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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Gun Culture May Contribute to Suicide Rate in Rural America [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)73. LOL. That's not a "Harvard Study".
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 It was not peer reviewed, and the people writing it are pro-gun ideologues, neither of whom, to my knowledge, have ever published a peer reviewed study on the effect of guns on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.
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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 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
Yea, who cares how many teens kill themselves with readily available guns, as long as you keep yours
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#4
Guns enable suicide. Agree with other aspects of your post, but the same right wingers who back
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#5
I will when you guys quit using false imagery of "thugs" as an excuse to strap a gun or two
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#8
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
No your imagery just spurs you to spit on the Consitution and the rights it enumerates.
Atypical Liberal
Jun 2012
#35
Did he shoot you? If not, and I hope not, a gun would not have made things better.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#23
More folks that arm up, the more desperate criminals will become. They'll arm up and shoot sooner.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#30
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
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
The person stealing or robbing should consider if the contents of the wallet are worth dieing for.
Remmah2
Jun 2012
#75
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