Stanford research reaffirms that right-to-carry gun laws are connected with an increase in violent crime. This debunks – with the latest empirical evidence – earlier claims that more guns actually lead to less crime.
While there is no federal law on concealed-carry permits, all 50 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from local government or law enforcement.
Recently published scholarship updates the empirical evidence on this issue. Stanford law Professor John J. Donohue III, Stanford law student Abhay Aneja and doctoral student Alexandria Zhang from Johns Hopkins University were the co-authors of the study.
[Abstract]: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 17 2014, @10:40PM
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf [harvard.edu]
When liberals and progressives do their "studies" they always arrive at the same conclusions. When more rational human beings study the same issue, they arrive at quite different conclusions.
If it is legal to carry a weapon in your locale, then you are much safer from violent crime. It doesn't matter if YOU carry - the fact that criminals don't know who might be carrying makes you safer.
Read some REAL studies - Kates and Mauser aren't the only people who have done these studies. Use Google to find them.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @10:56PM
If it is legal to carry a weapon in your locale, then crimes are much more likely to be violent. It doesn't matter if YOU carry - the fact that criminals don't know who might be carrying means they have to carry to be safer.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 17 2014, @11:06PM
Citation needed. I strongly suspect you are talking out your arse, or you would have supplied SOME KIND of supporting evidence.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 17 2014, @11:06PM
I'm safer if people don't carry, because I can outrun most bad guys with a blade, but I can't outrun bullets.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 17 2014, @11:13PM
Then you should be extremely safe in the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago - guns are banned there. Go for it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday November 17 2014, @11:20PM
I always feel safe in other developed countries. Not that the bad guys don't have guns, but they typically don't pull them out unless they have a specific target.
In Chicago, and I spent enough years there (did you?), being in an area disputed between gangs can get anyone shot, and carrying a gun won't change that. I'd like to invite you to go walk down there. Carry as much light weaponry as you want, visible and hidden...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 17 2014, @11:29PM
I have walked the streets of half the ghettos in the United States, as well as some outside of the United States. I generally go unarmed - but no city council has the authority to forbid me to carry a weapon within the United States. Nor does any state legislature.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday November 18 2014, @03:37AM
Perhaps, if you do not accept their authority. But they can imprison you for noncompliance with their edicts regardless of what you think about their right to do so.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:49PM
> I generally go unarmed
So, when you go to the most dangerous places, where you're orders of magnitude more likely to need to defend yourself, you're not armed...
What does that do to your self-defense argument and posturing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @11:35PM
That's great, son. You've covered the very small minority of cases where somebody unrelated to a gang conflict is accidentally shot, while totally ignoring the vast majority of the cases where it's just some thug trying to rob a targeted victim.
As the victim in these majority of cases, you will be better off if you're armed, rather than unarmed. At least then you have some chance, versus absolutely no chance when unarmed.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:03AM
Guns are safer if only good people have them.
*Sigh*
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by metamonkey on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:51PM
I doubt that. By the time the victim perceives a threat it's too late to react.
If your assailant has a gun, it's already drawn and pointed at you. If you try to draw your weapon he's going to shoot you to stop the threat against his own life.
If he has a knife, if he's within 17 or 21 feet depending on who you ask he can close the distance and stab you before you can get a shot off. The standard LE rule is 21 feet. And that's for a trained law enforcement officer to notice and assess the threat, draw his weapon from a holster at his belt, acquire center mask and fire. It's also unlikely that your assailant is going to draw his weapon 17 feet away from you. He's going to wait until he's right up on you so you don't have a chance to do anything. And you might notice him and think he looks suspicious, but what are you going to do, draw a gun on an apparently unarmed man on the street based on a feeling?
Perhaps it could be useful if you're in a store and someone comes in to rob it. Still, unless you think he's actually going to shoot somebody, you're better off doing what he says and let him take off with the loot. You or he might hit a bystander, or he might kill you, and great, you died for the $115 in somebody else's cash register.
Unless you come across a violent crime in progress, like a mass shooting or something, your gun is best left holstered.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday November 18 2014, @11:47AM
Not that the bad guys don't have guns, but they typically don't pull them out unless they have a specific target.
Well, no. In your average European country, it's quite rare for a criminal to have, and carry, a gun. Here in the UK, very few criminals carry, and the enforcement of gun-laws is generally pretty effective.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:53PM
It's my point that the average knife-wielding mugger in Europe won't leave you dead, regardless of how much alcohol/drugs/withdrawal they have in their system. That's why it's national news when it happens.
On the other hand, let's not be blind to the fact that many bad guys do have guns. They just selectively use them on hard targets (banks, fund transport, jewelry places...)
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday November 21 2014, @12:00PM
let's not be blind to the fact that many bad guys do have guns
That was really my point: I don't think this is the case.
There are criminals with guns in the UK, sure, but they're a tiny minority. Very few muggers in the UK have a gun, as you yourself said. This is not true in all countries.
There are few incidents of armed organised crime in the UK; it's not the case that the armed 'criminal elite' are a huge issue, as I understand it.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 21 2014, @04:55PM
"organised" bad guys, since I then talk about hard targets?
The brits may be very nice to each other, but the closer you get to the Mediterranean, the more equipped the gangs and mafias get.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday November 17 2014, @11:54PM
Good for you. What about my cousin with the gimp leg, courtesy of korea? He is not going to be able to outrun a mugger. He certainly will be able to stop one in his tracks and send him running or if necessary drop him, using a pistol. Why should he be prevented from defending himself just because you think *you* can run well?
There is a real generational undercurrent here, but it isnt one where the old generation dies off and the new one wins, it's one where each new generation joins the old as they progress. The young man is in a respect empowered by weapons prohibition - and always has been, this didnt start with the firearms.
Back before firearms, we had sword control. The exact regulations differed but swords have been heavily legislated on since the bronze ages. In some times and places, swords are forbidden, and as a result, people carry knives. (Even if the legislation covers knives too, that's still what they'll be carrying, because they can be concealed so much more easily than a sword.) This was well intentioned, and motivated by the exact same logic we see today motivating genuine well intentioned 'gun control' proponents - there was all this sword-violence, and surely if there were fewer swords there would be less violence, right?
Well, no, ultimately there might be more or less violence due to completely unrelated reasons, but what you reliably do here is empower the young against the old. Because the old guy has a much better chance against the young guy in a sword fight than a knife fight. In fact if the old guy is a trained fencer and the young guy is not, then the old guy is the heavy favorite with swords. Take away the swords, give them knives (or let them fight bareknuckle!) and the younger man takes the edge back.
Now because of human nature, because of our material chemical hormone driven existence, this has a really profound effect on violence. Because most violence is perpetrated by a specific portion of young males, and because attackers do not normally attack without some confidence in the outcome, there is an indirect relationship here, a sort of a leve connecting the two things.
Firearms are the same, they relatively empower the older person, and today it's not just the older males but also the females that are likely to be packing. You dont walk into a rural community with even a 5% concealed carry percentage and start bullying or mugging people, you just dont. If you are that suicidal you can commit suicide by cop right where you live. But in an area with no guns, a baseball bat or just big muscles can lead to a feeling of invulnerability.
Of course usually what you get instead of 'no guns' is actually 'no guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens' - the criminals will still get guns when they need them. But even if you could make it work perfectly, it would still just lead to more people getting stabbed and beaten to death with baseball bats etc. Because those are all weapons that, relative to a firearm (or even a sword!) favor the young over the old.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:50PM
I've known a few people who have gotten mugged. Most of them were strong and young people. They usually got jumped and hit from behind. It was rather easy to grab all of their stuff at that point. Including their gun if they had one.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:31PM
Good for you. What about my cousin with the gimp leg, courtesy of korea? He is not going to be able to outrun a mugger. He certainly will be able to stop one in his tracks and send him running or if necessary drop him, using a pistol.
Statistically, that's not remotely the case. The vast majority of the time, when somebody fearing an attack goes to pull out a gun, the result is that the aggressor shoots them, very often fatally. It's because violent criminals have learned to have the same "trigger-happy" reactions that the cops do.
More importantly, most people don't live in an area where it's something they realistically should be concerned about. The mainstream news over-reporting on violent crime from all over the country has led a hell of a lot of people to believe that society is now a horribly dangerous place, and from what I was told by one guy, being violently picked on as a kid/teen greatly amplifies that belief.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday November 18 2014, @07:32PM
What about my cousin with the gimp leg, courtesy of korea? He is not going to be able to outrun a mugger. He certainly will be able to stop one in his tracks and send him running or if necessary drop him, using a pistol.
He's 80+. He hasn't just got a gimp leg, his eyesight is failing, and he can't keep his hands still. He's just as likely to shoot an innocent bystander as a criminal. Or simply shoot himself in the foot, thus doubling his gimp-leggedness.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 3, Informative) by physicsmajor on Monday November 17 2014, @11:59PM
Are you willing to bet?
Because actual studies examining the accuracy of firearms wielded against retreating victims is not at all what you would think. In fact, the evidence shows that a handgun hits a victim running away in retreat no more than 6% of the time. Movies are not reality.
So when making your decisions you shouldn't be worried about "most" (50%) of the bad guys with a blade. Can you outrun more than 93% of bad guys with a blade? If you're less confident you're in the top ~5% in terms of fitness, your policy decisions are objectively incorrect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:31AM
> In fact, the evidence shows that a handgun hits a victim running away in retreat no more than 6% of the time.
Ugh. I HATE it when people throw out novel statistics without a citation.
I especially hate it when those statistics are not [google.com] easily [google.com] found [google.com] with [google.com] google. [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday November 18 2014, @08:56AM
Knives require you to get in close and risk your own safety to use them. Guns can kill from a safe distance, so criminals have more confidence to commit crimes when they have one.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:20AM
You can point a gun in my face, but you know what?
I'll kill YOU with it. It's easy.
Knives? Knives are a lot harder, and require a lot more training to counter close-up. No, karate doesn't count. Karate is a black belt in having your butt kicked by the first guy you come across who's been in a few fights.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:46PM
Hollywood called, they want to remind you about the disclaimer at the end of the movie.
The rest of us just want your real name so we can read your obit.
(Score: 1) by Translation Error on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:53PM
So, don't bring a knife to a gunfight, but don't bring a gun to a knife fight either.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:06AM
Most violence in this day and age is actually state violence. Whether or not disarming the states is desirable or plausible is a question for another thread.
What I meant to say was most of the *remaining* violence, after we remove the state perpetrated and economic violence from cosideration; the interpersonal criminal violence. Most of *that* violence is perpetrated by a subset of young males. Young male humans (like many species) have a biologically programmed need for violence, which our society does an extraordinarily poor job of dealing with, unless you think shipping them overseas for a tour of duty and hoping they dont make it back alive is a good job.
Anyway, you probably knew what I meant.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:26AM
Oh, I love the smell of pop evolutionary psychology bullshit in the morning.
But I guess I'm supposed to provide an alternate theory instead of just saying, "bullshit", right? Okay. Traditional gender roles + more variance in male intelligence (stupid people tend to be more violent) + males are generally stronger and therefore can successfully use violence more frequently + whatever this isn't worth responding to anymore.
I've personally never felt a biological imperative to go beat people up. If you frequently find yourself with an overwhelming urge to go beat up other people, maybe you should have a professional look into that. Fight Club is a movie (and one which exemplifies "traditional gender roles" from my speculation above).
---linuxrocks123
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:00AM
I know why you think it's bullshit - because you have heard something much like it from gender-war 'feminists' that use it to demonize men.
And they are wrong, because they apply it much too broadly. But it is actually true that the vast majority of assaults, petty muggings, senseless street crime and pointless aggression in general, are perpetrated by (a small number of) young males. And if you know anything at all about human evolutionary biology you should really grok immediately why that's not unexpected.
Females of any age and older males are similar in that it is much more unusual for them to commit an act of violence, statistically. And of course anyone of any age or gender should not be presumed guilty based on statistical stereotype.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:57AM
I don't think it's bullshit because of gender war feminists. That wouldn't really make sense. I also didn't claim men weren't responsible for most violent crime.
I'm calling bullshit on the evolutionary psychology bullshit, because it's bullshit. You can make up plausible-sounding evolutionary psychology narratives for almost any aspect of human behavior. You can also make up plausible-sounding evolutionary psychology narratives arguing the exact opposite thing.
You never specified exactly why you think young males are responsible for most crime. If you did, I could call bullshit more precisely. I'm guessing it's an "alpha male" thing? Well, guess what, we don't live in trees and it's not par for the course for men to murder their stepchildren, so I guess directly analogizing monkey societies to ours doesn't really work, hmm?
And the guy jumping people in the alley, he's not really competing for mates. "Oh but he's going to use the money to buy jewelry and therefore attract mates!" Yeah dude no he's probably going to buy some combination of crack, booze, and food. Maybe he'll also go to a strip club or something, but ... no, that doesn't make it a mating contest.
And the "contests" in the animal kingdom are typically between two people both competing for mates. That could only describe gang wars, which is a small subset of violent crime; most people getting mugged have no desire to compete for the mugger's "mate" because she probably has about 20 STDs.
And gang wars are usually based on drug trade economics, which, again, has nothing to do with mating. And when they're not they're usually based on mutual racism. Again has nothing to do with mating. "WELL THEN IT'S A CHIMP WAR!" well yes chimps have wars and yes young men usually fight both chimp and human wars because who else is going to do it the young men are the strongest representatives of the "tribe".
So now I guess you'll concoct some sort of way where "BUT ALL THAT LEADS BACK TO SEX!!111!!one". Yeah. Whatever man. Evolutionary psychology gives you SO many ways to contact "just so" narratives it's embarrassing if you don't realize after I've spelled it out for you how it's bullshit. Science is where you have a hypothesis, test it, and then write up what you find. Bullshit is where you sit around concocting "just so" unfalsifiable narratives. And I'm too tired and was in the middle of writing an email client so I'm going to go away now. Respond and have the last word if you want.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Tuesday November 18 2014, @08:20AM
While I agree that there is a rash of pop evolutionary psychology out there that is poorly supported (or entirely unsupported) by evidence, I would like to briefly play the devil's advocate here regarding sex and evolutionary fitness governing male behaviour in humans. Humans, unlike pretty much every other animal, operate within an economic and social environment that deals not only in physical fitness, but also abstract notions of value (eg. money) and complex internal models of status. While it could be seen as maladaptive in "civil society", criminal behaviour serves to benefit the individual through material or psychological gain - logically this must be so, otherwise nobody would do it. Economic theory explains criminal behaviour for material gain, psychological theory explains behaviour for personal emotional outcomes. The crux here is that economic and psychological drivers are linked to the emotional need for status: the same internal driver that governs reproductive success, which is the pop-psychology go-to explanation for otherwise irrational risk-taking human behaviour.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:32AM
The book Freakonomics [freakonomics.com] found that the average drug dealer earns less than the average burger-flipper. It doesn't mention the status of drug dealers but they often portrayed with higher status in popular culture.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday November 19 2014, @07:35AM
Drug dealing is a "risky" occupation (not just because of danger): there is the prospect that the dealer will become a kingpin and make millions, or that he will never rise above the level of footsoldier. Similar occupations are rockstars, academics, politicians and professional athletes. These occupations still find many takers because the punters believe the reward outweighs the risk. I can attest to this as a junior faculty member in the robotics field - it's brutal and underpaid and there is a huge chance of failure, but the personal reward of working in a field that I love is (hopefully) worth it. I think if a dealer/athlete/politician/academic knew he would never become more than just a small-time washout, he'd give up and do something else.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:48PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:00PM
I thought Fight Club was about crazy people.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by tempest on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:36AM
If they're a bad guy, why would they worry about a legal permit to carry a firearm? They're already breaking the law.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:52PM
The UK has reportedly come up with a good way of deterring criminals (including burglars, gang members, muggers, etc.) from carrying firearms by having a gigantic gap in charges/sentencing. I don't know the specifics, but evidently the shift is along the lines of changing the punishment from a warning or misdemeanor with lots of leeway & understanding, straight up to a very aggressively prosecuted felony with no mercy at all.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday November 18 2014, @02:41AM
You'll never even see it coming.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:14PM
The problem with your rationale is that you are Assuming the Bad Guys won't have guns, if they are banned. Criminals won't care, if it's illegal to have a gun. It will just mean they will have more freedom to screw you.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:25PM
You didn't read properly.
I grew up in a place where nobody carries. There are millions of weapons in homes, but they are all rifles.
Getting mugged means three guys on one or mace or a knife (more recently, electric toys). If you can't run away, it's gonna cost you your wallet and some of your pride, but you'd really need to be an ass to your mugger to end up dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @08:12PM
hi bob. i'll be your mugger today. please hand over your wallet. are you carrying a gun? i hope not.
i'm safer if people don't carry, because i can outrun most good guys with a blade, but i can't outrun bullets.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:03AM
This absurd proposition assumes that criminals obey the law when, by definition, they do not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:35AM
>This absurd proposition assumes that criminals obey the law when, by definition, they do not.
The mighty buzzard, living in a black and white world where if something is illegal criminals have just as easy access to it as if it were sold at every cornershop.
Software might be binary, but the real world is analog.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @07:58AM
So you are banning all guns now?
(Score: 2) by khchung on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:31PM
Not necessarily, it still increased the barrier of entry, because when carrying guns is illegal, then you could get arrested just by having a gun in the streets. Before that, cops can't do shit before you actually pull out your gun and point it towards someone.
If guns were outlawed entirely, then cops could get you for just owning a gun. It won't make illegal guns disappear, but it would further increase the barrier to committing crimes with a gun. With a high barrier, it would become impractical for the common criminal to use a gun for petty crimes, which would make the place safer for most common people.
(Score: 2) by pendorbound on Tuesday November 18 2014, @03:32PM
Right… Because criminals would *never* carry a gun if it was illegal, right?
Places where concealed carry is difficult to get just turns law abiding citizens into defenseless targets. Criminals don’t care if it’s legal to carry or not. They’ve already set out to break at least one law, what’s one more?
What they *do* care about is the likelihood that they’re going to get shot if they try to attack someone. In places where concealed carry is easier to get, there’s a higher likelihood that their victim will shoot back. Oddly enough, most criminals don’t like to get shot.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Monday November 17 2014, @11:06PM
" "studies" they always arrive at the same conclusions. When more rational human beings study the same issue,"
Using scare quote and implying those with different political views are irrational will not help your argument.
You're only alienating people and allowing others to disregard what you have to say.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Monday November 17 2014, @11:08PM
So your discrediting this study seems to be base on a claim that it's done by "liberals and progressives".
Sorry.... but that's a weak argument.
Question(s):
Can you logically find fault with the study linked to?
Or...
Just knee-jerk responding about "liberals and conservatives" relate to any news about gun laws?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 17 2014, @11:19PM
I've read study after study, including the "More guns less crime" cited in this paper, and the one I linked to above.
It is a fact that left-wing liberals and progressives come out with new studies all the time - and they are ALWAYS faulty.
In the first few pages of this PDF, you will find complaints about methodology. In effect, they didn't like the MGLC study, so they changed the methodology so that they could arrive at a different conclusion.
And, I will note, the people involved in the study don't all agree with the conclusion in the title of this discussion. I quote:
The chapter on RTC laws was anything but. Citing the extreme sensitivity of
2
The term “RTC laws” is used interchangeably with “shall-issue laws” in the guns and crime literature.
3
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2443681point [ssrn.com] estimates to various panel data model specifications, the NRC report failed to narrow the
domain of uncertainty about the effects of RTC laws. Indeed, it may have increased it.
However, while the NRC report concluded there was no reliable statistical support for the “More
Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis, the vote was not unanimous. One dissenting committee member
argued that the committee's own estimates revealed that RTC laws did in fact reduce the rate of
murder. Conversely, a different member went even further than the majority’s opinion by
doubting that any econometric evaluation could illuminate the impact of RTC laws owing to
model specification and endogeneity issues.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:31PM
I appreciate the response, which better supports your claim than (paraphrased) "those damn liberal commies".
I'm not commenting on one side of the issue or the other.
I'm always disappointed by noting the frequency of the biased name-calling arguments. Discussing valid points/logic is a much better way to communicate.
When I read someone's rationale leading with "those damn liberal/progressive are just biased", it typically informs me that the author of such comments the author are just as biased.
So frequently you'll see someone blasting some study as liberal, whilst refuting it with some study by a "conservative think tank".
Seriously, if you think only the liberal/progressives are biased and the conservative/regressives(?) aren't, you're wrong.
Again, appreciate a bit more detail on your rationale.
I'd still advise to keep the (damn) "liberal/progressives" comments out, as I believe a lot of people will then dismiss the rest of what you're saying as being just as "progressive/regressive" bias.
Lastly, on the political name-calling.
I do find it funny that "conservatives" like to use the term "progressive" as a negative thing, I mean is being "status quo(static)/regressive" a good thing? :)
Cheers!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @11:15PM
When conservative folk do their "studies" they always arrive at the same conclusions. When more rational human beings study the same issue, they arrive at quite different conclusions.
There are a lot of studies out there that go both ways, it would be interesting to do a meta analysis on the authors to see if there is a bias. It seems to be an article of faith to some extent with both sides. From my point of view, and limited experience in a country with a small minority of people owning guns, and not having seen anyone other than law enforcement/security carrying in public, it just seems to make sense - if there isn't a gun, nobody gets shot. There is much less chance of escalation. Also with regards to the protection from crazy people on a rampage, I haven't heard of one case where the rampager was taken out by a rampagee carrying a gun.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 17 2014, @11:27PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161 [nydailynews.com]
Please read the entire article - the nydailynews is probably as unbiased as any news source on this issue.
If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, possibly the attack would have ended like the shooting at the mega New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007.
In that assault, the church’s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot — but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him. At that point, the gunman committed suicide.
Similar stories are available from across the country. They include shootings at schools that were stopped before police arrived in such places as Pearl, Miss., and Edinboro, Pa., and at colleges like the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Or attacks in busy downtowns such as Memphis; at a mall in Salt Lake City, or at an apartment building in Oklahoma.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:05AM
Alternative scenario:
One guy starts shooting in a dark theater, other guy with concealed gun returns fire in dark theater (not knowing who or what he is shooting at or even why), yet another guy with concealed gun returns fire to both of the first, etc, etc.
In this scenario you would have ended up with a lot of bullets flying around and a lot more people being injured or killed.
The real problem is not guns. In any reasonable free society a crazy guy wants to cause mahem, he can succeed.
The only real answer is to prevent and build a society in which people are helped when they start going mad. And even then one will slip by every now and then.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:25AM
Anyone who "returns fire" without knowing who or what he is shooting for is guilty of a crime, whether he injure or kill another person or not. One does NOT just start shooting because he is spooked, one does NOT just fire away at noises.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:42AM
> One does NOT just start shooting because he is spooked, one does NOT just fire away at noises.
So criminals are idiots and but regular citizens never make really bad snap decisions under extreme pressure.
Thanks for boiling it down for us, you've made a very persuasive argument to dismiss anything you have to say.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday November 18 2014, @02:10AM
Concealed carry permit holders are some of the most responsible people. Statistically they are very unlikely to be instigators of violence, and tend to train and practice regularly. They know how to respond to these situations because they have trained for them. What you describe, as a car analogy, would be an objection to issuing driving licenses for fear that when someone sees oncoming traffic they'll hit the gas and brake and swerve randomly back and forth out of panic, causing several crashes.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:37AM
Another one that bears noting;
http://www.easybakegunclub.com//blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html [easybakegunclub.com]
This one happened Dec11, 2012. two day before the Sandy Hook School shooting that left 26 people dead.
The gunman in Portland had the same Bushmaster AR-15 as the Sandy Hook gunman. Total fatalities in Portland: 2
Same "Assault Weapon". Same crazed gunman with intent to kill as many people as he could.
The difference? In Portland a person with a CC permit was in the mall at the time and didn't just hid under a display case.
The thing about gun ownership is we only hear about the people who die in gun related incidents, including suicides (fun fact ~60% "gun deaths" in USA are suicides). We almost never hear about the people who lived because they had a gun. The shop owner who pulled a gun on the armed robbers. The 19 year old who protected his younger bothers from a home intrusion using his dads hand gun. And so many more that never get reported by the media because no one died, or only the mugger/robber/burglar was injured or just scared off.
Something all those anti gun people should keep in mind;
The police are under NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts [freerepublic.com]
Who is going to protect you and those you care about if not yourself?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:55AM
Anyone with an interest in gun control can easily find those stories. It only takes a google search to find them. Unfortunately, those stories almost never appear in main stream media. Because they only appear on special interest sites, and gun rights sites especially, liberals and/or anti gun nuts write the stories off as fake.
Time and time and time again, merely displaying a weapon discourages a criminal. The weapon need not even be used, just shown, and even semi-sentient apes tend to go find another victim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @10:38PM
There are also numerous cases where a guy was shot in a movie theater in Florida...stop using the no true Scotsman fallacy to prove your point. A gun owner is a gun owner whether legal or not and gun owners murder people on a regular basis, sometimes even with the blessing of, or as, the authorities. I'm not advocating banning them, but please at least be intellectually honest, which it doesn't seem you can be. You're not really proving your point and you're flat out being dishonest or ignorant of facts in some of your posts.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday November 17 2014, @11:48PM
I have to call bullshit on this. Who says all criminals are scared of carry laws? They simply won't leave you breathing long enough for them to find out if you are carrying or not.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:18AM
Empirical data says that criminals move on to other localities, or change their preferred crimes, or maybe even give up on crime. Fact is, there are fewer rapes, robberies, and murders in those places that pass concealed carry laws. INITIALLY, after passage, there is a modest increase in crime. Over time, crime decreases, sometimes dramatically.
The criminal who is especially stupid, and ignores the fact that the citizenry is armed, quite likely ends up dead soon - which, in and of itself has an impact on crime statistics. He BECOMES the statistic.
(Score: 1) by RedGreen on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:31AM
And there you were yapping on earlier about citations, here going on about empirical data without citing it, send in the clowns...
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:47AM
I supplied a citation that contains some of that empirical data in my first post - the first post in this discussion. No need for more clowns, you're already here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @10:47AM
With that logic in mind most criminals should be in Europe right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @11:55PM
Given the violence rates in actual civilized countries where guns are banned are far, far lower.... I think you are an idiot.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:12AM
Except they are not. We are not a homogeneous nation with regards to gun rights. If you look at the data you'll find that the four cities (Chicago, Detriot, DC, and New Orleans) with the strictest gun laws and six percent of the population account for twenty percent of the murders for the entire nation. If these same four ultra-violent yet gun-controlled cities and their populations are discounted from the study, you'll find we rank extremely low in the violent crimes standings. Well below almost every other developed nation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @08:40AM
You are missing the point. Strict gun controls are meant to limit gun distribution, which doesn't happen when criminals can easily smuggle guns across state borders. You should compare violent crime rates to countries who actually effectively control their guns, rather than just making it hard for honest citizens while doing jack to stop criminals.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:22AM
Then you need to re-examine those crime statistics in those other nations you mention. Violent crime in England exceeds violent crime in most concealed carry states in the United States.
Before you start your comparison, be sure that you are comparing apples to apples. England likes to hide portions of their violent crime by redefining it. Look closely at their definitions, and add up all their crime statistics that resemble our own serious crimes. England is more dangerous for a young woman alone than most of the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:45AM
> Then you need to re-examine those crime statistics
Google it!
> Before you start your comparison, be sure that you are comparing apples to apples.
Google it the way I want you to google it, because I know how it works but I can't be bothered to show you!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:39AM
That is utter bollocks, and has been debunked a million times already. The definitions of "violent crime" was completely different in the two different countries, and the figures are completely incomparable.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 19 2014, @01:29AM
The common claim is that there is no violent crime in England. THAT is the myth that has been debunked. Gun control advocates very commonly point to England, and make the claim that there are virtually no gun deaths. They FAIL to point out that physical assaults are far more common than they are here. They FAIL to explain that knife crimes are common. And, they FAIL to admit that the elderly, the invalid, the weak, and women are at the mercy of every muscle bound thug on the streets.
Add to that the fact that crimes committed by "immigrants" are often covered up, to appease a certain religion.
England is no safer than US states with concealed carry laws.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 19 2014, @09:34AM
Unless you are looking at thinks like homicide:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
Intentional homicide rate 1.17 Ranked 74th. 4.7 Ranked 7th. 4 times more than United Kingdom
Murder rate 722 Ranked 34th. 12,996 Ranked 9th. 18 times more than United Kingdom
Murder rate per million people 11.68 Ranked 94th. 42.01 Ranked 43th. 4 times more than United Kingdom
Arizona's unrestricted CC, is it not? It is the 6th highest violent crime rate state in the US according to https://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 19 2014, @09:44AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 20 2014, @02:37AM
Your chart takes all of the United States - very roughly analogous to all of Europe - and presents that data as if the US were a homogenous unit. Take a look at the individual states.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
The numbers range from 1.2 up to 17.5, Maine being the lowest, and Louisiana being the highest.
You will find a similar range for Europe when you break it down by nation.
Czech Republic, 1, as opposed to 19 - - - uhhhhh - Greenland is being considered as part of Europe? Let me find a better example that's actually in Europe. Russia, 9.2, Lithuania, 6.7
The UK does pretty good on the intentional homicide scale, with a 1.
Violent crime
Data for violent crime comprise violence against the person (such as physical assault), robbery (stealing by force or threat of force) and sexual offences (including rape and sexual assault). A detailed analysis of this type of crime is difficult because not all EU Member States use the standard definition. Furthermore, due to a break in the series, 2012 violent crime data for France exclude crimes recorded by the gendarmerie, therefore, comparisons with total violent crimes registered for the reference year 2011 will be misleading.
However, the general trend for the EU-28 shows a decline of about 10 % in the number of violent crimes recorded between 2007 and 2012. This overall decline is strongly influenced by the data from England and Wales, where there was a fall of 166 thousand violent crimes recorded between 2007 and 2012 (Table 2). Looking at the other EU Member States, the picture appears heterogeneous, with significant rises between 2007 and 2012 in Luxembourg (38 %), Hungary (26 %) and Denmark (23 %) and large decreases in Lithuania (-42 %), Croatia (-33 %), Scotland (-32 %), Latvia and Slovakia (both -30 %), and Malta (-27 %).
Allow me to emphasize: "not all EU Member States use the standard definition. "
If all states, around the world, used the same definitions and the same methodology to compile these figures, THEN we might get a true picture of violent crime.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/13/violent-sexual-crime-statistics-england-wales-2013 [theguardian.com]
Note that the UK has it's very own, very special, methodology.
"There were 1.9m violent incidents in England and Wales in 2012-13, with just over one in fifty adults victimised, according to the latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), released today.
Violent crime has decreased by 13% over the past five years and 35% on the peak figure of 4.2m in 1995. The CSEW surveys people across the country face-to-face and as a result differs from the number of crimes reported by police, as we reported last month.
The definition of violent crime in the CSEW also differs somewhat from how the police record it. For example, robbery, which the report describes as "an offence in which violence or the threat of violence is used during a theft" is not included by police as violence against the person but is in the CSEW violence category."
Homicide and sexual offences are also excluded from the overall count of 1.9m given above. "
Bottom line - one in fifty residents of the UK are victims of violent crime each year. And, THAT IS DOWN 35% from 1995!!
If we can ever compare apples to apples, the US is the safer nation to live in. But, when we are forced to compare apples to oranges, it gets really hard to compare the national violent crime rates.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 20 2014, @02:39AM
Worse than South Africa or the United States - imagine that!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 20 2014, @08:30AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 20 2014, @05:27PM
No, it isn't "debunked" at all. This one paper offers a differing opinion. Paper after paper after paper has been published, demonstrating that the right to bear arms saves lives. And, here, we have one paper that says they are all wrong. One study. Just one. And, interestingly, this paper doesn't offer any new data. Instead, we are presented with a new way of looking at the same old data. "We don't like the way the data has been evaluated, so we're going to re-evaluate it our own way."
Despite that, not all the members of the committee agree with the conclusions.
Imagine that.
Long story short - see the title of my original post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @08:32AM
Even if that was the case (which it isn't), how about other kind of violence? You can't just compare it like that and ignore the fact that there are alternative methods to come to the same end. You take away one method, there's another to be used. And you know, anything can be used as a weapon, just ask prisoners.
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Monday November 17 2014, @11:59PM
It is interesting how the other side makes almost identical arguments apart from a simple word swap (liberals and conservatives).
And how both sides have "REAL studies".
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:07AM
Forgot to include the quote from the original comment regarding when I said "makes almost identical arguments":
"When (liberals and progressives)/(conservatives) do their "studies" they always arrive at the same conclusions. When more rational human beings study the same issue, they arrive at quite different conclusions."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:08AM
It is interesting that some of the more famous studies that arrive at MY preferred conclusion were conducted by people who didn't EXPECT to arrive at that conclusion. Have you read the "more guns less crime" study cited in this particular "study"? Please, read the author's forward and conclusions.
Also - http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4903&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=flat&cid=117003 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:59AM
And it is also interesting how every side calls their studies famous and unbiased :-)
And you lost me when you started with your argument with insults:
"When liberals and progressives" ... "When more rational human beings..."
(no I was not insulted by your comment as I don't live in US)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @02:27AM
Lost you? When I started with insults? Imagine that. Well, it's a pretty well known fact that gun grabbers are almost always progressive and/or liberal. And, racist. Take a look at a map. Where do the greatest concentrations of black people live, in this nation? Draw a circle around those population centers. Now - look up the strictest gun control laws in the nation. You can match them to the concentrations of black population that you have already circled. Try it - then call me a liar.
Some great reading here:
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html [firearmsandliberty.com]
I have looked at gun laws from many different angles, and I have nothing but contempt for those who would disarm the American people. The second amendment GUARANTEES the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Any and all arguments to the contrary are UNAMERICAN.
Insults. It is an insult to all intelligent men and women to keep bringing up the issue of gun control.
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:09AM
I am not arguing your points and I have not tried doing so.
But the opening line of your argument is an insult to another group of people. Some of them may not even be disagreeing with your point but that does not matter. You put everybody in one group. If that is not equivalent of "racism", I am not sure what is.
Even worse you justify your insults and prejudice because other side is doing it. That just proves that whatever the other side is, you are you worse then them.
Sad, sad.
Please don't bother replying, I have wasted more than enough time on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:24AM
> Read some REAL studies - Kates and Mauser aren't the only people who have done these studies. Use Google to find them.
In my 25+ years on the internet, I've learned that one of the strongest signs that someone is talking out of their ass is when they demand that other people do the work to prove their own arguments. "Google it!" is the cry of the hopeless ideologue - so firmly ensconced in their faith that they are unable to form a rational and coherent argument for their own beliefs and, based on their own previous experiences trying to sway the unbelievers, they are aware of their own inability and so try to avoid it by demanding that the people most sceptical of their faith do the work to prove their faith for them.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:32AM
Except - I SUPPLIED a link to a real study, and I THEN invited GP to do some more research of his own. Your comment is pretty meaningless in light of that fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:56AM
Not a "real" study.
Not peer-reviewed.
Authors are two partisans - everything you accuse TFA's authors of being.
Claims are deliberately misleading, playing games with percentages and black swans. [firedoglake.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:34AM
Maybe it's a typo, a "reel" study, intended to reel us in to a predetermined conclusion. Well, at least now we know who our NRA appointed astroturfer on Soylent News is!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @02:39AM
The problem with your complaint is, I'm not an NRA member. I don't keep up with the NRA's positions on things. I have arrived at my own conclusions, independently of the NRA. The only time I notice the NRA is when they make headlines in the MSM or otherwise cross my news feeds. Nice try though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @02:47AM
> The problem with your complaint is, I'm not an NRA member.
Lol. An utter inability to detect humor is entirely consistent with you having really piss-poor ability to come to any meaningful conclusions about anything involving people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:17AM
FWIW I'm not Runaway (nor am I even a supporter of easy access to guns, but I think it's pointless trying to get rid of guns in the USA).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:55AM
> Humour? Astroturfer = insult
Yes, it is. All humor is at the expense of someone.
What makes it funny is the delivery.
Runaway practically sets himself up to be the butt of the joke.
> Go away, you useless retard (that's your sort of "humour" isn't it?).
Weak delivery. That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:29PM
Yes, it is. All humor is at the expense of someone.
I disagree, and I can prove it to others but it'll be impossible to prove it to you since any attempt will be at the expense of you.
You're just the sad joke that the rest of us have to put up with.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:28AM
Yes, of course! It is obvious that you have arrived at your own "conclusions". Here's to independence from thought! But isn't this exactly what a NRA operative would say? Not to suggest that you are, in any way, working for the NRA. Just kind of amazing that all your "conclusions" agree with their's. So, you do understand what "astroturf" is? As in "fake grassroots"?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @03:29PM
Basically, you accuse me of being a paid shill, just because some of my opinions appear to match the NRA's opinions. It's like - let me get this right now - it's kinda like, the NRA doesn't represent hunters, sportsmen, and self defense proponents, like myself. Normal people don't arrive at any of the NRA's positions or stances independently, they have to be coaxed by the NRA to accept those positions. Normal people don't have a dozen firearms of various types in their homes, do they? The only way that anyone might post opinions that you think are the NRA's opinions on the internet, is, the NRA is paying them to post.
You're making yourself look foolish, man. Just stop it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:35PM
Tu quoque, mon frere!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 19 2014, @08:00AM
Oh, and "Moron Labia!" -this is Greek (it is a different language from English, and concealed carry), but it means "Stupid Lips". Pax vobiscum.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:16AM
The only data we have for this is extremely suspect.
John Lott's work has been proven to be pseudo-science.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:51AM
Lott's work is "pseudo-science" as opposed to what, exactly? Have you actually read Lott's work? Have you read Kates and Mauser's work? Have you read the PDF which is the subject of this discussion? What else have you actually read, for yourself? Or - are you just repeating what some talking head from main stream media told you to think?
(Score: 1) by Whoever on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:51AM
The study you linked to is full of inflammatory nonsense. It's light on facts and makes misleading claims. For eample:
However, Wikipedia shows the USA having a murder rate almost an order of magnitude higher than that of the UK (4.7 vs. 1). It quotes newspapers for the proposition of how violent the UK is, rather than actual studies. Heck, it even quotes Punch magazine (a satirical magazine, not a source of reputable news).
Also, it fails to note that, as far as actually carrying guns in the UK, the former limits on ownership (before the outright ban on ownership of handguns) were very close to an outright ban on carrying loaded weapons. Under the former regime, while it was possible to get a license to own a weapon for limited uses, getting a license to buy and hold ammunition was significantly harder. Gun licenses extend to the uses of a weapon and transporting the weapon for any purpose other than the licensed use is an offence. Note that I am not talking about shotguns, which had (and continue to have) a more relaxed licensing scheme.
Heck one of the authors works for an agenda-pushing policy institute. It's not a research paper, it's an opinion piece. According to this page, it's a Koch Brothers mouthpiece. [sourcewatch.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:26AM
You forgot to blame the commies and atheists.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday November 18 2014, @11:40AM
What is this country you keep arguing about where everybody has to carry guns?
Do you live in some third world shit hole like Honduras or Jamaica?
Because a country where people live scared shitless like this can't possibly be a developed one.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday November 18 2014, @11:44AM
When liberals and progressives do their "studies" they always arrive at the same conclusions. When more rational human beings study the same issue, they arrive at quite different conclusions.
Painfully obvious counterpoint: and when pro-gun people do studies, they too tend to arrive at conclusions that support their own opinions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @03:27PM
Oh please, what you people want to say is "if you carry a gun, you will be safer from crime... IF YOU ARE WHITE".
Go ahead, say it, we all know that is what you are thinking. Why bother hiding it?
However, I will admit that it is entirely impossible to have an unbiased study of this, so I do not buy either yours or the article's studies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2014, @11:39PM
I don't have time to peruse their study, but if anyone has, can you tell me how they took demographics into account?
Gun crime tends to be a significant problem in areas with a predominantly black population, especially if poverty is an issue. Yet we rarely see similar levels of gun crime in poor (or even poorer) areas with predominantly white, Hispanic, Asian or Native American inhabitants.
I'm not going to pretend to know what the cause of this phenomenon is, but I suspect that it could seriously impact their results. Did they take it into account, and if they did, how did it affect their methodology?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 17 2014, @11:56PM
I am making my way through the PDF - it's slow going. I've not yet figured out how they arrived at all their controls, or how they account for demographics. But - I do contend that gun laws are in and of themselves, racist.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racism-and-nra-history [newrepublic.com]
Keene errs in that quote - the first gun control laws in the US are much older than the Civil War, and they were all aimed at Negroes, People of Color, Slaves, Black Freedmen - every gun law passed prior to the Civil War was aimed at Black people.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html [guncite.com]
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19083-the-racist-origin-of-america-s-gun-control-laws [thenewamerican.com] or this site for the same data https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html [firearmsandliberty.com]
It is worth noting that the strictest gun control laws in this nation are found in the states, districts, and regions where the black population is densest. That is, when there is a large black population, the "ruling class" feels it necessary to disarm that population.
Cities, regions, and states with smaller black populations generally enjoy lax gun laws - that is, white people are trusted to own weapons.
I'm diving back into the PDF to read a few more pages . . .
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @03:48PM
Let me get this straight. You say: "I don't have time to peruse their study, but..." and then you rattle off an assertion of what you think the study SHOULD find with no evidence.
Awesome, brilliant, well done there, Jackass. Please continue not reading studies and believing whatever the hell you want.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Informative) by physicsmajor on Monday November 17 2014, @11:49PM
tl;dr up front: This study is completely without value. There is literally nothing to see here. What you're about to read would be failed out of high school statistics, and the authors should be downright ashamed. I'm going to paste the abstract here and tear it apart paragraph by paragraph below, as should any objective, scientific observer demanding good, evidence-based findings, but you can skip that now. Seriously, save your time. I've wasted mine instead.
Authors tip their bias in the first sentence using non-professional language like "so-called" instead of the proper "hereafter referred to [by their common title]" or similar. They then attempt to conflate the very stable majority position (15/16), based on the actual statistical analysis at the time, with opinion instead of established fact using words like "saying," and again tip their hands in the last sentence by stating the outlier's position first, then getting to "the other 15." Not a good start, guys. Maybe for mainstream news, but if you want to be taken seriously I've already binned your credibility with CNN or Fox News. However, let's continue.
So they re-analyze with additional data. Why not lead with that, instead of the biased prior paragraph? They then claim their model is better - wait, no, they don't actually claim superiority at all but that theirs is preferred. By whom? Themselves, one assumes. They then "sympathize" with the majority view but claim their findings lie with the single dissenter, again attempting to soften or opinion-ify what should be based on hard evidence alone. Where is theirs? That bit appears to be 100% opinion. The last sentence appears to be FUD about Type 1 error - potentially relevant, but they don't bother to explain why or how. "Blah blah we screwed with the data and made up reasons for why we needed to" appears to be what's going on here. Even if relevant, this is only useful for those who have read and are intimately familiar with the prior study - which is not the place for an abstract. Abstracts should stand alone.
These sound like potentially important factors, but the chicken is coming before the egg here - they should be listed after the evidence as discussion/conclusions falling from those findings.
Bad start for the real evidence. They looked across all the Index I categories and the best they've got is "the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect" which is at the 0.10 level... about half the time (11/28). Remember, folks, if you want to talk about the 0.10 level one in ten of your investigations is going to return false positive results! They flat out admit they were searching seven categories here, so I'm definitely not impressed, and neither should you be. Then they talk about their "preferred" analysis/results, and assert that danger may be understated in many of their models. Folks, this is already reading like what should be buried at the bottom of a "limitations" section. f this was so relevant, such an important effect, which spanned many of their models and is worth noting in the second sentence of your Abstract's results, you'd better damn well follow through and explore that instead of just spewing pure speculation. Then they find "suggestive" results with no actual test values noted - given they found an alpha of 0.10 worth reporting, I'm not holding my breath here. In the final sentence they weaken the inevitable brutal rebuttal of the paper by noting "admittedly imperfect" data and again use the statistical weasel words "suggestive evidence" and "perhaps" before asserting things which they obviously have no evidence to support.
It's actually hilarious they say gun assaults could increase by almost 33% without a single mention of a significance level or test result for this claim. Is this actually a joke? Nope, there's another paragraph to go yet.
More worthless statistics, needing an alpha of 0.10 to be mentioned. Any writer with a shred of integrity would mention this as incredibly suggestive and non-significant first, instead of burying the alpha level at the end in hopes the reader is too incompetent to realize they're spewing valueless assertions. Hey, finally here at the end if we limit the data range and use their "preferred" model a single crime reaches significance at an alpha of 0.05. Not stated: how many crimes were stated, or how many other models/date ranges were attempted before they found one that supported their agenda. In all likelihood this is another random finding thanks to p-hacking.
This isn't a real study at all, just an excuse to feed politicians "scientific" ammunition for an agenda shared by the authors.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:04AM
Thank you, Sir. I'm actually slowly reading through the article. I lack any training in statistics, so it's slow going for me. I think you've sliced and diced them pretty well, just based on that abstract. Gotta get my butt off to work soon - it will probably be late tomorrow before I finish reading. Depending on comments on this page, I may not even bother reading it all.
(Score: 1) by CyprusBlue on Tuesday November 18 2014, @02:44AM
I'd mod you up if I had points. This is the kind of commentary that SHOULD be on this site, by far.
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Tuesday November 18 2014, @07:20AM
This is so bad I wonder if this isn't some performance art stunt to study the reaction to the study, how many news outlets just run with it, if ANYBODY was going to notice the 0.10 value, etc.
Since it has been posted for months and it didn't break into the Party Media I'd guess even they were bright enough to realize they would get embarrassed if they tried their usual tactics with this one.
Bottom line is you don't need some overly complicated study that carefully massages the numbers until they produce a political screed under the guise of science. The Abstract gives the game away, all States have moved to liberalize RTC laws and Google will give you the other half of the equation, that violent crime is down, and down more in the areas with the more liberal carry laws. More guns, less crime; it really is that simple because RAH said it best, "An armed society is a polite society."
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:17PM
Thank you for doing that so I didn't have to.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:44AM
> tip their hands in the last sentence by stating the outlier's position first, then getting to "the other 15."
Erm, but they got to the other 15 in the sentence before. Does "first" mean something different to you?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:52AM
But their views are quite the opposite:
"One member of the panel thought ... RTC laws decreased murder"
"Our analysis ... suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults."
I really don't think you are in a position to claim there are errors in their paper when you can't even understand what you read.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bot on Monday November 17 2014, @11:53PM
Since we are talking about correlation, it would be nice to point out what were the causes for passing such legislations. If it's all a product of lobbying, ok. If some socio/economic conditions cause increasing crime, and legislation was a reaction we would have correlation that says the legislations are ineffective. K.
But all of this is going around the problem. The problem is, should a government disarm citizens? Because you know, if we let police watch us 24h and put roadblocks at every corner, I am sure some crimes would go down sharply. Some others would soar but no statistic would record them.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @12:59AM
(Score: 1) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:13AM
Nonsense, these articles are chosen to promote well reasoned arguments by individuals seeking understanding and self auditing argument. I believe the majority who come to post on these subjects are not seeking to merely promote their own personally motivated conclusions, but rather to improve themselves with an open minded consideration of all details.
I personally find the points made in the above threads quite enlightening and look forward to more completely-not-trolling-everyone articles of this kind in the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:58AM
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:05PM
So, we should ban both guns and banks?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:19AM
Banning banks already would get rid of both problems: Where there is no bank, no bank can be robbed.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday November 18 2014, @03:38AM
Bill Hicks had a rant about guns [gavinsblog.com]:-
However, removing guns doesn't remove the problems where guns are used [soylentnews.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @11:02AM
Just in case anyone is unclear on this: This guy's spiel is irrelevant. Sure, in the UK, there are relatively few deaths from firearms, however, people find other ways to attack, maim and kill each other. For example, the homicide rate in the UK is mid-field compared to other European countries, even though the UK has these strict gun control laws. Perhaps more to the point: crime did not magically decrease in the UK when the strict firearms controls were put into place.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:16PM
Bill Hicks makes a humorous point about guns and statistics but the British Police not having guns is an illusion. Officers at a police station don't have holstered guns and foot patrol officers don't have guns but officers guarding critical infrastructure (airports, nuclear power stations) are armed and all officers can call for very rapid armed backup. It is part a larger strategy of soft boundary security which also limits power trips and reduces antagonization.
However, it is arguable if removing guns from frontline officers and legal members of the public is a matter of premature optimization rather than a reduction of effective radius [soylentnews.org], especially when knives/swords/glass provide less forewarning after first use [soylentnews.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:18AM
I don't think that Americans are more violent than other people.
I am familiar with guns and have hunted my whole life but I do think it's a sad situation when someone feels they need to have a gun while going about their daily business to feel safe.
Guns turn bad situations worse. A heavily armed populace leads to a feeling of fear and anxiety that is anti-social.
When I lived I the US, I was acutely aware that I acted differently. Normally I would have intervened if I saw someone being stood over or harassed. In the US, I hesitated because the odds were much higher that the asshole was also packing heat.
The hard part is how to get the guns off the street once they have become a veritable river of steel.
Seriously, guns do not bring freedom and they do not bring safety and the fantasy of using the gun is a quick prelude to the nightmare of what happens when that bullet is actually let loose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:03AM
> The hard part is how to get the guns off the street once they have become a veritable river of steel.
I think you could get at least 90% of the guns off the street by legalizing all drugs.
It is my opinion - and just opinion because numbers are curiously hard to come by - that the overwhelming amount of gun violence is linked to illegal drugs. Almost all gang activity is drug fueled, and then there are all the robberies done to get money to buy drugs and all the white people scared of getting robbed for drug money who think they have to protect themselves.
Make drugs legal and without the price-premium that comes from the risk of going to jail, the profits would be too small to fight over. It wouldn't happen over-night, the mafia took at least a generation to peter out once prohibition was lifted. But every day we put off legalization is another day longer that gun violence will continue.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:35AM
I agree with everything you said except for one bit: "all the white people scared of getting robbed for drug money who think they have to protect themselves."
I'm sorry you feel you had to bring race into this. I'm a white guy who has close friends who are both white and black. (When I say close, I mean we all hung out together for over a decade every weekend before most of us moved away -- some of us across the world like me.) Most of us were some kind of victim in our shitty neighborhoods. Some of us were beaten by other locals. The victims, my friends, were black and white. The people doing the violence were black and white. Today, two of my friends that I hung out with are in mixed black-white marriages. One of couples has children and the other couple is working on it.
Certainly, there are racial things that need to be considered sometimes. We hated it when outside racial stuff interrupted our ability to go out as a mixed group and enjoy ourselves. We faced (and some of us still face) the occasional danger from both the whites and the blacks, but to dismiss white people is an insult to me, all of my friends, and all of our families.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:30AM
Working on it is the fun part.
(Score: 1) by Entropy on Tuesday November 18 2014, @02:42PM
Knives are actually pretty darn fatal.. Ban gun and fatal stabbings skyrocket.
(Score: 1) by codemachine on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:30PM
You might be right, but overall homicides would plummet.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:50PM
I agree, we should ban gun stabbings.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:17PM
Meanwhile, in the Isle of Man they are asking the public to turn in everything from knuckle-dusters to knives to air rifles [bbc.co.uk] because the best slaves are completely disarmed.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:15AM
Reduce economic inequality and it reduces scenarios where, for example, robbery becomes homicide.
1702845791×2