Now, as for the NSSF statement on the offending action items. I generally applaud it, but I’m just wondering where it is other than Bane’s blog. I’d just like to see some public solidarity with the handgun industry. I appreciate their statement, but I guess it’s still a little bit of a letdown after we were expecting the statement yesterday during the thesis presentation.I stand on my comments that the researchers at Responsive Management suffered from a bad case of researcher bias...the fact that chief researcher Duda is actively defensive proves my point. Researchers on soild ground dont react the way he has.
* My phone call with Frank Briganti and Ted Novin from NSSF yesterday was somewhat helpful in understanding where this mistake happened. Frank is adamant that there is no bias at all. I disagree, but I understand why he wouldn’t like that word. He agreed that the problem action items are very poorly worded, and should not have been worded in such a way. I appreciate that. However, I view this is bias influencing how those things were worded. It would appear that Michael Bane and Jim Shepherd would agree:[the researchers] desperately needs to read a basic primer on researcher bias…again, as Jim Shepherd andI say in the podcast, “bias” in this case isn’t a dirty word, just a bad oneI did suggest that they have someone who has a strong background in each of the different sides of the shooting sports and hunting communities review publications like this before they are distributed to see if there are unintentional pot shots at the other groups. They seemed open to that idea. It’s a very simple and cheap internal control that can save them major headaches and not rehash many of the same fights in the community.
RE: The NSSF statement, at got the "formal" copy this morning at breakfast, and my understanding is that it has gone out to everyone. I will check on that in a couple of minutes. We will be posting the formal release on DRTV in a few minutes...
6 comments:
MB can you comment on why it looks like this summit is so poorly attended. I believe that there are around 140 folks in the audience and half of those seem to be from goverment agencies. That means only 70 folks from the industry showed up?
I hope you all are enjoying music as well as the dance.
Walt R.
With no intention of distracting from the substance of the issue, which is obviously important, I'm struck by the very Web 2.0 nature of this post: A blogger comments on a blogger's comment about comments on his blog!
The more important aspect is the Web 2.1 one: the news-makers (at least make an effort to) act swiftly to respond to the concerns of the bloggers!
Clearly NSSF needs to find another research firm. They talk about not having data on shooting but spent 3 years putting this together. Don't ya think they could have worked on compiling numbers? Probably would have cost too much time and they wanted to make a hefty margin on this project.
A few thoughts:
1) Once again, a huge thank-you to Mr. Bane for the yeoman's work you're doing on this front for us. You have served us as well as anyone I can think of, and we are indebted to you.
2) Re: Pete's Web 2.0 comment... Impressive (and dorky) isn't it? :)
3) What's a 'blooger'?
Response to the making of a margin, anonymous doesn't seem to realize that NSSF is a NON-PROFIT organization. If you watched yesterday's web cast you would have seen "plently of numbers" and data for shooting and all areas of shooting sports and . Also if you watched today to the end you would have heard MB's positive comments on the summit.
Post a Comment