Does the NRA have a stupid pill problem?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 301 - 320 of total 791 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:00pm PT

I just copy/pasted the references from that paper. One is a reference shooting down 'more guns less crime'. One is referencing where they got the map from. One is from Homicide studies about large urban areas (will look at it in a second).

The fact is that there is no consensus among people who study this that CCW made crime fall. None.

Does it matter though? Does it change how you feel about CCW? Doubt it and doubt others carry or not because they are being guided by empirical research.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:01pm PT

From the last source cited in that paper (Rosengart, M., Cummings, P., Nathens, A., Heagerty, P., Maier, R., and Rivara, F. (2005). An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates. Injury Prevention 2005;11:77–83. doi: 10.1136/ip.2004.007062. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730198/pdf/v011p00077.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez);:

Objective: To determine if any of five different state gun laws were associated with firearm mortality: (1) ‘‘shall issue’’ laws permitting an individual to carry a concealed weapon unless restricted by another statute; (2) a minimum age of 21 years for handgun purchase; (3) a minimum age of 21 years for private handgun possession; (4) one gun a month laws which restrict handgun purchase frequency; and (5) junk gun laws which ban the sale of certain cheaply constructed handguns.

Design: A cross sectional time series study of firearm mortality from 1979 to 1998.
Setting: All 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Subjects: All residents of the United States. Main outcome measures: Firearm homicides, all homicides, firearm suicides, and all suicides.
Results: When a ‘‘shall issue’’ law was present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR
1.08 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant. **No law was associated with a
statistically significant decrease in the rates of firearm homicides or total homicides. No law was associated with a statistically significant change in firearm suicide rates.**

Conclusion: A ‘‘shall issue’’ law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates. No law was associated with a statistically significant
reduction in firearm homicide or suicide rate.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:04pm PT

from the Homicide Studies piece - the abstract:

What happens when states ease access to permits to carry concealed handguns in public
places? Supporters maintain the laws can reduce violent crime rates by raising the
expected costs of crime, because of criminals anticipating greater risks of injury and lower
rates of success completing their crimes. Opponents argue that the laws are likely to
increase violent crime, especially homicide, as heated disputes involving permit holders
are more likely to turn deadly because of the greater lethality of firearms. This study uses
panel data for all U.S. cities with a 1990 population of at least 100,000 for 1980 to 2000 to
examine the impact of “shall-issue” concealed handgun laws on violent crime rates. The
authors measure the effects of the laws using a time-trend variable for the number of years
after the law has been in effect, as opposed to the dummy variable approach used in prior
research. They also address many of the methodological problems encountered in previous
studies. **The results provide no evidence that the laws reduce or increase rates of violent
crime.**

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:15pm PT

No need to "roll armor", anyway - all it'll take is one armed compound against one Apache

Yeah, why use rolling armor when you can use something more expensive and more vulnerable?
But then you would expect jgjudge to use the wrong tool for the job if he thinks sporting arms make good self defense weapons.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:15pm PT

I was just working off the paper you cited Ron. Happy to see other cites of research that found differently.

many if not all with an agenda,

That is absolutely true of unethical researchers. But it is not true of most researchers as they are ethical. So when people say this, they are painting researchers with the insult of being unethical. In my own case, I can assure you the only agenda I have is to try to find the truth.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:17pm PT

Ron - the personal life study is your own life right? I was going back looking for that cite since I'd missed it. But I think I see what you are saying now.

:)

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:23pm PT

Cracked me up Ron. I seriously was looking for it! Haha.

BTW, you will also see that the research you posted did not find that CCW increased crime as some argue. No effect.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:27pm PT

Unless I deploy my home made stingers.

I have the plans already, fin servos connected to infra red sensors, homemade C4 shaped charge warhead.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:36pm PT

Research isn't really looked at that way. Number 1 - we cannot "prove" anything. We can only offer support, or fail to find support for stuff. Number 2 - no study is perfect. No data are perfect, no measurement is perfect, no definition is perfect. But, some are less perfect than others.

So researchers work very hard to devise the best definitions they can. They strive to measure very difficult to measure things as precisely as possible. And the toil to gather the best data they can.

Then they see what the results are and they interpret the results with an eye to the limitations of the study (all studies have limitations).

And others replicate the research and try to make improvements to it. Over time a body of research is amassed. Now if that body of research indicates that x appears to be the case, one can have some confidence it likely is the case.

If a body of research offers lots of conflicting findings, then no general consensus is reached.

Given the body of research, I'd say (and most agree) that CCWs have no effect on crime rates. Still, that's not to say that CCWs are bad or should be taken away. It's just that in general, research does not offer evidence that they lower the crime rate. They may do other things well. But that is for research to explore.

jstan

climber

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:37pm PT

Unless I deploy my home made stingers.

Stingers are ineffective against vehicles armored with depleted uranium.
Entirely new weapons are used there. So to be sure of stopping intruders shielded behind DU,
you will need to upgrade.

And even there you will want to wait for Gen. III.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 06:46pm PT

Not exactly sure what you'd like to study. But if you posed a good research question, and there are data available (always a big if), I imagine there is research on it already. So seriously, if you can tell me what it is you are interested in, I'll put some article for you.

What about CCW holders would you want to learn?

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 07:10pm PT

Crimpie,,,How about how many have been directly involved in crime reduction - via self defense, defense of others, robbery attempts etc etc.

While I don't recall if they looked at CCW specifically, this is likely embedded in the Defensive Gun Use (DGU) literature. Very contentious literature with little agreement. I posted up thread (or maybe it was the other thread) about the inherent difficulties with this research. A lot of it centers around what constitutes DGU.

For example, does a case of DGU require a gun be fired?
or does it require someone it shot? and does that someone have to be a bad guy vs. a friend or relative mistakenly shot.
Does DGU count if you just tell someone to leave you alone or you'll shoot them?

Does it count if a police officers does it while working? Or a security guard? Or must it be a private citizen?

My dad for example will tell you that he engaged in DGU about 25 times a year. He keeps hearing noises outside, grabs his gun, and rushes out to confront the noise maker. He lives in a very rural area on 20 acres. To date, he's never seen a person during one of these events. But to him these are instances of DGU.

Was Zimmerman engaged in DGU? He followed someone he thought looked suspicious. He shot him and killed him. DGU or murder? Or both?

And what about CCW? How to define it. In Florida, some pepper spray requires a CCW permit. Must CCW be restricted only to gun? Or just handguns? Or any weapon?

The answer to those definitional issues will guide the counting of CCW DGU and influence findings.

My hunch is that the data used for the DGU research does not have CCW information in it. For instance, the NCVS is used for this research. I know there is no question asked about whether the person has a CCW. I know the FBI does not include that in their crime numbers. It would be up to some individual, on their own dime (the notion that researchers just get buckets of money to conduct research is pure fantasy) to gather these data. It would take years and be REALLY expensive. And then everyone would criticize it saying that no one would reveal if they really had a CCW or engaged in DGU anyway.

While it is possible to do this research, it would be very very costly. Anyone want to front me about 30 million to do this? I'm serious - fund me and I'll get the project done.

Let's pretend I conduct this study and I find that CCW lowered crime. What would your policy recommendation be? Would you then mandate that all people must carry?

And let's pretend I find that CCW raised crime. What policy recommendation would you propose? To get rid of CCW?

Who do you think would be a good funding agent for this work? Not the federal or state govts - they don't have the resources. It would need to be a private person or group. Who do you suggest?

Genuinely curious of your thoughts about this.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 07:12pm PT

And to be clear...I'm enjoying this with Ron and I hope he is too. He taught me a lot on his taxidermy thread. I find this topic fascinating and much more complex that what first meets the eye - just like taxidermy.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Dec 26, 2012 - 07:12pm PT

Anti gunners want to confiscate valuable property.

If they had the guts to put their money where their mouthes are they would simply buy guns off the market and destroy them rather than trying to make the current owners pay for their vision of utopia.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 07:21pm PT

Here is one of the cases of defensive gun use that some say the media never presents. Personally, I see a lot of them.This is in the Houston Chronicle tonight:

ABILENE, Texas (AP) — Abilene police say a 34-year-old man has been shot and killed by his estranged girlfriend after he barged into her home.

Police found Earnest Gonzales wounded early Wednesday in the front yard of the woman's home. He died later at a hospital.

Authorities say Gonzales tried to break in Christmas night but fled. He returned hours later, forced open the door and assaulted the woman. She managed to retrieve a handgun and fired once, hitting him in the left side. The woman's two children — 16-year-old and a newborn — were in the home at the time.

Police say the woman had legal possession of the handgun and the case would be referred to a grand jury. They also say no criminal charges are expected.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 07:31pm PT

Crimpie,, you mention variables i hadnt considered. Very interesting on how complex things get.

Research is fun. Even what appears to be 'easy' research can be very challenging.

By the way, I added a statement above - does DGU count if it is an officer or security guard doing it? Or must it be a 'private citizen' (and is an off duty officer a private citizen?

Isn't measurement fun!?!?!

Some do get private money to fund studies, but they are pretty uncommon sadly. Research money dried up years ago and while there has been a tiny bit of easing lately, it's still difficult. I don't even bother crafting a grant proposal. They take a ton of time and work and most don't get funded. Not an efficient use of time sadly.

As far as studies getting refuted - that's good! The idea is for people to look for the limitations (remember, there are always limitations) and to then make the next study better. So that's an example of science working.

But in NV, a ccw holder SHOULD be letting any officer in any situation know that he is indeed one, and MOST officers i know certainly ask that and it is required by law the ccw holder give them a copy of their permit. So there should be some form of stats on this- in reports at minimum no?

I have never seen on a police report or data where one records that the person is CCW. However, police reports come in all sorts of sizes and shapes. I do know they don't report it to the FBI if they have these data. Further, there is a lot of variation in what goes in a police report. For example, a friend of mine who was kidnapped, raped, then had her throat cut managed to live. Total miracle. (no she didn't have a gun and having one wouldn't have mattered as she was 8 at the time of these crimes). The offender told her not to worry because he was a police officer.

That is a crime of police impersonation. That did not get recorded in the police report. Makes one wonder what else isn't recorded!

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Dec 26, 2012 - 07:34pm PT

Anti gunners want to confiscate valuable property.

Gun nuts confiscate valuable property - lives.

As for 'experts' and 'professionals' - well, real professions have and use mechanisms to protect the public, such as high entry standards, compulsory, continuing education, and (most importantly) discipline if not dismissal for unprofessional conduct or incompetence. All carried on in public.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Dec 26, 2012 - 07:37pm PT

edit: Crimpie,, there was some coverage of that Oregon Mall shooting that didnt even mention the CCW holder having a gun trained on the shooter. My Bro in AZ DIDNT get that detail on his coverage. I gave him the U tube interview of the guy..

I don't know why some don't report some stuff. I saw this in several places personally. But I also look at a ton of news web sites. What most also didn't report is the nut was firing in the air. Still, that a CCW guy was there is something I saw reported in several places.

You have to wonder how that would have turned out if Mr. Nut wasn't just shooting in the air but was shooting at people instead. Happily, we'll not know.

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Dec 26, 2012 - 07:43pm PT

...This is how adults converse and debate in online political forums.

...And of course it will take a while to get rid of all of them, but a lot of idiots like yourself will die in firefights trying to hold onto them, so we'll be ridding society of 2 problems at once

Although all it will really take is one group of armed insurrectionists, holed up in their compound, vs. one Apache helicopter, broadcast on the news, and the whole delusional, adolescent Gun Nut movement will start rapidly disintegrating

Looking forward to that very much!!!

Apaches can fire 600 rounds a minute from 2 miles away with pinpoint accuracy, according to the pilot in this History Channel documentary

And Hellfire missiles from 5 miles away - again, pinpoint accuracy

Can't wait for the inevitable "armed compound vs Apache" footage on the news

The gun industry will collapse overnight

Take a good look at that documentary - seems like it'll be a pretty good preview of the last thing you'll ever see

Hedge, posting that you are looking forward to a scenario where American citizens with small arms are slaughtered by gunships of the American military is bizarre. The fact that you seem to be gleefully excited by contemplating such an event is scary. You are without a doubt someone who should not have access to a firearm.