what an analogy is. You missed the point. You did not say specifically McClatchy is a gun blog, but when presented by nonbiased sources including McClatchy (the above being but one example of) you whine about gun blogs and Fox. I can provide a wall of links if you like, but I really don't have the time. Everyone here have read the same thing, so you can whine and call me a liar, stupid (IIRC, why so many of your DU2 posts got zapped by the mods) but everyone here has read them. You know it and I know it.

You said was not spot on nor was it supported by evidence. You were not spot on. You repeated what you read on some anti gun blog. Which is what you do, because you don't address points you can't answer even when when asked.
The DanTex method: never mind the evidence, I have already made up my mind, and then falsely accuse those who disagree as being right wing, climate change deniers, etc.

[DanTex]

36. Finally, something true!

gejohnston, post 29 (False)

kind like falsly claiming that McClatchy News is a gun blog.

gejohnston, post 35 (True!)

You did not say specifically McClatchy is a gun blog,

Anyway, I don't feel like re-arguing about the Mexico thing. My post was correct when I posted it and I have nothing new to add to it.

[gejohnston]

37. your post regurgated something a UK paper said

but was not true. Mine was correct, and is based on more evidence.
I'm not really interested in bringing up Mexico either, until something worth mentioning comes up. It was the easiest example for my main point.

[DanTex]

38. No, mine was correct! Mine is based on more evidence!

Why are we talking about this?

[gejohnston]

39. fuck if I know

you have the habit of missing the main point.

[krispos42]

42. The people in it seem to be in it for political points...

...which is worth money to them. And there's a certain amount of self-aggrandizement with the movement, too. "I deserve credit for standing up to the NRA!"

But you're right... there's no industry that will profit if the law changed and new-gun sales plummeted. At least, not directly.

However, there is a big difference between climate science and social science. One is a lot "harder" than the other. In addition, climate science does not run up against the problem of constitutional rights and public will. For example, if we gave social scientists a blank check to pass laws they have determined will saves lives I don't think we will be very happy with the overall results and would rebel against them.

Most of the people in this country are on board with GCC and the need to address it. Most of the people in this country are NOT on board with the most mentioned forms of gun-control. This is particularly true of gun owners, to tend to be better able to understand the restrictions the gun-control advocates want to put in place.

[DanTex]

43. I agree with some of what you said.

However, there is a big difference between climate science and social science. One is a lot "harder" than the other.

That's true.

In addition, climate science does not run up against the problem of constitutional rights and public will.

Disagree. Climate science runs up against very serious issues with public will, see below. Also, while there aren't any obvious constitutional issues per se, there are issues of national sovereignty which the right-wing ideologues can play to very effectively.

For example, if we gave social scientists a blank check to pass laws they have determined will saves lives I don't think we will be very happy with the overall results and would rebel against them.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't thing people would be very happy if any group of unelected technocrats were given a blank check to pass whatever laws they want.

Most of the people in this country are on board with GCC and the need to address it. Most of the people in this country are NOT on board with the most mentioned forms of gun-control. This is particularly true of gun owners, to tend to be better able to understand the restrictions the gun-control advocates want to put in place.

Not according to polls. As of right now, about 50% of Americans think global warming is exaggerated, a majority think that natural causes are to blame more than human intervention, etc., and it's getting worse due to propaganda. It is true that a majority favors of something generic like "regulate carbon emissions to prevent global warming", but when it comes down to real policies that would have the short term effect of increasing energy prices, there has been almost no political will.

On the other hand, while Americans are largely split on "generic" gun control questions, for specific policies, there is comfortable support. For example, over 60% of Americans are in favor of a national handgun registry, something which the NRA crowd would deride as "draconian".

Global warming is a much bigger long-term threat than gun violence. But, unfortunately, the political prospects for addressing GW are no better, and probably considerably worse than for guns. Hopefully, the magnitude of the global warming threat will dawn on the public soon, but so far, the right-wing propaganda and political maneuvering has been pretty effective both in guns and energy policy.

[krispos42]

61. Oops, forgot about this discussion we were having

Sorry for the delay.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]Climate science runs up against very serious issues with public will...

I think that what it runs up against is very serious issues with POLITICAL will, which is driven by $$$ and propaganda and Washington power-brokers. The politicians are scared to address it because of incurring the wrath of the carbon industry. This means losing campaign money, blackmail, the carbon industry supporting another candidate in the primaries or the general, vicious superPAC campaigns, and affecting their ability to get a cushy consulting job after elected office.

The people are there, the politicians are not. In terms of enacting new and restrictive gun laws... the politicians are there, but the people are not, you see.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]Not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't thing people would be very happy if any group of unelected technocrats were given a blank check to pass whatever laws they want.

I'm trying to say that if social scientists came up with a list of particular ideas that would save lives, and the politicians took that list and crafted laws that would accomplish the ideas of the social scientists, we wouldn't be very happy with the results. People don't think that way and would not be happy with the results, even if it meant that a lot of lives were saved.

Things like, say, banning tobacco and alcohol and transfats. Outlawing red meat. Mandatory GPS trackers on all cars, with a penalty if you drive less than 2 miles to a destination (walk, lazy-ass!). That sort of stuff.

I'm being a bit silly here, of course.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]For example, over 60% of Americans are in favor of a national handgun registry, something which the NRA crowd would deride as "draconian".

That may well be, but I think we both know that it would solve little if any crime. So it shouldn't be done simply because it won't work and it would waste money that could better be used by the police to stop more crime in other ways. If you asked a police chief "Hey, would you like a national handgun registry or 5% more police officers, either of which is paid for by federal funds?" the chiefs would probably pick the extra cops, because it would be more effective.

[Lurks Often]

58. Interesting comment from you

"I guess, when the bulk of the scientific evidence goes against you, denialism is the only play you have left."

I find that comment definitely applies to those in favor of gun control.

[DanTex]

3. And I assume you're equally opposed to scientists working with the American Cancer Society...

...or the American Heart Association. And obviously you'd want to blacklist any scientist that has worked with, say, the Natural Resources Defense Council. And so on.

Comparing the NRA to gun violence charities is a total false equivalence. A lot of scientists also work with advocacy groups, particularly in areas of public health. Doing so doesn't affect the validity of their peer-reviewed studies. Are we suddenly supposed to believe that a peer-reviewed study by a reputable scientist that was partially funded by the American Cancer Society is somehow equivalent to a press release by the Tobacco Institute?

[gejohnston]

5. show me evidence Hemenway is actually valid

or why his work is contradicted by peer reviewed criminologists such as James Wright, Peter Rossi, and yeah Kleck? None of them are funded by interest groups.

NRA or "gun violence charities" is the same. Comparing the American Heart Association and "gun violence charities" is the false equivalence. One actually cares about health and safety, the other is culture war. Culture war is the primary reason the gun control movement exists, not safe streets.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=250959

Oh look, a peer reviewed publication, not a gun blog.

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volume 37, Issue 5, September–October 2009, Pages 496–504

[DanTex]

7. LOL. "Evidence that Hemenway is actually valid"?

I'm not sure what what "Hemenway is valid" means, but let's start with the fact that he is a highly regarded professor at Harvard, one of the top public health departments in the nation. On top of that, he has an extensive publication record in reputable peer reviewed journals. And then there's the fact that the NRA crowd never seems to come up with any substantive criticism of his research, they just keep on trying to dismiss him (and the dozens of other academics who have committed the sin of publishing scientific research on gun violence) as "invalid" because of his ties to gun violence charity groups.

By the way, the only people who think that gun violence charities are fighting a "culture war" are gun ideologues. To the reality-based community, they are working towards solutions to a problem that costs 30,000 American lives every year. And, yes, I get that there are a small number of contrarian academics who push the pro-gun line, but their main results have been refuted several times over in the literature. So it's no coincidence that that paper you cite about how "Gary Kleck is right and the rest of the world is wrong" is written by none other than Gary Kleck. The fact that Kleck, Wright, and Rossi are the only criminologists you have ever heard of doesn't make them the only ones that exist. It's really just a statement about your selective reading of the academic literature.

[gejohnston]

10. let me repprase that

I'm not sure what what "Hemenway is valid" means, but let's start with the fact that he is a highly regarded professor at Harvard, one of the top public health departments in the nation.

That is work is actually valid. Actually, his chairmanship is funded by the Joyce Foundation. Do you seriously think that I'm going to take your word that he is highly regarded?

On top of that, he has an extensive publication record in reputable peer reviewed journals. And then there's the fact that the NRA crowd never seems to come up with any substantive criticism of his research, they just keep on trying to dismiss him (and the dozens of other academics who have committed the sin of publishing scientific research on gun violence) as "invalid" because of his ties to gun violence charity groups.

So do his critics. And I have yet to see any "gun control advocate" come up with any substantive criticism of any criminologist that contradicts or challenges him.

By the way, the only people who think that gun violence charities are fighting a "culture war" are gun ideologues. To the reality-based community, they are working towards solutions to a problem that costs 30,000 American lives every year.

Sorry, a peer reviewed article in a criminology publication trumps your nonsense.

And, yes, I get that there are a small number of contrarian academics who push the pro-gun line, but their main results have been refuted several times over in the literature.

None of them have been refuted. The proper academic term is countered.

So it's no coincidence that that paper you cite about how "Gary Kleck is right and the rest of the world is wrong" is written by none other than Gary Kleck.

How narrow minded and anti-intellectual of you. It was a peer reviewed article. If you discount Kleck without reading it, then you are saying there is something wrong with the peer review process. But according to you, Hemenway is always right because he is peer reviewed. Can you come up with a substitutive critique?

The fact that Kleck, Wright, and Rossi are the only criminologists you have ever heard of doesn't make them the only ones that exist. It's really just a statement about your selective reading of the academic literature.

The same could be said of you. You only read, or claim to read, the same six or seven economists and MDs. Actually, I have heard of quite a few.

[DanTex]

14. Now you're doing that thing you always do... make false statements.

We've been over this ground many times before, and so far you have come up with exactly zero substantive criticism of Hemenway's research or anyone else's research for that matter. The way to judge science, ultimately, is based on content, yet whenever we get into a discussion of content, you run and hide and scream "Joyce! Joyce!" and make false accusations.

An example of what I mean by "substantive criticism" is this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=428987&mesg_id=436540

[gejohnston]

18. that is not a false claim

Now you're doing that thing you always do... make false statements. We've been over this ground many times before, and so far you have come up with exactly zero substantive criticism of Hemenway's research or anyone else's research for that matter.

Really? What false statement is that? Check Joyce's website or Wikipedia. His chair is funded by Joyce. That is not false. What other falsehood are you accusing me of? Or are you back to making patronizing rants like in DU2 and then denying you made them? We are not talking about Kleck. My point was that advocacy research is not science. You use the example of the health advocacy groups like American Cancer Society. Did they fund research? Did they advocate based on research not funded by them or any similar organization?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JoyceFoundationGunControlFundingR1.png

Reading that DU post, I noticed you and Hemenway have similar writing styles. Actually, that thread has a couple of excellent critiques of Hemenway. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I'll just put the whole link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x428987#435260

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JoyceFoundationGunControlFundingR1.png

I

[DanTex]

20. And it continues... No substance. Joyce! Something you made up! Kleck is your hero!

Does it ever occur to you to maybe educate yourself about the substance of the scientific research, so you could have an informed debate about it, rather than just repeating the false talking points?

[gejohnston]

22. as soon as you do

and they are not false. And you are back to your absurd self.

Does it ever occur to you to maybe educate yourself about the substance of the scientific research, so you could have an informed debate about it, rather than just repeating the false talking points?

Have you? Are you actually interested in informed debate? I honestly don't think you are. Speaking of false talking points, claiming something is false is not the same as it being false.

[DanTex]

24. Still waiting for you to make a single substantive point.

You know, like Hemenway's research is flawed because _________?

For example, in my criticism of Kleck, I pointed out that his methodology for measuring DGUs is extremely sensitive to false positives, leading to gross overestimates. I pointed out that his estimates fail multiple external validation checks. Etc. See that other post of mine. And there are many others. So if you are claiming that I don't engage in substantive debate about the research, you are lying.

On the other hand, all you can do is cry Joyce, over and over. And that's all you are going to continue to do. Because you don't actually understand the research well enough to have an informed debate. You simply like Kleck because he tells you what you want to hear, but you don't have an informed opinion.

[gejohnston]

47. that would require a long post

Last edited Wed May 30, 2012, 05:40 AM - Edit history (1)

In your post, you made a claim, but did not point anything about his methodology. About false positives, that would be one percent of positives, not one percent of all responses. Out of 100 people, 10 say yes, a one percent false positive would mean 0.1 instead of 1. Correct?
external validation checks, such as?

Finally, even if one ignored these logical fallacies, H's argument still fails, because it depends on an erroneous factual assumption. H states that "from the NCVS, we know that there were fewer than six million burglaries in 1992,"[36] and makes similar statements about rapes.[37] In fact, we do not "know" any such thing. No competent criminologist believes that the NCVS provides complete coverage of all burglaries, or any other crimes, occurring in the U.S. And once one concedes that there may be far more crimes than the NCVS estimates, H's argument collapses, since it becomes impossible to argue that the number of DGUs linked to a given crime are implausibly high relative to the total number of crimes of that type¾we simply do not know the latter number.

In a second variety of this fallacious line of reasoning, H cites estimates of the number of gunshot wound (GSW) victims treated in emergency rooms and falsely claims that "K-G report that 207,000 times per year the gun defender thought he wounded or killed the offender."[38] In fact, we did not compute or report this 207,000 estimate, and we specifically cautioned against using our data on GSWs because they were based (unlike our estimates of DGU frequency in general) on a small sample. Moreover, we cautioned because we had done no detailed questioning of RS regarding why they thought that they had wounded their adversaries.[39]

In any case, there is nothing even mildly inconsistent between this GSW estimate and emergency room data on persons treated for GSWs. H again makes the implicit assumption that DGU-linked woundings are entirely a subset of woundings treated in medical facilities. If one more plausibly assumes that substantial numbers of less serious GSWs are not treated in such facilities, the number of medically treated GSWs cannot be used as an upper limit on the number of [Page 1454] DGUs that result in a GSW. If, for example, the total annual number of GSWs, treated or untreated, were 400,000, there would obviously be nothing even mildly implausible about 200,000 of them being DGU- linked, especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of victims of known assault GSWs are criminals.[40]

One more thing:

Fortunately, though, Hemenway has actually looked into the question of what fraction of reported DGUs are actually "good". He did a phone survey similar to Klecks, but also recorded descriptions of the alleged DGUs. He then showed the reports to a panel of judges, who found more than half to be likely illegal, and a to a group of criminology students, who found that only about 25% were socially desirable. In other words, even if we were to accept the huge DGU estimates, that does not translate into a net benefit for society.

Here is honest question, who were these judges? Were the familiar with the laws with that place at that time for individual gun use? What exactly was deemed illegal?
How was "socially desirable" defined? What basis did they define what was and what was not socially desirable? What information did they have to come to these conclusions?

I did quick search, and yes I did but not with you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=376715&mesg_id=431714
Did I go in depth, no. Hemenway's speculation is a problem. And no, I was not lying about your willingness or ability to have civil conversations. You had one with one person or two. Big fucking deal. Can you do it with most of the folks here? Me specificlly? No. Not once. Every post of yours to me has been anything but civil or reasoned. In DU2, you posts directed at me specifically, were deleted because of personal attacks directed at me specifically. Can you show one or even two posts to me that were civil and reasoned? I seriously doubt it. Granted I responded in kind. Then it was my intellect, and now my honesty. Of course you will demand to see the DU2 deleted posts as evidence, and then claim I was lying when the impossible can't be done.
So I think your hero is a shill and not the "respected scientist" you claim he is. Fucking deal with it. So some Criminologists came up with results they did not expect and you don't like. Fucking deal with it. Science should have no ideology.

[DanTex]

49. ...

In your post, you made a claim, but did not point anything about his methodology. About false positives, that would be one percent of positives, not one percent of all responses. Out of 100 people, 10 say yes, a one percent false positive would mean 0.1 instead of 1. Correct?

One percent false positive rate means that, among all people for whom the true answer is "no", one percent of those people say "yes".

external validation checks, such as?

Look, I've had long debates about this, in which I've responded to the points Kleck is making several times. Briefly, in order for Kleck to be right, not just one but several measurements of crime rates from NCVS have to be wrong by an order of magnitude. Also the FBI numbers have to be wrong. And NCVS is a much higher quality survey than KG -- teams of sociologists have spent years refining the NCVS methodology and testing it to ensure it is as accurate as possible. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that KG kept their false positive rate below 1%, which would be necessary for his results to be valid, since many (most) phone surveys have an FP rate above 1%. Etc. I've been over this before, and all you seem to do is cut and paste Kleck's words that I've already replied to.

Here is honest question, who were these judges? Were the familiar with the laws with that place at that time for individual gun use? What exactly was deemed illegal?
How was "socially desirable" defined? What basis did they define what was and what was not socially desirable? What information did they have to come to these conclusions?

I don't know. But I think it's pretty safe to assume the judges were familiar with the laws in place. The whole point is that, unlike Kleck, H actually went out to recruit other people who were not involved with the research to decide what was legal or socially desirable. Yes, "socially desirable" is not a precisely defined concept, but then neither is "defensive", and K just took the word of the survey respondents about the defensiveness of their DGUs. Funny how that doesn't seem to bother you at all, and yet you get all nitpicky when it comes to H's methodology, which, while imperfect, is clearly better.

Did I go in depth, no. Hemenway's speculation is a problem. And no, I was not lying about your willingness or ability to have civil conversations. You had one with one person or two. Big fucking deal. Can you do it with most of the folks here? Me specificlly? No. Not once. Every post of yours to me has been anything but civil or reasoned. In DU2, you posts directed at me specifically, were deleted because of personal attacks directed at me specifically. Can you show one or even two posts to me that were civil and reasoned? I seriously doubt it. Granted I responded in kind. Then it was my intellect, and now my honesty. Of course you will demand to see the DU2 deleted posts as evidence, and then claim I was lying when the impossible can't be done.
So I think your hero is a shill and not the "respected scientist" you claim he is. Fucking deal with it. So some Criminologists came up with results they did not expect and you don't like. Fucking deal with it. Science should have no ideology.

Blah blah blah. I don't doubt your intelligence or your integrity. But you do have a habit of posting things that aren't true. And you seem to know a lot about the circumstances surrounding the science, but not so much about the content. That's what makes me think you are approaching the issue ideologically.

[gejohnston]

50. and

One percent false positive rate means that, among all people for whom the true answer is "no", one percent of those people say "yes".

In this context, it is the same as the error rate.

Look, I've had long debates about this, in which I've responded to the points Kleck is making several times. Briefly, in order for Kleck to be right, not just one but several measurements of crime rates from NCVS have to be wrong by an order of magnitude. Also the FBI numbers have to be wrong. And NCVS is a much higher quality survey than KG -- teams of sociologists have spent years refining the NCVS methodology and testing it to ensure it is as accurate as possible. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that KG kept their false positive rate below 1%, which would be necessary for his results to be valid, since many (most) phone surveys have an FP rate above 1%. Etc. I've been over this before, and all you seem to do is cut and paste Kleck's words that I've already replied to.

and all you do is regurgitate Hemenway's. Many crimes go unreported.

On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that KG kept their false positive rate below 1%, which would be necessary for his results to be valid, since many (most) phone surveys have an FP rate above 1%.

He went in great depth on explaining in his methods. Do you have cite for that?

I don't know. But I think it's pretty safe to assume the judges were familiar with the laws in place. The whole point is that, unlike Kleck, H actually went out to recruit other people who were not involved with the research to decide what was legal or socially desirable. Yes, "socially desirable" is not a precisely defined concept, but then neither is "defensive", and K just took the word of the survey respondents about the defensiveness of their DGUs. Funny how that doesn't seem to bother you at all, and yet you get all nitpicky when it comes to H's methodology, which, while imperfect, is clearly better.

Why should I assume they were? Defense has a pretty clear definition. Social desirability is not. Funny how you give H the benefit of doubt without question but you get all nitpicky when it comes to anyone who disagrees. That is why I think you are simply using H to say "see I am right" rather than look at the actual science.

Blah blah blah. I don't doubt your intelligence or your integrity. But you do have a habit of posting things that aren't true. And you seem to know a lot about the circumstances surrounding the science, but not so much about the content. That's what makes me think you are approaching the issue ideologically.

Really? No, I have no such habit. Everyone makes mistakes, but I do a good job of backing up what I claim. I never claimed to be a scientist, but I think you pretend to understand more than you actually do. Both sides operate from ideology, you seem to be the only one not being honest about that fact.

[DanTex]

52. LOL! A good job of backing up what you claim!

Anyway, it's very obvious that you really don't understand what's going on at a substantive level with the gun violence research. Sorry, but that's the truth. What do you expect me to say when you post things like "it is the same as the error rate" and "many crimes go unreported" and "he went in great depth explaining his methods". Do you really expect me to pretend that these are well thought-out and insightful comments?

[gejohnston]

56. that is the truth

but I doubt you do either, otherwise you would actually do more than regurgitate what others say without adding to it. How is NCVS methods better than Kleck's and why? NCVS did not approach the issue specifically, they were concerned crime in general.

Actually, it was meant to be a quick answer. I'll get back with a more thought out answer later.

[ellisonz]

60. Sometimes patience does not lead to resolution...

...and especially on the internet. That dog simply does not hunt. Kinda

[gejohnston]

46. OK, other than

Last edited Wed May 30, 2012, 02:53 AM - Edit history (2)

regurgitating your hero, sure. I don't have time or the inclination for regurgitating in the interest of pomposity (it is evident in your language. You can learn a lot about people not so much what they say but how they say it.) I prefer the original writers speak for themselves.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

I also don't have the time to waste on someone who claims to be interested in debate but spends much of the time making personal attacks and rude condescending remarks. For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=422017&mesg_id=422300
one of the few the mods didn't zap. And to think it all started when I questioned your hero's.
The the link in your post was one of the few, perhaps the only, exception.
I asked a simple question, was the situation in the OP improper. Instead of a reasonable answer and rationale you give some defensive nonsense about American Cancer Society. ACS funds research, some to Nobel Prize winners. They also do things like give accurate information about screenings, prevention etc. VPC and Brady? They complain about safety programs and falsely compare Eddie Eagle with Joe Camel. There is no comparison.
As I told another poster, it gives the appearance of some economist getting an award from API after writing climate change denial papers. At the risk of being a bit of a prig, I would not have shown up in that situation.
But of course, as usual, you will whine that I made the whole thing up and make up stupid lies. Even when I provide links and proof you still whine because you don't like having your assumptions challenged.

As for your fact free "you accept Kleck because he tells you what you want to hear" and "those are the only criminologists you heard of" is total bullshit. I'm guessing you are pretty selective in what academic lit. you read yourself. Assuming you actually read it. I think you accept what is supposed to be the "liberal" position without much critical thought behind it. You make baseless assumptions about me.

[DanTex]

48. Wow, you're linking to something by Gary Kleck! Shocking!

You're a teacher, right? That means you know the difference between being able to explain something in your own words, and simply being able to cut and paste a link to an article by His Royal Highness Gary Kleck.

Anyway, does it ever feel a little, umm, strange for you to (a) insult me and (b) whine about my "personal attacks and condescending remarks" in the same post. Really, those posts I had deleted were like a year ago, I think it's time for you to move on. If you're the kind of person who holds year-long grudges over something posted on the internet, maybe the gungeon isn't for you. And also, I know you're not so thin-skinned when it comes to personal attacks against pro-control posters, because just a few days ago you defended a post calling a pro-control woman a "bitter spinster". So what gives?

It would be great to have a civil discussion about the content of the science, the problem is that:
(a) you don't seem to engage with the actual science, all you do is accuse all of the scientists of serial dishonesty when their results don't support your ideology, and
(b) you have a habit of making things up on the spot when the facts don't go your way.

Actually one of your favorite techniques, which combines both prongs of the gejohnston method, is to grossly exaggerate the extent to which gun violence research is funded by Joyce, and thus it's all just propaganda from "big gun control". So, for example, you have claimed that Kellerman's studies were funded by Joyce (false). Multiple times, you have claimed that the Cook-Ludwig DGU study was funded by Joyce (false). And so on. And so, serious question here. How do you want me to respond? Sure, maybe the first time it was an honest mistake by you, but by now you must know better. What conclusion can I draw other than you're not interested in an honest discussion?

Another one of your favorites is to diminish the breadth of academics doing mainstream research on gun violence. The thing is, on the pro-gun side it really is the case that without Kleck, the argument simply falls apart. But it's not the same with the mainstream research. Hemenway is only one of many researchers, and as I've repeated many times, they come from different backgrounds, including sociology, criminology, economics, and public health. Even if Hemenway was a total hack and we ignore every study he's published, there's still a substantial literature out there (Vernick, Teret, Cook, Ludwig, Branas, Zimring, McDowall, Loftin, Kellerman, Wiebe, Wiersema, etc.) But I don't know why I'm repeating this again, because you're just going to ignore it and go on with your false insistence that it's just "a couple of economists and MDs"...


On to the American Cancer Society. Yes, the American Cancer Society is much bigger than Joyce, and Cancer affects a lot more people than gun violence, but those are differences in scale. Qualitatively, they are both share the key elements:
(a) they are privately funded
(b) they support both scientific research as well as political advocacy and advertisements designed for the general audience
(c) right-wing loons and industry propagandists think they are "biased"
And those are the only substantive points you've made against Joyce. The only reason you like ACS but think Joyce is the devil is because of your political ideology. You have zero evidence of any kind of scientific malpractice by Joyce or by any Joyce-funded research. Not all privately funded research is bad, particularly when the private funding is disclosed and has no profit motive. Yes, privately funded research can be problematic -- and so can govt funded research, BTW -- but just the fact that research is privately funded is not enough to dismiss it.

Speaking of political intervention into the scientific process, one fact that (surprise!) doesn't seem to bother you one bit is that a reason that you see private funding of gun violence studies is because the NRA used its political influence in congress to cut off the CDC's funding of gun violence research. This, of course, is by far the biggest distortion of the scientific process that has occurred in all of gun violence research, but you with your insistence on scientific purity don't seem to care at all.

And actually, if you look at other areas where a right-wing lobby has attempted to influence the outcome of science by cutting off government research funds -- tobacco, stem cells, even automobile safety -- I'd say that the gun violence research is in pretty good company.

[gejohnston]

51. really?

Yes I do, but there is also regurgitating what someone else says, without any are a very good explanation on why it matters, and being more honest about it.

(a) you don't seem to engage with the actual science, all you do is accuse all of the scientists of serial dishonesty when their results don't support your ideology, and
(b) you have a habit of making things up on the spot when the facts don't go your way.

I question their honesty. I do no such thing, how about you actually give an example? I do believe you project a lot.

a) they are privately funded
(b) they support both scientific research as well as political advocacy and advertisements designed for the general audience
(c) right-wing loons and industry propagandists think they are "biased"

The biggest difference one supports research to find cures or treatments to cancer, and not research trying to prove tobacco causes cancer. I have never seen industry propagandists attacking the ACS.

Speaking of political intervention into the scientific process, one fact that (surprise!) doesn't seem to bother you one bit is that a reason that you see private funding of gun violence studies is because the NRA used its political influence in congress to cut off the CDC's funding of gun violence research. This, of course, is by far the biggest distortion of the scientific process that has occurred in all of gun violence research, but you with your insistence on scientific purity don't seem to care at all.

Is the CDC actually the proper agency to deal with crime? IIRC, one of the studies in question was Kellerman's "a gun is a magical talisman" study. That did smack of advocacy, which makes it different than the others. Stem cells, for example, researchers were looking for ways to use them to cure diseases, not advocate their use or not. That may be nitpicky to you, it is actually a big difference.

[DanTex]

55. Blah blah blah.

To you "advocacy" research is simply research whose results have implications which you don't like politically. I'm still waiting for the first instance of you finding an actual scientific flaw in Kellermann's or Hemenway's or anyone else's research. You do realize that Tobacco companies insisted for a long time that the research linking smoking to cancer was "advocacy reserach". And oil companies insist that global warming research is "advocacy" research. Same deal. Scientific community one side, right-wing special interest groups on the other.

Oh, and I'm getting a little tired of pointing ou all the false statements you make, but here's another one:

The biggest difference one supports research to find cures or treatments to cancer, and not research trying to prove tobacco causes cancer. I have never seen industry propagandists attacking the ACS.

Actually, there was (and still is) plenty of research directed at determining whether or not smoking causes cancer, and also at determining the risks of sidestream smoke, etc. A lot of cancer research in general is aimed at identifying risk factors, not just at finding a cure. Did you really not know this? The link between smoking and lung cancer was hugely controversial for quite some time. And you still get libertarian loons criticizing the "anti-smoking agenda" of ACS. Try googling:

...
As the article admits, so-called “cancer advocates and researchers” so viciously hate tobacco companies that any association with one is grounds for expulsion from the scientific discussion. What could be more biased than that?

And yet the research produced by these same scientists and activists is used to justify smoking bans, tobacco taxes, increased tobacco regulations, and other anti-smoking laws. Why is it not considered biased when a group of scientists who hate an entire industry always seem to come up with research that supports restricting that industry’s product?

Further, funding for anti-tobacco organizations like the American Cancer Society and other groups comes from two sources: government agencies and individual and foundation donations. (Additionally, some groups like the ACS are considered by many to be in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.) To suggest that these funding sources are any less prejudiced would be a dubious assertion.

People and foundations that fund anti-smoking groups and researchers know that the studies being conducted are looking for reasons to ban and regulate tobacco, and they support that goal. Meanwhile, government bureaucrats have power to gain if they can further tax and regulate tobacco, not to mention jobs to loose if the research they fund or conduct doesn’t support more regulations or conducting further anti-smoking studies.
...

http://www.stogieguys.com/2008/04/04032008-stogie-commentary-the-anti-smoking-bias.html

Gee, if you replace "tobacco" with "gun" and "ACS" with "Brady", this could have come straight from the NRA! It's all the same playbook...

[gejohnston]

57. I suggest you read some older posts

To you "advocacy" research is simply research whose results have implications which you don't like politically. I'm still waiting for the first instance of you finding an actual scientific flaw in Kellermann's or Hemenway's or anyone else's research. You do realize that Tobacco companies insisted for a long time that the research linking smoking to cancer was "advocacy reserach". And oil companies insist that global warming research is "advocacy" research. Same deal. Scientific community one side, right-wing special interest groups on the other.

No, advocacy research is starting with a conclusion and creating a study to make the facts fit the conclusion, like pot is a gateway drug, creationism. What API or tobacco industry has anything to with it escapes me.

Not one? I think you need to look back in the archives closer.

[PavePusher]

13. "gun violence charities"?

Who do they give financial assistance to? (hint: themsleves) Training? (no-one) Assist law enforcement agencies? (Not that I've seen) Who gives them funding? (1%-ers) What do they do with it? (lobby {read-bribe} politicians, i.e. they are a "special interest group&quot What are theri goals. (control other people they don't like)

[DanTex]

15. Yes, that's what right-wingers say about global warming advocacy groups also...

It's a conspiracy against freedom!!!!!!!!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. I noticed that you did not refute what he said, but chose to play the "right-winger" card

Lets do a little fisking, shall we?:

"gun violence charities"?

Who do they give financial assistance to? (hint: themsleves)
...and people that say things they want to hear, like Hemenway and Josh Sugarman

Training? (no-one)
However, they are more than happy to complain about the NRA's Eddie Eagle program- without doing anything along the same lines, I might add:
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiekey.htm

Assist law enforcement agencies? (Not that I've seen)
IIRC, the ATF had to tell Mike Bloomberg (Mayor 0.1% and Lord High Poo-Bah of MAIG) to quit running his James O'Keefe-style antigun stings

Who gives them funding? (1%-ers)
They *have* to get funding from the 1%ers, as they are as astroturf as the global warming deniers you mentioned- the Brady Campaigns
membership is outnumbered ca. 80:1 by the NRA's

What do they do with it? (lobby {read-bribe} politicians, i.e. they are a "special interest group&quot
and pay for mailings, etc.- FSM knows they don't actually make very many campaign contributions...

What are (their) goals. (control other people they don't like)
They've got Anslinger-Wertham syndrome something fierce- unfortunately for them, the concomitant moral panic mongering played out years ago
as is obvious to those who have enough brain cells to track political trends and enough honesty to see where they are going...

[PavePusher]

54. Well done, thanks!

[PavePusher]

53. I refer you back to your own words....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117240667#post24

[Simo 1939_1940]

17. No - it is absolutely **not** proper.

How would some here react if Kleck, Wright, or Rossi showed up at an NRA convention or was awarded the Outstanding American Handgunner Award?

Well......I think we all know the answer to that (rhetorical) question. The fact that some of the "progressives" in this forum have no problem with the example you've cited is a monumental credibility buster - and it's hardly an isolated example of such conflict of interest. Just prior to the contents page of his book "Targeting Guns" (and presumably Point Blank, from which TG derives) Dr. Kleck provides the following voluntary disclosure:

The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

[petronius]

28. I don't see a problem with an interest group in a particular area honoring a researcher

for their contributions to the field of study. It's also fine for scientists to wear more than one hat - scholar as well as advocate - as long as one hat comes off when the other goes on, and the line between the two roles is kept sharp and bright.

As a scientist, I'd want to do everything possible to minimize confusion, and in Hemenway's position I might have asked for a word other than "leadership" or perhaps a more distinct division from the politician, but there's nothing overtly improper or suggestive about this invite...

[gejohnston]

30. Not being a scientist

I usually do. To me it, at least looks like, a parallel to some climate change denier "researcher" being honored by the American Petroleum Institute.

[petronius]

33. That's certainly the risk an academic takes in this situation - but a free dinner

and a shiny plaque for the office wall are pretty sweet inducements!

[GeorgeGist]

41. You ask this question ...

and then have the audacity to quote Albert Einstein?

Teh Stupid it Burns.

[gejohnston]

45. Please explain

what one has to do with the other.

[Remmah2]

44. Research on gun control is not really science.

More of an emotional opinion and feel good hype issue.

If anything the debate and research skills of the pro2A crowd get sharpened.

True scientific research (ie: cancer, global warming, materials science) does not even belong in the same category.