The Good Guy With A Gun Theory, Debunked

[SezMe]

Funny, you never asked for a citation from Mark F. Your request for citation is dishonest. I might still dig it up later, but it's clear that you're trying to apply a hypocritical standard of evidence.

No, the only thing that is clear is that you didn't supply a citation. How I interacted with Mark F. is entirely irrelevant to my request of you. Which is even more pertinent since there was nothing in his last post to ask a citation for.

C'mon. Zig, you slip is showing.

 

[SezMe]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Rather, it means that observational studies without a control group often can't determine the causation behind a correlation. This isn't new, everybody should already know that. But people keep forgetting it whenever it's convenient to.

Does that group include yourself?

 

[SezMe]

Hi there -

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

Nothing. Of course. But I'll bet you'd agree that he gets more credible threats against his life than you do. Sufficient in number, in fact, to justify additional cautionary measures. That's all. I don't think those precautionary measures justify calling Bloomberg a hypocrite,

 

[Giz]

No, you can't know the latter but the previous data are a first approximation that may need adjusting. The point is while we can't know alternative futures there are valid methods to make reasonable forecasts. It's done with the weather, stock markets, quarterly earnings forecasts, ticket sales, etc., etc. There's no reason it can't be done for guns.

The problem is that this forecast falls down when confronted with data:

They say (quoting Arth's OP):
"because more guns in public is supposed to reduce crimes, then we should expect states to see less crime as "Shall Issue" laws kick in.

The Stanford team found precisely the opposite: "Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws," they write, "violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law."


But here's the inconvenient truth that sinks them:

"People with concealed carry licenses are:
5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public"

"A different study concludes that the four year violent crime arrest rate for CCW holders is 128 per 100,000. For the general population, it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, CCW holders are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime"


Given that, in states with widespread CC it's typically 5% to 10% of the adult population who have permits (http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...y-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf) we can see that CCW holders are responsible for somewhere in the range of 1% or 2% of violent crimes (1/5th the rate x 5% or 10% of population)... so how can they be responsible for a 13-15% raise? It's nonsensical...

 

[Cain]

That is why virginia is letting everyone allowed to own a gun carry concealed. A true dream of gun owners there. All that training and safety BS is really not needed.

Prediction: Virginia is going to be the safest state in the union.

 

[3point14]

Prediction: Virginia is going to be the safest state in the union.

It can go from 'I thought he had a gun' to 'This is Virginia, he totally could have had a gun concealed somewhere'

 

[Ian Osborne]

The problem is that this forecast falls down when confronted with data:

They say (quoting Arth's OP):
"because more guns in public is supposed to reduce crimes, then we should expect states to see less crime as "Shall Issue" laws kick in.

The Stanford team found precisely the opposite: "Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws," they write, "violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law."


But here's the inconvenient truth that sinks them:

"People with concealed carry licenses are:
5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public"

"A different study concludes that the four year violent crime arrest rate for CCW holders is 128 per 100,000. For the general population, it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, CCW holders are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime"


Given that, in states with widespread CC it's typically 5% to 10% of the adult population who have permits (http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...y-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf) we can see that CCW holders are responsible for somewhere in the range of 1% or 2% of violent crimes (1/5th the rate x 5% or 10% of population)... so how can they be responsible for a 13-15% raise? It's nonsensical...

But why aren't all these guns and CCW permits reducing crime, like the gun rights lobby say they should? The study in the OP made a fair prediction based on the claim, and found it did not stand up.

Unfortunately, whenever a study makes a finding the gun lobby doesn't like, the data is chopped and crunched in so many ways no none can see what it says any more. And the massacres continue, and Americans keep dying.

 

[Mark F]

No, the only thing that is clear is that you didn't supply a citation. How I interacted with Mark F. is entirely irrelevant to my request of you. Which is even more pertinent since there was nothing in his last post to ask a citation for.

C'mon. Zig, you slip is showing.

To be fair I never cited anything.

 

[Belz...]

3,000 dead ain't low, no matter how you skew it.

Depends on the population you're talking about. 3000 in a population of 20,000 is a lot. 3000 in a population of 2 billion is tiny.

 

[Belz...]

No, you can't know the latter but the previous data are a first approximation that may need adjusting. The point is while we can't know alternative futures there are valid methods to make reasonable forecasts. It's done with the weather, stock markets, quarterly earnings forecasts, ticket sales, etc., etc. There's no reason it can't be done for guns.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing, here.

 

[jeffas69]

I already know how this is going to end, but...

The Good Guy with a Gun Theory, Debunked

Did Donohue's statistical modeling factor in historical abortion rates by state in his calculations?

 

[BStrong]

Nothing. Of course. But I'll bet you'd agree that he gets more credible threats against his life than you do. Sufficient in number, in fact, to justify additional cautionary measures. That's all. I don't think those precautionary measures justify calling Bloomberg a hypocrite,

Except statistically, the crime victimization rate of former mayors of major metros is far lass than the criminal victimization rate of just about anyone else and it for sure isn't because the disparity in numbers between the mayors and the genpop.

The best security in the world is status and power. Bloomberg has all of it.

 

[TJM]

Nothing. Of course. But I'll bet you'd agree that he gets more credible threats against his life than you do. Sufficient in number, in fact, to justify additional cautionary measures.

I'm sure he does too. But that doesn't lessen the severity of the threats to my family and I. They are sufficient in number, in fact, to justify additional cautionary measures.

That's all. I don't think those precautionary measures justify calling Bloomberg a hypocrite,

It is, when he's actively working to deny those precautionary measures he justifies for himself to us Ordinary Joes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why exclude law enforcement?
The police deliberately doesn't keep track of shootings, which strongly suggests that we wouldn't like the data if it was available.

Also, what about someone accidentally killing a bad guy?

To quote a famous policemen:

I a
I think that the general population of law enforcement should not have guns.
It should be like the UK where special forces only have them.

 

[qayak]

It is, when he's actively working to deny those precautionary measures he justifies for himself to us Ordinary Joes.

The simple fact is that if you Ordinary Joes didn't have guns he wouldn't need all those precautionary measures and neither would you.

 

[TJM]

MY BIASED OPINION The simple fact [Notation added by AJM8125: Ooooh ooooh! See what I did? I'll explain; you see, qayak is highly critical of firearm policies in the USA and I added the part in RED to indicate that particular bias, then I highlighted the part I struck which he originally wrote but I wished to change for effect.] is that if you Ordinary Joes didn't have guns he wouldn't need all those precautionary measures and neither would you[Notation added AJM8125: This part left unaltered, meaning it is as originally written by qayak.] ,SO THE HYPOCRISY IS JUSTIFIED.[Notation added by AJM8125: I added another part in RED which qayak did not say but I wished to add to indicate the hypocrisy of a politician and anti-gun activist who I personally dislike.

Fixed That For You.

 

[Dr.Sid]

The simple fact is that if you Ordinary Joes didn't have guns he wouldn't need all those precautionary measures and neither would you.

You make it sound like nobody would have gun if it's forbidden.

 

[qayak]

You make it sound like nobody would have gun if it's forbidden.

No, no. Criminals would have guns which makes them easy to identify. Anybody walking the street with a gun is a bad guy. They are arrested, their guns are confiscated , and they go through a legal process that is expensive for them and almost always ends in a prison sentence. It's work in many countries where citizens had an equal love affair with guns.

In Canada it is easy to tell a law abiding citizen from a criminal when it comes to gun ownership. A law abiding citizen is on their way to, or returning from, a destination where it is legal to use firearms. A criminal has a gun anywhere else.

Or it could be that Americans are really as dumb as the stereotype suggests and just can't be taught gun safety.

 

[SezMe]

But here's the inconvenient truth that sinks them:

"People with concealed carry licenses are:
5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public"

That highlighted word makes mince meat of your point. How many perps of violent crime actually get arrested? All you data shows is that CCW holders are careful not to be arrested.

Ok, ok, that's not fair. But it is fair to point out that arrest records do not reflect actual crime rates.

"A different study concludes that the four year violent crime arrest rate for CCW holders is 128 per 100,000. For the general population, it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, CCW holders are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime"

My bold. You see the problem. One cannot equate arrest rates with crime rates. Period.

Given that, in states with widespread CC it's typically 5% to 10% of the adult population who have permits (http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...y-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf) we can see that CCW holders are responsible for somewhere in the range of 1% or 2% of violent crimes (1/5th the rate x 5% or 10% of population)... so how can they be responsible for a 13-15% raise? It's nonsensical...

For the reason cited above. Your equating crime rate with arrest rate is fallacious.

 

[SezMe]

I'm sure he does too. But that doesn't lessen the severity of the threats to my family and I.

Agreed.

They are sufficient in number, in fact, to justify additional cautionary measures.

What is "sufficient"? One threat? 18 threats? And how are we to measure "credible"?

As an aside, are you stating that you are sufficiently well known that you receive a "sufficient" number of "credible" threats to you and your family that justifies armed protection? Cecile, is that you?