Personally, I don’t believe they actually SEE it that way; they just DESCRIBE it that way for political/ideological purposes. I’m sure Hitler had medical “experts” who described Judaism as a “disease.” If they actually approached crime like a disease, then they would be greatly concerned with the effectiveness of their treatments, and they obviously are not. The Brady “cure” would never pass muster as a safe and effective treatment, by medical standards. These people are basically quacks, peddling snake oil to the gullible.
Article claims "States with higher gun ownership have higher murder rates"
- Thread starter Juna
- Start date
- Status
longeyes
member
deleted post
Last edited:
Serious question here...
If it turns out that his data are good and his methods are sound would it make the tiniest bit of difference to anyone's opinion? If they are, if his methodology is sound and his data can be defended it doesn't matter if he's the love child of Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy. Facts are facts. That's how science works.
If his methods and data are BS, then it wouldn't matter if he were John Moses Browning Himself.
But it really doesn't make any difference. Anything that provides less than worshipful praise of everything gun related is unlikely to get anything but scorn no matter what.
If it turns out that his data are good and his methods are sound would it make the tiniest bit of difference to anyone's opinion? If they are, if his methodology is sound and his data can be defended it doesn't matter if he's the love child of Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy. Facts are facts. That's how science works.
If his methods and data are BS, then it wouldn't matter if he were John Moses Browning Himself.
But it really doesn't make any difference. Anything that provides less than worshipful praise of everything gun related is unlikely to get anything but scorn no matter what.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Ahh, once again . . .
. . . we see the Institutional Mental Health droids at work.
They take their direction, for the most part, from the socialist mindset.
These are "doctors" whose science as been reduced to concensus.
And concensus isn't science.
I patiently await the day when a degree in the psych "sciences" automatically DISQUALIFIES anyone who has it from holding an MD.
The message is control; the carrier is mental health; the conduit is a wide array of professions, from medicine to schools.
Is that a "doctor" behind you?
Watch your six.
. . . we see the Institutional Mental Health droids at work.
They take their direction, for the most part, from the socialist mindset.
These are "doctors" whose science as been reduced to concensus.
And concensus isn't science.
I patiently await the day when a degree in the psych "sciences" automatically DISQUALIFIES anyone who has it from holding an MD.
The message is control; the carrier is mental health; the conduit is a wide array of professions, from medicine to schools.
Is that a "doctor" behind you?
Watch your six.
Zundfolge
Member
For me it wouldn't make a difference because rights are just that, rights.
We have the right to travel, but thousands of people die in travel related accidents. That doesn't mean that I would support the suspension of my right to travel because it might save lives.
We have the right to speak, but people's feelings are often hurt by the words of others. That doesn't mean that I would support the suspension of the right to speak just to save the feelings of those who might not like what others say.
In addition, from the practical perspective I am safer because I own guns, so why should I have to sacrifice my safety for the safety of others (most of those others likely being criminals).
There is also an axiom among statisticians that is often forgotten; "Correlation does not equal cause." So just because areas in the country where there are more guns there is more murder may not have anything to do with the guns.
If some study said "States with higher rates of consumption of carrots have higher murder rates." would we then conclude that carrots cause murder?
And finally, assuming this study isn't flawed (which I expect we'll find out it is ... this pattern repeats itself too often) but IF we find the data is correct, how do we reconcile it with the studies that show that murder rates are also higher in areas with tighter gun control laws?
On a side note, one of the flaws I can see is looking at the issue from a Statewide position. Looking at my home state of Colorado, I can bet you that outside of Denver the rate of firearm ownership goes up, some parts of the state considerably, but Denver (where firearm ownership is less per capita than the rest of the state) has the highest murder rate. So when you have an urban area that skews your murder stats when compared to the peaceful suburban and rural areas (where the guns actually are) you create the false impression that the number of guns owned is what is causing the high crime (because overall there are a LOT of guns in the state, and a lot of murder in a concentrated area that also happens to have a lower rate of firearm ownership).
Other states are likely the same. Lots of guns in rural Illinois, plus lots of murder in Chicago (where most of the guns are not). Lots of guns in rural Texas, but lots of murder in Houston (where most of the guns are not).
Anyway, that was probably somewhat rambling but I'm typing it while doing a dozen other things
KadicDeshi
Member
Good grief. "Hey, let's make 4 groups and put the states with the most gun owners in the top and see how many murders are in those states overall!" This is statistically (one of) the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of. Kinda like saying "Hey, more people die of cancer in the states with the highest number of gun owners!" There's no correlation. And I'd imagine that, if you looked at the results, you'd see this was not done on a per capita basis, making the outcome pretty much guaranteed.
Guess I shouldn't be irritated about such things, but using "science" to "prove" things like this gets under my skin.
Barrett
Serious answer here ...
tellner
That’s a little too simplified. Science only works on data that somebody examines, and, since the world is full of potential data, the choice of what will be examined (and how closely) will be heavily influenced by the reputation of the source. There’s not one reader of that news release in 100,000 who will look at the methods and data, and there is no one on Earth who COULD look at all purported studies to determine their worth. Like it or not, reputation will be used as a screening device. There is no other way to do it.
tellner
That’s a little too simplified. Science only works on data that somebody examines, and, since the world is full of potential data, the choice of what will be examined (and how closely) will be heavily influenced by the reputation of the source. There’s not one reader of that news release in 100,000 who will look at the methods and data, and there is no one on Earth who COULD look at all purported studies to determine their worth. Like it or not, reputation will be used as a screening device. There is no other way to do it.
It actually reminds me a lot of a johns hopkins study I saw a while back. They compared the crime rates of states in the south and west with relaxed gun laws to states in the north east with strict gun control laws to show that relaxed gun laws make for more crime. If they actually wanted a academically meaningful comparion they wouldn't have ignored the geographic differences in crime rate and would have compared the crime rates of new hampshire and vermont to new york and rhode island. Of course that would be academically honest.
I imagine if someone wanted to be a smart ass they could construct a similar studying showing that states containing carl's junior had a higher murder rate than states with hardees. You could certainly turn the geographic element on its ear and show that correlation is not causation.
I imagine if someone wanted to be a smart ass they could construct a similar studying showing that states containing carl's junior had a higher murder rate than states with hardees. You could certainly turn the geographic element on its ear and show that correlation is not causation.
I believe what Zundfolge was saying, and what I would agree with, is the effect of gun ownership to murder rate is irrelvant to him either way. I would not trade in firearms ownership for an absolutely guaranteed lower murder rate as I think gun ownership has deeper meaning then a statistical average.
Stretchman
member
What I'd like to see is the homicide rate for people who have a right to carry, both ways. Are they victims, or do they kill indicsriminately?
Easy enough to do. How many people who carry and have firearms training are in the same category as those who do not?
Would that be enough justification?
Making an educated guess, I would say that people who legally own guns and legally have a right to carry them are in the much lower category than those who do not for firearms related incidents in total. But I'd like to see one done.
Stretch
Quit cigs 1W 1D 12h 57m ago. So far saved $51.23, 341 cigs not smoked and counting ...
Easy enough to do. How many people who carry and have firearms training are in the same category as those who do not?
Would that be enough justification?
Making an educated guess, I would say that people who legally own guns and legally have a right to carry them are in the much lower category than those who do not for firearms related incidents in total. But I'd like to see one done.
Stretch
Quit cigs 1W 1D 12h 57m ago. So far saved $51.23, 341 cigs not smoked and counting ...
If a study showed that strict regulation of every aspect of life would lead to lower crime rates and even lower mortality rates, wouldn't they logical response be to submit oneself to said strict regulation?
The price of freedom is that bad things happen. If you want to give up rights in order to avoid one set of problems, you're simply setting yourself up for another set of problems.
The price of freedom is that bad things happen. If you want to give up rights in order to avoid one set of problems, you're simply setting yourself up for another set of problems.
Here's a small data point to get you started.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
Do more .63% of the citizens of texas have a CHL? Obviosuly I'd like to see it for several years and over several states.
bumm
Member
tellner was saying
>So your opinion could not be changed by facts or
> logic? And the results would be false even if
> they're true because you don't like the
> conclusion?
It's not impossible that this study could turn out to be well designed and unbiased, although I highly doubt that. However, ONE study wouldn't change my mind. The the real world just isn't that simple, and there are many other factors influencing violent crime rates.
Marty
>So your opinion could not be changed by facts or
> logic? And the results would be false even if
> they're true because you don't like the
> conclusion?
It's not impossible that this study could turn out to be well designed and unbiased, although I highly doubt that. However, ONE study wouldn't change my mind. The the real world just isn't that simple, and there are many other factors influencing violent crime rates.
Marty
--------quote----------
So your opinion could not be changed by facts or logic? And the results would be false even if they're true because you don't like the conclusion?
------------------------
tellner, this is a deliberate oversimplification of what the man said. Can you say straw man?
Zundfolge pointed out a critical flaw in this study's methodology, that of presuming causation based on correlation. That is a legitimate critique of the study.
Second, it can be reasonable to maintain a belief in the RKBA despite the results of epidemiologic studies (even if they were methodologically sound). Zundfolge states my sentiments exactly; "For me it wouldn't make a difference because rights are just that, rights."
That is not an inherently irrational position - it is merely a recognition that fundamental rights are more important than fluctuations in sociodemographic variables.
For instance, if someone conducted a well-designed study that demonstrated that freedom of speech leads to increased stress, and that imposing severe restrictions on speech could reduce overall stress levels in our society, that still does not constitute ironclad proof that we should impose such restrictions. In this scenario, one might still very rationally maintain that freedom of speech is an inherently important freedom and no amount of stress reduction is worth sacrificing a fundamental human right.
Similarly, Zundfolge says that the results of this kind of study, no matter how well- or poorly-designed, don't alter his opinion about RKBA because he considers fundamental human rights to be more important than marginal differences in crime rates. This is not an inherently irrational position, and is not deserving of the kind of snippy-snide response you gave him.
So your opinion could not be changed by facts or logic? And the results would be false even if they're true because you don't like the conclusion?
------------------------
tellner, this is a deliberate oversimplification of what the man said. Can you say straw man?
Zundfolge pointed out a critical flaw in this study's methodology, that of presuming causation based on correlation. That is a legitimate critique of the study.
Second, it can be reasonable to maintain a belief in the RKBA despite the results of epidemiologic studies (even if they were methodologically sound). Zundfolge states my sentiments exactly; "For me it wouldn't make a difference because rights are just that, rights."
That is not an inherently irrational position - it is merely a recognition that fundamental rights are more important than fluctuations in sociodemographic variables.
For instance, if someone conducted a well-designed study that demonstrated that freedom of speech leads to increased stress, and that imposing severe restrictions on speech could reduce overall stress levels in our society, that still does not constitute ironclad proof that we should impose such restrictions. In this scenario, one might still very rationally maintain that freedom of speech is an inherently important freedom and no amount of stress reduction is worth sacrificing a fundamental human right.
Similarly, Zundfolge says that the results of this kind of study, no matter how well- or poorly-designed, don't alter his opinion about RKBA because he considers fundamental human rights to be more important than marginal differences in crime rates. This is not an inherently irrational position, and is not deserving of the kind of snippy-snide response you gave him.
Me personally, I dont care if there is 500% more murders in states with more guns. It is my RIGHT to own a gun as stated by the constitution. The day this RIGHT goes away will be the day that there is no such thing as personal freedom.
Who cares what the stats are.
Who cares what the stats are.
Turkey Creek
Member
I try not to generalize but sometimes it's hard not to- This is from Haaavaaad so would you expect something different?- Either that or we genuflect and say "Thank You O Great Oracle" 
Rabid Rabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 464
AAAHHHH I see the key to the study. They are looking at "firearm homicide rate" not the homocide rate. Look at the third paragraph from the end. That is the same as drivers have more car accidents as non drivers, no freaking duh. They need to take a look at the total homocide rate less legal interventions and justifiable homocides.
Sniper X
Member
Wacko way left media sources will continue to bad mouth guns to the point of downright lying to try to support their adjenda. All we can do is know the only ones who beleive that horse hockey are those lost to the radical lefts brainwashing tactics anyway and would never vote to keep the second amendment alive anyway. They are the minority now at last!
longeyes
member
Show me an academic who identifies gun crime with ghetto crime. This is an idea that they can't wrap their minds around. They'd rather disarm all of us. They're right about "disease, though--and they have it.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Does It Really Matter...
... how many lesions and dispersions they cast upon guns? Doesn't the Second Amendment say the right to them shall not be infringed? All the arguments you hear about how "bad" guns are belong in a discussion about whether the Second Amendment should be repealed or amended, and not about whether it should be ignored!
Woody
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their
constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed
by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.
... how many lesions and dispersions they cast upon guns? Doesn't the Second Amendment say the right to them shall not be infringed? All the arguments you hear about how "bad" guns are belong in a discussion about whether the Second Amendment should be repealed or amended, and not about whether it should be ignored!
Woody
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their
constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed
by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.
longeyes
member
Should be.
But won't be.
Let's get real. People listen to clowns with PhDs.
But won't be.
Let's get real. People listen to clowns with PhDs.
Sniper X
Member
Hey Rabid, that is exacly my point in a sence. They allways have creative writing that makes it seem all gloom and doom but when it comes to readers who actually read like we here do we can break it down and see it for what it is......cowpies...overwarmed.
His point was that the Constitution recognizes inalienable rights. This means that regardless of the effect of gun ownership on crime rates, we should still maintain our IIA RKBA. The Second Amendment doesn't say, "...shall not be infringed--unless the statistics show that it should be".
Once you open yourself up for whittling away our Constitutional rights based on "science" or arguments, you're on a slippery slope. Free speech also can cause potential problems. Freedom of religion has led to all sorts of conflict in history. Freedom of the press gives us garbage media statistics that are biased and inherently flawed. Yet, banning all of these things would be catastrophic. This is why we have a Constitution.
This "study" amounts to a survey exhibiting a "correlation" (NOT a cause/effect relationship) between two variables which were ill-defined with an inherent bias. Someone's point about Colorado holds true for just about every state. In Michigan, most of the crime is in downtown Detroit, but most of the gun ownership is probably in the upper peninsula or norther lower peninsula (rural areas). Thus, grouping states is putting inherent bias into the results. If they grouped cities, Bloomberg would have a cardiac arrest b/c NY, DC, Chicago, Detroit, etc. would all fail miserably with respect to his beloved mayors' group's hope that gun control reduces crime.
Excellent point. We can already poke statistical holes in this "study". I have no doubt they used Harvard b/c the moronic sheeple will say, "Well, if it came from Harvard, it must be true!" Harvard is full of biased leftist academics like every other academic institution. One can poke statistical holes in just about every study they put out, despite the big name.
These guys give physicians a bad name.
As someone pointed out, they're narrow minded lab rat academics who treat symptoms, not root causes of "diseases", and they're treating our RKBA as a "disease". Academic physicians are obsessed with cranking out publications b/c that's how they become "experts" (AKA big wigs). The more papers you put out (regardless of how flawed they are), the more well known you become, which makes you an "expert". These large institutions like the CDC and Harvard crank out papers spewing all kinds of statistiaclly flawed BS all the time. The problem is that your average John Q Public has no idea how to think for himself or perform a critical analysis of a study. He just hears "guns kill people" when he hears about a story like this on the news.I could do a study showing a correlation between cigarette lighters and lung cancer, too. But it's not a cause/effect relationship, and arguing that banning lighters would stop cancer is ridiculous. Yet, this is what Harvard is trying to imply with this anti-gun funded study.
longeyes
member
The Soviets had the same approach. If you dissented, you were a psychiatric case.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked