- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Stanford Study Claims Right-to-Carry Linked to Higher Crime Rate
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:28 pm
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:28 pm
7
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:43 pm to bapple
Donohue is an anti-gun shill in the same vein as Kellerman.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:45 pm to bapple
I'm not reading it but I'm assuming it's a correlation study, my statistics professor always told us that correlations were bullshite. His exact words.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:51 pm to ZacAttack
Posted on 11/17/14 at 7:16 am to bapple
About damn time someone pointed this out!
TRUTH!!!
But seriously...there's a correlation between the two but not causation.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:47 am to Clames
Good info Clames. I figured it was a cherry-picked study anyway.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:55 am to bapple
When you adapt the measuring tool to fit your agenda, you make data say whatever you want.
Crap in = Crap Out
Crap in = Crap Out
Posted on 11/17/14 at 12:10 pm to bapple
He used some type of regression analysis which is slightly more robust than basic correlations but there are SO many confounding variables to control for (seriously? he controlled for crack as the only major confound?). I don't have time to read the other rebuttal article but I agree with the others:
Crap in = Crap out
You can make data fit your agenda if you have one. (This applies both ways).
ETA: from the article-
It PISSES me off when they say the data "Proved" something. Data can be used to reject a Null hypothesis (It happened by chance alone). Data does not "prove" anything, it just helps us better understand possible explanations.
Crap in = Crap out
You can make data fit your agenda if you have one. (This applies both ways).
ETA: from the article-
quote:
"Different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect,"
It PISSES me off when they say the data "Proved" something. Data can be used to reject a Null hypothesis (It happened by chance alone). Data does not "prove" anything, it just helps us better understand possible explanations.
This post was edited on 11/17/14 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 11/17/14 at 12:43 pm to bapple
Where's the actual publication with said study?
That article presents nothing
That article presents nothing
Posted on 11/17/14 at 12:45 pm to LSU_Lou
quote:
It PISSES me off when they say the data "Proved" something. Data can be used to reject a Null hypothesis (It happened by chance alone). Data does not "prove" anything, it just helps us better understand possible explanations.
I don't think it said proved anywhere. Claims, suggests, etc. No single study can prove anything.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:45 pm to Boats n Hose
quote:
Where's the actual publication with said study?
It links the abstract in the article. Here is a link to the abstract:
LINK
"New Stanford research confirms that right-to-carry gun laws are linked to an increase in violent crime."
Close enough to "prove" for me.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 4:42 pm to bapple
quote:in Palo Alto, California. Surely you aren't surprised by this "study".
Stanford
Posted on 11/17/14 at 5:05 pm to LSU_Lou
quote:
confirms
Yea. Not scientific. Dumb.
Abstract doesn't even actually present the data. I'm too lazy to look over it but I'm sure it's shitty statistics. Very little about it seems subjective.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News