Georgia has new gun law.

[Upchurch]

What's your evidence that the tobacco studies funded by Philip Morris were influenced by them?

What? I'm pretty sure that was your claim, not mine.

The Journal of Public Health published this piece of garbage, didn't they?

They published it because it survived the peer-review process. That means it was reviewed by qualified experts in the field and they found nothing wrong with it. (Or more likely, they did and the study was revised and resubmitted.) You can ignore that all you like, but it just goes to prove my point that this is anti-science nonsense.

It's a garbage study that used that awkward methodology specifically because studying the issue directly wouldn't yield the result they were after.

Since you know so much about it, could you please quote their methodology? What, exactly, is your background and expertise in sociological statistical analysis that allows you to criticize professionals in the field without even looking at the published study?

This is like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham "debunking" evolution without really bothering to understanding anything about it.

 

[WildCat]

I see Wildcat's entire argument is "Phillip Morris did junk science, therefore any science I disagree with is also junk science."

Once again, you are unable to comprehend what I wrote.

What? I'm pretty sure that was your claim, not mine.

I pointed out that Philip Morris hired researchers to get the results they wanted, just like Bloomberg did.

They published it because it survived the peer-review process. That means it was reviewed by qualified experts in the field and they found nothing wrong with it. (Or more likely, they did and the study was revised and resubmitted.) You can ignore that all you like, but it just goes to prove my point that this is anti-science nonsense.

A study can have nothing wrong with it, yet still yield spectacularly wrong results. Particularly when making a correlation = causation claim.

Since you know so much about it, could you please quote their methodology? What, exactly, is your background and expertise in sociological statistical analysis that allows you to criticize professionals in the field without even looking at the published study?

This is like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham "debunking" evolution without really bothering to understanding anything about it.

I saw the study, and I described it earlier in this very same thread. The fact remains that the purpose was to determine if the change in gun laws was responsible for additional murders in Missouri. But rather than take the obvious approach to do that - comparing/contrasting the source of firearms used in murders before and after the law - they instead used a statistical analysis which included comparisons to neighboring states which have little in common demographically or in crime rates to Missouri.

I can think of a reason to study a problem indirectly when a simpler direct method is available, and "to ensure the most scientifically sound conclusion" isn't it.

 

[WildCat]

And there was a mass shooting in Georgia today, guy with a shotgun shot up a FedEx facility.

And guess what? FedEx facilities are "gun free zones", surprise surprise surprise! Fits the pattern to a T, somehow those "no guns allowed" signs don't deter people who want to commit murder. Do a damn good job at disarming those who just want to be able to defend themselves though.

 

[Upchurch]

I pointed out that Philip Morris hired researchers to get the results they wanted, just like Bloomberg did.

Evidence? I have not seen anything to suggest that Michael Bloomberg was involved with this study.

A study can have nothing wrong with it, yet still yield spectacularly wrong results. Particularly when making a correlation = causation claim.

Are you saying this study has nothing wrong with it, yet has yielded spectacularly wrong results?

I saw the study, and I described it earlier in this very same thread.

Yes, you described it prior to it's release.

The fact remains that the purpose was to determine if the change in gun laws was responsible for additional murders in Missouri. But rather than take the obvious approach to do that - comparing/contrasting the source of firearms used in murders before and after the law - they instead used a statistical analysis which included comparisons to neighboring states which have little in common demographically or in crime rates to Missouri.

You say it is obvious, but you have not reviewed either the study or the data they examined and how they controlled for various factors. You made your conclusion prior to having the facts and have since fit the data to your conclusion (or ignored it completely) rather than adjusting your conclusion to fit with the data.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And there was a mass shooting in Georgia today, guy with a shotgun shot up a FedEx facility.

And guess what? FedEx facilities are "gun free zones", surprise surprise surprise! Fits the pattern to a T, somehow those "no guns allowed" signs don't deter people who want to commit murder. Do a damn good job at disarming those who just want to be able to defend themselves though.

Is it a surprise? A sign doesn't do much since the entire state is saturated with guns. Fits the patternt to a T, where it's legal and easy to get guns, people get shot.

 

[WildCat]

Is it a surprise? A sign doesn't do much since the entire state is saturated with guns. Fits the patternt to a T, where it's legal and easy to get guns, people get shot.

And yet Georgia's murder rate is nearly identical to Illinois, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

It's almost like there's other more influential factors involved...

Good thing FedEx is a gun-free zone, or the situation could have escalated.

 

[WildCat]

Upchurch, feel free to explain why you think they didn't study the issue directly at any time.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, feel free to explain why you think they didn't study the issue directly at any time.

Shifting the burden? I was really looking forward to more of your Bloomberg CT or to you admitting that there is nothing wrong with this study but it's conclusions are wrong anyway.

First, I don't necessarily agree that it is the "direct" or "obvious" way. Maybe you should understand what they were actually trying to do:

We hypothesized that the policy change would affect homicide rates, but only those committed with firearms. Thus, the primary outcome measure was state-level annual firearm homicide rates, derived from death certificate and census data, age-adjusted (reference year 2000) in CDC’s WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) Fatal
Injury Reports. page 5

Second, I don't know that a good source of the data you're suggesting they use actually exists.
Third, the study itself seems pretty thorough to me:

Pre-repeal versus post-repeal differences in mean age-adjusted homicide rates were tested for statistical significance using t-tests. To estimate the independent association between the repeal of Missouri’s PTP handgun licensing law and age-adjusted homicide rates, we used generalized least-squares regression models. The models included state- and year fixed effects to control for baseline differences in states’ homicide rates and yearly fluctuations that occurred nationally as well as changes in the covariates described above. Standard errors for model coefficients were adjusted to account for clustering by state and for heteroskedasticty using the Eikert-Huber-White adjustment. page 7

Our analyses ruled out several alternative hypotheses to explain the relatively large and highly statistically significant increase in firearm homicides in Missouri following the repeal of its PTP handgun licensing law. We controlled for changes in unemployment, poverty, policing levels, incarceration rates, trends in crime reflected in burglary rates, national trends in homicide rates, and several kinds of other laws that could affect homicides. That Missouri’s sharp increase in firearm homicides was unique within the region, specific to firearms, and was observed in metropolitan jurisdictions across Missouri, suggests that unmeasured unique local circumstances (e.g., gang activity, changes in social norms) are unlikely to have biased our estimates of the impact of the policy change. Estimates of the effects of the repeal of Missouri’s PTP handgun law were similar for firearm homicides and total homicides using death certificate data for 43 states through 2010, and for murders and non-negligent manslaughters using police reports for all 50 states through 2012. This suggests that the data source and time period studied are unlikely to have biased the findings. page 10

So, what part of that is junk science, again? The part that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal in good standing, which is precisely what was asked for back on page 1?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I see Wildcat's entire argument is "Phillip Morris did junk science, therefore any science I disagree with is also junk science."

I do believe that Wildcat's argument is that when the person doing the science has a vested interest in a specific outcome of the science being done, then the credibility of the science is in question.

 

[Upchurch]

I do believe that Wildcat's argument is that when the person doing the science has a vested interest in a specific outcome of the science being done, then the credibility of the science is in question.

But WildCat has not established that this is the case. He seems to think that if a school is re-named after someone due to charitable contributions, then they become owner and/or director of that school and all it's research efforts. This is, of course, not even remotely true.

 

[WildCat]

Still waiting Upchurch, are you having trouble finding a plausible reason why they didn't just study the source of guns used in homicides before and after the law was passed when the whole point of the study was to determine whether or not the new law allowed more guns in the hands of criminals who used them for homicides?

 

[Giz]

But WildCat has not established that this is the case. He seems to think that if a school is re-named after someone due to charitable contributions, then they become owner and/or director of that school and all it's research efforts. This is, of course, not even remotely true.

Are you suggesting that it would be reasonable to trust trust studies by the Philip Morris Cancer Research Institute or the Big Oil Climate Change Research Institute? Or would some preliminary skepticism register in those cases?

If Bloomberg funds the center to tune of getting his name up on the plaque then it is not a crazy CT to assume they may hesitate to point their research in uncomfortable areas.

 

[WildCat]

Meanwhile, back at the scene of the FedEx shooting this morning...

How could this have happened? The "no guns" sign is right there plain as day! Oh man he's in trouble now...

 

[Upchurch]

Still waiting Upchurch, are you having trouble finding a plausible reason why they didn't just study the source of guns used in homicides before and after the law was passed when the whole point of the study was to determine whether or not the new law allowed more guns in the hands of criminals who used them for homicides?

Did you miss my response above? The one with several quotes, with citations, and challenges to your assumptions?

Are you suggesting that it would be reasonable to trust trust studies by the Philip Morris Cancer Research Institute or the Big Oil Climate Change Research Institute? Or would some preliminary skepticism register in those cases?

Preliminary skepticism, perhaps, however:

If it came from a respected research group, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and there was no authoritative disagreement with it? I would like to think I would, yes.

We aren't talking about a blog post on the Huffington Post or some hyped-up press release. This is an academic paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, all in good standing and above board.

Plus, it is available for review. I've linked to it several times in this thread alone and, thus far, no one has been able to point out any methodological flaws in what the paper presented.

If Bloomberg funds the center to tune of getting his name up on the plaque then it is not a crazy CT to assume they may hesitate to point their research in uncomfortable areas.

It is an honorarium, not ownership. There has been zero evidence presented that Michael Bloomberg had any involvement at all with that study.


eta: Just for fun, this seems appropriate:

People who do research at respected universities, that later ends up being published in respected peer reviewed journals, are well known to be much worse at statistics than most people who post on the internet. Unless I agree with them. See climate change.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And yet Georgia's murder rate is nearly identical to Illinois, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Such as? I think their laws are rather lax outside of Chicago.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder if they'd have the same objections if the NRA did studies that showed that guns play no factor in violent crimes.....

I also wonder if they'd object if the CDC decided to do studies on gun issues.

 

[Ranb]

Such as? I think their laws are rather lax outside of Chicago.

If these are lax, I wonder what you think strict is. Here is a summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
Compare to Georgia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Georgia

Ranb

 

[thaiboxerken]

Compared to Georgia, it's very lax. Compared to what I'd like to see, it's rather lax.

Also, there were more gun murders in 2010 in Georgia vs Illinois despite Georgia have a much lower population and population density.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

The murder rate in Georgia 5.3/100K where Illinois had 3.5/100K

 

[Ranb]

Compared to Georgia, it's very lax.

I'd say that Illinois is much less gun friendly than Georgia. GA doesn't ban any type of firearm while IL bans some types just because they can. An IL resident even needs a permit to possess any guns or ammo while people who visit the state do not. Seems like IL treats their residents more like peasants compared to GA.

The homicide rate in GA is only about 2% higher than that of IL. People are not more or less dead just because they were killed with a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Ranb

 

[Cleon]

Compared to Georgia, it's very lax.

How on Earth do you figure?