After Two Decades, Connecticut's Permit-to-Purchase Law Has Reduced Gun Deaths by 40%
159 replies, posted
Interestingly enough, the 2011 gun homicide rate in Connecticut was almost at the "synthetic" point for 2005. (rate of 2.71) ([URL]https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGhycDRPQlN1dTBoMzJWOTk0Uk9DRVE&hl=en[/URL]) So it seems the rate has gone back up since 2005. I need to find the numbers over more time, but can't seem to.
[editline]13th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rocket;47950720][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state[/URL][/QUOTE]
I wasn't clear. I mean over time.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950746]Interestingly enough, the 2011 gun homicide rate in Connecticut was almost at the "synthetic" point for 2005. (rate of 2.71) ([url]https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGhycDRPQlN1dTBoMzJWOTk0Uk9DRVE&hl=en[/url])
I need to find the numbers over more time, but can't seem to.
[editline]13th June 2015[/editline]
I wasn't clear. I mean over time.[/QUOTE]
The study does not say gun homicide rates specifically, but just homicide rates. [url=http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=84694888&CFTOKEN=7fc817433f0768c1-56CBCF74-02C5-BBFA-16AC5F36A8DC7626]This[/url] should be sufficient.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47950754]The study does not say gun homicide rates specifically, but just homicide rates. [URL="http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=84694888&CFTOKEN=7fc817433f0768c1-56CBCF74-02C5-BBFA-16AC5F36A8DC7626"]This[/URL] should be sufficient.[/QUOTE]
The graph very specifically says "firearm homicide rate." It's important because they compared firearm and other homicide rates as part of their reasoning.
Looking at just the homicide rate it's clear that connecticut's rate has risen back up to the predicted synthetic level.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949230]A gun does not increase my chances of being successful in murder. Knifes are fairly effective. A chainsaw would be fairly effective. A car is also quite effective. My fists and feet are effective.[/QUOTE]
really?
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing[/url]
23 kids between 6 and 11, and an elderly woman, stabbed by a 36 year old man. no casualties. are you seriously telling me the result would've been the same if this guy had a gun
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950763]The graph very specifically says "firearm homicide rate." It's important because they compared firearm and other homicide rates as part of their reasoning.
Looking at just the homicide rate it's clear that connecticut's rate has risen back up to the predicted synthetic level.[/QUOTE]
"We use the synthetic control group approach of estimating policy impacts of Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller (2010) to create a weighted combination of states that [b]exhibits homicide trends[/b] most similar to Connecticut’s prior to the law’s implementation (1984-1994). This weighted combination of states can be thought of as a “synthetic" Connecticut, [b]whose homicide trends[/b] in the post-law period estimate the post-1994 trends that Connecticut would have experienced in the absence of the law change."
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950705]I'm trying to find gun homicide rates by state, but it's proving difficult.
[editline]13th June 2015[/editline]
Do you really believe that? You want me to go get a study by "extremely well educated people" who conducted studies that disagree with climate change? I'm sure I could find some.
There's a reason science generally waits until multiple studies or tests are conducted before coming to conclusions.[/QUOTE]
Believe what? That certain people in this thread treats the paper as an essay written by kids? Yea, I do.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47950777]"We use the synthetic control group approach of estimating policy impacts of Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller (2010) to create a weighted combination of states that [b]exhibits homicide trends[/b] most similar to Connecticut’s prior to the law’s implementation (1984-1994). This weighted combination of states can be thought of as a “synthetic" Connecticut, [b]whose homicide trends[/b] in the post-law period estimate the post-1994 trends that Connecticut would have experienced in the absence of the law change."[/QUOTE]
Well that's just silly then. They use the fact that non-gun homicide didn't stray from the predicted path as evidence that the law helped stop gun homicide.
It's odd that they would compare the regular homicide rate when finding comparable trends in other states in order to make a point about firearm homicide rate. They even go so far as to directly point out how different the gun rate reacts to the law when compared to all other homicides.
[editline]13th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47950788]Believe what? That certain people in this thread treats the paper as an essay written by kids? Yea, I do.[/QUOTE]
Do you really believe that any study written by so called highly educated people has great methodology and internal assumptions?
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950817]
Do you really believe that any study written by so called highly educated people has great methodology and internal assumptions?[/QUOTE]
No, but I do believe that any study written by researchers with relevant doctorates from places like John Hopkins and UC Berkeley deserves a bit more credit than you're giving.
Edit:
[QUOTE=Rocket;47950838]I believe a peer-reviewed study conducted by a respected institution is more trustworthy than Facepunchers.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, completely forgot that they submitted it to American Journal of Public Health.
So, here's an article talking about the same sort of stuff that I was trying to find (it was the first google result when searching about the law): [URL]http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/06/11/connecticut_gun_law_work_1328.html[/URL]
Here's the graph presented:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PRlQnmH.png[/IMG]
Notice how Connecticut has the worst trend of all states used as a measure since 2005. How is this possible when the whole point is that Connecticut should have better trends than the comparison states because of the law? It looks to me like they lost the point by stopping in 2006. Everything reversed after that.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47950878]I think you're missing the point.
The point of this study is that, over the time period, gun homicides reduced 40% compared with a synthetic Connecticut model that [URL="http://i.imgur.com/U9cJ2xA.png"]accurately models Connecticut on non-firearm homicides[/URL]. The point of this study is not that the law permanently reduced gun homicides.[/QUOTE]
My point is that it didn't even reduce them when compared to the states of which the researches said are similar. The Connecticut trend was actually worse, not better, in the long run. I'm talking trend here, not absolute amount.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950817]Do you really believe that any study written by so called highly educated people has great methodology and internal assumptions?[/QUOTE]
yes
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950851]So, here's an article talking about the same sort of stuff that I was trying to find (it was the first google result when searching about the law): [URL]http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/06/11/connecticut_gun_law_work_1328.html[/URL]
Here's the graph presented:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PRlQnmH.png[/IMG]
Notice how Connecticut has the worst trend of all states used as a measure since 2005. How is this possible when the whole point is that Connecticut should have better trends than the comparison states because of the law? It looks to me like they lost the point by stopping in 2006. Everything reversed after that.[/QUOTE]
There was a huge external factor after 2004, though. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. That could very well explain why the study ended there.
As others have pointed out, though, you do not know better than these people, and it's probably best that you stop trying (and failing) to prove that you do.
it should be obvious that gun homicides will be reduced by there being less guns. Whats important is total homicides. Additionally, with this kind of study it is very difficult to confirm whether the deaths were caused by the policy directly, or other factors and other policies, its not like there arent other policies and constant anti-crime and mental health measures being taken at any time too.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47950913]There was a huge external factor after 2004, though. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. That could very well explain why the study ended there.
As others have pointed out, though, you do not know better than these people, and it's probably best that you stop trying (and failing) to prove that you do.[/QUOTE]
You're putting those words into their mouths. It doesn't say that anywhere in the study.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The number of assault weapons used in homicides is irrelevantly small, and a federal change would effect all states. It wouldn't explain the changing trend in Connecticut when compared to other similar states.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950951]You're putting those words into their mouths. It doesn't say that anywhere in the study.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The number of assault weapons used in homicides is irrelevantly small, and a federal change would effect all states. It wouldn't explain the changing trend in Connecticut when compared to other similar states.[/QUOTE]
A federal change can affect different states in different ways.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47950838]I believe a peer-reviewed study conducted by a respected institution is more trustworthy than Facepunchers.[/QUOTE]
every time we have a thread about anything ranging from politics to sciences to social issues like police, we're in a situation where *someone* in the related authority could just be assumed to be more "trustworthy than facepunchers". Pointing this out is pointless, worse even it acts as a method to just avoid responding to people's arguments directly.
It's a formal fallacy even, look up appeal to authority. So don't do that.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;47950969]every time we have a thread about anything ranging from politics to sciences to social issues like police, we're in a situation where *someone* in the related authority could just be assumed to be more "trustworthy than facepunchers". Pointing this out is pointless, worse even it acts as a method to just avoid responding to people's arguments directly.
It's a formal fallacy even, look up appeal to authority. So don't do that.[/QUOTE]
I've gotten tired of pointing out fallacies on facepunch... it's too common. I just ignore them now.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950817]
Do you really believe that any study written by [B]so called [/B]highly educated people has great methodology and internal assumptions?[/QUOTE]
The bold is why I am considering that statement void and illogical.
They [B]are[/B] highly educated, that is not even a debatable stance. They have their degrees, they went through the education to get them, and they are using them.
Under what authority do you have to question their educational background?
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950994]I've gotten tired of pointing out fallacies on facepunch... it's too common. I just ignore them now.[/QUOTE]
What is the fallacy fallacy? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951008]Yes, I think the Facepunchers who point out extremely obvious things like "I bet nobody else thought about THIS" when they actually did and they're just ignoring it because they don't want to be proven wrong are more trustworthy than these researchers who aren't even making any conclusions from this other than what their data shows.[/QUOTE]
Can you show me why they conveniently stopped their data in 2006 when the numbers started going against their conclusion? So far people have just given conjecture based on nothing.
After 2006 the TREND in Connecticut is worse than those states that the researchers claim would be similar if the law hadn't passed. If we go by the same logic of the researchers, but for a longer period of time, it seems to show the opposite conclusions: that the law led to a worse trend than it would have otherwise.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951056]It's on page 4:[/QUOTE]
Thanks for giving the reason.
I still think there's an issue here. If this type of gun law only gives a better trend for ~10 years after the fact, and then has no discernable effect, then I don't see why it would be convincing.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950817]Well that's just silly then. They use the fact that non-gun homicide didn't stray from the predicted path as evidence that the law helped stop gun homicide.
It's odd that they would compare the regular homicide rate when finding comparable trends in other states in order to make a point about firearm homicide rate. They even go so far as to directly point out how different the gun rate reacts to the law when compared to all other homicides.
[editline]13th June 2015[/editline]
Do you really believe that any study written by so called highly educated people has great methodology and internal assumptions?[/QUOTE]
Looking back, the tables and graphs show that they developed synthetic Connecticuts for both firearm and non-firearm homicides and compared them.
[thumb]http://s7.postimg.org/d66etawx7/graph.png[/thumb]
[thumb]http://s7.postimg.org/61olk9pnv/table2.png[/thumb]
[QUOTE=sgman91;47951065]Thanks for giving the reason.
I still think there's an issue here. If this type of gun law only gives a better trend for ~10 years after the fact, and then has no discernable effect, then I don't see why it would be convincing.[/QUOTE]
Except the study did not talk about the next 10 years
I can't fathom the authority by which random 16 year olds on facepunch think they have to claim that researchers from UC Berkeley have somehow got their facts wrong
[QUOTE=killerteacup;47951177]Except the study did not talk about the next 10 years
I can't fathom the authority by which random 16 year olds on facepunch think they have to claim that researchers from UC Berkeley have somehow got their facts wrong[/QUOTE]
If the study only argued that the law had an extremely temporary effect of less than 10 years, then the study is pointless. Implicit in the study is the argument that this kind of policy is permanently helpful.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47949379]Ya but this takes the burden off the sellers, instead its a license by the state saying you passed your background checks and are pre-approved to buy a gun[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure federal laws would still be in effect, meaning background checks be completed before the sale?
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951212]No, it's not. The study is not arguing anything.[/QUOTE]
From the study: "This study has important policy implications as state and federal lawmakers consider options for reducing gun violence"
If it has policy implications, than the implicit argument is that it should be extrapolated.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;47951177]Except the study did not talk about the next 10 years
I can't fathom the authority by which random 16 year olds on facepunch think they have to claim that researchers from UC Berkeley have somehow got their facts wrong[/QUOTE]
Why, though, if they have data for the next 10 years would they exclude it from their study, unless the data countered the point they were trying to prove with their study? You can quite clearly see an increase in homicide to a point above that of 1995, the year the law was passed, on the graph posted by the above user. The idea behind this study was obviously to prove the effectiveness of the law, but if the law were truly effective, you'd expect to see a continued decrease above the synthetic Connecticut model's rate of decrease, but following 2005 that isn't the case. You can quite clearly see a synthetic CT would be expected to have a lower rate in 2010 than the actual CT did. If the law was effective, you'd expect it to continue to be so in the long run, but that quite clearly wasn't the case.
I don't doubt their findings for the time period they studied, I just wonder why, with the data available, they decided to stop where they did. I find the data after that date suspect, which is quite clearly in contradiction of their conclusion.
I expect a number of people will also have issues with the name "Bloomberg" being associated with this study.
actually nevermind.
I know I'm in the minority in Facepunch here but I think people should have to have a license/permit of sorts before they can purchase a gun from gunstores. I mean, you could have some simple requirements like a gun saftey course, several hours on the range, background checks, that sort of thing. It would root out the people who would actually use a gun for the wrong reasons. It won't stop the second hand market but I think it would help, and it's not as extreme as banning all guns. Besides, right now it's easier to get a gun than it is to get a car, and one of them has the ability to cause a lot more harm than the other.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47950696]A bit sad that a study done by extremely well educated people from an extremely well regarded university is being treated as a elementary school essay in this thread.
Do you think the authors are retarded or something.[/QUOTE]
Anything vaguely questioning people's rights to own the most dangerous handheld weapons on Earth must be looked over closely and questioned to its fullest extent by the fedora brigade.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.