[at-l] gun questions/ Lotts of errors

[andrew@aspco.com (Andrew Peskin)]

Snodrog5@aol.com wrote:

>From Andrew:
"As Mara pointed out, and I wholeheartedly agree with, the use of
statistics can be massaged to prove just about anything."

Quite true! I think Lott proved that, didn't he? :O)
Very often such 'science' finds the very result they were looking for.
TJ
----------

Not at all.  I respectfully, but completely, disagree with you on this
issue.

I do not think that Dr. Lott massaged the statistics to prove a
previously biased point of view.  I made this point because I would tend
to believe that Tim Lambert's data is more likely massaged so he could
prove his point.

I believe this for the following reasons, first, Mr. Lambert is openly
very Anti-Gun and does not believe that any individual should
own/possess firearms.  He therefore has a predisposition for bias.
Second, Mr. Lambert has not submitted his data, analysis techniques, nor
conclusions for any type of peer review.  He simply posted his thoughts
on his own personal web site.

I would argue that Dr. Lott, who prior to undertaking his study, was not
biased either way on the gun issue (some would argue that he, after
reaching his findings, is now Pro-Gun) was not biased at the onset of
and during his research.  Furthermore, his work, data, analysis
techniques, and conclusions have stood up to rigorous peer review from
the different academic journals that have published his papers.  If he
was a fraud, then his papers would not have be published.

Again, just my two cents on this issue.

Andrew