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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
73. LOL. That's not a "Harvard Study".
Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:25 AM
Jun 2012

It's a "study" published in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, a law review edited by a conservative/libertarian student group at Harvard Law School. It was not peer reviewed, and the people writing it are pro-gun ideologues, neither of whom, to my knowledge, have ever published a peer reviewed study on the effect of guns on suicide.

Also, as I pointed out last time someone brought up this hilarious piece of junk, that "study" actually uses false data...

Most incompetent pro-gun "researchers" tend to try to use at least slightly subtle methods for distorting and misrepresenting data. A good example is Gary Kleck, comparing estimates of defensive gun uses arrived at using one very loose methodology versus gun crimes estimated using a tighter methodology in order to come to the absurd conclusion that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses, despite the fact that any "apples-to-apples" comparison shows that there are far more criminal gun uses.

But Kates and Mauser raise the bar by simply using false data. It makes propagandizing so much easier! As has been pointed out on this board before, the authors quote the homicide rate of Luxembourg as 9.01/100K. Of course, as anyone even marginally knowledgeable about international crime statistics knows, this is completely out of the question, unless there were some kind of anomalous mass killing in that year. It is common knowledge that the only first-world nation with a homicide rate even close to that is the USA (which, not coincidentally, has far higher gun ownership than any other first-world nation).

What happened was there was a decimal point error: the Luxembourg homicide rate is actually 0.9/100K. Now, if this was some number hidden away in some table, maybe it wouldn't matter much. But it's not: they refer directly to this supposedly sky-high homicide rate of Luxembourg in the text, and they even highlight the number in Table 2. And with good reason: if that actually were the homicide rate of Luxembourg, then it would deserve to be highlighted.

This leaves us with the standard two possibilities for pro-gunner propaganda:
1) (Dishonesty) Kates and Mauser knew the number was bad, but chose to highlight it anyway, perhaps because it felt so good, for once, to have a statistic that didn't have to be further manipulated in any way in order to support their case.
2) (Incompetence) Kates and Mauser really didn't double check the number despite the fact that even an amateur would instantly be able to spot this as way out of line with reality.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the answer is. For most people I'd say dishonesty is the only possible answer, because it's such an egregious error. It would be like a climate scientist citing an increase in temperature of 8 degrees Celsius as opposed to 0.8 over the last century. But, based on the quality of the rest of this paper, along with other things I've seen by Kates and Mauser, in this case it is possible that these guys are actually clueless enough to slide by with the incompetence defense.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=475526&mesg_id=475562
Time to ban rural gunz... ileus Jun 2012 #1
The OP says "MAY" Hangingon Jun 2012 #2
Yea, who cares how many teens kill themselves with readily available guns, as long as you keep yours Hoyt Jun 2012 #4
Why should I be punished because of the actions of other people? Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #34
Oh, your poor, pitiful gun plight is so tough. Hoyt Jun 2012 #39
So that means you can not answer the question? oneshooter Jun 2012 #40
I note that you did not answer the question. Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #42
If you look at the rural suicide rates of other countries gejohnston Jun 2012 #45
This is a scumbag anti-gun appeal!!! Hells Liberal Jun 2012 #3
Guns enable suicide. Agree with other aspects of your post, but the same right wingers who back Hoyt Jun 2012 #5
So do broken beer bottles Hells Liberal Jun 2012 #6
I will when you guys quit using false imagery of "thugs" as an excuse to strap a gun or two Hoyt Jun 2012 #8
So says the one of the most prolific users... Clames Jun 2012 #9
At least my imagery doesn't spur me to run out and buy more guns and ammo. Hoyt Jun 2012 #11
Your imagery has you running down the street Spoonman Jun 2012 #17
Hey, I walk slowly down the street without worry, or weapons to comfort me. Try it, if you can. Hoyt Jun 2012 #22
You would shit your pants half way down the block I work on all day, every day! Spoonman Jun 2012 #29
I thought his imagery had him confronting lawful CCW permit holders... Clames Jun 2012 #28
No your imagery just spurs you to spit on the Consitution and the rights it enumerates. Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #35
The ass wipe that tried to rob me wasn't wearing a suit and tie! Spoonman Jun 2012 #16
Did he shoot you? If not, and I hope not, a gun would not have made things better. Hoyt Jun 2012 #23
My gun did make things better! Spoonman Jun 2012 #24
Great. He probably just shot the next person in the head before saying anything. Hoyt Jun 2012 #25
And if he did "shoot the next person in the head" Spoonman Jun 2012 #27
More folks that arm up, the more desperate criminals will become. They'll arm up and shoot sooner. Hoyt Jun 2012 #30
"More folks that arm up, the more desperate criminals will become." Spoonman Jun 2012 #31
But we aren't seeing that. Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #36
If you have a chip on your solder, your iron isn't hot enough. crayfish Jun 2012 #61
They deserved it because of so much rude totering going on. If only criminals had gunz... ileus Jun 2012 #33
I would have absolutely no compunction over shooting someone trying to take my wallet. crayfish Jun 2012 #43
That's really fucked up. Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #46
Why do you trust criminals so much? hack89 Jun 2012 #47
Did I say you should give anyone your wallet? I think not. Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #49
Yet you support laws that would take away that means of self defense hack89 Jun 2012 #50
given that losing the wallet could cause great harm to his family gejohnston Jun 2012 #48
Oh, come on GE. Put him on the street? Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #51
A lot of working class gejohnston Jun 2012 #52
So what are you saying? Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #54
no, but gejohnston Jun 2012 #55
We don't have too many Walmarts out here, thankfully. Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #56
the average meth head doesn't really think that hard gejohnston Jun 2012 #57
Absolutely. You can defend your stuff your way, I'll defend mine my way. crayfish Jun 2012 #59
Maybe because I love life, especially my own Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #62
Post removed Post removed Jun 2012 #63
You need to move on Awipe. Alert on me, I don't care. Hoyt Jun 2012 #64
I wouldn't dare, I want everyone to see what and who you are. crayfish Jun 2012 #65
We know exactly what you are. Hoyt Jun 2012 #67
Care to elaborate? crayfish Jun 2012 #68
Nope, I questioned your attitude, use of words like "effete," and hope to kill in post above. Hoyt Jun 2012 #69
My attitude is none of your fucking business. You can object to my facts or my opinion, though crayfish Jun 2012 #70
I did. Hoyt Jun 2012 #71
+ 100000000000000000000x100000000000000 Hoyt Jun 2012 #66
The person stealing or robbing should consider if the contents of the wallet are worth dieing for. Remmah2 Jun 2012 #75
I have no problem with you or anyone being a gun owner Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #58
Good point, I've wondered about that when I hear somebody say "white pride" or "black pride". crayfish Jun 2012 #60
Do you think parents are proud of their kids because of an accident of birth? Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #78
In that case, a great solution... NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #10
Sorry, I don't buy that. Guns are a health, budget, moral, etc., problem. Hoyt Jun 2012 #12
Then again. Remmah2 Jun 2012 #76
So do bridges, high roofs, Valium, and sharp objects. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2012 #41
Of the people I've known who have comitted/sttempted suicide only one by gun. Remmah2 Jun 2012 #77
The Article Recommends Locking Up Your Guns AndyTiedye Jun 2012 #18
People who commit suicide don't want to die. rrneck Jun 2012 #7
True, quite true. jeepnstein Jun 2012 #13
I don't think it's about demonizing so much as about education and awareness petronius Jun 2012 #15
I support these people in their right to die Bill O.Rights Jun 2012 #14
plus in the long run it's better for the earth. ileus Jun 2012 #21
So we're claiming guns make people want to commit suicide? ileus Jun 2012 #19
I believe that easy access to the weapon could easily cause more ladjf Jun 2012 #20
Maybe you should work to get a law passed to that effect. jeepnstein Jun 2012 #26
I wasn't suggesting the that all suicidal people could be forced to ladjf Jun 2012 #32
it seems to be higher in rural areas across the board gejohnston Jun 2012 #37
Many studies have shown that gun availability contributes to suicide rates. DanTex Jun 2012 #38
which are also rural areas gejohnston Jun 2012 #44
In contrast, alternate Harvard study. Remmah2 Jun 2012 #72
LOL. That's not a "Harvard Study". DanTex Jun 2012 #73
Do you know what a barrel shroud is? nt Remmah2 Jun 2012 #74
not a 'Harvard study', by two men who have nothing to do with Harvard John718 Jan 2013 #79
A lot of my family lives in rural areas. Dr_Scholl Jun 2012 #53
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Gun Culture May Contribut...»Reply #73