Mark Borgerson wrote:
> In article ,
> msnyder{at}redhat.com says...
> >
> > Mark Borgerson wrote:
> > > In article ,
> >
> > > > They picked them because they COULD obtain a very large
> > > > and very representative sample from them.  It wasn't a few
> > > > dozen -- it was a significant fraction of *all* of the large
urban
> > > > counties in the US, and "large" doesn't mean
"bigger than a
> > million".
> > > >
> > >
> > > A large sample---yes.  Representative of the whole US?   I doubt
it,
> > > or they would have said so.
> >
> > They did say so, Mark:
> >
> >     The sample was drawn from State prosecutor files in 33 of the
> >     75 [most populous counties in the U.S.].  The counties were
> >     widely scattered, from Los Angeles and San Diego, Denver and
> >     Dallas, to Philadelphia and Dade County (Miami).  [...] The 75
> >     counties are where a little over half of all murders in the
> >     nation occur.
> >
> > The sample, therefore is representative of a little over half
> > of all murders in the U.S.
> >
>
> Yes,  but they represent the half that occurs in a specific
> demographic data set---large counties with populations
> greater than about 500,000.   The DOJ acknowledges that
> the patterns of homicide are different between large cities
> and smaller cities, suburban and rural areas:
>
>
> This report from the DOJ says :
> " Intimate homicides (spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends, and
girlfriends)
> made up a larger percentage of murders in rural areas than in
suburban
> or urban areas"
>
>
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm
>
> Since murders in rural and suburban areas are more likely to involve
> intimates and family members,  I think that my hypothesis that
> the spousal murder statistics for the 75 largest counties may not
> be representative of the statistics for rural and suburban areas
> is supported.
>
>
> You might also find it interesting that murder by poison (more common
> among women offenders) represents a disproportionately large
percentage
> of murders in suburban and rural areas.  (See the DOJ report cited
> above).   That would indicate to me that murder of men by women
> might actually be more common in suburban and rural areas  than is
> the case in the large cities.

Then why all the quibbling?  A study that represents more than half
of the *entire possible sample* is  certainly large enough to be
significant.  It's always possible for those outside the sample
to have changed the results, but you yourself argue that it isn't
all that likely to have changed them in the direction that would
make them less interesting.

Mark, this is what you do on a regular basis -- find some trivial
quibble and then beat it into the ground.  Why don't you try
commenting on the content instead?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/1/05 4:47:54 PM ---