Thursday, December 29, 2011

Grass Roots North Carolina Didn't Like the NYT Article



In an interview with Human Events, the leader of Grass Roots North Carolina called the December 27 New York Times article on concealed carry permit holders in his state a “hit piece.”

The reporter Michael Luo, who has published other data-match stories with an anti-gun tilt, exposed his bias against gun rights, by choosing tight search parameters that produced the results he needed to support his anti-gun rights narrative, said F. Paul Valone, the president of the gun rights organization.
What exactly were these"tight search parameters" which "exposed his bias against gun rights?"

To make his points, Luo ran a data-match with two lists, the state’s roster of concealed carry permit holders against the state’s criminal database and sorted out permit holders with criminal records.
Now, that sounds really underhanded, doesn't it? No wonder the North Carolina gunnies were upset.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

14 comments:

  1. If there was a John Smith CCW permit holder, and a John Smith felon, there would be a match. Luo only verified 15 out of the 2500 "matches."

    Hope that clarifies the underhandedness for you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MAGunner writes:If there was a John Smith CCW permit holder, and a John Smith felon, there would be a match. Luo only verified 15 out of the 2500 "matches."

    Not really. The larger the data base the more matches there would have been. Data bases in other states. Data bases for violent misdemeanors. Data bases for violent conduct resulting in restraining orders. Data bases turning up names from domestic violence calls to police....

    Not to mention those who are going to snap and start shooting people, particularly the ever-popular murder suicides because of mental health issues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Not to mention those who are going to snap and start shooting people, particularly the ever-popular murder suicides because of mental health issues."

    There is a database that lists people who are going to snap?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is an NICS data base that includes people who are reported for being dangerously mentally ill, yes.

    As yet, however, sadly, we do not prohibit guns from those who are dangerous for those reasons, like schizophrenia, for which we have effective and accurate diagnostic tools.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But you didn't answer MAgunowner's question. How does Luo eliminate people with similar names? This sounds like the effort to purge voter rolls of felons--good people getting misidentified.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sounds like we need to arrest all of the people that will commit a crime in the future before they go and commit that crime - we have the list - why aren't we protecting ourselves?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sounds like we need to arrest all of the people that will commit a crime in the future before they go and commit that crime - we have the list - why aren't we protecting ourselves?

    No, we just need to stop arming them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dog gone,
    What is the false positive rate of Luo's "matches?"

    This is one of the most basic quality controls of a matching algorithm. It's done by pulling a random sample of flagged cases, and checking if it's really the same person.

    Luo reports that he checked 15 cases out of 2400 matches. We don't know if it was done randomly or if he disregarded FPs until he got his 15... and he's not answering questions about this.

    This study stinks, in the sense that he'd get a D if this was his homework in an MPH course.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MAgunowner said...

    Dog gone,
    What is the false positive rate of Luo's "matches?"


    I don't know. What I take from this story is that the names were not adequately checked. That is all I take from this story - that more checking reveals a need to verify if the person who has the gun is also the person who is a felon.



    I don't think this should be examined as a definitive proof of anything other than what it claims - that the names of felons should be data matched. It should not stop there - they should be further verified. I would hope that before a carry permit holder receives a permit this is done, but I would not make the assumption that it is so. The point is - that is a question that needs to be answered. Further, I would argue that such a match should be run periodically to rescind the carry permits of those who are subsequently convicted after receiving a carry permit. I'd also wish to see their firearms removed from them.

    Luo reports that he checked 15 cases out of 2400 matches. We don't know if it was done randomly or if he disregarded FPs until he got his 15... and he's not answering questions about this.

    I don't necessarily see that questions about how he did this are as important as ARE THOSE WHO ISSUE PERMITS DOING THIS, AND - important AND - then verifying identities?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dog Gone,

    In other words, you don't care about whether the data are valid or correctly interpreted. Your concern is to take guns away.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, the two John Smiths problem is a real brain buster. I do hope they can figure it out.

    What about the guy who is Jose Valdez Zapata Martinez and goes by Jose Valdez?

    You see for every poor John Smith you've got who gets unfairly identified, only until he clears himself with simple documentation, you're gonna have a couple Jose Valdezes who are convicted felons but slip through the cracks unless you check the fingerprints.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mikeb302000;

    "...you're gonna have a couple Jose Valdezes who are convicted felons but slip through the cracks unless you check the fingerprints."

    Doesn't matter. Thinkingandfeelingdiagnozer Greg Camp would KNOW of their EEEEEEEEEEvul intent and inform the authorities in NC, if he wasn't too busy to fly his skysled over there and disarm them himself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Yeah, the two John Smiths problem is a real brain buster. I do hope they can figure it out."

    Mike,
    You're way off. My John Smiths example was in reference to the methods in Luo's NYT article - you know, the one you posted. Way to be a sarcastic douche.

    ReplyDelete
  14. dog gone = fail

    "Dog Gone- As yet, however, sadly, we do not prohibit guns from those who are dangerous for those reasons, like schizophrenia, for which we have effective and accurate diagnostic tools."

    you are very wrong and misinformed, like all anti gun people. NC checks the hospital records of all people that apply for a purchase permit (required by law) by getting records from the state hospitals to make sure that you have not been diagnosed with any mental illneses.

    ReplyDelete