Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

anyone want to debunk the debunkers?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by atek3, Jun 16, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. atek3

    atek3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,024
    Location:
    SW CT
  2. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,968
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Why bother? To them, their mantras are as religious icons...

    Art
     
  3. atek3

    atek3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,024
    Location:
    SW CT
    I don't want to cheerlead for Lott if his data and conclusions are wrong.

    atek3
     
  4. Stebalo

    Stebalo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Texas
    Statistics do not justify oppression of the citizenry and a forced removal of civil rights.
     
  5. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    Mr. Eatman,

    Unfortunately that is true of both sides.
     
  6. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    I notice that much of their argument is in the form of conparing how many carry states saw a rise in crime vs how many non-carry states saw a rise in crime. Without data on the amount of increase in each case, one cannot draw conclusions from this.
     
  7. GunGeek

    GunGeek Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    Central Florida
    If I was to debunk it I may start out by pointing out there are 50 states in the USA. Somehow they only use 33 to make thier conclusions.... big red flag in my book.
     
  8. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,270
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    With the main difference being that they are completely wrong, from their epistemology on up.
     
  9. Treylis

    Treylis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Tempe, Arizona
    My first response would be to say that I do not care whether or not it raises or lowers crime--that people have an unalienable human right to property and self-defense. Crime might very well go down if there was a shoot-on-sight curfew after midnight, but you won't see me clamoring for one.

    Don't fight statistics with statistics--fight with ethics, with epistemology, with metaphysics.
     
  10. Rotnguns

    Rotnguns Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24
    Location:
    Idaho
    Need to compare oranges to oranges. Fact remains, violent crime fell in states after ccw was enacted in those same states. Claiming that violent crime would have decreased even faster if ccw states had no ccw is fallacious.

    Can Brady bunch point to legally armed citizens causing all this extra crime in ccw states?
     
  11. Foreign Devil

    Foreign Devil Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    That's the heart of it right there. Of course they can't. Every time the occasional CCW holder commits a crime they blow it all out of proportion to give a skewed impression of them as a whole. It's BS, I could do the same with any group I wanted to smear.

    Anyway I agree with the poster who said use ethical arguments instead of staitistical ones. Allowing warrantless searches might reduce crime but I wouldn't be for it.
     
  12. Tom C.

    Tom C. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    734
    Location:
    Southern Maryland
    I believe this is an example of "cherry picking" statistics to attempt to prove your point. The Brady Bunch carefully selected data that appear to support their case. Then they fake the rest.
     
  13. Mr. Kook

    Mr. Kook Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Location:
    Kansas
    It's funny to me how they compare states with CCW to states without, saying that though both have lower crime rates now, states that don't allow legal CCW had greater reductions in crime rates. The question you have to ask yourselves, that they didn't bother to answer is "how high was crime to begin with" and "how close to zero can you get." If I remember correctly the first states to allow CCW were states that already had laxer gun laws and lower crime rates to begin with.

    There's a limit to how low crime rates can go. They don't bother to address that and choose to form their arguments instead of around the comparable crime rates from state to state, in the comparative drops over time.

    Well of course states that have obnoxiously high crime rates are going to see a more significant drop than the rest of the country:banghead:
     
  14. burbanite

    burbanite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    160
    Location:
    Danbury, CT
    I can never find the "Contact Us" button on any of their websites....??????
     
  15. sch40

    sch40 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    198
    Location:
    MO
    These are the things that got me:
    They compare the rate of decrease from one state to another (what was the crime rate in those states before? after?).
    They switch between "volent crime" and "crime."
    They are very vague with their terminology and how they discriminate between "anti-CCW" and "pro-CCW" -- that is, they use phrases like "relaxed CCW laws." Some states (like Alaska) had what some people may consider "restrictive" CCW laws, then "relaxed" them later. Other may have had no CCW laws, but then passed "restrictive CCW laws" (which are better than none).

    The lack of detail is dreadful. Can anyone find their actual data? GunGeek, where did you get the 33 states out of 50 info?

    -sch40
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page