1. Gator Country Black Friday special!

    Stay on top of the football coach search with the Insider Authority on Gator Sports with a special discount!

    Now's a great time to join or renew and get up to $20 off your annual subscription! LIMITED QUANTITIES -- for details click here.

Here you go misguided left wingers, Harvard says you are wrong!

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by theorangebluewinagain, Sep 2, 2013.

  1. theorangebluewinagain
    Online

    theorangebluewinagain Guest Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,811
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +441
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    In an inconvenient truth moment for the anti-gun lobby, Harvard's Don Kates and Gary Mauser expose the facts behind gun control and violent crime. While not the first time we have discussed this awkward reality, the depth of the academics' datasets and the findings are unquestionable that there is in fact a "negative correlation" between violence and gun ownership. As they state, "where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest," concluding that "The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra... But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
    There is in fact a negative correlation...
    The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

    So the next time a crazy shoots a bunch of kids at school say a prayer and just know you are wrong and nothing more than an emotional misguided ignoramus.
  2. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,532
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    "Harvard" says nothing of the sort even if some on the left are wrong. The Kates and Mauser study was published in JLPP, a conservative law review journal edited by conservative law students at Harvard. This is a big distinction.

    Not only that, neither Kates nor Mauser are on faculty at Harvard, and while the paper itself was published in 2007, it was already posted on another thread by MJW. This isn't to say the paper is dated, but it is not news and there's a good chance that the journal was selected by the authors more for the audience as opposed to having there be rigorous scrutiny of their methodology since law review journals of this type aren't the same as scientific peer review journals.

    I notice though how quickly and mindlessly you appeal to authority, never even thinking to critically review what the authors allegedly find. Nope, you just assume it's true/fact because it confirms your beliefs and because Harvard is in the journal title.
  3. theorangebluewinagain
    Online

    theorangebluewinagain Guest Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,811
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +441
    So emotional bias is more significant than 5 year old statistically significant research data on the subject. Why don't you discredit the data, the methods or the conclusion. Because you can't.
  4. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,395
    Likes Received:
    426
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,158
    Since that study didn't come from Harvard, let's what Harvard really has to say about it. From the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

    link
  5. dadx4
    Online

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    30,011
    Likes Received:
    619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,885
    Harvard Law published it, the guys that wrote it are Yale and Cal grads....liberal universities. So you are saying they are full of chit?
  6. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,532
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    I absolutely can critically review such studies, whether the data and/or conclusions hold up to such review is an open question. But that takes time I don't have. That said, did you forget that you were the one who posted the study as if it was simply fact because "Harvard says" blah blah blah...? Well no, neither Harvard "the university" nor Harvard "the law school," nor even the editors said that. Two researchers said what they said.

    Fact is, law reviews publish what they believe are good reviews, ones that might be in line with a particular perspective, but this is vastly different than academic journals of (blinded) peer reviewed research where other researchers actually review the methodology and conclusions and even rerun the models from the same data to try to ensure that the methodological rigor and conclusions meet scientific standards as a research study.
  7. theorangebluewinagain
    Online

    theorangebluewinagain Guest Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,811
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +441
    Whatever. So what was wrong with their conclusion? Just answer that and answer the question, try again
  8. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,532
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    I'm not saying they are or not. But whether they went to Yale, Cal, Harvard or UF is not the standard by which research should be judged. Appealing to authority is easy, we've probably all done it at times, but it's still a logical fallacy.
  9. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,395
    Likes Received:
    426
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,158
    For one thing, it makes a point of talking about how high Luxembourg's murder rate is despite having no guns. But its rate is nowhere near as high as the authors claim it is.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,532
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    Good point. Later on, I'll search to see if any academic reviews of it have been done. In any case, a key question is about international differences in how violence, even murder, is measured. People think it's easy but cultural/social, and legal differences in defining crime, prosecuting crime etc...make attempts to study such things much tougher than most people realize.

    Not to mention, the study is a review of other studies, all of which have problems in reconciling the gun data issues, including their own. This isn't to say this makes any of their conclusions wrong (they could be correct) but not necessarily because the data support them. There's just too much to unpack though for a thorough review.
  11. corpgator
    Offline

    corpgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,319
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +792
    If we were in the top 50 of countries for homicide rate, I'd believe this.
  12. surfn1080
    Offline

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +211
    Either way it's the same conclusion conservatives have been saying.
  13. GolphinGator
    Offline

    GolphinGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Gainesville/ Micanopy
    Ratings Received:
    +239
    For the most part in my 55 years of life study I have learned that nerds or people that have spent most of there 20 years living doing school work don't know anything about people that will kill other people with guns or people that need guns in case someone trys to harm them or their family. So based on that my study thinks theirs sucks.
  14. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    44,338
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +4,137
    And if you have trouble following this post refer back to his last one:




    :grin:
    • Like Like x 1
  15. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,111
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +958
    The homicide rate for the US will always pale compared to the developing nations. Among the developed nations, the US is always quite high.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511
  16. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,481
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +688
    Does the study speak of the thing African Americans and Caucasian Americans have in common?

    Fear of getting killed by young African Americans from single mothers...
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,833
    Likes Received:
    2,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,116
    I'll bet their scientific facts are more accurate and provable than the "science" behind the faux AGW. But, don't let me get in the way of your feigned indignation about a study over gun violence. Although, a Harvard study does carry more credibility simply Becasue of who they are.
  18. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,111
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +958
    Interesting. Why would you assume this?

    What about a Harvard study on AGW?
  19. The_Graygator
    Offline

    The_Graygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    36,064
    Likes Received:
    776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,710
    They're probably racists now, too! :wink: :laugh:
  20. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,053
    Likes Received:
    515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,222
    Where legal scholarship is published says more about the notability of the authors than anything else typically (often including the quality of the work).

    It's not peer reviewed and is, as a general matter, selected for publication by third year law students and edited by second year law students.

    The considerations are broadly: whether it is topical (i.e., relevant to current discussion), preempted (has someone else written about the same thing before), notability of the authors, how much work is required to get it into publishable shape (fixing citations and the like), and for a themed journal whether it fits the theme.

    There's probably some truth to the idea that legal scholarship in a journal associated with a better school is more likely to be well done, but that's largely because notable journals are, by reputation, more likely to receive submissions from and publish authors who tend not to write hack scholarship, not because the school oversaw the quality of the scholarship in any way.

Share This Page