justoffal
Senator
OHHHHH I get it.....when people die in car accidents they aren't really dead but when they get shot
" IT"S DIFFERENT"....
Come on admit it...you just hate the second amendment because it stops you from being a dictator.
JO
Study shows states with 'right-to-carry' laws are closely associated with higher rates of violence
- Thread starter AIL
- Start date
" IT"S DIFFERENT"....
Come on admit it...you just hate the second amendment because it stops you from being a dictator.
JO
Arkady
President
The best data to determine whether concealed carry raises or lowers violence rates isn't to use aggregated nation-wide data, since that can just end up measuring other impacts (e.g., the improving economy under Obama, etc.) The best way to test it would be to measure the trends within smaller geographic units that had different approaches to concealed carry. For example, if you had two similar states, one of which greatly boosted concealed carry in the time period and one of which didn't, you could compare the changes in their murder rates in that time period. If, say, they both had falling murder rates, but the one without the concealed-carry spike had a more rapid decline in murder rates, that would suggest there was an underlying trend moving both, but that the trend was dampened in the concealed carry state by the impact of more concealed firearms. If the opposite, it would suggest there was a background trend helping both, but it was augmented in the concealed carry state by the concealed firearms. A serious study would attempt to control for other factors with that kind of comparison. It looks like the NBER study AIL linked to took that more sophisticated approach. They charge $5 to see the actual paper, so I haven't dug into it, but NBER isn't exactly an anti-gun group, or partisan group, so even just the abstract is fairly compelling.
UPNYA2
Mayor
Another problem with this story is that it doesn't specify who shoots whom.
If someone is being attacked and shots the attacker, that counts as gun violence the same as if the attacker walked up and shot the attack victim, yet the two are nowhere near the same, are they?
Look, the right to carry may not be a right you would ever consider taking advantage of or even agree with but that doesn't mean others can't. But being you do feel so may I ask if there are any OTHER of our constitutionally guaranteed rights that you are so frightened of you want them to be restricted to applying only when we are alone in the basement of our own homes IF that home is at least 4.5 miles from the nearest other human being or is that desire unique to only this one right?
the U.S. has the both highest gun death rate and highest gun ownership rate in the Western world, as well as another study that showed that the states with the strictest gun ownership laws have the lowest rate of gun deaths.
UPNYA2
Mayor
So?
What are the odds if we had states that severely restricted our right against illegal search and seizer those states would have the highest conviction rates for crimes?
What are the odds if we had states that severely restricted our right against cruel and unusual punishment those states would have the lowest rates for crimes?
Why not restrict or eliminate ALL of our rights instead of just the one that frightens you, dearheart?
Spamature
President
Correct my post so that I may know. I mean if that's all you're good, then for then by all means have at it.
justoffal
Senator
No
No they can't be
YouCantHandleDaTruth
Governor
Spain?
justoffal
Senator
Totally different Gene Pool....
The South American and East Indian Latinos speak Spanish only because they were conquered. You're not thinking clearly. The Cartoon is a lie....so it the premise that the officer was too jumpy.
Like I said before...the only way the left will accept justification for lethal force from an officer is after he is dead.
JO
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
Illinois has a population of 12,815,607
Pennsylvania has a population of 12,819,975
Illinois carry conceal permit issued 113,732
https://rebootillinois.com/2015/06/12/how-many-people-in-your-county-have-concealed-carry-licenses/39563/
Pennsylvania has a carry concealed permit issued of 786,000
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/15/jeb-bush/which-state-most-gun-permits/
Illinois violent crime rate 2015 49,354
Pennsylvania violent crime 2015 40,339
Illinois murder rate 2015 690
Pennsylvania murder rate 2015 658
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-4
Illinois gun death 2015 440
Pennsylvania gun death 2015 497
YouCantHandleDaTruth
Governor
Nope, Latino and Caucasian ... kkkuckservative ignorance noted
YouCantHandleDaTruth
Governor
Ignorance noted, Spaniards are Latino
D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
In short, “Hispanic” focuses on Spanish-speaking origin. This means Spain is included, but Brazil is not because Brazilians speak Portuguese. “Latino” refers to people of Latin American origin. This includes Brazil and excludes Spain.Jul 16, 2015
https://www.google.com/search?q=are+spaniards+latino?&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
YouCantHandleDaTruth
Governor
origin or ancestry ... seems you left that little part out ... you're not slick
Arkady
President
First, you're not providing the rates, you're providing the raw counts. Check your stats again and you'll see, for example, that Pennsylvania in 2015 had 658 murders, but the rate was 5.1.
Anyway, that analysis at least starts down the right track, but you're just taking a single-year snapshot. Is Illinois just more murder-prone than Pennsylvania, for cultural reasons, or did Pennsylvania's move towards concealed carry save lives? The way to examine that is to use 1989 (the year Pennsylvania passed its shall-issue concealed carry law) as a baseline, and see what the trends have been since then.
1989 Murder rates:
Pennsylvania 6.3
Illinois 9.0
2015 Murder rates
Pennsylvania 5.1
Illinois 5.8
So, in other words, over a period when various factors made the US as a whole far less violent, the murder rate in Pennsylvania fell 1.2 points, or 19%, and the murder rate in Illinois dropped 3.2 points, or 36%. They went from having very different murder rates, to having rates that are almost the same. Did Pennsylvania have so much less improvement because of its move towards shall-issue concealed carry? Would it have enjoyed as dramatic an improvement as Illinois if not for that mistake?
It's hard to say based on only those two states. It could be any number of factors at work -- for example, the ongoing decline of Pennsylvania's steel-based economy, etc. But if you don't just stick to those two states, you can perform a similar calculation for ALL states: correlate the rise of concealed carry with the trend lines for murder rate decline. If states experiencing unusually fast concealed carry increases tended to have unusually fast murder rate declines, that would be a point in favor of concealed carry. Unfortunately, it looks like the reality is more like you'd expect from the Pennsylvania/Illinois example: states have slower murder rate declines when concealed carry is ramping up unusually fast. That suggests that concealed carry is increasing murder rates in those states, relative to where they'd be without the change in concealed carry.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
SMH you lost this debate so let's move the goalposts yeah that's the ticket
Arkady
President
No. I didn't move the goal-posts. I merely pointed out the way you'd misunderstood the issue. Go back and read my post 22, to which you were replying. It read, in relevant part [emphasis added]:
The best data to determine whether concealed carry raises or lowers violence rates isn't to use aggregated nation-wide data.... The best way to test it would be to measure the trends within smaller geographic units that had different approaches to concealed carry. For example, if you had two similar states, one of which greatly boosted concealed carry in the time period and one of which didn't, you could compare the changes in their murder rates in that time period.
As you can presumably see, I was clear about where the goal-posts were from the start: we should measure changes in different states over time based on what was happening with concealed carry in each. That's exactly what you failed to do with your Pennsylvania/Illinois comparison, which was done as a one-year snapshot, and thus could not have measured changes. That's why I remedied your analysis, by showing the trends. Just as I'd suggested in my post, both had falling murder rates, but the one with the concealed-carry spike had a slower decline in murder rates, which is what we'd expect to see if concealed carry were dampening the desirable impact of other background factors.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
Yes you did you didn't like what you saw. He'll why didn't you go all the way back to the 1800s?
Arkady
President
Try to cut back on your lying a bit. Surely, by this point, you see that I didn't change the goal posts. I performed the exact kind of analysis I mentioned in the post to which you had responded. You screwed up. You apparently missed the clear point of what you responded to (missing the bit about the trend and the change over time). Did you deliberately "move the goal posts" that way? Or did you just fail to read carefully before responding? Only you know. But what we both know is that I didn't move anything.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
No, you are a lying sack of shit if you thought and say I lied. I gave you the needed data you didn't like now you whin like a little child that can't get it his way.
Latest posts
-
-
-
What is the purpose of choosing Jurors?
- Latest: Jack4freedom
