pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Harvard Study - Good Research or Not?
#1
Many of you here have much, much more knowledge about the studies that many antis use to bolster their case. I think I remember someone here referencing a Harvard study that turned out to be so erroneous that the professor was forced to resign. Is this link that study? If so, can you point me to where it was debunked?

If this isn't, then what would you say to people who keep using it to scream, "No more guns!" I've now been sent it 3 times and it is being passed around Facebook.

This is a recent conversation about the Harvard study.

Rxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Indisputable data — you would think. Still, some folks will tell you the data are "skewed." These are the same folks who believe (1) dinosaurs and humans co-existed; (2) Barack Obama is a Muslim; and (3) climate change is just a cyclical fluctuation of nature...
50 minutes ago · Like

Txxxxxxxxxxx No, actually these are NOT the same people. There is a huge bloc of Americans who are intelligent, rational and thoughtful who understand that the first step toward tyranny is ALWAYS disarmament of the people. Go read some history.
41 minutes ago · Like

Rxxxxxxxxxxx Tom, I would posit that the first step towards tyranny is controlling the flow and dissemination of information. With that under control, they don't need to disarm the people, because the armed people are following like sheep, and commonly using their arms to protect the tyrants rather than serving the populace.
25 minutes ago · Like · 2

Cxxxxxxxxxxx If the US government were to actually turn to tyranny (please understand that passing laws you don't agree with and collecting taxes passed by your elected representatives is not actually tyranny) the guns in civilian hands are not going to do much against the US military and most gun owners are not going to get into shoot outs with the US Marines. The argument is out of date and has been since the musket. If you don't like the laws you can change them with your vote. That's what we fought a revolution for, the right to vote. We have it and we don't need to be heavily armed to use it.

Thank you very much for your thoughts.

Here is the link I forgot. On iPad Tapatalk and have no idea how to edit. Can mod put it in OZp?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hic...index.html
[Image: sig-file_web.jpg]
Reply
#2
Your friends sound like fucking retards. The last person is the worst and I hope many awful things happen to them.
Soldats ! Faites votre devoir ! Droit au cœur mais épargnez le visage. Feu !
Reply
#3
I thought we fought a revolution for a wide variety of freedoms, not just for a "right to vote", which wasn't even in the original BoR.
Reply
#4
Whenever the antis think they have the might of domestic law enforcement and the military on their side, I always point out two things. Oathkeepers.org and Afghanistan.

Between the military and law enforcement, which is predominantly conservative and the ability of motivated fighters on home terrain, it is hardly the battle they envision.

Considering Oathkeepers had ten thousand plus members a couple of years ago, how big do you suppose they actually are? My guess is that for every person that signed up, at least 5 are of the same mindset but wary of being an actual member. I know plenty of guys in that boat.

I can only imagine the havoc a couple of dozen platoons or companies of like minded fighters could wreak.

Mostly I point that out to the antis because I suspect it scares the hell out of them. Suddenly, it's not just a bunch of bubbas that have guns and distrust the government. Now it's trained fighters that ARE the government that feel the same way.

I happily imagine antis having heart palpitations and mini-strokes as they read articles on Oathkeepers. The way some of these leftist reporters write about them, they sound damned scary. Think Shooter and Rambo.
He was the sort of person who stood on mountaintops during thunderstorms in wet copper armour shouting "All the Gods are bastards."
Reply
#5
I'm not sure which study you are mentioning, but here's how it works in academia:

Option 1: Create a study and put it out there for public consumption. No peer review. Can be as straightforward or as skewed as you want it. Risky if anyone ever questions it. Credibility is on the line.

Option 2: Create a study and send it through the peer review process (publication in an academic journal). Several scholars in that academic field do a blind review the work (your name and institution are removed to eliminate as much bias as possible) and critique it as necessary. The work is returned to you for edits (small to wholesale). You make the edits and send it through the process again. Once it is accepted as sound, it gets published. Yes, poor articles can slip through, but that is not the norm. Yes, the reviewers could be biased toward a subject, but they are more concerned with the scholarship. Yes, there are some lower-quality academic journals, but that is not the norm - and they are still better than nearly every other source.

That's the super-quick, nutshell version. If it follows option 2, then it carries a ton more weight. If it follows option 1, then it very well might be the same quality as a blog post made up by some lunatic in his mom's basement. It could be brilliant, but if it was that good, then it would have been sent through option 2.
Regards,
Paradigm
Reply
#6
(12-29-2012, 12:19 PM)GregorOneEye Wrote: Your friends sound like fucking retards. The last person is the worst and I hope many awful things happen to them.

Only one person in that conversation is a friend and that is the guy whose name begins with R. He was at the Kent State shooting and standing next to the girl from Pittsburgh who was shot and killed. His thinking is that the government told the National Guard to shoot students who were demonstrating their right to free speech and these soldiers followed orders and killed them. I'm sure he now thinks that if the government can bend the media - the message - so that the people are seen as the enemy then what's to stop that from happening again. And, what is to stop the media from brainwashing the pro gun people into seeing anyone not of the same belief as an enemy that should also be shot and killed. He sees anyone with a gun as a potential killer after what he experienced.
[Image: sig-file_web.jpg]
Reply
#7
(12-29-2012, 12:57 PM)Paradigm Wrote: I'm not sure which study you are mentioning, but here's how it works in academia:

That's the super-quick, nutshell version. If it follows option 2, then it carries a ton more weight. If it follows option 1, then it very well might be the same quality as a blog post made up by some lunatic in his mom's basement. It could be brilliant, but if it was that good, then it would have been sent through option 2.

The study I have in mind was done at Harvard and was used to widely years ago by the anti's. Then it turned out to be totally flawed in it's empirical research and it became a great source of evidence. The NRA would know. I fault the NRA for not having a resources database that could be used by members to counter anti arguments with real data and evidence and not just emotional outbursts which just lead to being labeled a gun nut. The NRA, in my opinion, has done a very poor job in letting members know what steps they are taking right now (what's being done) to fight back. The only communications I've received has said almost nothing about their actions and instead, focused on asking for more money. Anyway, that's a different topic and should be a separate thread.
[Image: sig-file_web.jpg]
Reply
#8
BobFromBucks;60569 Wrote:The study I have in mind was done at Harvard and was used to widely years ago by the anti's. Then it turned out to be totally flawed in it's empirical research and it became a great source of evidence. The NRA would know. I fault the NRA for not having a resources database that could be used by members to counter anti arguments with real data and evidence and not just emotional outbursts which just lead to being labeled a gun nut. The NRA, in my opinion, has done a very poor job in letting members know what steps they are taking right now (what's being done) to fight back. The only communications I've received has said almost nothing about their actions and instead, focused on asking for more money. Anyway, that's a different topic and should be a separate thread.

That the one where the famous "a gun in the house is more likely to kill a family member than an attacker" "stat" came from. It figured suicides into the "deaths" when other studies have shown that to a suicidal person, the method is a secondary consideration (those people would have found a way to kill themselves anyway). I thought I had some links bookmarked to where it'd been "debunked" but I'm not finding anything and even a quick google isn't helping much. After the kids are in bed, I'll dig a bit deeper.
TheWolff, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#9
Every study ever performed has an agenda they want to push. Doesn't matter who or what organization is putting it out there, every individual involved has an agenda and individuals research for each study.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Suspect's family angry at Good Samaritan bucksco 8 1,310 11-23-2013, 11:08 AM
Last Post: worker987



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.