New Research on CCW

MDFF2008 · Apr 3, 2015

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

He claims right to carry has increased violent crime. Hopefully one of our statistical eagles can find some flaws.

montoya32 · Apr 3, 2015

gprimr1 said:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

He claims right to carry has increased violent crime. Hopefully one of our statistical eagles can find some flaws.

Here's the major flaw. Stanford and Hopkins conducted the study.

501st · Apr 3, 2015

Wouldn't be surprised to see a rebuttal from John Lott.

JPG · Apr 3, 2015

gprimr1 said:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

He claims right to carry has increased violent crime. Hopefully one of our statistical eagles can find some flaws.

Doesn't matter if flaws or not, it will be taken as gospel by those that need "confirmation" of their own beliefs....... including Judges.

montoya32 · Apr 3, 2015

JPG said:
Doesn't matter if flaws or not, it will be taken as gospel by those that need "confirmation" of their own beliefs....... including Judges.

Bloomb...I mean Hopkins involved. You know this will be all over the media soon.

MDFF2008 · Apr 3, 2015

montoya32 said:
Here's the major flaw. Stanford and Hopkins conducted the study.

We have to find the flaw. Your not going to convince a fence sitter by saying "It's Hopkins"

Of course, it will be taken as gospel, notice how they say "reaffirms"

K-Romulus · Apr 3, 2015

I think Lott already rebutted it; basically the researchers discarded all the data that did not support their conclusion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Silence&Rage · Apr 3, 2015

Here's my rebuttal and I always use this. Compare violent crime rates in VA, MD and DC. Which one has shall issue?

Usually

Medshot · Apr 4, 2015

This is an article; it does nothing but state a meaningless conclusion. In order to be taken seriously, the actual study must be shown as well as their methods and data. I'll look for it and read it, but the very fact that they said the confounding influence was controlled for is amusing as it is; a confounding influence in research is something that very much depends on the opinions of those doing the study, who SHOULD be nonbiased. It is basically another possible source of a problem or subject of study; the fact that they don't mention how it was controlled for, as well as the fact that it's in quotations are flags enough.

Edit: I just found the actual study, which is from 2011; reading now from an iPhone. I'll upload it when I'm at a computer.

Alan3413 · Apr 4, 2015

there are so many qualifications in the quoted study that it really doesn't say anything. as the article suggests it really lies in how you do the numbers.

Minuteman · Apr 4, 2015

Good find !

John Lott evierates this study. Read more here: https://m.facebook.com/gunpolicy/po..._id=718236531601468&offset=0&total_comments=5

csanc123 · Apr 4, 2015

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=14710

As a doctoral student I would be berated if I put forth such a "study" and called it "research". This was NEITHER a study or research. It was a hit price for the pure enjoyment of the anti movement and media.

gamer_jim · Apr 4, 2015

Statistics are impossible to rely on for this argument, for or against. Local police departments are arbitrary in how they report to the FBI.

Even among western nations it is different. Many arguments for the pro side try to compare violent crime rates with the US and Brittan. What constitutes violent crime in Brittan is different in the US.

I'm sure Lott mentions this: there are no statistics for the number of crimes prevented from CCW's. There are some news articles here and there but how many go unreported?

Statistics can be interpreted to mean anything. We need to keep banging the drum of civil right to protect ourselves outside the home. Take any one of those Moms Demanding Action and put them in the scenario of being out with their children, attacked and their children assaulted. Ask them if they would rather be unarmed? Sort of like the question if you've stopped beating your wife. I bet very few would say yes.

Medshot · Apr 4, 2015

That was quite possibly one of the driest studies I have ever read.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...074112115094080082111069108064&EXT=pdf&TYPE=1

Hit download paper, as the link only shows the abstract.

A key part of the conclusion: "Of course, if there can be no empirically based resolution of this question, it means that short of doing an experiment in which laws were randomly assigned to states, there will be no way to assess the impact of these laws. The econometrics community needs to think deeply about what the NRC report and the Horowitz appendix imply for the study of legislation using panel data econometrics and observational data.

Finally, despite our belief that the NRC’s analysis was imperfect in certain ways, we agree with the committee’s cautious final judgment on the effects of RTC laws: ―with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to- carry laws and crime rates.‖ Our results here further underscore the sensitivity of guns-crime estimates to modeling decisions. If one had to make judgments based on panel data models of the type used in the NRC report, one would have to conclude that RTC laws likely increase the rate of aggravated assault. Further research will be needed to see if this conclusion survives as more data and better methodologies are employed to estimate the impact of RTC laws on crime."

The entire purpose of the study is to indicate that further study is needed to indicate ANY correlation between the laws and crime rates, specifically murder, and points out flaws in BOTH the Mustard-Lott study and the responding NRC study. The study then seems to oddly finalize itself by somehow agreeing with the NRC conclusion, even while indicating its flaws. The Standford article mentions NOTHING of the study pointing out flaws and the inability to reach a conclusion.

Schipperke · Apr 4, 2015

I've never liked the more guns less crime argument. If that is true we'd be the most crime free nation on the planet? My take has always been allowing good people to carry a gun does not increase crime.

New Research on CCW

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

MDFF2008

Ultimate Member

montoya32

Ultimate Member

501st

Ultimate Member

JPG

Ultimate Member

montoya32

Ultimate Member

MDFF2008

Ultimate Member

K-Romulus

Suburban Commando

Silence&Rage

Active Member

Medshot

Active Member

Alan3413

Ultimate Member

Minuteman

Member

csanc123

Ultimate Member

gamer_jim

Podcaster

Medshot

Active Member

Schipperke

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page