Talk:Lead-crime hypothesis/Archive1
Accessible reference links[edit]
Please check out the references. I put them together on campus (a research university) and I don't know how many of the links work for those with less exalted access to scientific journals. MarmotHead (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't checked everything yet, but for future reference - external links (starting with http) are framed with single square brackets and use a space between the URL and the link description. Double square brackets and pipes (|) are used when linking to other articles in the wiki, when you use the article title as the URL.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! I'll check that to be sure I handled it well. I probably didn't. I was more concerned that the places I pointed to were unavailable to people whose employer doesn't pay a shitload of money for. MarmotHead (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, to check that, I had to get the links working first. :) Anyway, bad news: all journal articles seem to be paywalled. The CDC and Mother Jones are OK.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rats! Well, later today/tomorrow, I can clean them up with a free abstract-only version and/or a more detailed bibliography for those interested in visiting their local medical library. MarmotHead (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, to check that, I had to get the links working first. :) Anyway, bad news: all journal articles seem to be paywalled. The CDC and Mother Jones are OK.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! I'll check that to be sure I handled it well. I probably didn't. I was more concerned that the places I pointed to were unavailable to people whose employer doesn't pay a shitload of money for. MarmotHead (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think having links to the actual papers is a good thing, though it'd be good to also link to a non-paywalled summary of the paywalled ones.
- Nice work here! - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! The abstract links are from the NIH's PubMed and all have links to the paywalled version from there. Just checked ... damn, that's expensive! MarmotHead (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Homocide: no correlation with firearm owneship?[edit]
I'm simultaneously adding a citation {{fact}} template to this quote: "There is no correlation between the homicide rate and gun ownership on a state-by-state basis", because actual gun ownership statistics are obfuscated by legal restrictions on gathering that data. proxy measures and right to carry laws both have substantive correlations with gun death rates. The only academic objection to these correlations I've seen is by Kleck, who I personally allege to have a dishonest agenda, and who knowingly glosses over serious methodological problems in his papers that in turn tend to have a specific political bent. So... I'm adding a citation needed, even though it looks like it's undermining the point of the paragraph, it's actually because I think it's too weak a statement. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Looking a that the only counter to Kleck is by researchers on the other side who also have an agenda. And they depend on comparing states from different regions with vastly different demographics, which is academically dishonest. Just looking at pairings of same region sociologists rank as otherwise similar average demographics, for example Maryland and Virginia, Kleck's point holds up. to decry one side in highly politicized research as biased, but not the other is not fair minded and effectively ad hominem.Javiar 36 (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- to continue I am simplifying the text and removing unsourced information. The hypothesis is on gun carry which has objectively increased about 10 fold.
- The issue of gun ownership rates is contested. Rates of persons telling a stranger they have a firearm are not sober measure since this is highly confidential, and with the reason for firearms ownership moving from less confidential hunting reason, to highly confidential self and home defense, the most parsimonious explanation is simply more people now tell a stranger polling them that they have no gun in the house --as recommended by modern firearms safety courses. Severe and increasing undercounts on direct questions on privacy related matters from abortion to whether you are gay are shown in all the peer reviewed work to be severe undercounts, and the peer reviewed work all indicate that indirect questions are more accurate measures. All indirect questions related to firearms point to increased, not decreased, in the proportion of Americans owning firearms:
- http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/04/FT_15.04.01_guns_Safer.png
- http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-07-20-Blumenthal-strictergunlaws.png Javiar 36 (talk)
