I'm as anti-guncontrol as anyone, and I want to like that piece, but the citations are troubling. Specifically the citations relating to post-Heller crime rates in DC and Chicago (#74 & 75). They refer to blog entries where they should be citing some type of official crime statistics.
At least the link to the blog article about the Chicago crime rates gives a link to the data on the Chicago PD site, but the other doesn't even mention where the data came from.
As I said, I desperately want to like that article, but if the citations are that sloppy, how can the rest of the information be trusted?
I have long mentioned all of those genocides when trying to convert those who are on the fence about gun control, but I would be very reluctant to mention this piece out of fear that those I am trying to win to our side might also notice how insubstantial the citations are. Those need to be primary source citations, not links to a blog.
Please don't be offended by comments about blogs. A blog certainly can be a primary source. I think in a paper about the history of Fast & Furious your words in the early days would certainly qualify. However, in the case of statistics not actually gathered by the blog author it does not count as a primary source.
Eh. I'm not seeing this making any pretenses to being a scholarly research paper so much as just a general audience position piece with corroborating end notes. I think John Lott's blog is good enough for those purposes.
That is has a German soldier on the cover and not a photo of a Red Army soldier tells me all I need to know about this publication.
ReplyDeleteThe ACLU is run by the same tribe that ran the Bolsheviks, who murdered over 70 million Christians in Russia and elsewhere.
Too bad you dismiss even looking at the evidence on the erroneous assumption that the ACLU is behind this.
ReplyDeleteI'm as anti-guncontrol as anyone, and I want to like that piece, but the citations are troubling. Specifically the citations relating to post-Heller crime rates in DC and Chicago (#74 & 75). They refer to blog entries where they should be citing some type of official crime statistics.
ReplyDeleteAt least the link to the blog article about the Chicago crime rates gives a link to the data on the Chicago PD site, but the other doesn't even mention where the data came from.
As I said, I desperately want to like that article, but if the citations are that sloppy, how can the rest of the information be trusted?
I have long mentioned all of those genocides when trying to convert those who are on the fence about gun control, but I would be very reluctant to mention this piece out of fear that those I am trying to win to our side might also notice how insubstantial the citations are. Those need to be primary source citations, not links to a blog.
Please don't be offended by comments about blogs. A blog certainly can be a primary source. I think in a paper about the history of Fast & Furious your words in the early days would certainly qualify. However, in the case of statistics not actually gathered by the blog author it does not count as a primary source.
Eh. I'm not seeing this making any pretenses to being a scholarly research paper so much as just a general audience position piece with corroborating end notes. I think John Lott's blog is good enough for those purposes.
ReplyDelete