TexasCHLforum.com

http://weareaustin.com/news/top-stories ... 2337.shtml

The Austin station has been asked to share the study claiming concealed carry increases assault cases. Neat piece and then blondy throws the bomb at the end about increasing rather than decreasing crime rates....

Let you know if I get an answer to the study they are referencing.

There have been notable studies that found some violent crimes increased, especially aggravated assault, when more citizens carry concealed weapons.

I would also like to read the "notable studies."

Just because both aggravated assault and concealed carry have increased doesn't mean that there is a correlation between the two.

That's like trying prove that higher gas prices are a result of increasing unemployment.

Thanks, I missed that on TV


and their "notable studies?"

I bet they cannot show causation... they MIGHT show a correlation though ... see below


fallacy of false cause (in numerous forms)
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IV. Establishing causality in science is difficult. Usually if all A's are followed by B's then one suspect that A caused B. But even this generalization could be a coincidence. For the most part, causality is no longer used in science; correlation is sought instead.

Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
False Cause
Abstract: The fallacy of false cause and its forms as non causa pro causa and post hoc ergo propter hoc is disussed with examples.
Fallacy of false cause or non sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
Non causa pro causa:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Perhaps increased assaults prompted higher rates of Concealed carry in a geographic location and they merely compare # of assaults with population/licensee ratio compared to other locales with other ratios of licensees to crimes without establishing a causal relationship

or they may be using studies which confuse "justified defense" with "assault/violent crime" like the ignoramus at A&M recently


Cause versus correlation
There may be a CORRELATION that more assaults occur where more licensees are, if more people get a license due to a (beCAUSE of a) lot of assaults, but the assaults caused more licensees, the licensees didn't cause the assaults (which is what they want you to believe)


I contend that "gun violence" only occurs when one falls off a shelf in an earthquake and hits you on the head or some other similar incident occurs with no human intervention.


Edited to fix ration back to the intended word ratio (stupid spell checker)

I propose the correlation, is the increase in assaults has prompted more people to conceal carry. Same correlation different cause.

LJM wrote:I propose the correlation, is the increase in assaults has prompted more people to conceal carry. Same correlation different cause.

Causal Fallacies

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.

Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.

Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.

Wrong Direction: the direction between the 2 incidents (proposed cause and effect) is reversed.

Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.

This is another example of if there isn't any news or if the news doesn't fit the reporter's agenda, they'll make it up.

They might be referring to that study out of Texas A&M, by two folks in the economics department. There was another topic going about it recently. I contacted John Lott and he sent them two a nice little rebuttal. He called it "poor methodology" as the very best he could say about it. I wrote them two and they tried to say it wasn't biased...