Here comes a new gun study that they'll pound us with...

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Saw this on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/gun-law-homicide-drop/index.html

On the face it sounds like the usual correlation vs causation issue with some data cherry picking. The also mentioned MO gun law repeal that lead to a 23% increase in gun murders was actually in the 1 more death per 100,000- not what I would call very easy to separate from noise.

This is bound to be thrown in our faces. Anyone have insights into the study or particular issues in CT that could have lead to it?

One thing that comes to mind is that they are looking at changes, not absolute rates. We all know that they most gun murders happen in areas with the strictest gun laws, is focused in certain areas and legally owned guns are not often used in these murders.

Also, if you are planning on killing yourself, you are more likely to not use a gun if you have to go to a class and other BS- though I'm not sure how suicides are counted in this study.

This is too juicy for the gun grabbers not to latch onto. I like to have some facts and logic to refute it.

ETA: More restrictive laws will almost always lead to less crime. I bet if we got rid of Miranda rights we'd solve a lot more cases, locked up males between the ages of 16-25 and got rid of knives.

[C-grunt]

In 2013 Arizona only had 357 murders total and we have some pretty lenient gun laws.

[C-grunt]

Plus they are showing the trend over the last 10 years and using data from the 90s to asses the ”possible" outcomes. Murder and violence has been trending downward for a long time now across America.

[Straight Shooter]

Meh...there always has been and always will be some new study, some new "fact" or figures the rat bastard media will put out.
I don't even read them anymore...its the same shit I been reading 40+ years now...just reworded.

[MegademiC]

This is what happens when journalists try science. Or when people with a defined outcome get statistics.

That aside, this country was founded on freedom of the individual, not collective good, so it wouldn't matter if statistics showed guns are bad, but they dont.

[WillBrink]

Saw this on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/gun-law-homicide-drop/index.html

On the face it sounds like the usual correlation vs causation issue with some data cherry picking. The also mentioned MO gun law repeal that lead to a 23% increase in gun murders was actually in the 1 more death per 100,000- not what I would call very easy to separate from noise.

This is bound to be thrown in our faces. Anyone have insights into the study or particular issues in CT that could have lead to it?

One thing that comes to mind is that they are looking at changes, not absolute rates. We all know that they most gun murders happen in areas with the strictest gun laws, is focused in certain areas and legally owned guns are not often used in these murders.

Also, if you are planning on killing yourself, you are more likely to not use a gun if you have to go to a class and other BS- though I'm not sure how suicides are counted in this study.

This is too juicy for the gun grabbers not to latch onto. I like to have some facts and logic to refute it.

ETA: More restrictive laws will almost always lead to less crime. I bet if we got rid of Miranda rights we'd solve a lot more cases, locked up males between the ages of 16-25 and got rid of knives.

Cherry picking would be an understatement:

Bloomberg’s School of Public Health Cherry Picked Claim that firearm homicides in Connecticut fell 40% because of a gun licensing law

It makes little sense to examine one state when ten states had have laws at least at some time requiring licensing (Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia) and others have expanded background checks. Missouri and now Connecticut involves cherry picking. The Missouri study is discussed here. And Massachusetts serves as a strong example of why not all states are examined. Connecticut serves as the strongest evidence that gun control advocates can point to but, as we will see, this evidence is very weak.

As the authors of the study note, from 1995 to 2005 the firearm homicide rate in Connecticut indeed fell from 3.13 to 1.88 per 100,000 people, representing a 40% drop over a ten-year period (“We estimate that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place“). However, unexplained is that the firearms homicide rate was falling even faster immediately prior to the licensing law. From 1993 to 1995, the Connecticut firearms homicide rate fell from 4.5 to 3.13 per 100,000 residents, which means more than a 30% drop in just two years. This represented a greater decline than the 17% national decline over those two years. Of course, Rudolph and his co-authors do not address this inconvenient fact (though if one looks at their Figure 1 on page 3 this preceding drop is clearly visible).

Their results are also extremely sensitive to the last year that they pick. The firearm homicide rate in 2006 was actually back up to 2.62. Indeed, with the exception of just one year from 2006 to 2010, there is only one year where the ratio of Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate to that for the US as a whole is lower than it was in 1995.

To see another way how sensitive the results are to the dates chosen, while it is true that Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate fell by 40% from 1995 to 2005, it only fell by 12.5% between 1995 and 2010. Meanwhile from 1995 and 2010, the US firearm homicide rate fell by 39% and the Northeast firearm homicide rate fell by 31%.


Cont:

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2015/06/daniel-websters-cherry-picked-claim-that-firearm-homicides-in-connecticut-fell-40-because-of-a-gun-licensing-law/

[WillBrink]

This is what happens when journalists try science. Or when people with a defined outcome get statistics.

That aside, this country was founded on freedom of the individual, not collective good, so it wouldn't matter if statistics showed guns are bad, but they dont.


Nothing to do with journalists per se. They, being generally anti gun, just spouting off from a POS study published that cherry picked some data points to get an outcome. Done knowing few will check on the actual finer points.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Thanks Will. That's what I was looking for. I know that they will tout this study for the next 40 years, so its nice to be able to rationally refute it for anyone that can get past the headline.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

You can factually say that the gun laws slowed the reduction in the rate of murders and it actually lead to more deaths, if we are into extrapolation.

If the new laws lead to a 40% reduction in murdersmin the first ten years, why hasn't the murder rate fallen a further 40% in the following 10 years?

[Caeser25]

How many of those murders included legally owned guns? If they were all obtained illegally, then what is the cause, gang war heating up over the drug trade for example. How many felons were released from prison that year compared to other years. Drug cartel ties,gangs, domestic violence, missing the full picture here.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

How many of those murders included legally owned guns? If they were all obtained illegally, then what is the cause, gang war heating up over the drug trade for example. How many felons were released from prison that year compared to other years. Drug cartel ties,gangs, domestic violence, missing the full picture here.

The one plausible effect mentioned was that straw purchasers would be deterred by having to take a class. That might be true, but with CT so small, getting guns from out of state would be an easy way around this.

[Caeser25]

The one plausible effect mentioned was that straw purchasers would be deterred by having to take a class. That might be true, but with CT so small, getting guns from out of state would be an easy way around this.

When there's a will, there's a way no matter what the law says. They should just make it illegal to shoot people.

[Voodoo_Man]

Wow an anti-2A article from CNN?

Who'd have thought.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I've also noticed their penchant for comparing states, when we know violence is far more likable to counties and even zip codes. The use of states helps obscure the true genesis of gun violence.

[Jellybean]

And I heard a "new study" today that parents with tattoos are 75% more likely to abuse or neglect their kids, so....

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

And I heard a "new study" today that parents with tattoos are 75% more likely to abuse or neglect their kids, so....

Is there anyone under the age of 30 without a tattoo? It used to be rebellious to get a tattoo. now it is a sign of nonconformity to NOT have one...

[26 Inf]

Is there anyone under the age of 30 without a tattoo? It used to be rebellious to get a tattoo. now it is a sign of nonconformity to NOT have one...

Bingo.

Things are getting weird, an average kid today looks like a carnival worker in the 60's-70's.

I have a friend runs a hardware store, the other day I went into to get some machine screws and the gal that checked me out had gauged ears, a nose stud, the lyrics from some inane song tattooed on a forearm, and the cutest, deepest, dimples I had ever seen. I couldn't help but look at them. Then I realized, Holy Mother of God, this girl has holes punched in her cheeks.

I paid and made my way back into the store to my buddy's office. 'WTF are you doing, hiring dimple girl?' (close but not nearly as descriptive or profane) He told me that he essentially had the choice between dumb and dumber, Meth Queen, and Dimple Girl who was actually quite bright and a good worker.

[MorphCross]

Until newspapers require journalists to include a bibliography with each article that cites studies, I'll treat said articles as persuasive writing rather than informative.