STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40150905]that's because those states have more people living in them which is why you adjust results so they are per capita hence the "deaths per 100,000" thing this is how statistics work[/QUOTE] Really? I had no idea how stats worked. The number of dead people to me is more important than a per 100k statistic. Also many tight gun control states are not in the top ten. So its not really all that accurate to say gun control is working.

Yet if a study said the opposite, it'll have a ton of winner ratings. Even if it was from something like the NRA.

Drug violence from the border with Mexico may be a factor. Also: [url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/New_2000_black_percent.gif[/url]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40151149]Yet if a study said the opposite, it'll have a ton of winner ratings. Even if it was from something like the NRA.[/QUOTE] what a surprise that people have different opinions about things everyone's going to do what they can to only support their own side of the argument, you can't pretend to not be guilty of that

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;40151122]Really? I had no idea how stats worked. The number of dead people to me is more important than a per 100k statistic.[/QUOTE] But the raw number of deaths doesn't mean anything unless you compare it with the population size. It doesn't matter what you "care about", it's a meaningless number to any scientific or research application other than a case study. [editline]3rd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40151193]what a surprise that people have different opinions about things everyone's going to do what they can to only support their own side of the argument, you can't pretend to not be guilty of that[/QUOTE] Well if you're going to have that attitude then what basis do you have to criticize anybody/post in any discussion thread?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40151149]Yet if a study said the opposite, it'll have a ton of winner ratings. Even if it was from something like the NRA.[/QUOTE] Usually you can tell studies are dodgy when people are talking along the lines of "Knew it all along" as though they were worried they might have to change their mind. I recall this happening with the guy who claimed humans were becoming less intelligent over time (and some posters even took him seriously), even though he had fuck all in terms of credible research.

By the way, before what always happens, has any legitimate study ever been made on how many lives guns save every year?

These statistics are worthless without relative comparisons, what are the violence rates like with other weapons?

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;40151122]The number of dead people to me is more important than a per 100k statistic.[/QUOTE] If the rates go down, less people, as a percentage of the population, are dying. For instance, more people died in warfare last century than any other, even though as a percentage of the population, it was practically the lowest.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40151255]But the raw number of deaths doesn't mean anything unless you compare it with the population size. It doesn't matter what you "care about", it's a meaningless number to any scientific or research application other than a case study. [editline]3rd April 2013[/editline] Well if you're going to have that attitude then what basis do you have to criticize anybody/post in any discussion thread?[/QUOTE] Personally, i'm fucking tired of these threads. No body listens to anyone else, no one cares about the argument, just stating their peace and not having to listen to anyone else. I don't even have a side on this issue anymore because I've seen enough things to become confused about what's supposedly best. When I see other people convinced of their own beliefs to the point of thinking they can't be wrong, I tend to question that.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40151193]what a surprise that people have different opinions about things everyone's going to do what they can to only support their own side of the argument, you can't pretend to not be guilty of that[/QUOTE] The thing is. I've never been given a study that has opposed my side of the argument. I'm not even being hyperbolic.

[QUOTE=Fhux;40151298]By the way, before what always happens, has any legitimate study ever been made on how many lives guns save every year?[/QUOTE] A study like that would be hard to do. Did having a gun in a holster scare off a criminal? Not every situation where a gun saves is a an epic shootout.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;40150827]Just glancing over the study I can't really see how they got these results. They make them look better by using rate by 100,000. But the actual death count seems quite high in some of the green states like Illinois and California.[/QUOTE] No matter the measurements used, the ratio is the same. In order to deconstruct the study better, one would have to question the metrics they used to index a rate of "Gun Violence" and "Looseness of Gun Laws". I'd normally vehemently defend gun control, but I don't feel very up to it at the moment.

When I see sources such as "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", "Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence", and of course the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" cited as sources in a study, chances are I'm not likely to believe that study because it's likely to be biased since it uses citations and "facts" from known gun control groups, who themselves are known to be inherently biased. I would question (or at least, encourage questioning) the legitimacy of something citing statistics provided by the NRA as well.

[QUOTE=Ridge;40150771]According to data from MAIG and Brady. Totally not biased at all.[/QUOTE] You forgot the CDC and FBI. You're not being bias at all.

[QUOTE=Falubii;40151652]You forgot the CDC and FBI. You're not being bias at all.[/QUOTE] CDC has had an anti-gun bias in the past, but they're still a government institution, so their data could still be considered valid, and the FBI reports are considered unbiased, however their inclusion of a lot of "data" from known gun control groups, and apparently anti-gun news articles as well, is making me question severely the legitimacy of this study. Only data provided by the Federal/State Government should be used when trying to write an unbiased report, not to mention the people publishing the report have a bias themselves, they're anti-gun, and self-proclaimed "progressives." This is far from an academic study, this is another propaganda publication from a gun control group. After checking their website, the group publishing this has an inherent bias as well. Why can't a decent academic institution publish an unbiased report using only government statistics? It seems every one of these kinds of "studies" is done by a group with their ball in one corner or the other.

You have to look beyond gun control laws to actually see why some states have higher violence rates. Hell here in PR we have some of the strictest gun laws in the US and yet we have the largest crime rates with 95% of our homicides being gun related.

[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;40151912]You have to look beyond gun control laws to actually see why some states have higher violence rates. Hell here in PR we have some of the strictest gun laws in the US and yet we have the largest crime rates with 95% of our homicides being gun related.[/QUOTE] Shhh the exception enforces the rule, we must be totally one sided on this.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40150799]So why is the state which is in the top 5 of highest gun ownership(North Dakota) has some of the lowest crime rates? I mean seriously, the headline news of this state when I first moved here was about [B]someone's race horse getting drugged and raped[/B], and kids spray painting.[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40151785]Why can't a decent academic institution publish an unbiased report using only government statistics? It seems every one of these kinds of "studies" is done by a group with their ball in one corner or the other.[/QUOTE] This was from a single one minute search. [url]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full[/url] [url]http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/[/url] I'm sure there would be more/better ones if you looked.

ITT: People question a study they haven't even read. As far as state firearm death rates go, the information is pulled straight from the CDC, and correlates well with a separate table I found from 2009, CDC source at the bottom [url]http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&sub=32&yr=92&typ=3&sort=a&o=a&sortc=1[/url] On the correlation and causation front, the study does concede this point already in it's methodology on page 38 [QUOTE] While this analysis demonstrates a correlation between weak laws and bad gun-violence outcomes, a correlation does not necessarily imply causation. And of course, a state’s gun laws are but one of many factors that influence the rate of gun violence ina state. Factors such as gun trafficking across state lines, overall crime patterns, and other socioeconomic issues in a state all play a role in gun-violence rates. The correlation between the relative strength or weakness of a state’s gun laws and the rate of various indicators of gun violence in the state, however, should not be overlooked. This report—as others before it—demonstrates a strong link between state gun laws and gun violence. As we continue the conversation about how to address gun violence in our communities, we must consider the role that state gun laws play in preventing this type of violence.[/QUOTE] Additionally, under conclusions they listed four possible solutions: Regulating the secondary market (closing loopholes, universal background checks), preventing dangerous people from possessing guns, stronger penalties for illegal sale or possession of firearms, and reinstating the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. The last of those is debateable in it's effect on crime (a CDC report shortly after it's first sunset concluded that it's effect had been "negligible") but the first three are pretty no-nonsense policies that already have overwhelming public support even among gun owners. I get that seeing sources with Mayors Against Guns and Brady might (and should) come under fire but it's really not that hard to do reading and basic fact-finding on your own.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40151964]This was from a single one minute search. [url]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full[/url] [url]http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/[/url] I'm sure there would be more/better ones if you looked.[/QUOTE] The first two are heavily sourced with studies that has been disproven multiple times, that being the studies conducted by Arthur Kellermann. The second is from an institution funded by anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg, and that has a known anti-gun bias through its "Centre for Gun Policy and Research". The last one appears to be a summary article written by someone citing and interpreting studies, which they provide no links to nor do I have immediate access to, rather than a study itself.

having read all the studies posted here now, everything points more at not letting dangerous people get guns, at not letting people with previous criminal records, and people with mental illnesses from getting guns. It really doesn't say anything to endorse the use of feel good bills that do nothing to solve the problem. Extensive Background Checks, private sale regulations, and similar things would be a great step. I don't see what use banning a certain size of magazine, or requiring the registration of magazines, a certain aesthetic of weaponry or whatever, I don't see that being useful.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40152078]The first two are heavily sourced with studies that has been disproven multiple times, that being the studies conducted by David Kellermann. The second is from an institution funded by anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg, and that has a known anti-gun bias through its "Centre for Gun Policy and Research". The last one appears to be a summary article written by someone citing and interpreting studies, which they provide on links to nor do I have immediate access to, rather than a study itself.[/QUOTE] Were you going to source any of your rambling or are you just stating "known anti-gun bias" as if it was a fact.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40152078]The first two are heavily sourced with studies that has been disproven multiple times, that being the studies conducted by David Kellermann. The second is from an institution funded by anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg, and that has a known anti-gun bias through its "Centre for Gun Policy and Research". The last one appears to be a summary article written by someone citing and interpreting studies, which they provide no links to nor do I have immediate access to, rather than a study itself.[/QUOTE] I knew this would have happened. The first two are through and through academic reports - just like you asked for, and the last one is a standard peer-review. Its like showing studies on fossils to someone who doesn't want to believe in evolution.

Sensationalist Headlines needs some megathreads 1: Gun rights 2: North Korea

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40152043]ITT: People question a study they haven't even read. As far as state firearm death rates go, the information is pulled straight from the CDC, and correlates well with a separate table I found from 2009, CDC source at the bottom [url]http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&sub=32&yr=92&typ=3&sort=a&o=a&sortc=1[/url] On the correlation and causation front, the study does concede this point already in it's methodology on page 38 Additionally, under conclusions they listed four possible solutions: Regulating the secondary market (closing loopholes, universal background checks), preventing dangerous people from possessing guns, stronger penalties for illegal sale or possession of firearms, and reinstating the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. The last of those is debateable in it's effect on crime (a CDC report shortly after it's first sunset concluded that it's effect had been "negligible") but the first three are pretty no-nonsense policies that already have overwhelming public support even among gun owners. I get that seeing sources with Mayors Against Guns and Brady might (and should) come under fire but it's really not that hard to do reading and basic fact-finding on your own.[/QUOTE] The fourth seems like the least useful and most distracting of all the others. The first 3 are, I think, required from here on out the fourth? not so much

To respond to what many people in the thread have said: gun control advocates being part of a study that supports their views does not necessarily invalidate it. One must read the study itself and see if it makes sense from the standpoint of someone who is willing to belief either side.

I hate these types of statistics. They mean nothing. A proper way to analyze stuff like this would be to look at crime rates before and after the individual state implements gun laws. People do this kind of shit when it comes to capital punishment as well, i.e. "States with capital punishment have greater crime rates than those without it". Fuck statistics

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40152078]The first two are heavily sourced with studies that has been disproven multiple times, that being the studies conducted by David Kellermann. The second is from an institution funded by anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg, and that has a known anti-gun bias through its "Centre for Gun Policy and Research". The last one appears to be a summary article written by someone citing and interpreting studies, which they provide no links to nor do I have immediate access to, rather than a study itself.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/zTGi8OQ.jpg[/img] [sp]I even missed some sources off as well![/sp]