More Concealed Carriers=Less Violent Crime.

Feuer Frei! · 07-12-14, 08:13 PM

Or so it seems.

Note: VIOLENT crime, not crime fullstop.

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

Quote:

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 percent

A link to the study: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter...ted-States.pdf

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

SOURCE

07-12-14, 08:20 PM

Feuer Frei! · 07-12-14, 08:25 PM

Cool story Andy.

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

07-12-14, 08:34 PM

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! · 07-12-14, 08:55 PM

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.

07-12-14, 09:44 PM

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/2003/05/0...of-mary-rosh/1

07-12-14, 08:25 PM	#3
Feuer Frei! Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Valhalla Posts: 5,295 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 17	Cool story Andy. Wrong thread. Unless you are referring to a statistically significant inverse relationship between Concealed carriers and Violent Crimes. __________________ "History is the lies that the victors agree on"- Napoleon LINK TO MY SH 3 MODS

07-12-14, 08:55 PM	#5
Feuer Frei! Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Valhalla Posts: 5,295 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 17	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. __________________ "History is the lies that the victors agree on"- Napoleon LINK TO MY SH 3 MODS

07-12-14, 08:20 PM	#2
AndyJWest Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:

07-12-14, 08:34 PM	#4
AndyJWest Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	The study provides no evidence whatsoever that the correlation is the consequence of a causal relationship. And without that, such statistics prove precisely nothing.

07-12-14, 09:44 PM	#6
AndyJWest Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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/2003/05/0...of-mary-rosh/1