More Concealed Carriers=Less Violent Crime.

[Feuer Frei!]

Or so it seems.

Note: VIOLENT crime, not crime fullstop.


As studies go this one has a more thorough feel to it.

11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons. In 2007, that number was only 4.5 million. That’s an increase of 146%. Both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percentA link to the study: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf

Obviously there are some very logical reasons why this would occur. This study is not immune to that.


SOURCE (http://www.thedailysheeple.com/more-concealed-carriers-less-violent-crime-study-shows_072014)

[AndyJWest]

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/PvT_zps88ca118d.png

[Feuer Frei!]

Cool story Andy.

Wrong thread. Unless you are referring to a statistically significant inverse relationship between Concealed carriers and Violent Crimes.

[AndyJWest]

The study provides no evidence whatsoever that the correlation is the consequence of a causal relationship. And without that, such statistics prove precisely nothing.

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, as far as Correlation and Causation go, they are not the same.

You are saying correlation proves causation?
If i understood you correctly?

I should also add that lack of correlation does not show lack of causation.

[AndyJWest]

Lack of evidence = lack of evidence.

Though there is plenty of evidence that John R. Lott, Jr. the man behind this 'research' has a history of inventing 'data' to prove all sorts of things. Along with inventing a certain "Mary Rosh" sockpuppet to tell the world what a marvellous person John Lott was, and how his research was impeccable. http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/the-mystery-of-mary-rosh/1

[eddie]

With over 200 murders so far this year in Chicago already, I'd say there a problem with his math! Of course, the gangsters who do the killing, are carrying concealed weapons.

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/ERoBFTM.gif

[Tribesman]

The dog ate my homework and here is my friend who saw the dog:rotfl2:

[the_tyrant]

I'm a criminologist by training, and crime numbers are pretty much anything you want them to be.

For example: I had to write a 20 page academic paper, and I just started 3 days before it was due. I never had time to do real research, and my TA doesn't have the time to actually check everyone's sources.

Did you know that by gaming the numbers, I can literally prove that arson reduces murder? If someone burns down a house with a person inside, you can either tally that as 1 count of arson, 1 count of murder, or one count of arson and murder! Fudge the numbers a bit, and suddenly, arson reduces murder!

Police around the world are doing this, so are researchers and journalists. I personally don't put much into crime numbers. I make up this crap all the time! And if you really read closely, you can sometimes feel (but can't prove), that the data analysis in some academic journals have been fudged.

Which is why I have to say, my latest research shows that paying me money is going to reduce the odds of you getting mugged:D Please send your money to my bank account, and literally, the odds of you being a victim of crime will go down, like instantly!

[Tribesman]

Did you know that by gaming the numbers, I can literally prove that arson reduces murder? If someone burns down a house with a person inside, you can either tally that as 1 count of arson, 1 count of murder, or one count of arson and murder! Fudge the numbers a bit, and suddenly, arson reduces murder!

You could apply that to the study of defensive gun use.
Have you used a gun to defend yourself?
Yes I heard a noise in the yard so went out with my gun.
OK it was only a raccoon in the trash can but it still counts as using agun defensively against a criminal.:03:

[Subnuts]

Listen guys, concealed carriers work.

I was in a convenience store the other day getting a Big Gulp, when a dude pulled out a gun and demanded the clerk give him all the money in the register. The teller pushed a button on his register, and before you knew, an adorable little two-foot long aircraft carrier popped out of the hotdog cooker and started launching wave after wave of inch-long F-18s at him. The guy just stood there as microscopic laser-guided bombs and AGM-88s struck him in the chest. The perp crapped his pants and ran all the way to the UN, insisting the whole way that he never had any WMDs.

'Murica.

[Catfish]

^
:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[Platapus]

We have not had a foreign terrorist attack in the US during the period of time that the TV show 24 was shown.

That must also mean something... right...well....no.. actually. :nope:

Causation has to be proved. One can't just take the stance that since causation was not "un-proven" that it must be present. :nope:


Andy is bring up cogent points that are worth understanding.

[Feuer Frei!]

W
Causation has to be proved. One can't just take the stance that since causation was not "un-proven" that it must be present

Proved? Sure, but not by correlation.
Identifying a reason behind an argument or study or your bad example doesn't mean that the results or conclusions are false.

Andy is bring up cogent points that are worth understanding.

Because you agree with him.

If you look at his argument that correlation is the consequence of a causal relationship, which is a flawed analysis, then sure, jump on his train and choo choo away.

[AndyJWest]

Where have I ever stated that " correlation is the consequence of a causal relationship"? Nowhere. Learn to read...

[Feuer Frei!]

Learn to read...

I can read just fine for a German fella. Better than some of you natives to the english.

You used: "The study provides no evidence whatsoever that the correlation is the consequence of a causal relationship".

Which is your summation of the survey.

To use "correlation is the consequence of a causal relationship"
is flawed.

Now, if that is what you used to describe your casual dismissal of the survey, then so be it.
But to use that is flawed. You must place some belief in that, surely.

If you didn't, you would have used a different way of casually dismissing the survey.

Unfortunately, you used a flawed part in your dismissal.
So expect to be picked up on it.

Learn to read. (your own language).

And next time you want to provide feedback on a thread that you may not agree with, i suggest rethinking how to post an initial response to something you don't agree with.

Shows me a few things about your mentality.

Good luck with the english lessons.

I cba debating the flaws in the way you dismissed the survey.

[AndyJWest]

Feuer Frei, your assessment of your skills in the English language is flawed.

[CCIP]

To expand on the pirate charts and correlations:

http://www.tylervigen.com/

IMO (and as per any reasonable academic norm), trying to use this kind of data in a causative way is not in valid in any scientific kind of way.

[Skybird]

Correlation coefficients per se are no values expressing a causal link, yes. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

But:

A causal link between number of carrier poermits and crime rate could be imagined. A link between temperature and number of pirates - well, needs much, much more imagination.

If correlations would be completely meaningless, nobody in science would calculate them. The art lies in understanding what kind of two variable get correlated to each other. And that is the problem with that famous temperature-pirate- "argument".

A correlation never is a sufficient argument in itself, but it can be a supportive one, or not (depending on the kind of variables compared, like said above).

If an intellectual analysis of the nature of two variables you compare implies the possebility or results in the conclusion they have a relation of causal nature of some sort and amount, THEN a correlation coefficient is expected to describe the intensity, the total effectiveness of a causal link indeed. THIS IS OFTEN OVERSEEN.

That is why the correlation in the permits-crime relation bears much more reasons and is more likely to hint at a causal link, then the temperature-piracy example. A high correlation alone is no argument for causality yes or no. The decision on causality assumed or not has to be made by content of the variables, their quality, what they mean and stand for. And only then you take a high correlation as an argument for a strong causal effect.

Confounding variables always have to be taken into account. The possibility for confounding variables being effective in the permits-crime-relation needs further examination. The existence of confounding variables in the temperature-piracy-relation can be taken almost for granted. And this again is an argument why the one can be assumed to have a higher probability for a causal link than the other.

And just to show what a bean counter I can be: a correlation different than zero ALWAYS is the description of a link between two variables. Its just that that link can not only be huge or small, or causal, but also one of chance (probability). Statistics then speak of stochastic or non-deterministic links.

[Schroeder]

Though it's still not a sufficient correlation by itself either. More info is needed. Was the number of permits the only thing that changed that could have led to the decline in crime? Maybe other measures were taken like more police patrols, CCTV, shrink of population size and so on. So while it's not necessarily wrong to say that more carried weapons mean less crime it also is no proof. We have to look at the whole picture to see what influences what.

[Tribesman]

Though it's still not a sufficient correlation by itself either. More info is needed. Was the number of permits the only thing that changed that could have led to the decline in crime? Maybe other measures were taken like more police patrols, CCTV, shrink of population size and so on. So while it's not necessarily wrong to say that more carried weapons mean less crime it also is no proof. We have to look at the whole picture to see what influences what.

Well if you look at his previous study based on his faked research people found things in the real figures which actually did match to the apparent changes in crime trends.
But it wasn't guns it was things like the illegal drugs market.

[AndyJWest]

I seem to recall seeing some UK-based research that suggested that the clearest correlation for crime statistics in general (dating back over many years, rather than just cherry-picking recent data) was with youth unemployment. The point is though that with data that has varied by as much as the US violent crimes figures (see below for US homicides), it is highly unlikely that any single factor will explain variations. Putting the recent decline in the US violent crime rate down to 'concealed carry' is simply untenable, without an explanation for why the rate varied so much before the relevant legislation was introduced. The data is all over the place, and accordingly one has to assume that it wouldn't have stayed steady without the new legislation.

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/USmurder_zps7beeb644.png

(chart from here http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html Original data from US government figures)

[Jimbuna]

Listen guys, concealed carriers work.

I was in a convenience store the other day getting a Big Gulp, when a dude pulled out a gun and demanded the clerk give him all the money in the register. The teller pushed a button on his register, and before you knew, an adorable little two-foot long aircraft carrier popped out of the hotdog cooker and started launching wave after wave of inch-long F-18s at him. The guy just stood there as microscopic laser-guided bombs and AGM-88s struck him in the chest. The perp crapped his pants and ran all the way to the UN, insisting the whole way that he never had any WMDs.

'Murica.

Pictures or it didn't happen.

[clive bradbury]

'Crime in the UK is currently at its lowest level in 30 years, having decreased dramatically from its peak in 1995. For example, 4.2 million violent crimes were counted in 1995 compared to 1.94 million in 2011/2012.'

As we have some of the most stringent gun controls of any nation, one must conclude that strict firearm control and reduced possession leads to a significant reduction in violent crime.

Or could there, as others have pointed out, be other factors involved? Maybe one should seriously doubt US research carried out by a known gun advocate funded by the NRA? A simplistic view of a very complex situation.