Laws in all 50 states permitting people to carry concealed firearms in public have been connected to a rise in violent crimes, according to a new report from researchers at Stanford and Johns Hopkins universities.
The report, published in September and issued as a National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper last week, adds to a series of studies over the last decade tending to discredit the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis, which argues that right-to-carry laws serve as crime deterrents by allowing ordinary Americans to better protect themselves.
The new findings suggest that right-to-carry laws are "associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape and robbery, Stanford law professor John J. Donohue III, one of the study’s three authors, explained in a press release on Friday. Stanford law student Abhay Aneja and Johns Hopkins doctoral student Alexandria Zhang co-authored the report.
Among violent crimes, the most significant increase came in aggravated assault, which may have risen by nearly 33 percent, according to the report. The researchers also found that from 1999 to 2010, murder rates rose in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws.
Well, Duh!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis isn't just a normal spin job these guys put the data through to get the result they wanted. This is the statistical equivalent of a cyclone separator. Check out the FBI data below which shows a 22% decrease in aggravated assaults from 2002 to 2011, but that's the data that Bloomberg's School of Public Data Manipulation used to say Right to Carry laws caused to increase. Wow.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/aggravated-assault
This is the statistical equivalent of a cyclone separator.
DeleteCentrifugal data manipulation--I like it.
Yeah, Stanford and Johns Hopkins, they're really a bunch of flim-flam artists. Is that it, TS?
DeleteMikeB: “Yeah, Stanford and Johns Hopkins, they're really a bunch of flim-flam artists. Is that it, TS?”
DeleteNot all of them. You’re the one with the incessant desire to make individuals represent the group as a whole. Prof. Donohue and students Aneja and Zhang- yeah, they are flim-flam artists. You are appealing to authority by saying since they are smart, they must be right. I think you should know that smart does not equal honest. You certainly don’t have the same appeal to authority attitude when a study does not fit a conclusion that you want, like Kates Mauser studies published by Harvard. You happily call John Lott a flim-flam artist despite his credentials as well. At least Lott’s work didn’t take the raw numbers and turn them on their head. It takes special talent to take a 22% decrease and spin it into a 33% increase- elite level talent.
"murder rates rose in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws."
DeleteYour attempt to disparage the study by comparing an overall 22% decrease to an increase that took place in the "eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws" is pretty dishonest.
The 22% decrease I was talking about was for aggravated assault, which was a main focus of the study. If you want to shift the discussion to murders, fine. You’ll still lose. You know very well that murders are down across the board.
Delete"murder rates rose in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws."
And what of the other 31 states with shall-issue permitting? Come on, Mike, you are making this too easy. Also note, that the line you are quoting is after the data was manipulated. After they put it through their cyclone data separator spin job.
The murder rate increased in the states with existing right-to-carry laws for the period 1999-2010 when the "confounding influence" of the crack cocaine epidemic is controlled for. The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.
My emphasis. In other words, I bet the raw numbers are down in those eight states too, otherwise they would have just said murder are up period. I don’t have time now, when we know what eight states they are talking about it will be easy to check.
Let me tell you something about statistical modeling. When you control for other variables, you get to control the outcome. You get to decide what to control for, how much weight to give it, what type of models to use, etc. If you want to control for sun spots or the NY Mets batting average, you can put those data in there. The computer doesn’t care- it just does the hard work crunching out massive matrices calculations. If you are really interested in accurate results, you will want to be as honest as possible, and you then test the model to see how well it predicts data that weren’t used to train the model. It is common to leave out a quarter of the data from the model train for this reason (also future data are used as a test). When it does substantially worse on future data, you know you need to tweak the model. My point is this whole procedure is highly subject to human manipulation. If you don’t care about the predictive analytics side, and instead you just want to use these tools to make it seem like up is down in order to affect public policy- you can do that. That’s how we end up seeing conflicting studies all the time. How is it that these guys come up with the exact opposite of John Lott? You, of course, will say it is because John Lott is a flim-flam artist and manipulated the data proving my point. This is why I stick to raw numbers (and single variable analysis) when I discuss statistics here. You can’t manipulate raw numbers. They are what they are and we can all verify them on the FBI UCR site. The limitation is that I can’t make causational statements- only correlations, but I only need correlations to prove you wrong. Violent crime is down. Murder is down. Carry laws have been relaxed. I’ve showed you this for years. Liberal gun laws are not causing an increase in violence and murder.
Sorry, I don't see where they controlled for crack cocaine.
Delete"Sorry, I don't see where they controlled for crack cocaine."
DeleteThat's because TS actually downloaded the study and looked at it. They commented on the crack epidemic as a variable they attempted to control for in their statistics.
I'm sure TS will correct me if I'm wrong, but their attempt to control for real life issues and events to make the math come out right results in possibly a bit of skepticism from critics.
It is the line I put in bold.
DeleteRight, Sarge, though in Mike’s link under the word “report” it has an excerpt that says how these guys got the downward trend of violence to appear like it is really going up, and I pasted it in one of my posts above and bolded the line about controlling away crack. Here it is again:
DeleteThe murder rate increased in the states with existing right-to-carry laws for the period 1999-2010 when the "confounding influence" of the crack cocaine epidemic is controlled for. The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.
Essentially they are punishing the 2000s for not going down as sharp as the 1990s (and of course this decrease is going to be asymptotic, but I haven’t found any evidence in their report thus far that they accounted for that). Also, I have verified that their report does not control for the rising meth epidemic. They controlled for crack, but not meth, heroin, etc. See what I mean about how models can be selected to produce the result you want?
"their attempt to control for real life issues and events to make the math come out right "
DeleteMaybe that was not their reason. Maybe they just wanted to present more accurate findings. Controlling for a relatively brief variable which had little effect in the preceding and succeeding years is probably a legitimate scientific method. No?
Mike, if they made the decision to control for crack, why not control for other drugs, like meth and heroin? The reason is because they wanted to make the decisions that would lead them to the conclusion they wanted- that guns are bad. This is why I keep harping on the raw numbers. Violent crime and murder are down, while carry rights were increased.
DeleteNo, that doesn't work. The crack epidemic was unique. It rose rapidly, peaked and dropped off, unlike the other drugs you mentioned which have had continuing impacts.
DeleteWait... huh? Are you trying to say it is "legitimate scientific method" to leave out contributing variables so long as those variables are continuing to contribute and haven't dropped off yet? What the H, Mike?
DeleteYes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you're looking at a ten-year period and in year 4 you have a variable that makes a big difference for the next three years only, removing it would give a truer result. On the other hand, variables that are constant or gradually increasing during the whole 10 years might not be removed.
DeleteThat's a layman's view. I naturally defer to your guru status when it comes to math and stats.
In my guru opinion, you sir, are talking out of your ass.
DeleteOh Goodie, another study of complete and utter nonsense.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
I downloaded the study to read, but at 108 pages, I hope to have scanned it sometime today. But lets look at some of the statements in the abstract,
ReplyDelete"Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent. "
Considering that permit holders themselves are much more law abiding than the general public, I'm at a loss as to how shall issue laws somehow make non permit holders commit more crimes.
For example, in Minnesota, in the ten years the shall issue laws have been in place, aggravated assaults have dropped in both occurrences and rate. And of course, as the old saying goes, correlation doesn't equal causation.
The argument has oft been made that high crime levels in places with restrictive gun laws like DC, and until recently, Chicago cant be linked because there are other factors in the equation. If that is the case, then the opposite cant be made either, that this claimed rise in crime cant be linked to shall issue laws.
In that case, an argument on further restricting a citizens options in regards to self defense cant be made solely because crime increased. In fact, the rise in crime would make it even more important to have that option.
"I'm at a loss as to how shall issue laws somehow make non permit holders commit more crimes. "
DeleteJust use your imagination a bit. A shall issue policy has wide ranging effects, far beyond the individuals who get the permits. For one thing, when people can so easily get a carry permit, they're more likely to buy more guns. Those guns are in turn stolen at a higher rate, especially since there's still no requirement to lock them up in the home. Every stolen gun goes immediately into the criminal world where it is used to commit more crimes.
And, let's not forget, the idea that permit holders "are much more law abiding than the general public," has never been proven to my satisfaction. But regardless, the more permit holders there are, the more of them will turn out to be bad.
Quick question MikeB what would it take to be proven to your satisfaction? Seeing as you yourself have stated that honest people don't need evidence or measurable results? Another issues is what are they using to determine murder rate? Some of these studies use the simplistic definition of one person killing another. So in some cases, states with what you call loose gun laws may have a higher homicide or gun death rate but in actuality a lower murder rate. As a rule a permit holder is going to be far more cautious when judging the need to use a firearm than others.
DeleteMikeZ
"And, let's not forget, the idea that permit holders "are much more law abiding than the general public," has never been proven to my satisfaction."
DeleteWhat would prove it to your satisfaction Mike? In Minnesota for example, they publish an annual report of crimes committed down to some traffic violations, whether or not the violation had anything to do with their permitted arm. Part of the law requires the prosecutor to inquire on charging whether the person has a permit and to inform the issuing Sheriff so that the status of the permit can be changed, be it suspended pending the outcome of the trial, or revoked on a conviction that would make them ineligible to hold a permit.
What more would be adequate proof?
Just use your imagination a bit.
DeleteAh, an appeal to the imagination--the dead giveaway that one is about to be edified with an explanation based on hard facts and scientific logic ;-).
"what would it take to be proven to your satisfaction?"
DeleteIt would have to make sense, Mike. Simple. The suggestion that permit holders are measurably more law-abiding than any other group does not pass that test, especially given the ease with which the permit can be had in most places.
"hard facts and scientific logic"
DeleteNo, Kurt, I never said it was that. What I said is it has to make sense.
What I said is it has to make sense.
DeleteThat's clearly a vastly lower hurdle to clear in your case, as compared to mine.
I also sense that your appreciation for irony is a great deal less than mine. I, for example, simply cannot get enough of the utterly delicious irony of the guy who accuses gun rights advocates of living in a "fantasy world," telling people to accept the claim that restrictive gun laws are life savers, based on imagination. I take it that this scrumptious irony appeals far less to you?
C'mon, Mikeb--just try a bite.
MikeB: "The suggestion that permit holders are measurably more law-abiding than any other group does not pass that test..."
DeleteWho told you "than any other group"? What I have seen people say is that permit holders are more law abiding than the population as a whole. I have not seen anyone say they are more law abiding then every group and subgroup including girlscouts and the bridge club at Shady Acres Retirement Community. Maybe it would make more sense to you if you listened to what you were told.
MikeB, make sense is a subjective term, as is common sense as you like to use it. its based only on the persons bias perception and beliefs. What makes sense to one person could be complete nonsense to another. That's why we need to go on the hard facts, measurable results and statistics. 1+1 will always equal two whether it makes sense to you or not or whether you consider it common sense. An example is the now expired assault weapons ban, even the DOJ said it had no effect, so would it be common sense to keep a law on the books that does nothing? We have to go by objective fact based standards, not the "makes sense" or "common sense" subjective opinions that you rely on.
DeleteMikeZ
The facts show gun safes save lives (1+1-2) yet gun loons call gun safes an infringement on their 2A rights and unconstitutional. The gun loons on this site are constantly trying to prove facts as not facts, a dishonest stance.
DeletePerhaps you should direct some of your ire towards Facebook for not allowing ads for gun safes.
Deletehttp://concealednation.org/2014/11/facebook-bans-ads-for-firearm-safes-because-safety/
" I have not seen anyone say they are more law abiding then every group and subgroup "
DeleteDid I say EVERY group, TS?
You're right Mike Z., "1+1 will always equal two whether it makes sense"
DeleteThat's why I say guns do more harm than good. Half a million stolen guns a year and half a million gun crimes a year far outnumbers the estimate of DGUs, unless of course you go for those really high estimates which include shooting at snakes and coyotes as well as many other completely unnecessary "defensive" shootings.
If you can arbitrarily dismiss certain defensive shootings, would it not be fair to expose some of these "half a million gun crimes a year" (got a source for that, and for the "half a million stolen guns a year", by the way?) to a bit of scrutiny? After all, aren't a very large percentage of these "crimes" actually harmless in and of themselves? Illegal possession, magazine too big, carrying in a "gun free" zone, etc.?
DeleteIf, after all, a certain number of defensive gun uses can be dismissed, because no great harm would have occurred even without the presence of the gun, then any "gun crime" that wouldn't have resulted in any great harm, even if allowed to go unchecked, should be similarly dismissed, right?
Yes, you did.
DeleteMikeB: "The suggestion that permit holders are measurably more law-abiding than any other group does not pass that test..."
"got a source for that, and for the "half a million stolen guns a year""
DeleteYou're being purposely tedious again, Kurt. I've dedicated more than one post about those things and provided numerous links. In addition, 5 minutes on Google would show you things you don't want to see.
You're being purposely tedious again, Kurt.
DeleteYou know my purpose, do you? Amusing.
. . . would show you things you don't want to see.
If it were remotely true that I "don't want to see" these things, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to ask to be shown them, does it? I do note your unwillingness (inability?) to show them.
It's true, though, that I care very little about stats since I recognize the utter illegitimacy (and indeed the evil) of holding fundamental human rights hostage to any requirement for some favorable statistical outcome. Still, it pays to cast a gimlet eye on any stats used by anti-rights crowd, because doing so often provides an instructive demonstration of what serves as a substitute for "integrity" among them.
I also note, of course, your deafening silence on my main point (the question about sources for your stats was a "by the way" aside)--that if it's permissible to discount defensive gun uses in which the gun wasn't strictly necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, it's equally permissible to discount the victimless "gun crimes," in which no harm is done.
"I recognize the utter illegitimacy (and indeed the evil) of holding fundamental human rights hostage to any requirement for some favorable statistical outcome."
DeleteHow convenient. When stats favor your argument they're OK, otherwise they don't count because we're supposedly talking about inviolable rights.
"it's equally permissible to discount the victimless "gun crimes,""
Nice try, but my reference was not to victimless gun crimes. I'll help you out with the research, OK Kurt?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime
"In 2012, an estimated 1,214,462 violent crimes occurred nationwide"
"firearms were used in 69.3 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.0 percent of robberies, and 21.8 percent of aggravated assaults."
I'll let you do the math - I don't want to do everything for you.
When stats favor your argument they're OK . . .
DeleteActually, I'm not much of one for basing my pro-rights arguments on stats, even when those stats could be used to bolster my position, for the very reason I mentioned. You'll not find me making the "more guns, less crime" argument.
And I'll accept your "half a million gun crimes a year," and acknowledge that you are indeed referring to actual crimes, with victims. The important thing with you "gun control" advocates is for you to know that someone is watching when you start spouting figures--perhaps that will cut down on the "90% of crime guns in Mexico come from the U.S."-type lies, if you and your ideological allies know you'll be questioned on them.
Anyway, I guess that as soon as you can support your "half a million stolen guns per year" figure, we'll be done here.
Oh, and I bet the shape of that graph kinda disappoints you.
"And I'll accept your "half a million gun crimes a year," and acknowledge that you are indeed referring to actual crimes, with victims."
DeleteThanks
"Anyway, I guess that as soon as you can support your "half a million stolen guns per year" figure, we'll be done here."
I'm done doing your research for you, Kurt.
Typical gun loons, attack the study, ignore the facts.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible every study and poll that goes against the gun loons is flawed? That's what gun loons would have us believe.
"Typical gun loons, attack the study, ignore the facts. "
ReplyDeleteTypical gun hater loon, attack the facts, ignore the study.
There, fixed it for you.
Sorry, gun shot deaths are still there. All you did was prove your stupidity, and thanks for that.
DeleteI understand that the shootings are still there, I am sorry you don't understand where to place the blame, you stupidity clearly stands out on this. Thanks for showing that.
DeleteI doubt you understand and you have proven you don't care. The responsibility goes to gun loon idiots like you who accept needless death as natural result of your perceived 2nd A rights.
DeleteOk doggone, since you have no perception of right or wrong, you would be the last person to talk about "perception". You are the one that accuses everyone about accepting needless death but I nor anyone else has ever said that is accepted by us. You are part of the problem of creating needless death by not placing the blame on the people (criminals) who cause it in the first place so you are aiding those criminals that do the crime. And rights are never perceived, they are enumerated, I know you hate that fact, doggone, but get over yourself, the world doesn't revolve around you.
DeleteYou gun loons certainly accept needless death from gun shot when you claim efforts that would not infringe on your right to own, use, and buy guns, but would save lives from needless gun shot deaths, are unconstitutional and no matter how little you oppose them.
Delete