Posted on 11/19/2014 8:11:36 AM PST by Impala64ssa
STANFORD STUDY CONFLICTS WITH PREVIOUS STATISTICAL BREAKDOWNS
For years, gun-rights advocates cited a 1997 paper's claim that "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes." The National Research Council came out with its own take in 2004, saying there was "no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws … either decrease or increase violent crime." Now researchers from Stanford University have confronted the "vexing task" of extending that data even further, and come to their own conclusion: that right-to-carry (or concealed-carry) laws are actually linked to an increase in violent crimes. The researchers say the strongest evidence concerned aggravated-assault data, which indicates that RTC laws are tied to an 8% increase in such assaults. Stats also seem to link RTC laws with "substantially higher rates" of rape, robbery, and murder.
Lead researcher John Donohue explains that research used for the 1997 study relied on stats that only went from 1977 to 1992; the NRC extended that data up through the year 2000. Donohue's team took it to 2010, thereby including a decade that saw RTC laws grow in popularity, the Huffington Post notes (all 50 states now have a concealed-carry law, according to Stanford). The new research also "corrected a number of flaws in the data" by tapping into new statistical methods, according to the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. Still, Donohue admits it's no easy task: "Different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect," he says in the press release. (Illinois was the last state to approve a concealed-carry law.)
Figures don't lie but liars can figure.
They are confusing cause with effect.
“...which indicates that RTC laws are tied to an 8% increase in such assaults...”
Linked, yes, but in what way? Of course, the impression we’re meant to take away based on the writing is that the RTC *causes* the increase in assaults, but it’s easily likely that the RTC laws end up being a *result* of the increase.
While I don't really feel strongly one way or another on this topic, I find the very attempt to link RTC laws to increases in violent crimes perplexing. Unless they were able to differentiate crimes committed with illegal handguns from crimes committed with properly licensed RTC handguns, I don't see how the two can be reconciled. The RTC laws must be tied to RTC permits and licensed weapon being involved in a crime . The study doesn't seem to do this though.....
Save 4 later.
Junk science concocted to advance the hoplaphobes’ agenda.
It makes as much sense as the junk science behind climate change.
Both are dangerous to our freedoms and way of life.
Pray tell. How exactly did they "extend" that data to now? Perchance do the words "pulled it directly from my ass" become the operative phrase?
They brought Gruber in.
The wrong people are being killed.
Does the same study state that Chicago has more crime and this is directly linked to the type of government and race of people living there as compared to other areas with different demographics and government party affiliation?
In its review of Wolff's book Burn Rate, Brill's Content criticized Wolff for "apparent factual errors" and said that more than a dozen of the subjects he mentioned complained that Wolff had "invented or changed quotes" that he attributed to them.[20]
In a 2004 cover story for The New Republic, Michelle Cottle wrote that Wolff was "uninterested in the working press," preferring to focus on "the power players—the moguls" and was "fixated on culture, style, buzz, and money, money, money." She also noted that "the scenes in his columns aren’t recreated so much as created—springing from Wolff’s imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events." Calling his writing "a whirlwind of flourishes and tangents and asides that often stray so far from the central point that you begin to wonder whether there is a central point", she quoted one daily New York columnist as saying "I find it nearly impossible to read his columns. They’re flabby. I don’t know what the fuck he’s trying to say." One journalist who knew Wolff told Cottle, "He can't write. He doesn't report."[21] Cottle subsequently called Wolff "possibly the bitchiest media big foot writing today."[22]
The Columbia Journalism Review criticized Wolff in 2010 when he suggested that The New York Times was aggressively covering the breaking News International phone hacking scandal as a way of attacking News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch. CJR called Wolff's analysis "pathetic", "disgusting", "twisted", and based on "zero evidence".[23]
In 2013, Gawker.com cited Wolff as a major example of "trolling", whereby media run stories designed solely for the purpose of outraging their consumers and thereby provoking public reaction. Gawker wrote, "Wolff is intelligent enough to be an actual, serious media critic; he's also canny enough to know that few people give a shit about serious media criticism, so he can get a lot more readers by tossing off ridiculous white wines [sic] about restaurant reservations and incendiary mansplanations; and, he's both needy and amoral enough to just, you know, insult people for attention."[24]
New York Magazine has called him an "angry man for pay" and a "media provocateur".[25]
Short version: Newser is spilled vomit.
How many millions of illegal alien criminals have come to the US during this time period?
BS
In the state of Tx something like .004 percent of CHL holders get afoul of the law.
Are they including events wherein the intended victim is victorious? Maybe including the JUSTIFIABLE homicide in gun death statistics?
Smells funny...
pubbies are about to turn over gun rights decisions to the demons in the house?
KYPD
This article-and probably the “new research”-beg to be fisked. Computer models can give you whatever outcome you desire, depending on the structural assumptions the modeler builds in. And correlation does not equal causation.
TC
reminds me of the “violent video game” studies. The operational definition of “violence” was pushing any action button. Thus playing the game was deemed “violent”.
“... properly licensed RTC handguns”. Huh? As opposed to IM-properly licensed RTC handguns? I guess it’s dependent on where you are. In NV the carrier is licensed not the handgun. I’m also thinkin’ that “properly licensed RTC handguns” are a pretty small number when it comes to being used in crimes. Excuse me radar, have you seen a blip?
because it's not SUPPOSED to.
in 2005- when Minnesota finally passed -concealed carry-
EVERY liberal came forth- mass murder!!- sexual assaults!
crime will SKYROCKET!!- for the NEXT 3 years they
gave a synopsis of crimes committed by anyone that
WAS GIVEN A PERMIT!-not actually using a weapon-
to wit- smack your wife- you are now a felon- your
right to carry rescinded- you are also a
a celebrity for NPR radio- to show how bad this
Law was!— thing is — after 3 YEARS there were
about 2 dozen arrests of concealed carry
people— it is now NEVER brought up- just the
Demonrat lies- oh, btw- Crime has dropped
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.