Why don't gun rags use standard statistics?

[Mike Irwin]

The hand that I just bit is ENTIRELY different than the hand that fed me for the first 3 years I was with the National Rifle Association.

I didn't like Bill Parkerson very much (he was very Biercian), but I had, and still have, TONS of respect for the man.

George Martin and Ron Keysor I both liked and respected.

 

[Lone Star]

Dean Speir and Mike Irwin are letting the cat out of the bag, and I love it! I write for one gun magazine that had better remain nameless, but where I have RELATIVE freedom to tell the truth. I've freelanced at other titles, including one knife mag where I was dropped (I think) because I wasn't willing to coddle an advertiser whose product designs and personality grated at me. I didn't want to keep pushing this guy's imported knives and pretending that he wasn't abrasive, and it cost me money, but I can still look at myself in the bathroom mirror when I shave and not feel disgusted.

The real clencher is that I've not only heard the stories about certain major publishers, I've watched the top names from a now retired major publisher (and the Man, himself) work the SHOT show, and seen the self loathing and embarrassment in the employees' faces. Not all, but the ones who appeared to still possess a sense of shame that peeked out from behind the ego and bluster that typified that publisher's employees. Quite a few of these men remind me of the southern end of a northbound horse.

When I was studying journalism in college, I aspired to write for the major gun mags. Exposure to those who do left me feeling that there are editors for whom I can't write and retain my self respect. Reading Jack O'Connor's, "The Last Book" was the clencher. So, I publish at relatively minor titles, where for the most part, I can tell it like it is... especially if products reviewed are made by non-advertisers.

That said, there are some gun writers who try their best to inform the readers to the degree that they dare. If one becomes sophisticated enough to know and follow their bylines, he can still learn a lot.

And, finally... does anyone here really know if all those gunfights that Chuck Taylor describes at, "Handguns" are real events, or are they his "creative writing"? Personally, I think his style and the fact that the editor doesn't state whether the events are from real life greatly detracts from the magazine.

Lone Star

 

[BigG]

I do get the NRAzine as a byproduct of my membership but note the content is far weaker than the old issues and more comparable to the pap foisted on readers by the likes of "Handguns," which has set new standards for typos, mislabelled photos, and other mistakes.

Maybe that's why I haven't subscribed to or regularly bought a gunzine in years. Utter disgust.

 

[Bacchus]

I love this...an individual (that would be me) asks an intelligent question about firearms and other(s) suggest that it is "showing off" statistical knowledge.

By the way, shooting off large amounts of ammo ("30" different types) under the guise of providing quality data is not necessarily "better" than a thorough analysis of several different brands of ammo.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Lone,

I've been asked numerous times why I didn't start freelancing, or simply move and try to hook on with another magazine after I left NRA.

You touch on a lot of the reasons why.

 

[Lone Star]

Bacchus-

If I understand you, you sort of have a point, but I like to wade through the 30 different ammo types tested in a story, in hopes of finding out how those I want to try performed.

Lone Star

 

[BigG]

Wow. Are we surprised hypocrisy exists even in our hallowed halls of gundom?

 

[Dean Speir]

[sigh]

I love this...an individual (that would be me) asks an intelligent question about firearms and other(s) suggest that it is "showing off" statistical knowledge.

I can see what the problem is here, Bacchus… either you're browsing with "Smilies" disabled, or you are simply "reading-challenged."

…shooting off large amounts of ammo ("30" different types) under the guise of providing quality data is not necessarily "better" than a thorough analysis of several different brands of ammo.

No guise or guile intended. It was what it was… a substantial amount of comparative data using one handgun and one shooter. My commission, as I said, was to give the readers of that particular group of gunzines some charts to study.

I think, for whatever reason, you were "showing off" a bit… nothing wrong with that, why hide one's light beneath a bushel… and you got some serious responses based on first hand experience from some who've been in the trenches.

Now, you have an path to follow, if you choose, and one that's been more fully illuminated for you. Go out and collect your own data, get it published, and set a new standard. I'll be glad to send you a (slightly dated) list of gunzines and their editors if you'd like more of a leg up, and I suspect that both Mike and Lone Star would be willing to share from their own lists as well.

Warning: A happenstance meeting at World Shoot VI back in '83 with Ken Hackathorn led to him encouraging me in the same matter. "Gawd knows, the gun press could sure use some fresh blood," he said. What he didn't tell me was just how closed a shop it was!

 

[Bacchus]

Mr. Speir,

Funny...I'm the one who is "showing off" statistical knowledge (even though all I asked was why they don't use them--I never spelled out the acronym like you did or attempt to explain the use of one specific statistic over another).

It appears that you are more interested in dropping names and dates about your past.

I'm not interested in playing games or dropping names. All I wanted was to generate some reasons about why gun rags don't use standard statistics.

I believe that others have listed some interesting food for thought in that regard.

I will not respond to any further personal comments.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dean Speir]

O my my…

Just for the record, Bacchus. 'twas you who started this thread and posed the question:

Whatever happened to good old fashioned averages and standard deviations? Then it would be easy to compute t-tests and/or ANOVAs on the numbers.

Now, I invite you to do a word search for ANOVA either here (THR) or back on TFL.

You were showing off… but I already acknowledged that "showing off" is fine… but in calling you on it, also provided some information that was directly on point. So did others, and it would seem that most here who participated in your thread gained something from it.

So what's your problem?

Could it be that you were more interested in introducing ANOVA onto the board in the guise of "an intelligent question," and having a whole slew of other Members wonder "***?!?" than in getting an "intelligent answer?"

So your averring that "I'm not interested in playing games or dropping names" seems a bit disingenuous. You started the "game" when you dropped ANOVA, and then seem miffed when others wanted to play as well.

 

[Mike Irwin]

You know, it's funny...

I saw the acronym that Baccus used, and thought nothing of it.

I certainly didn't know what it meant, or even what it means, other than it's something to do with statistics.

Interestingly enough, I also didn't immediately jump to the conclusion that Baccus was showing off, or feel the necessity to blow a trivial personal beef into a multi-message issue.

What's your point, Dean?

Why's it SO important that you come out looking like some macho swinging Richard by claiming that Baccus is showing off? Is it really THAT much of an ice pick in your brain that you have to grind on about the most inconsequential aspect of his message?

What's your point? Why's it so important to you? Are you that bored?

 

[Dean Speir]

Mike, look again...

... it was meant to be funny. I rarely use emoticons, but I've discovered that too often others "miss" an important nuance, so I invoked a "smilie" so no one would miss it.

That's the point, Mike… regret that you didn't "get it" the first couple of times and felt the need to play omsbudsbully. (There, I used another one.)

 

[STW]

Just one quick point addressing the original question.
I don't believe the sample sizes are large enough to make any comparison meaningful. Giving the mean, std. dev., and the like would imply differences where none really exist. I've also done enough formal product testing to have found lots of statistical differences that had no practical impact and said so in the report.
I've also seen lots of qualitative results foisted as quantitative. :banghead:

As an aside. Mark Twain attributed the quote about statistics to Disraeli in a biography Twain authored. Whether Disraeli actually said it or Twain just said he said it seems to be an open question that people answer by attributing it to the one they favor. (or have head of)

 

[BigG]

I think STW answered it. Sample size too small to be significant.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Any time a discussion leaves the subject matter at hand and moves on to discuss grammar, reading skills, spelling, ethnicity, religion, suspected body odor, questionable origin, or breeding habits of another member, it's time to call it a day.

Closed for declining civility.