jcd11235 0 #51 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteSTRONGLY disagree. Publishing many scholarly articles in one area is a typical research profile of an active researcher and is not indicative of bias, it is indicative of area of expertise. So by that statement, if I were to list 25 articles by some author written for the NRA... YOU will admit that that is indicative of an area of expertise for that author? You would disagree with the statement that he/she had bias? Being listed on the Web site of F.I.C.A.P. does not imply that an article/study was written for F.I.C.A.P.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #52 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSTRONGLY disagree. Publishing many scholarly articles in one area is a typical research profile of an active researcher and is not indicative of bias, it is indicative of area of expertise. So by that statement, if I were to list 25 articles by some author printed by the NRA... YOU will admit that that is indicative of an area of expertise for that author? You would disagree with the statement that he/she had bias? Being listed on the Web site of F.I.C.A.P. does not imply that an article/study was written for F.I.C.A.P. ok... I corrected it. So would the above statement be correct? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 October 7, 2009 Kellerman wrote several articles that covered the subject on the risk of gun ownership, but each successive one didn't show growing expertise so much as clear bias. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #54 October 7, 2009 >It could and I think that you would be a fool not to recognize a level of bias. Then call me a fool. I think research stands on its own. Good research does not suddenly become biased research if an anti-abortion (or pro-abortion) group starts citing articles. I do not think your political leanings would change if an outside group starts quoting your work. Do you? Now, might there be a bias if a group is _paying_ a researcher to research something? Yes. That's not what's happening here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #55 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSTRONGLY disagree. Publishing many scholarly articles in one area is a typical research profile of an active researcher and is not indicative of bias, it is indicative of area of expertise. So by that statement, if I were to list 25 articles by some author printed by the NRA... YOU will admit that that is indicative of an area of expertise for that author? You would disagree with the statement that he/she had bias? Being listed on the Web site of F.I.C.A.P. does not imply that an article/study was written for F.I.C.A.P. ok... I corrected it. So would the above statement be correct? It might be indicative of that, especially if the 25 articles/studies have been published in credible peer reviewed journals.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #56 October 7, 2009 You're saying that F.I.C.A.P. has no agenda on this issue? Have you reviewed their various publications? It looks to me like the vast majority of the research they've sponsored has come to the same sort of (anti-gun) conclusions.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #57 October 7, 2009 >You're saying that F.I.C.A.P. has no agenda on this issue? Not at all! I am saying that FICAP listing your paper does not mean that _you_ agree with FICAP. If something you wrote was quoted in an article that supported socialized medicine (say, your interest in the minimal-coverage-only angle) would it be fair to say that you had a clear bias towards socialized medicine? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #58 October 7, 2009 QuoteNow, might there be a bias if a group is _paying_ a researcher to research something? Yes. That's not what's happening here. What makes you say that? Do you have some information about whether or not they've received grant money from any particular group in relation to this study?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #59 October 7, 2009 QuoteNot at all! I am saying that FICAP listing your paper does not mean that _you_ agree with FICAP. Would you say that taking their money to give a presentation would indicate that you generally agree with them? How about being listed on their web site as part of their "core team"? If that's not an indication that you share their agenda, than what is?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #60 October 7, 2009 Quote(and as per one of JR's specifications keeping your government from going out of line - perhaps, although somehow I thinking that you could possibly confront the government/US Military is ever so slightly Alice in Wonderland). I wish the Taliban had the same attitude. We would have won by now.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #61 October 7, 2009 Quote>It could and I think that you would be a fool not to recognize a level of bias. Then call me a fool. I think research stands on its own. Good research does not suddenly become biased research if an anti-abortion (or pro-abortion) group starts citing articles. I do not think your political leanings would change if an outside group starts quoting your work. Do you? Now, might there be a bias if a group is _paying_ a researcher to research something? Yes. That's not what's happening here. Not personally knowing those researchers, I don't know where their political leanings are on Second Amendment Rights. But, I think we could make an intelligent guess. I would be VERY surprised if they personally possessed a firearms collection. Does that make their research "right" or "wrong"? It might. Personal beliefs do sometimes interfere with results. People see what they want to see. A good researcher is very GUARDED about this ... as I think they were with this study ... and why I gave them credit for having a Professor of Biostatistics with calculation of the numbers. But without the full and actual article (and yes.... I am cheap and don't want to spend the money to fully review the article itself) - we have what is listed in the abstract. And from that - I do NOT think that this study has broad implications for the American population as a whole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #62 October 7, 2009 >But without the full and actual article (and yes.... I am cheap and >don't want to spend the money to fully review the article itself) When I get home I'll look up the article. I get New Scientist and I think that means I can look this up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #63 October 7, 2009 >Would you say that taking their money to give a presentation >would indicate that you generally agree with them? Usually not. I've been paid (free registration+swag generally) to give presentations at PIA, SEI, and embedded design seminars; doesn't mean I agree with their politics. But of course it depends on the circumstances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #64 October 7, 2009 How about being listed on their web site as part of their "core team"?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #65 October 7, 2009 >How about being listed on their web site as part of their "core team"? What does that mean? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,551 #66 October 7, 2009 Honest question here -- why is F.I.C.A.P. so bad? Is it just that any entity that doesn't wholeheartedly support full firearms for everyone is bad? They seem to be addressing the people side, rather than the gun side, from the 3 or so minutes I spent on their website. Isn't that the right way to go? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #67 October 7, 2009 Quote>But without the full and actual article (and yes.... I am cheap and >don't want to spend the money to fully review the article itself) When I get home I'll look up the article. I get New Scientist and I think that means I can look this up. The article was reported in New Scientist. I don't think that they would have the full article published in American Journal of Public Health, but they might. If they do, please post it (or if that is ... less than ethical... then review it and answer some questions for me) 1. Why was the study done? 2. What was the hypothesis? 3. What were the main findings of the study? 4. Was this study funded by pharmaceutical company(s)? 5. How large was the study? How many subjects? How were subjects selected? Was the study sample adequate in size and nature to justify the conclusions? 6. Was the overall design of the study clearly articulated and appropriate for the hypotheses? Was there a control group? Was there a representative sample? 7. Were the data collection methods clear and appropriate? 8. Was the data analysis clearly explained and appropriate? 9. What were the main findings 10. What were the limitations of the study? 11. What are the implications of the study for clinical practice? 12. What are the implications of the study for future research? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #68 October 7, 2009 Quote>How about being listed on their web site as part of their "core team"? What does that mean? If you follow the link, you will see that it is an "Anti-Violence" group with a pretty strong bias against guns. The home page has a graph showing the difference in assaults on police in carry permit "may issue" vs "shall issue" states. Guess which one is higher? I fail to see the correlation, especially when the permit holders (everywhere) have been shown to have a significantly lower rate of arrest or conviction (for all offenses) than the population as a whole."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #69 October 7, 2009 QuoteHonest question here -- why is F.I.C.A.P. so bad? "Bad" and "biased" aren't the same thing. Reviewing their articles, presentations and staff, it looks to me like F.I.C.A.P. has a political agenda. That tends to warn me that their research could have bias, whether they are aware of it or not. If their research, presentations and staff showed a variety of different views (on what is obviously a political topic), then I'd be a lot more comfortable with their impartiality. That's not to say that people who have strong views on a subject shouldn't be researching it--in fact, they are the most likely to be interested enough to research it. But when they are part of an organization that appears to have a pre-set viewpoint dominating it's internal culture, I worry that the group bias will be reflected in the research conclusions. It would be more appropriate, especially on such a hot-button political issue, to recruit co-authors (or co-staffers) who hold a diversity of views, to try to prevent bias creeping into the research. I don't see that happening here.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 574 #70 October 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote The correlation here is that criminals tend to have guns, and they tend to shoot at each other. Being a criminal is the key, not having a gun. Ok I see, so by inference a person with a gun is more likely to be a criminal - makes sense This is about the most basic of logical failures one can make. If a implies b, does b imply a? No. 80-100 million Americans own guns. However, given the limited number of CCW permits in Philly (or San Francisco for the matter), the answer might be yes - if you look at 100 guys carrying guns and aren't cops, the majority are likely to be criminals. that comment was tongue in cheek. Feel free to say the rest of the post was crap, happy to have a different opinion. You'll never change my belief that it is misguided to think that guns work for self-defense and I will never change yours that they doBut for the sake of argument how many people that you know have been shot at, or shot at humans (not hunting & excluding Cheney) - if you do have they had military training?Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #71 October 7, 2009 QuoteHonest question here -- why is F.I.C.A.P. so bad? Is it just that any entity that doesn't wholeheartedly support full firearms for everyone is bad? They seem to be addressing the people side, rather than the gun side, from the 3 or so minutes I spent on their website. Isn't that the right way to go? Wendy P. Their mission is to create safer communities through the systematic reduction of injury and its repercussions to the individual, family, and society. -I FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. broadly disseminating information to policymakers - is what could be bad. They're lobbyist. I don't really like them on EITHER side If those policymakers don't critically review the information presented to them and if those policymakers then correlate the findings of one population to all and if.... that's where useful studies can be used as propaganda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #72 October 7, 2009 Quote You'll never change my belief that it is misguided to think that guns work for self-defense and I will never change yours that they doBut for the sake of argument how many people that you know have been shot at, or shot at humans (not hunting & excluding Cheney) - if you do have they had military training? For the sake of argument, what relation do either of those things have to do with the 2nd Amendment?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #73 October 7, 2009 QuoteTheir mission is to create safer communities through the systematic reduction of injury and its repercussions to the individual, family, and society. Their grant application is ambiguously worded, but it appears to include "firearms reduction" (note: not injury reduction) as one of the criteria for awarding grants.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #74 October 7, 2009 QuoteThey're lobbyist. I don't really like them on EITHER side Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #75 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteThey're lobbyist. I don't really like them on EITHER side Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf? No. I think the Congressman/woman and Representative SHOULD know what his/her constituents think. But major lobbying efforts are not that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
