TexasCHLforum.com

Figures don't Lie but lairs figure

Crosspost from another thread.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-my ... led-carry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tommyg wrote:Figures don't Lie but lairs figure

Lairs lay and liars lie.

JSThane wrote:

an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School

Found the problem right there.

I agree. I have always wondered why so many people give credence to anything a doctor says in a study, even in a peer reviewed study. The problems of crime and violence are sociological problems and not medical ones. If the researcher's expertise is in pediatrics (the study of children's health) and epidemiology (the study of epidemics), exactly how is he qualified to study sociological problems.

Having made that argument, I would also point out that a lack of expertise in a researcher does not necessarily invalidate a study. It does open it to questions like Lott's about what control variables where used and the sources of the data.

But it also points out a problem we need to be aware of and fight. The current trend among the anti-gunners is to claim that gun violence is a public health issue and should be studied in that manner. This is not true, IMO, and it should be studied by criminologists and sociologists who have some experience in these fields. While my experience says that sociologists tend to be more liberal in their politics, I have found that they generally prefer a more honest approach to research. The criminologists seem to be much more evenly split on liberal versus conservative. I believe that is a result of their studies and admitting the truth of what they have found. It could also be based on the fact that quite a few have worked in the law enforcement or criminal justice systems at some point in their career.

srothstein wrote:

JSThane wrote:

an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School

Found the problem right there.

I agree. I have always wondered why so many people give credence to anything a doctor says in a study, even in a peer reviewed study. The problems of crime and violence are sociological problems and not medical ones. If the researcher's expertise is in pediatrics (the study of children's health) and epidemiology (the study of epidemics), exactly how is he qualified to study sociological problems.

Having made that argument, I would also point out that a lack of expertise in a researcher does not necessarily invalidate a study. It does open it to questions like Lott's about what control variables where used and the sources of the data.

But it also points out a problem we need to be aware of and fight. The current trend among the anti-gunners is to claim that gun violence is a public health issue and should be studied in that manner. This is not true, IMO, and it should be studied by criminologists and sociologists who have some experience in these fields. While my experience says that sociologists tend to be more liberal in their politics, I have found that they generally prefer a more honest approach to research. The criminologists seem to be much more evenly split on liberal versus conservative. I believe that is a result of their studies and admitting the truth of what they have found. It could also be based on the fact that quite a few have worked in the law enforcement or criminal justice systems at some point in their career.

This is especially true today. Virtually all so called research in the medical field is corrupt --bought and paid for by parties with a vested interest in the outcome. General scientific research is almost equally corrupt.

I think I have heard headlines like that before. I haven't seen the link , but it is often difficult to determine if guns (by itself) is a factor in crime reduction. Most often, when gun control is rolled back, other laws dealing with crime and punishment and self defense are also improved. All those together usually do lead to a reduction in crime, but it is difficult to narrow down what is caused by more guns alone.

MechAg94 wrote:I think I have heard headlines like that before. I haven't seen the link , but it is often difficult to determine if guns (by itself) is a factor in crime reduction. Most often, when gun control is rolled back, other laws dealing with crime and punishment and self defense are also improved. All those together usually do lead to a reduction in crime, but it is difficult to narrow down what is caused by more guns alone.

Indeed. The news last evening reported on Obama's visit to a federal prison, and his statements that we need to incarcerate fewer non-violent offenders. A counterpoint was offered by a prosecutor who stated that the lower crime rates seen in the last decade or so at at least partially because we've locked up more offenders.

MechAg94 wrote:I think I have heard headlines like that before. I haven't seen the link , but it is often difficult to determine if guns (by itself) is a factor in crime reduction. Most often, when gun control is rolled back, other laws dealing with crime and punishment and self defense are also improved. All those together usually do lead to a reduction in crime, but it is difficult to narrow down what is caused by more guns alone.

Like you, I consider it neutral. I don't expect guns to "cure" crime any more than I'd expect capital punishment to cure crime. Guns are a means of self-defense, not a cure for crime or violence. If they were legitimately a proven statistical method of reducing crime, cities would be passing them out instead of offering money when you turn them in...

The US must be a really safe place. We incarcerate more people than almost anywhere else in the world. And in the US, TX is well above average.

I was at the DPS a few weeks ago at the CDL office. I was chatted up by someone who was telling me that getting a CDL was one of the few ways you could actually "get a job" as an ex-felon in the USA and make a decent living after prison.

There is no real means to "do your time" in our system. It's setup to punish people that commit crimes for the rest of their lives. That disadvantage encourages criminal behavior. Yea, I know.. Don't be a criminal.. Perhaps we should implement a scarlet letter - that'd be more in-line with what we've created.

I think that firearms in the hands of the people is a deterrent. It works with more than just the government. It also works within society.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.or ... -Final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

67.3% of statistics are misleading, and the rest flat wrong.

sugar land dave wrote:"We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/gun ... ar-AAcDdis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, I did find support that it weeds out the undesirable gene population when firearms are employed properly for self-defense.

JSThane wrote:

an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School

Found the problem right there.

Exactly!!!

cb1000rider wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:I think I have heard headlines like that before. I haven't seen the link , but it is often difficult to determine if guns (by itself) is a factor in crime reduction. Most often, when gun control is rolled back, other laws dealing with crime and punishment and self defense are also improved. All those together usually do lead to a reduction in crime, but it is difficult to narrow down what is caused by more guns alone.

If they were legitimately a proven statistical method of reducing crime, cities would be passing them out instead of offering money when you turn them in...

Excuse me if you're being sarcastic....but seriously? Where do you get the idea that cities are legitimately interested in reducing crime? The politicians and the MSM won't even allow the causes of crime to be discussed, much less actually do anything about it. There is a movement to eliminate Confederate flags because a white psycho killed 9 black people in a church, but no discussion of the thousands of blacks killed by other blacks in Democrat run toilets like Chicago and Baltimore. It's not even allowed. Since 2010 Obama has released 104,000 illegal aliens with felony convictions when Federal Law REQUIRES them to be deported. 191 with murder convictions, 426 with sexual assault convictions, and if I remember correctly, about 10,000 with DWI convictions. Just about everything the ruling class in the urban areas do increases crime. Virtually all large cities are run by leftists and progressives. Like war, crime is their health of the state but at the city level. More crime means more money, more control over us peons, and more power. They love their crime.

cb1000rider wrote:The US must be a really safe place. We incarcerate more people than almost anywhere else in the world. And in the US, TX is well above average.

I was at the DPS a few weeks ago at the CDL office. I was chatted up by someone who was telling me that getting a CDL was one of the few ways you could actually "get a job" as an ex-felon in the USA and make a decent living after prison.

There is no real means to "do your time" in our system. It's setup to punish people that commit crimes for the rest of their lives. That disadvantage encourages criminal behavior. Yea, I know.. Don't be a criminal.. Perhaps we should implement a scarlet letter - that'd be more in-line with what we've created.

It's worse than that...it's now setup to attenuate and reduce the future choices of school children if they're not obedient little boys and girls in high school. The behavior of even school children is arbitrarily and capriciously criminalized for trivial transgressions with impacts on things like college admissions that can affect their entire life and future. It's not an accident either. It's an intended, not an unintended consequence. It's all about control.