From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Anti-Self-Defense Fallacies, Fantasies and Lies Part I Date: 7 Nov 1994 07:13:51 -0500 (Pim's errors/distortions/lies deleted) Pim certainly has some expertise when it comes to misusing research studies to support civilian disarmament. Here are some examples of how Pim, playing the role of the objective scientist, reveals himself as a thoroughly dishonest (and comically inept) propagandist in the War on Law-Abiding Gun Owners. In <2unnof$[g--r] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >Cook shows a 10 percent reduction in the number of pistols in a city is >associated with about a 4.2 % reduction in the number of robbery murders.An >alternative calulation shows that a 10 percent redution in the number of >pistols is associated with a reduction in the robbery murder rate by about 5 >%. Pim appears to be addicted to misusing research studies to prove his anti-gun assertions. His behavior is dishonest and a disgrace to honest scientists who do not use their work as a form of propaganda. The study cited above provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever of Pim's oft-repeated claim that "guns make crime more lethal." Pim apparently believes that if he dresses up his lies in scientific jargon, people will accept them for the truth. To some extent, he may be right. However, it is possible to counteract Pim's pernicious influence by simply pointing out the flaws in his logic, his systematic misuse of empirical data, and his unwillingness to alter his position when the "evidence" for same has been thoroughly debunked. It is important for all who value the RKBA to do their utmost to dispel the lies and misinformation of folks like Pim. We mustn't let the enemies of freedom shout us down, no matter how persistent and committed they are to their erroneous beliefs. In <2trk5j$[2 n 3] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: [...] >Cook has shown that a reduction in handgun ownership rates in 50 american >cities reduces gun robberies by 5 % and robbery murder by 4 % while total >robberies stay the same. Once again, Pim demonstrates his ignorance/dishonesty in his blatant misuse of statistics to support gun control. The design of Cook's study was quasi-experimental/correlational, therefore its results cannot be used to support causal hypotheses about the effects of gun ownership. It is grossly misleading to state that "a reduction in handgun ownership... *reduces* gun robberies..." -- this is a causal statement, one that unequivocally links cause (reduced gun ownership) with effect (reduction in crime). Such statements can only be made - with caution - after a hypothesis has been subjected to controlled experimentation and the results have been independently and repeatedly replicated. Pim continually posts his pseudo-scientific soundbites to the net as if they were proven, immutable truths. This disreputable practice has much in common with the disinformation tactics found among unscrupulous anti-gunners in other arenas, and it is most despicable when perpetrated by folks who claim an allegiance to the norms and values of modern Western science. Pim's persistent misuse of statistics and research studies to make fraudulent claims about the effects of gun ownership are illustrative of the level of obsessive dedication gun banners have to their dubious cause. His unethical conduct serves as an example of the lengths to which anti-gunners will go to force others to accept their version of reality. Hopefully, the deception and unreason inherent in the arguments of folks like Pim will ultimately fail to seduce Americans into relinquishing their most fundamental human rights. ================================================ From talk.politics.guns Mon Jun 27 21:25:49 1994 ~From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) ~Date: 27 Jun 1994 20:22:47 -0400 ~Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Re: Gun Control? In <2ultps$[k m v] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >>Once again, Pim trots out the discredited Loftin study, which he >>frequently cites as proof of a causal connection between the 1976 D.C. >>gun ban and subsequent (temporary) drop in the homicide rate. That he >Discredited study ? You mean that the drop in homicide rates did not take >place coinciding with the 1976 gun ban's passage ? Pim pretends that the Loftin study hasn't been thoroughly discredited on methodological grounds (i.e., it is a quasi-experimental study and as such cannot provide evidence of a causal link between the 1976 D.C. gun ban and subsequent temporary drop in the homicide rate). Oh, well, if Pim intends to use the "big lie" technique of constantly repeating untruths in the hopes that some poor schmuck will believe him, I'll just have to dig through the archives and give the same answers now that I gave then to Pim's unsupportable anti-gun assertions. I apologize to all who have seen this stuff before, but the best way to counter someone who tells the same lies over and over again is to repeat the truth until he can no longer bear hearing it. Maybe someone can help me design a Pimbot to take the tedium out of the task. From talk.politics.guns Thu Apr 7 07:25:57 1994 ~From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) ~Date: 6 Apr 1994 18:45:08 -0400 ~Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Re: Washington DC (was Re: Violent Crime ) In <2ntgr4$[a--g] at [panix.com]> [h--i] at [panix.com] (Homi!) writes: >Pim, you stated earlier that the decrease in homicides in DC occured over >a 4 year period, from 1974-78. The DC gun ban went into effect in 1976. >You also claim that the gun ban reduced murder in DC for 10 years, which >implies 1976-86. However, national trends were parallel to this, >indicating that any drop in murder in a given state was due more likely to >an overall nationwide trend. >So how is it that the DC gun ban reduced murders in DC, when it was >enacted in the middle of a 4 year trend of a reduction of homicides? And >how exactly was the DC law responsible for a reduction in homicides for a >10 year period when the entire nation, not subject to these same laws, did >have a similar reduction in homicide? >Does anyone want to explain these questions? It appears from the information you provide that the D.C. ban was completely confounded with a pre-existing trend. This is an example of a common threat to validity known as a "maturational effect" - the introduction of the independent variable (the ban, in this example) coincides with vicissitudes in the dependent variable (homicide rate) in such as way as to (falsely) suggest the existence of a causal relationship among the variables. In other words, homicide was already on the way down when the ban was introduced. After the ban, as homicides continued to decline, proponents of the ban cited it as THE causal factor responsible for what in reality was a pre-existing and completely unrelated trend. Of course, it is now apparent that the temporary reduction in homicide was due to factors other than the ban, as the latter has utterly failed to prevent D.C. from having an appallingly high homicide rate. That Pim continues to trumpet the ban as a success despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary suggests that he is either invincibly ignorant when it comes to gun control-related research and/or engaging in yet another willful exercise in anti-gun disinformation. ====================================================================== From talk.politics.guns Fri Apr 8 00:23:24 1994 ~From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) ~Date: 7 Apr 1994 22:51:12 -0400 ~Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Re: Washington DC (was Re: Violent Crime ) In <2nvsv0$[b r q] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In <2nve1k$[j 8 g] at [panix2.panix.com]>, [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) writes: >>It appears from the information you provide that the D.C. ban was >>completely confounded with a pre-existing trend. >The intervention analysis shows an abrupt change not a gradual change >coinciding with the gun ban. Such a drop is not observed in neighbouring >regions. Pim, I suggest you take a look at the following reference: Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979) __Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings__. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Chapter 7, Inferring Cause From Passive Observation, has a section on time series analysis (pp. 321-339) that is considered quite authoritative and a must for students of these techniques. According to Cook & Campbell, time series methodology, while potentially quite powerful, is fraught with threats to validity and must be used with great caution. Some of the generic shortcomings of time series techniques are "trend, seasonality, autocorrelated error, and autocorrelation, which make causal analysis inappropriate" (p. 335). Cook & Campbell suggest that one way to address the shortcomings of time series analysis "may be to conduct several types of analysis, relying on the strengths of one approach to compensate for the weaknesses of the others. No strategy, though, can allow completely confident causal inferences... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ambiguity about causal relationships is usually unavoidable in noninterrupted ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ time-series analysis. The major source of ambiguity is the inability to ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ completely rule out third-variable causation" (pp. 335-336). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cook & Campball also warn against making causal inferences on the basis of "synchronous covariation alone. "First, synchronous cross-correlations do not indicate the direction of cause. Second, a single isolated cross-correlation in more likely to be spurious than a pattern of contiguous cross-correlations" (p. 337). Thus the "abrupt change" which Loftin observes in the homicide rate following the 1976 D.C. gun ban is not very convincing evidence for the hypothesis that the ban caused the decrease because: 1) there is no way to rule out third-variable causation; 2) there is no way to determine the direction of causality (assuming a causal relationship exists); and 3) a single isolated cross-correlation (between independent variable and dependent variable) is more likely to be spurious than a pattern of cross-correlations over time. A researcher could have more confidence in the relationship between gun control and gun-related homicide if repeated time series analyses were conducted, say, after the implementation of each of series of gun control laws. If homicide decreased as more laws were passed, one could then say with some degree of certainty that a causal relationship probably exists between the laws and the homicide rate. Loftin's study does not - cannot - provide evidence in support of the hypothesis that the D.C. gun ban caused a decrease in the homicide rate. I hope this is clear to you at this point. ================================================ From talk.politics.guns Wed Jun 29 19:25:00 1994 ~From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) ~Date: 29 Jun 1994 16:40:47 -0400 ~Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Re: Gun Control? In <2upuc3$[m g t] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In <[Cs 49 Jz L n B] at [borland.com]>, [a--c--r] at [genghis] (Alexander Koczur) writes: >>Pim van Meurs ([r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu]) wrote: >>Could you please post the homicide rates for the years 1970 to 1990. I think >>you will find that the homicide rates went up in less than 12 years. Also, >I do not have the rates but I can refer you to Loftin's work Curious that Pim doesn't have this information. One wonders why. Could it be because the data make it clear that his claims about the effectiveness of the 1976 D.C. gun ban are ludicrous? ---Begin enclosed text--- ~From: [s t ratos] at [netcom.com] (Steve Fischer) ~Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 21:44:23 GMT ~Newsgroups: alt.motherjones,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Loftin/DC murder statistics - longer analysis by Dean Payne ~From: [d--a--p] at [lsid.hp.com] (Dean Payne) ~Subject: Re: Loftin study flaws ======================== The Data ==================================== Washington DC area populations (in thousands) and homicides (murders and nonnegligent manslaughters). DC-MSA DC-city MD/VA Year homicides pop homicides pop homicides pop ---------------------------------------------------- 1960 139 2002 k 81 765 k 58 1237 k 1961 131 2002 88 43 1962 127 2111 91 36 1963 133 2220 95 38 1964 193 2300 132 61 1965 197 2392 148 49 1966 190 2481 141 49 1967 230 2685 178 791 52 1894 1968 262 2755 195 778 67 1977 1969 349 2799 287 762 62 2037 1970 326 2861 221 756 105 2105 1971 357 2907 275 758 82 2149 1972 367 2953 245 752 122 2201 1973 399 3029 268 734 131 2295 1974 408 3039 277 721 131 2318 1975 365 3030 235 710 130 2320 1976 309 3071 188 696 121 2375 1977 313 3043 192 683 121 2360 1978 295 3036 189 670 106 2366 1979 281 3011 180 656 101 2355 1980 326 3042 200 635 126 2407 1981 350 3085 223 636 127 2449 1982 334 3095 194 631 140 2464 1983 298 3305 183 623 115 2682 1984 285 3391 175 623 110 2768 1985 243 3464 147 626 96 2838 1986 298 3507 194 626 104 2881 1987 367 3612 225 622 142 2990 1988 547 3705 369 620 178 3085 1989 640 3767 434 604 206 3163 1990 684 3924 472 607 212 3317 1991 719 3968 482 598 237 3370 1992 677 4307 443 589 234 3718 1993 . . 467 . . . Averages 1968-76 349.1 2938.2 243.4 740.8 105.7 2197.4 1977-87 308.2 3235.5 191.1 639.2 117.1 2596.4 1988-92 653.4 3934.2 440.0 603.6 213.4 3330.6 Homicides per 100k population 1968-76 11.9 - 32.9 - 4.81 - 1977-87 9.5 - 29.9 - 4.51 - 1988-92 16.6 - 72.9 - 6.41 - ========================== Notes ===================================== For Loftin's study, 'before' is Jan 1968 to Sep 1976, 'after' is Oct 1976 to Dec 1987. Because my data is annual, not monthly, I counted all of 1976 as 'before'. This ought not be significant, especially in light of the legal battles that suspended the ban from Dec 1976 to Feb 1977. The Washington D.C. - Maryland - Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area (DC-MSA) consists of the District of Columbia, Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, MD, Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas and Manassas Park Cities, and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William and Stafford Counties, VA. Homicides and populations are taken from the annual FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) - Appendix IV of recent editions, Table 4 or 5 of earlier editions. District of Columbia (DC-city) homicides, and populations since 1979, are also taken from the UCR. Earlier populations are taken from the Census Bureau's 'Statistical Abstracts of the U.S.' Different editions of the Statistical Abstracts give differing populations for any given year. Figures for the neighboring Maryland and Virginia (MD/VA) community are derived by subtracting the DC-city figures from the DC-MSA figures. Homicides listed here are murders and nonnegligent manslaughters as listed in the UCR. Manslaughters by negligence, not listed since 1976, are excluded. -- I don't tell Netcom how to run their business and they don't tell me what to think or write ....... Steve Fischer/Atlanta, GA ---End enclosed text--- If Pim weren't so intent on convincing people to join his crusade to ban civilian gun ownership, he might look at the above numbers and see what an utter failure the 1976 D.C. gun ban has been. Like all zealots, his thinking is impervious to the moderating influence of reason. >>if they are drug related, AND starting anytime after about 1985, then the >>homicides are related to the attempted ban on drugs. If the ban on drugs >>is not working, and the already existing gun ban is not working, then what >>could possibly make you believe any other sort of ban would work? Is it >>just plain self delusion? Yes. Pim is incapable of logic when it comes to guns. In the next paragraph, he defends the purported effectiveness of gun control with the flimsiest of arguments, then implies we need even more gun control. This is absurd. One see numerous examples of places with little or no gun control which have much lower rates of violent crime than regions with strict gun control. If gun control "worked," New York City, D.C., L.A., etc. would be islands of tranquility and lawful behavior. Only a true believer could assert that gun control "works" in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And only an irrational true believer would suggest we need more gun control - why do we need more gun control if indeed gun control is as effective as the gun ban zealots claim? >Who is saying that the existing gun ban is not working ? It might very well >be that without the gun ban violence would have been even higher (although it >is hard to believe it could go any higher). If the D.C. gun ban is "working," I'd hate to see a ban that *doesn't* work:) Pim should closely study the numbers posted above. >The gun ban is quite limited in its scope and seemed to have been more >succesful in preventing impulsive killings than felony homicides. If the D.C. gun ban is "quite limited in its scope," one wonders what sort of ban Pim would engineer if given the chance. Perhaps use of the death penalty on civilians who dare to possess guns? If it saves a single life...:) ================================================ From talk.politics.guns Wed Jun 29 19:26:37 1994 ~From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) ~Date: 29 Jun 1994 17:41:20 -0400 ~Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Re: Gun Control? In <2uq2r6$[o--u] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >In <[Cs 4 C 31 Mr 1] at [borland.com]>, [a--c--r] at [genghis] (Alexander Koczur) writes: (Pim writes:) >>: And you are still claiming that smoking does not cause cancer Aldo ? >>Is this an attempt to cover your misuse of one study by making your >>opponenet seem to be deluded? IMO, this is a cheap tactic. >No it is an answer to Aldo's remark that a correlational analysis can never >definitely prove causation. And a rather trite and irrelevant "answer" it is. Indeed, "correlational analysis can never definitely prove causation." Only an invincibly ignorant anti-scientist would ever assert otherwise. Pim's fanatical devotion to the cult of civilian disarmament has rendered him impervious to reason. >My assertion is that there is a perfectly good >model, Models are a dime a dozen. Without empirical support from true experiments, they are of negligible value. >data in support of the hypothesis Pim's data come from quasi-experimental/correlational studies which can NEVER unequivocally prove that one thing causes another. >and lack of 3rd variables which >explain the observed drop in homicide and gun ohmicide but not non-gun >homicide rates. Pim has a curious penchant for attempting to turn the laws of epistemology on their heads - but "lack of 3rd variables" does not a causal mechanism prove. 3rd variable causality is the bane of quasi-experimental/correlational research. The honest researcher using such methodology tries to rule out as many potential sources of 3rd variable causality as he/she can, but can never claim that ALL such sources have been controlled for/ruled out. This is why true experiments are almost always preferable to things like correlational or time-series studies (such as Loftin's). Random assignment of subjects to groups and multiple measures of the experimental variables over time permit a much more stringent test of the researcher's hypotheses than is possible with quasi-experimental/correlational methods. Pim defies us to identify the 3rd variable that could *disprove* his conclusion that the 1976 gun ban CAUSED the subsequent temporary drop in the homicide rate. Unbeknownst to Pim (even though he has been told many times), it is up to HIM to prove his theory. Saying "my notion hasn't been disproved, ergo it is true" is crassly solipsistic thinking, the sort one encounters in children and highly narcissistic adults. But then the anti-gun cult seems to have more than its share of folks who would have us believe -- sans evidence -- what their feelings tell them. ================================================ From talk.politics.guns Fri Jul 1 19:32:58 1994 ~From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) ~Date: 30 Jun 1994 21:26:17 -0400 ~Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Re: Gun Control? In <2utnid$[REDACTED] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >With respect to DC, Aldo posted an list of numbers from Dean. But the >analysis is limited to a before/after comparisson of means. I posted those numbers to bring Pim's attention to the fact that, while the 1976 D.C. gun ban may have coincided with a modest, temporary decrease in the homicide rate, the ban was ultimately an abysmal failure as a crime-control measure. >Aldo also claims that despite the evidence linking the gun ban and the drop >in homicide rates, this is not 100 % conclusive, then he is right. The light dawns in Marblehead... >There might always be a third variable out there which could have caused the >homicide rate to drop but only the gun homicide rate not the non-gun homicide >rate and this could have coincided with the 1976 gun abn and this could have >been limited to DC. But why ignore the most direct link, between gun ban and >the drop in gun homicides ? The "direct link" mentioned by Pim exists in one place and one place only: his imagination. Without true experimental evidence, the purported causal link between the 1976 ban and the subsequent temporary decrease in the homicide rate remains an untested hypothesis, nothing more. ================================================ From talk.politics.guns Fri Jul 1 21:30:54 1994 ~From: [f t pam] at [aurora.alaska.edu] (Philip Munts) ~Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 17:39:08 GMT ~Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Washington D.C. murder 1970 to 1991 Washington, D.C. Murder and non-negligent homicide Metro = Wash. DC Standard Statistical Metropolitan area City = City limits. All numbers copied straight out of Uniform Crime Reports 1970 to 1991, published by U.S. F.B.I. Year Metro /100k City ---- ----- ----- ---- 1970 326 ********** 11.4 221 *********** 1971 357 *********** 12.3 275 ************* 1972 367 ************ 12.4 245 ************ 1973 399 ************* 13.2 268 ************* 1974 408 ************* 13.4 277 ************* 1975 365 ************ 12.0 235 *********** 1976 309 ********** 10.1 188 ********* 1977 313 ********** 10.3 192 ********* 1978 295 ********* 9.7 189 ********* 1979 281 ********* 9.3 180 ********* 1980 326 ********** 10.7 200 ********** 1981 350 *********** 11.3 223 *********** 1982 334 *********** 10.8 194 ********* 1983 298 ********* 9.0 183 ********* 1984 285 ********* 8.4 175 ******** 1985 243 ******** 7.0 147 ******* 1986 298 ********* 8.5 194 ********* 1987 NO DATA AVAILABLE 1988 547 ****************** 14.8 369 ****************** 1989 640 ********************* 17.0 434 ********************* 1990 684 ********************** 17.4 472 *********************** 1991 719 *********************** 18.1 482 ************************ It seems impossible to conclude that the Washington DC handgun legislation enacted in 1976 is reflected in this data. ================================================ From talk.politics.guns Mon Jul 4 12:38:43 1994 ~From: [l--e--y] at [panix.com] (Aldo Tartaglini) ~Date: 4 Jul 1994 11:52:15 -0400 ~Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns ~Subject: Re: Gun Control? In <2v88qm$[5 q 9] at [network.ucsd.edu]> [r--t] at [pvanmeur.extern.ucsd.edu] (Pim van Meurs) writes: >>>Mark, you are making assertions about certain topics and i am asking you >>>about supporting these assertions with data, research from others etc which >>>support your assertions. [sorry for the lost attributions] T. Mark Gibson responds: >>You should take your own advice. Pim responds: >But I do Mark, I do support my remarks with as much data and research from >others. That's where you and I differ so significantly, you resort to insults >I resort to scientific research. Pim's blatant misuse of research studies to support civilian disarmament is an insult to all scientists and science-minded folks everywhere. His continual distortions of research findings cannot help but be beneficial to the gun rights movement, for he makes it plain that any research which suggests the utility of gun control/prohibition should be considered highly suspect until unequivocally proven otherwise. The basic dishonesty of folks like Pim will ultimately discredit the anti-gun movement. One hopes he will continue to provide us with examples of anti-gun sophistry and disinformation to further our cause. ====================================================================== "Guns increase the lethality of crime." -------------- Pim van Meurs "Guns increase the effectiveness of self-defense." ---- T. Mark Gibson "Pim has never cited evidence from a SINGLE true experiment to back up any of his anti-gun claims." ---------------- A.T. <[l--e--y] at [panix.com]> ======================================================================