Read the whole thread if you have time, but the summary is that this "study" ignores that Missouri's murder rate dropped right back down to where it was the following year, Tennessee also repealed a universal background check law and had it's murder rate go down, and Mike concludes it's ok for gun control studies to be biased by ignoring data that doesn't support the conclusion they want. High comedy.
TS beat me to the punch on this one because I had to get to some training before I was done. Here are the gun homicide rates for Missouri from the CDC's website. As TS put so well, the rate has returned to the level that it was when the law was repealed. Since the articles used as cites are dated 2014 and 2015, it does seem rather disingenuous to make the claim since and ignore the drop in rates that occurred two years before the study was published. I imagine the comments defending the meme will say, "the rate did increase" and ignoring the drop in rates doesn't make it incorrect. But then not mentioning it certainly suggests, as TS suggested that they aren't being up-front with the data and justifies future data being looked at a bit skeptically for more left out data.
We've already done a fantastic collective skewering of this Missouri stat here:
ReplyDeletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-lott-claims-johns-hopkins-missouri.html?m=1
Read the whole thread if you have time, but the summary is that this "study" ignores that Missouri's murder rate dropped right back down to where it was the following year, Tennessee also repealed a universal background check law and had it's murder rate go down, and Mike concludes it's ok for gun control studies to be biased by ignoring data that doesn't support the conclusion they want. High comedy.
TS beat me to the punch on this one because I had to get to some training before I was done. Here are the gun homicide rates for Missouri from the CDC's website. As TS put so well, the rate has returned to the level that it was when the law was repealed. Since the articles used as cites are dated 2014 and 2015, it does seem rather disingenuous to make the claim since and ignore the drop in rates that occurred two years before the study was published.
ReplyDeleteI imagine the comments defending the meme will say, "the rate did increase" and ignoring the drop in rates doesn't make it incorrect. But then not mentioning it certainly suggests, as TS suggested that they aren't being up-front with the data and justifies future data being looked at a bit skeptically for more left out data.
2005 4.46/100k
2006 5.13/100k
2007 4.60/100k
2008 6.23/100k
2009 5.51/100k
2010 5.72/100k
2011 5.18/100k
2012 5.38/100k
2013 5.07/100k