Comments on: Think we have a higher rate of mass shootings than western Europe does?

By: Kai Akker

Kai Akker — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:23:28 +0000

Those co-authors had nothing to do with the missing survey, though, so while the loss of someone’s data is a fact, the question is whether the survey for which Lott had neither any backup paperwork nor the names of any assistants–whether that survey existed and was also lost in that crash.

Now, onto my “deficit of integrity.” LOL. I am “projecting”? Hmm, it certainly does seem that someone is projecting here!

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 17:02:44 +0000

I don’t believe there were any co-authors, Art Deco. He does collaborative work with lots of people, some of whom confirmed that they lost data in the computer crash he referenced. if you want to, and clearly you want to. You're projecting. Your deficit of integrity is not my problem.

By: Kai Akker

Kai Akker — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:24:00 +0000

I don’t believe there were any co-authors, Art Deco. I don’t believe your facts are correct on this matter. You can believe his assertions then or now if you want to, and clearly you want to. Stating your faith as a fact does not make it one, however. If we start to hear cavils about this latest claim, new shadings of the data, shifting estimates or other reconsiderations, it would not surprise me, unfortunately.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:12:03 +0000

Yecch. Believe Lott’s assertions if you want to, but it takes a huge degree of credulousness,

No, you believe them because he has no history of fraud (and he is very extensively published on controversial topics), others corroborated his account, and the complaint concerned a passing reference in one of his books. All of this was investigated and laid to rest more than 15 years ago.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:09:04 +0000

That’s not very convincing.

His co-authors corroborated his account. And it was 21 years ago. What was possible with the technology that AEI was likely to have in its offices at that time? Again, James Lindgren had a detailed and sophisticated critic of his data and method and was subsequently satisfied with Lott’s responses. (And much of the controversy consisted of a complaints over a brief aside in one of Lott’s book; in Bellesile’s case, it was the entire thesis of the book which was disputed; Lindgren’s work was crucial in discrediting Bellesiles).

By: Kai Akker

Kai Akker — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 22:46:14 +0000

Ray, it was the not knowing the names of any of the students that finished that one off for me. And I have read Lott’s articles and other references to him for a long time now. I wish I could have more faith in his numbers and his methodologies.

By: Kai Akker

Kai Akker — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 22:44:29 +0000

You like to sneer. –Assistant Village Idiot

How would you know what tone I am using in my head as I write? I wish I could have more faith in John Lott’s numbers because I would like to believe in this claim!

Sneer or no sneer, AVI? Or do you like to make judgments based on your own prejudices in the absence of evidence?

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:52:06 +0000

“He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,”
That’s not very convincing. Where I worked our server crashed just before Christmas. The IT people sent the entire server off to Ontrack data recovery and they recovered our data in about 2 weeks. Since this happened at Christmas vacation it wasn’t a big inconvenience. The same thing happened to my PC and I bought some file recovery software that retrieved the files I wanted. Just because the HD crashes doesn’t mean the data is destroyed.
That is not somewhat astray but completely off the topic of mass shootings.

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:18:36 +0000

Kai Akker – that information about Lott’s data is troubling, but not dispositive. His other data seems to check out – there are criticisms, but not more than one would expect in controversial work (on either side). You also cherry picked the worst from the Wiki, and well…Wiki. I was suspicious when you played your Iago routine with your first two comments. You like to sneer. You should know that this has diminished your further credibility with me. That would not have been the case had you taken more care with your tone.

We have gotten somewhat astray, talking about gun crime in general, when we started with mass shootings. Norway’s high number comes from a single horrendous event, I believe. But the comment that population size and greater attention to our own media contributes to the impression is true. For such purposes, it is best to look at Europe as a whole as of comparable size to the US. It is also wiser to compare mass killing to mass killing and leave the shooting out of it. I have had a few murderers and attempted murderers on my caseload over the years, and not one of them shot the person.

@T – statistics will tell the truth if you shove them up against the wall and make them tell you who their friends are.

By: Kai Akker

Kai Akker — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 02:20:21 +0000

I was hoping to learn from you the basis for your skepticism. That’s all….. –ColoComment

His past behavior; see above.
Fake news is fake no matter which side a faker favors. And favors fronted by fakers make us unfavored by fake news makers. Leave the faker but take the favor from the makers on the right side.