The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked

[Belz...]

How do you know at that point that whatever your target was, it wouldn't have been achieved by doing nothing?

You don't.

But since when has that stopped us from doing stuff? You compare with the past and say "see? Improvement!" and keep on using said solution until a better one seems to come along, and so forth.

What's the problem here?

 

[3point14]

You don't.

But since when has that stopped us from doing stuff? You compare with the past and say "see? Improvement!" and keep on using said solution until a better one seems to come along, and so forth.

What's the problem here?

Because if

a host of factors may come into play.

and

You can say what happened before the change, but you can't say with any amount of certainty what would've happened had the change not occured.

Then you have no way of evaluating anything at all, ever. Every time someone says 'this worked' or 'this didn't work', the reply can be 'you have no way of knowing that, you can't know if it would have happened anyway' and the discussion is over. Every single time.

Drink driving laws lower driving driving? could have happened anyway

Instituting clinical standards in medicine improves results? - could have happened anyway.

Enforcing seat belt laws reduces road fatalities? - could have happened anyway.

You can do this, literally, every single time - complain that the experiment cannot be run again with different variables so declare that results to be not at all informative.

That's the distinction I'm making. Maybe you think it's a distinction without a difference. Maybe it is. I just thought it was important to point out. YMMV.

 

[Giz]

Then you have no way of evaluating anything at all, ever. Every time someone says 'this worked' or 'this didn't work', the reply can be 'you have no way of knowing that, you can't know if it would have happened anyway' and the discussion is over. Every single time.

Drink driving laws lower driving driving? could have happened anyway

Instituting clinical standards in medicine improves results? - could have happened anyway.

Enforcing seat belt laws reduces road fatalities? - could have happened anyway.

You can do this, literally, every single time - complain that the experiment cannot be run again with different variables so declare that results to be not at all informative.

Your examples have clear mechanisms where we can see the implemented change causing perceived improvement. The concealed carriers/ increased crime rate issue lacks any such mechanism.

 

[Belz...]

Because if

and

Then you have no way of evaluating anything at all, ever.

Again, no, you do. It's just that you can't say what would've happened. You can simply compare with what did.

I don't think I'm talking nonsense, here.

 

[3point14]

Again, no, you do. It's just that you can't say what would've happened. You can simply compare with what did.

I don't think I'm talking nonsense, here.

Compare what with what did happen?

 

[Belz...]

Compare what with what did happen?

Compare the result with the previous data, hopefully controlling for other factors.

 

[3point14]

Compare the result with the previous data, hopefully controlling for other factors.

Okay, totally checking out now as I appear to be explaining myself very badly.

Which is a running theme lately.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, totally checking out now as I appear to be explaining myself very badly.

Which is a running theme lately.

Happens to me all the time, so maybe it's me.

 

[TJM]

I'm pretty sure you would agree that there is a world of difference between private security carrying in order to protect a person who gets death threats and some ordinary Joe carrying a concealed weapon.

You attempted comparison has no value in its attempt to portray Bloomberg as a hypocrite.

Hi there -

Ordinary Joe who has received death threats. What makes Bloomberg's life more important than mine?

It isn't of course. I'm sure he'd disagree though.

The security detail is blatant hypocrisy. He benefits from the protection of concealed weapons while claiming that no other citizens should be allowed to carry. That's like a staunch environmentalist trying to end private ownership of automobiles while preaching it from the back of a limo.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But you did hear the libruls scream when Trump wanted data on how they exercised their constitutional right to vote. Hypocrisy much?

The thing is that isn't data that the federal executive has ever had. This is all information they have, are legally required to have but can not legally put into a computer.

Why not just make all guns totally untrackable, outlaw serial numbers and ban gun stores from keeping records. Simple.

 

[casebro]

The thing is that isn't data that the federal executive has ever had. This is all information they have, are legally required to have but can not legally put into a computer.

Why not just make all guns totally untrackable, outlaw serial numbers and ban gun stores from keeping records. Simple.

Put gun data on a par with vote data? No problem from me.

Want to keep track of those entitled to own a gun? Then keep track of whether Achmed Gomez is entitled to vote.

Or let ever resident own a gun, let every resident vote. I think that IS a constitutional equivalence. Or, secret ballot, secret gun ownership.

New catch phrase- Make Ballots as hard to get as guns!

 

[casebro]

Subsequent thought- Kooks can't own guns, can they vote? Shouldn't "being a hazard to yourself and others" preclude voting?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yep. This thread is going pretty much exactly how I expected it to.

Funny how some people are all about the science unless it goes against their ideology. Then suddenly good science, data and evidence are insufficient, there are confounding factors, the person reporting the evidence is blind, another reality, here are some anecdotes.

 

[arthwollipot]

This doesn't answer my question. How do you determine what would've happened in another reality?

Statisticians model other realities all the time. You don't question their methods when they're modelling climate change, why do you question their methods when they're modelling gun incidents?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Funny how some people are all about the science unless it goes against their ideology. Then suddenly good science, data and evidence are insufficient, there are confounding factors, the person reporting the evidence is blind, another reality, here are some anecdotes.

Stats don't say what you want them to say? Dismiss the source, then cut and slice them until no one knows what they actually do say.

 

[Metullus]

I am biased, as I suppose many people would be who had benefited from the action of a "good guy with a gun". Given my experience, which is admittedly anecdotal and not statistically significant (although very significant to me personally), i do not find the study cited in the OP to be terribly persuasive.

 

[Cain]

Naive as it sounds, I think we can find rational middle-ground. The pro-gun people should just concede that an increase in firearm ownership probably leads to more fatalities, and the pro-gun control people should just shut the **** up or risk becoming one of their vaunted statistics.

 

[Thermal]

Yep. This thread is going pretty much exactly how I expected it to.

Funny how some people are all about the science unless it goes against their ideology. Then suddenly good science, data and evidence are insufficient, there are confounding factors, the person reporting the evidence is blind, another reality, here are some anecdotes.

The science here seems to assume that CCW should be a deterrent, and since it is not, it should be done away with. As Giz pointed out, the CCW's were not the criminals in the first place, so there is no reason to conclude that a gangbanger will be more or less violent regarding carry laws. They just give the law-abiding a fighting chance when the bad guy points the gun (which the bad guy does regardless of law).

 

[Ziggurat]

Statisticians model other realities all the time. You don't question their methods when they're modelling climate change, why do you question their methods when they're modelling gun incidents?

Statisticians don't model climate change.

 

[qayak]

That's true.

Given the "study" was about concealed carriers, how about this:
............................
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...e-gun-owners-are-least-likely-criminals-17355

there were about 103 crimes per hundred thousand officers,” the report reads. “For the U.S. population as a whole, the crime rate was 37 times higher—3,813 per hundred thousand people.”
permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh*of the rate for police officers.
..................................

So, it isn't ccw holders getting involved in crime. Which means that any increase in crime in those states must be due to other factors than concealed carry.

Really? I can think of a ton of groups who didn't kill 722 people between 2007 and 2015. (The count is undoubtedly higher but laws prevent accurate reporting of CCW crime rates.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/concealed-carrys-body-count.html