Reply #278: you didn't click my first link ;)

[iverglas]

In that post, where I quoted the one I quoted above, I said:

Lookie here:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.web/product_files/Oct07ff.pdf <link now dead?>

Ah, yes, the Fraser Institute ...

Mauser himself uses both the 0.90 and the 9.01 figure for Luxembourg in a completely different paper (page 24). That one's quite amazing. He apparently cites the Cdn document in which the typo appeared, and yet uses the correct figure for Luxembourg -- 0.90 -- in the table, which is otherwise identical (with the addition of the years) to the one in the Kates/Mauser paper. And yet right next to it he uses the 9.01 figure for Luxembourg to compare Luxembourg to other countries.

Compare and contrast, per you:

Here's a little write-up by Mauser in October 2007 with basically the same stuff, but he seems to have figured out that the data problem by then:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/...
Notice that he corrected the Luxembourg number in the big list in table 1. But then, in table 2, where he highlights the difference between Luxembourg (banned) and Belgium, France, and Germany (allowed), he's still got the 9.01. I guess that it wouldn't look too good if you listed the actual homicide rate of 0.9, given that it was lower than all three of Belgium, France, and Germany. I mean you wouldn't want to let the data speak for itself if what it says is the exact opposite of the story you are trying to peddle.

Scary ...

Watch out, or we'll be getting people chanting about DanTex and iverglas sitting in a tree.

Or allegations of sock puppetry or something. Such things amuse the locals.

I did get a proposal of marriage here about 3 years back. From an actual CCW type, if you can imagine (saw the thing with my own eyes). All I ended up shooting was some BBs in an amusement park ... and I won.