Moore

[bluesqueak]

<Snip>
> Shaun writes:
> Dan, please point out to us which year on that chart shows 11,127 
> gun homicides?
> 
> That is the number that Mike Moore claims. That is a number that 
> cannot be substantiated.
> 
> Mr Moore is the person who chose to give a precise number. Mr 
> Moore is the person who has refused to give his source.
> 
> I am well aware of the US BoJ figures - I consider the FBI figures 
> to be more accurate as the method used to gather those numbers is 
> more academically rigorous - BoJ figures are always rough. Uniform 
> Crime Reports figures are more rigorously checked for accuracy. 
> That doesn't mean they are always precisely right - but they are  
> better figures. IMHO.
> 
> The difference can be substantial - one example:
> 
> 1999 - according to the UCR:
> 
> There were 8480 total gun murders in the US.
> 
> The BoJ page states:
> 
> There were 10117 total gun murders in the US.
> 
> When Michael Moore was asked for his source information, he has 
> told people to check the UCR. So, frankly, I don't think it's 
> unreasonable to assume that is his source.
> 
> Now - if he had simply used only the BoJ figures, that would not 
> be a major problem. Different figures yield slightly different 
> results. But it is a simple fact that he doesn't even use accurate 
> figures from the BoJ.
> 
> There is no year where his figure of 11,127 gun homicides in the 
> US is true. At least not that I can see.
> 
> Using accurate figures would not have been hard.
> 
> Now - if it was just the US, I might be prepared to cut him some 
> slack. The numbers are large enough that some variation is 
> reasonable.
> But he doesn't get the figures for Germany or Australia right 
> either - and those numbers are quite small and *not* easily 
> confused.
> He claimed 65 gun homicides in Australia in a single year. The 
> closest matches was 64 in 1993 and 67 in 1995.
> 
> The man is not accurate. And he should be.
>

Shaun, I am really *not* getting your argument here. When you said 
in an earlier post that Mr Moore was inaccurate about the number of 
gun homicides in Australia, I was imagining that you meant he'd said 
165, when the real figure was 65, or some similar huge discrepancy. 
The variation of uh, 1, or maybe, uh, 2 (which works out as an error 
of from + or - 1.56% to + or - 3% ) would be reasonably acceptable 
accuracy for me.

> If he had said 'Around 11,000' cases, or 'Around 10,0000' cases or 
> something similar to that, there wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> But he chose to use the number 11,127.
> 
> And that number cannot be substantiated.

And as you have argued above, the figures from two institutions 
(which I assume are both official U.S. institutions - I wouldn't 
know, being a Brit) vary by 1637 deaths. [Which I hope means that 
the deaths of 1637 people turned out to be imaginary, but I rather 
doubt it. I suspect their families are still grieving, but have been 
told it was 'accident', rather than homicide.]

So, official figures vary by around + or - 16%. Mr Moore's figures 
vary from the U.S. BoJ figures by again, about 1%. (Assuming it was 
1998 he was working from)

What you mean is that you can't find the data table he used. Or find 
the official he got the figures from. The figures he quotes are 
within the acceptable variation of the statistics; which do vary 
according to how crimes are reported, whether a death is later re-
classified as accidental rather than homicide, and so on.

For Australia, have you considered that he may have asked someone at 
the Australian embassy, who told him 'it averages 65'? Which is 
reasonable from the figures you quote. And would justify Mr Moore 
refusing to reveal a source. 

Or would you prefer to say that you can't find the table he used? 
That 'his figures are inaccurate'? Because to say 'his figures are 
inaccurate' when you're actually talking about a variation of 1 to 
3% is a bit of a statistical trick. It implies a large variation; 
you are actually talking about a small one. It implies there is such 
a thing as a definite, final figure, when in fact the figures could 
easily vary by one or two depending on the way they were collected.

> 
> If for Australia, he'd said 'Around 60', there wouldn't be an 
issue.
> 
> But he chose to use the number 65.
> 
> And that number cannot be substantiated.
> 
> His accuracy is questionable when there is no need for it to be.
> 
> And for a documentary maker who chooses to publically attack 
> governments for presenting inaccurate information, while receiving 
> an award for a film in which he does just that is, IMHO.          
> Unacceptable.

When he's attacking a government whose figures between departments 
vary by 16%, he could have a point. :-)

[I make no claims for the accuracy of British government statistics, 
btw. There's currently a major discussion going on over the 
discovery that the supposed 'huge rise in street crime' was actually 
a huge rise in insurance fraud. People were claiming that they'd 
been mugged and had their mobile stolen because they wanted a new 
mobile ;-) Strangely, these 'street crime' figures stayed in the 
stats even when the 'muggings' turned into fraud investigations.]

> 
> Fact is, I could even accept that Mr Moore simply made a mistake - 
> there is one scene in the original Bowling for Columbine that was  
> removed from later releases because of problems with its factual 
> accuracy. That's a responsible position.
> 
> But even after Mr Moore's errors have been exposed on other  
> issues, he has consistently failed to correct them. If he came out 
> now and simply said "I got the numbers wrong - here's the real 
> ones", I'd be happy - and his arguments wouldn't be weakened at 
> all because the differences aren't profound.

Oh, yes they would, Shaun. You're doing exactly what you say 
wouldn't happen. 'His figures are inaccurate!' you cry. 'Look; he 
said 65 people were killed in Australia in one year! And you know 
what? It WASN'T 65!'

No, it was 64. Gee whiz. That would be an acceptable variation in a 
lot of scientific experiments.

But the headlines would be "Mike Moore admits figures were false!"  
And how many people would read beyond the headlines?

> 
> Inaccuracy in the media is hardly unusual.
> 
> But Mike Moore has deliberately chosen to attack others for their 
> inaccuracies.
> 
> You reap what you sow.

But you seem to be missing the point. Variation of 1 to 2% or no 
variation, there were approximately 10,000 to 11,000 deaths in the 
U.S. by gun homicide. In Australia there were approximately 65. The 
population of the U.S. is 250 million. The population of Australia 
is 17 million (rounded up to nearest million, figures taken from 
Collins World Atlas).

So if Australia had the same gun homicide rate as Australia, there 
should be 680 gun deaths each year. If the U.S. had the same gun 
homicide rate as Australia, they should have 956 deaths per year.

That is the point I think Mr Moore is trying to make. The point is 
not arguing about whether his figures are accurate to within 0.0%, 
or whether the table he took his figures from is accurate in itself. 

The point is that the variation between cultures is huge. The point 
is that the question should be asked whether the gun is so important 
to the U.S. sense of self that they decide they must live and die 
with that homicide rate. 

It's not my question - my culture has other questions to ask itself. 
And the U.S. would be well within its rights and constitution to 
decide 'yes, guns are that important to us'. 

But quibbling about the difference between 65 and 64 (or 67) does 
not actually help to answer the question. The important difference 
is the one that says ten times more people (per head of population) 
die from gun crime in the U.S. than in Australia. The variations in 
figures that you are arguing about don't actually change that at all.

Pip!Squeak