The insane marxists in this country would throw every conservative man, woman and child into the gulags in a heartbeat if the populace were not heavily armed. Funny how these writers never mention this.
Posted on 07/01/2017 3:45:28 PM PDT by Ennis85
While the National Rifle Association (NRA) has long insisted that allowing Americans to carry guns make communities safer, an analysis of nearly 40 years’ worth of data has found that is not necessarily true.
A Stanford Law School professor, John Donohue, and his team analyzed crime data from 1977 to 2014 and didn’t find evidence that areas where more Americans carry guns enjoy enhanced public safety or less crime. On the contrary, the researchers discovered that states that have enacted so-called right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws have experienced higher rates of violent crime than states that did not adopt those laws.
All U.S. states and Washington, D.C., allow concealed carry in some form, and nearly every state has some restrictions on where its residents can carry the weapons. Donohue analyzed the 33 states that enacted RTC laws during his data period.
The team estimates that the adoption of RTC laws substantially elevates violent crime rates (excluding murder rates), but seems to have no impact on property crime. States that adopted RTC laws have experienced an average 13 percent to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the 10 years after enacting those laws, the researchers wrote in a working paper published on June 21 by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
“There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue said.
The theory that more guns equal less crime is one of the most deeply seeded and prominent in the gun-rights movement. Perhaps the most well-known recent example of that idea came from Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association, in the wake of the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
(Excerpt) Read more at disqus.com ...
The authors picked what states and when to do their comparison. They compared the states to a model that they made, so it is essentially like the “climate models”. You can make a model do what you want.
The very carefully only used gross state data. Lott used county data, which has much greater resolution. Lott also looked at actual numbers of permits. It appears on this study, they only looked at whether a law was passed or not.
When researchers deliberately omit data, it is a red signal that they are looking for a particular outcome. In this case, they deliberately limited the data they would use.
The only time the output of a statistical model is anything but a hypothesis is when the output of the model can be verified by real or experimental data. A lot of the analysis and modeling done by politically oriented individuals like the authors of the cited article is intended to support their viewpoint, and is not designed to be tested with real data.
And from a data analysis point of view that particular event is hard to analyze, since the FBI homicide records, which many studies rely on, don’t show any homicides in Newtown Connecticut at the time. No doubt the murders happened, but the FBI data is not as accurate as one would hope it would be.
The insane marxists in this country would throw every conservative man, woman and child into the gulags in a heartbeat if the populace were not heavily armed. Funny how these writers never mention this.
Did they include Chicago in the study? Don’t think so....
In 1986, the year before Florida started the wave of state RTC laws it had a population of 11.6 million people and 1371 murders. Fast forward to 2015 its population increased to 20 million but its murder rate dropped to 1041. In absolute terms that’s a 24 percent drop. Per capita it translates into a 50 percent drop. So his contention is that more people would have been murdered. There’s absolutely no way to know that number.
Stanford. California. ROTFL! I wonder what the original goal of his ANALysis was.
Of course they don’t make us safe. They make us free. They protect us from a government that decides to enslave us.
Guns aren’t about making us safe, they are about we the people having the power.
I wonder if this dildo factored in the surge in the illegal alien invasion between 1977 to 2014. I doubt it.
As a statistician (and yes, I checked this professor's credentials, and mine are at the same prestige level but from schools ranked higher for applied math, statistics, and modeling), I am not impressed with his work. He's a lawyer and an economist from good schools, except that he's not in fields that emphasize a study of modeling. Models tell you only what the assumptions they are based on predict.
Lawyers and economists are particularly known for tweaking the assumptions until they get the desired result instead of searching for the truth. I would own firearms regardless of what the models said about general effects. However, my best analysis of firearms effects strongly suggests that gun owners in any given neighborhood are statistically safer than not gun owners in the same area, from the same demographics, income, and family structure. Similarly, gun owners are more likely to commit gun suicides than non gun owners, but they are much less likely (with the same caveats on income and demographics) to commit suicide overall.
“The only time the output of a statistical model is anything but a hypothesis is when the output of the model can be verified by real or experimental data. A lot of the analysis and modeling done by politically oriented individuals like the authors of the cited article is intended to support their viewpoint, and is not designed to be tested with real data.”
Apparently this method of verification is not a requirement in stanford law school.
Perhaps stanford has decreed that its law school is a “scientific method free” zone. One wonders if that is the only way that liberalism can flourish on campus.
Maybe John Donohue has relegated scientific verification of his hypothesis to the stanford marching band! lol
11-year-old Alaska boy shoots bear charging fishing party
http://www.wrex.com/story/35795796/11-year-old-alaska-boy-shoots-bear-charging-fishing-party
Nice try Shirley, but we ain’t buying your fake story.
I looked at the comments section of the article, some of them absolutely abominably brutal in their ignorance the remarks they make about us law abiding gun owners. If private gun ownership were that dangerous, places like present day Vermont and Canada before 1979 (when Firearms Acquisition Certificates were first required for the legal purchase of standard hunting rifles and shotguns) would be among the most violent places on the planet.
We almost have national concealed carry reciprocity and the violence has not abated.
The people who were in less danger of being a victim got CCW passed in nearly every state. No shame in that.
However, the people who are most likely to be the victim of violent crimes don’t care about the laws anyway, nor do they tend to seek out those who may be carrying.
Those who should carry the most don’t.
It is a “working paper.” That means it is apparently not finished, not published (other than posted on a website), and presumably not peer reviewed. (what am i missing?)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510
Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Controls Analysis
John J. Donohue, Abhay Aneja, Kyle D. Weber
NBER Working Paper No. 23510
Issued in June 2017
NBER Program(s): LE
The 2004 report of the National Research Council (NRC) on Firearms and Violence recognized that violent crime was higher in the post-passage period (relative to national crime patterns) for states adopting right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws, but because of model dependence the panel was unable to identify the true causal effect of these laws from the then-existing panel data evidence. This study uses 14 additional years of panel data (through 2014) capturing an additional 11 RTC adoptions and new statistical techniques to see if more convincing and robust conclusions can emerge.
Our preferred panel data regression specification (the “DAW model”) and the Brennan Center (BC) model, as well as other statistical models by Lott and Mustard (LM) and Moody and Marvell (MM) that had previously been offered as evidence of crime-reducing RTC laws, now consistently generate estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime and/or murder when run on the most complete data.
We then use the synthetic control approach of Alberto Abadie and Javier Gardeazabal (2003) to generate state-specific estimates of the impact of RTC laws on crime. Our major finding is that under all four specifications (DAW, BC, LM, and MM), RTC laws are associated with higher aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time. We estimate that the adoption of RTC laws substantially elevates violent crime rates, but seems to have no impact on property crime and murder rates. Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws, violent crime is estimated to be 13-15% percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law. Unlike the panel data setting, these results are not sensitive to the covariates included as predictors. The magnitude of the estimated increase in violent crime from RTC laws is substantial in that, using a consensus estimate for the elasticity of crime with respect to incarceration of .15, the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.
~~~~~
I wonder if there is a “synthetic” program that simulates Lubee’s Cafeteria...
Lye Yuh!
“I looked at the comments section of the article, some of them absolutely abominably brutal in their ignorance the remarks they make about us law abiding gun owners. “
Yeah I got worked up over these in particular.
“Guns don’t kill people, as is proven by yesterday’s Bronx hospital rampage...”
followed by
“Sometimes dogs shoot people with guns.
Dog named Trigger steps on gun, shoots owner”
To your point - statistical analysis is only as good as the data and the algorithms used to analyze them. You can manipulate the data, the algorithms, or the hypotheses around the data. You can also manipulate the presentation of the data. Liberals of course understand science MUCH better than us mouth breathing neanderthal conservatives, and would never stoop to such tactics. / bitter sarc
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.