Shock! Widely Cited Gun Violence Study Full of Holes…… July 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, error, foolishness, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society.
……so to speak.
It’s always a very telling sign when a purported scientist – although sociology is not a branch of science known for its rigorous methods – refuses to share his data with other scientists. It’s also very telling when the so-called scientific journal in which he published his highly politicized study admits they don’t really do peer-review, and just sort of trust the good intentions of their authors.
It’s even more telling when the media gets advance notice of the study’s publication, complete with background data sufficient to craft splashy, narrative-driving stories. The global warming scam is impacting all science, rapidly turning it into an agenda-driven, politicized joke. Which perhaps is a good thing, because we’re far bast needing to break the hold the cult of science has on the minds of far too many souls.
So, it turns out a “ground-breaking” international study that purported to show that societies with liberal gun laws had far more gun violence than those with more restrictive laws is highly dubious at best, and almost certainly yet another example of agendized scientific fraud. I know you’re as shocked as I am:
A much-heralded and widely cited study of 171 countries over nearly a half century purports to show more guns mean more mass shootings, but critics say the report uses bad methodology in a way that rigs the results.
The study by Adam Lankford, a criminal justice professor at the University of Alabama, was published in the journal Violence and Victims in January and has been cited by media outlets — including The New Yorker, The Washington Postand Time magazine. But the study, formally published earlier this year after a draft was released in academic circles, has raised questions about what critics consider dubious methodology.
“The Lankford ‘study’ is nothing more than junk science disguised as research, and never should have been published in a responsible scholarly journal,” Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck told FoxNews.com.
The study, titled “Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries,” concluded that “The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators.”
Academic peers who have sought to examine the findings say Lankford refuses to share the data and details he used to support his findings.
Kleck and others say the obvious hazard in claiming to study 46 years’ worth of shootings in most of the world’s nations is that, while data may be easily found for U.S. shootings, compiling information for developing nations could be all but impossible.
“This would rig results in favor of finding a positive association between gun ownership and mass shootings,” Kleck said.
So get this: the Lankford guy admits neither he, nor any staff he had work on this project, spoke the language of most of the 171 countries supposedly studied. At best, he relied on English-language reports, which, for most countries, would not be available. He is very cagey about how he obtained his supposed data and refuses to share what he has. Those are both huge red flags.
In fact, it appears his data was basically entirely based on NYPD research of mass shootings, which the NYPD itself only covers English-language sites. Could it be that a heaping dose of liberal solipsism – I speak English, therefore, so must everyone else! – could have caused this scientician to make such an obvious error?
Regarding that gold-standard of peer-reviewed journals, Violence and Victims (sounds a bit dodgy from the top, doesn’t it?):
An associate editor of Violence and Victims, which published Lankford’s paper, told FoxNews.com that the journal does not see its role as that of a fact-checker.
“Journal editors generally trust the integrity of authors, and unless reviewers/referrers who are experts in the specific research area call attention to weaknesses in methodology or otherwise challenge findings, the results are not likely to be questioned,” Violence and Victims Associate Editor Edna Erez said.
Editor-in-Chief Roland Maiuro said that Lankford’s paper was approved by anonymous independent researchers. [That’s dubious practice]
“The manuscript was subject to blind review by two established researchers with expertise in the area of gun-related violence, critiqued, and revised according to the recommendations made in these reviews,” Maiuro said.
Kleck said a more rigorous and transparent peer review process was in order.
“No qualified scholar would accept work by a researcher who could not, or would not, even explain exactly how he measured his most important variable [mass shootings],” Kleck said.
Unless, of course, the goal isn’t scholarship, but political point scoring, driving the gun control narrative forward. But who am I to judge the demi-gods of science who dictate to the little people what they should, nay must, believe?