TexasCHLforum.com

"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;

Another liberal hit piece by the MSM which is rubbish.

an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School

Found the problem right there.

My research shows that studies always reach their predetermined desired result.

Paid for by MDA or Doomberg?

Your study may show one thing, but facts and history show another.

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;

Yep.

Chicago and Baltimore are actually murder free utopias that the rest of us are just too dumb to emulate. We need the good professor and his ilk to rescue us from our ignorance.

Yeah, a couple of interesting things about this so-called study:
- it uses data from as long ago as 14 years, and the most recent is 2004 (significance of that below)
- it uses the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, which if you Google that you can learn about bias and inherent limitations, including that they survey only/primarily via phone (see below)
- it doesn't include a valid statistical sampling methodology because the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System didn't even start to include anything other than landline until 2008, and that has been limited since then to only incorporating a small portion of cell numbers chosen at random, that were not blocked

So, the study uses data far far out of date, which in 2004 only included landlines even though at that point many potential study participants were already using cell phones as a primary telephone.

From one report counter to the CDC method, "The BRFSS relies on information reported directly by the respondent. As such, this self-reported data may be subject to a number of sources of possible error. How questions are worded my elicit responses in a certain way and can result in what is called "measurement error." Similarly, the ability of individuals to accurately recall details is subject to "response error. Because the questionnaire is asked in English and Spanish in Washington State, adults who are not able to be interviewed in English or Spanish are not included in the sample. Also, individuals without telephones are not contacted. As a result, BRFSS findings can only be generalized to English and Spanish speaking adults living in households with telephones."

Whenever you want to counter this type of propaganda, the best place to go is John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center. He handled this study on July 8th - http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.or ... -fleegler/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But their paper (available here) isn’t testing what they claim. It isn’t testing whether increased gun ownership causes crime rates to increase. The study is far too simplistic and doesn’t include even the basic control variables that are typically included in other crime studies.

baldeagle wrote:Whenever you want to counter this type of propaganda, the best place to go is John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center. He handled this study on July 8th - http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.or ... -fleegler/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But their paper (available here) isn’t testing what they claim. It isn’t testing whether increased gun ownership causes crime rates to increase. The study is far too simplistic and doesn’t include even the basic control variables that are typically included in other crime studies.

Nice read!

jmra wrote:My research shows that studies always reach their predetermined desired result.

especially if the study is funded by a gov or lib grant

those grants do not go out until the result is known in advance (in fact,that's the only way to get grants these days)

Hand picked data from 2001, 2002 and 2004. I guess 2003 would have thrown it out of kilter.

My gun only needs to slow the crime rate in my immediate vicinity and to date it's been 100% successful...

C-dub wrote:Paid for by MDA or Doomberg?

Your study may show one thing, but facts and history show another.

I would say it's more likely it was paid for by the AMA. Still biased, though; the AMA has been anti-gun for decades.

I thought you guys would find this interesting since it continues the MSN anti-gun propaganda. Thanks for posting the refutations that I suspect MSN will not publish on their site.

jmra wrote:My research shows that studies always reach their predetermined desired result.

WIN!!

Through in-depth interviews with 1,874 imprisoned felons conducted between August, 1982, and January, 1983, the government-funded researchers delved into the deep-seated attitudes of criminals on the questions of weapons choice, deterrence, attitudes toward “gun control,” criminal history, and firearms acquisition. The prisoners, studied under a grant from the National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Justice Department, were incarcerated in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada and Oklahoma.

The officially released analysis will likely be edited by Justice bureaucrats seeking to minimize its pro-gun conclusions.

Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that “A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;” 74% agreed that “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot.”

Significantly, almost 40% said there was at least one time when the criminal “decided not to do a crime because [he] knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.” Clearly, armed citizens represent a real threat to criminals, a threat with which large numbers are personally familiar, or familiar with through the shared experiences of their fellow outlaws.

https://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/ ... -a-victim/