ILA | Reason Magazine Video blurs the science of fighting unwanted drugs

Social science thrives on making the uncomplicated and the complex in reality oversimplified. Rejection of all human and social experiences Scientists“fabrication More detailed than ever Mental gymnastics to explain how soft politics triumphed over crime• Harm efforts to control crime. At the same time, other The researchers claim “to be able to tell you, right down to the decimal point, the murder risks posed by gun ownership.” Treasury Secretary William E. Simon once opined, I sometimes think that economists use decimal points in their forecasts to demonstrate their sense of humor.” This sentiment can be applied to all social sciences.

Aside from this boundless arrogance, the social sciences are unfortunately biased. 2005 paper entitled, Tent Democrats and Others: The Political Perspectives of Social Science ProfessorsA political survey examination for academics. The researchers concluded, Academics vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and that Democratic dominance has increased dramatically since 1970.” Moreover, these academics have demonstrated a strong commitment to a range of policy issues, including gun control. Scan data showed that academics registered as Democrats outnumbered those registered as Republicans by 11.5 to 1.

With this kind of academic environment and its incentives to inflate the state – by means of the political bias of the individual state and State funded wage – A reasonable person would think that anti-gun politicians would be satisfied with the academyA constant stream of unwanted gunfighting science. However, in recent years these politicians have taken their own propaganda orders without laundering money through supposedly objective academic institutions.

One-party states such as California and New Jersey set up their own propaganda factories for gun control. In 2016, the Non-Golden State funded the establishment of the Gun Violence Research Center at the University of California, Davis, with $5 million in funding. California Governor Gavin NewsomThe 2019 budget allocated another $3.85 million in loot for the gun control project. Governor Phil Murphy founded the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center in 2019 with $2 million in looting. Hawaii legislators Proposal An advertising arm similar to Aloha State.

In this framework, Reason magazine has created a file Excellent video This exposes almost everything Gun Violence “A Search for Unwanted Science. The comprehensive, accessible video explains how a combination of academic vanity and political bias has polluted the entire field of firearms scientific research.

Drawing on the expertise of NYU/UCSD statistician and teacher Aaron Brown and 2020 analysis by RAND, the video begins by explaining that the vast majority of gun violence research is not conducted sufficiently to provide meaningful conclusions. An accompanying video article, written by Brown and Reason Producer Justin Monticello, explained,

A 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, analyzed the findings of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws. Through this massive amount of work, the RAND authors found only 123 studies, or 0.4%, that accurately tested the effects.

Reason and Brown examined the remaining 123 studies from the RAND analysis and provided the following,

We’ve taken a look at the significance of 123 rigorous empirical studies and what they actually say about the effectiveness of gun control laws.

Answer: nothing. The 123 studies that meet the RAND criteria may be the best of the 27,900 analyzed, but they still have serious statistical flaws, such as lack of controls, many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, and erroneous data. models and other problems.

Furthermore, the authors note that there appears to be some inverse relationship between the most stringent conducted Gun violence’ studies and those garnering media attention. The piece explained,

It is noteworthy that the studies that received the most media or legislative attention are not among the 123 studies that received RAND approval. The best studies made claims that were too benign, fragile, and qualified to please partisan media outlets. It was the worst studies, with the most outrageous claims, that made the headlines.

The video also provided a welcome revelation on the most misused gun control study in history – Arthur Kellerman1993 article in the New England Journal of Medicine Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.” The study is famous for proving it [r]Other than affording protection, guns in the home are associated with an increased risk of being killed by a family member or close acquaintance.”

The authors noted the reason,

The researchers concluded that keeping a handgun in the home increases a person’s risk of being killed, but that nearly half of the murders in their analysis were not committed with a firearm. Among the gun owners killed with a pistol, the authors did not establish whether the weapon used was the victim’s gun or whether it belonged to someone else.

Moreover, Brown noted that the studyOur own data showed that living alone or renting was more dangerous than owning a firearm.

The NRA-ILA has made these points repeatedly in Debunking Kellerman’s Study. Furthermore, there are methodological problems with the study that were not addressed in the cause video. in his book Armed: New Perspectives on Gun ControlFlorida State criminologist Professor Gary Click noted that KellermanWork must be They are cited in a statistical book as a cautionary example of multiple statistical errors.” Those looking for the most comprehensive evaluation of the Kellerman study are welcome to read Klecks about it.

In discussing the 123 best studies on guns, Brown offers a key insight that exposes gun violence research as an almost entirely political enterprise. The article explained,

The 123 papers identified by RAND 722 tested a separate hypothesis about the impact of gun control policies for “statistical significance.” Peer-reviewed journals generally accept a result as statistically significant if it has a 1 in 20 chance or less due to random chance. So if researchers perform 100 tests on the relationship between two things that are clearly not related at all — say, milk consumption and car accidents — by pure chance, they can be expected to get five statistically significant results that are entirely coincidental, such that those who drink Milk are exposed to more accidents.

Of concern is the fact that there was only one negative outcome in which the researchers reported that the gun control procedure appeared to lead to increased poor outcomes or more violence. Given the large number of studies that have been conducted on this topic, there is a significant statistical possibility that researchers have come to more of these findings by random chance. This suggests that researchers may have suppressed findings that gun control measures are not working as intended.

This indicates that gun researchers are well aware of what gun control sponsors pay and are acting accordingly.

The NRA-ILA encourages all NRA members and other gun rights advocates to watch and share the causeExcellent videos and article, available here:

Leave a Comment