* BREAKING: Reporter and camera man murdered on live TV ! (video)

Mostly he just types gibberish in caps. We've been putting up with it for a while in the Gun Control forum.

 

For your education, Tommy:

Stanford Report, November 14, 2014
Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Stanford research reaffirms that right-to-carry gun laws are connected with an increase in violent crime. This debunks – with the latest empirical evidence – earlier claims that more guns actually lead to less crime.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

 

Oh, I didn't realize you wanted to play that game. If we must, we must.

I'll see your news article about an, as far as I can tell, non-peer reviewed working paper and raise you two peer-reviewed studies that directly contradict your chosen research. The second one, coincidentally, also addresses the glaring flaws in the previous version (there have been many) of the paper to which your news article refers.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).​

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Impact-of-Right-to-Carry-Laws-on-Crime-An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or
right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive
effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding
robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted
variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws
significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any
significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC
laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and
rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are
socially beneficial.​

​

 

Amazing how quick this story came and went. When the perpetrator is black and the victims are white, there simply is no angle for progressives to play. No social justice benefit to be had. They move on quickly, in search of another story that better benefits their narrative.

 

HOLY OWNAGE BATMAN!

You crushed his post.

 

"Different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect," Donohue said, describing this as the most surprising aspect of the study.

Ahem.. Read... past.... the... headline....

 

Like all failed propagandists, Tommy, you latch onto what you like and then throw critical thinking and analysis right out the window. Fortunately for the rest of us, that is NOT the case. Observe and learn:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

While Lott’s work is often cited by gun rights advocates, his findings are strongly disputed by numerous academics. Most notably, in 2004 a committee of the National Research Council of the National Academies analyzed Lott’s research and took issue with his findings, concluding that “it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws” (See Chapter 6).

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

Lott adamantly defended his conclusions in a phone interview with FactCheck.org, and noted that there was one notable dissenter from 17 others on the committee, the late James Q. Wilson. Wilson argued (Appendix A) that he found Lott’s analysis supported the conclusion that concealed-carry laws reduced the murder rate.

However, critics of Lott’s work are many, perhaps none more vigorous than Stanford Law Professor John J. Donohue III. Together with Ian Ayres of Yale Law School, in 2003 the two authored a spirited rebuttal of Lott’s work titled, “Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime.”

Donohue and Ayres, 2003: We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.

… [T]heir results have not withstood the test of time. When we added five years of county data and seven years of state data, allowing us to test an additional fourteen jurisdictions that adopted shall-issue laws, the previous Lott and Mustard findings proved not to be robust. Importantly, we showed that the Lott and Mustard results collapse when the more complete county data is subjected to less-constrained jurisdiction-specific specifications or when the more-complete state data is tweaked in plausible ways. No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states.

 

That's a load of garbage! The sensationalism of the crime warrants the coverage. YOU heard of the crime, it was on National TV coverage. Hell, the BBC had covered it as well. The father of the victim publicly vowed to get guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.

I am sick and tired of your half baked white supremacist/racists/bigots constantly lying about YOU somehow being a victim. Give it a rest.

- - - Updated - - -

reality check, Robin. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=422668&p=1065408943#post1065408943

 

*Ahem* Read carefully and COMPREHENSIVELY: 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.
Research obstacles, next step

"Different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect," Donohue said, describing this as the most surprising aspect of the study.

He said that many scholars struggle with the issue of methodology in researching the effects of right-to-carry laws. But overall, his study benefits from the recent data.

Donohue suggested it is worth exploring other methodological approaches as well. "Sensitive results and anomalies – such as the occasional estimates that right-to-carry laws lead to higher rates of property crime – have plagued this inquiry for over a decade," he said.

 

Oh, brother. What exactly do you think your copy pasta is supposed to be doing for your argument? It cites two things:

1. A National Research Council committee finding claiming that it is impossible to ascertain the effects of concealed carry laws on crime since the data can be manipulated to generate a preferred outcome. Did you not realize that if their claim is true then that would apply to the newest version of the Donohue paper that you originally cited? So which is it? Is the National Research Council right? Or is Donohue circa. 2014 right? But wait...there's more...

2. The other cited source was a paper from the same Donohue back in 2003. Astonishingly, this paper came to different conclusions than the same author reached in 2014. Amazing, isn't it? So that's another choice you have to make. Is Donohue right now? Or was he right way back then? Or maybe neither? Which conclusions are you calling your horse because at some point you need to pick one and ride it. So far all you're doing is prevaricating.

Also, instead of citing news articles and popular internet sites, if you want to present a study in support of your argument, it is usually best to link to the actual study...if for nothing else, to show that you've taken the time to read the studies in question and aren't just relying on the bloviatians of journalists to form your opinion. You have actually read all of these things that you are amateurishly presenting here, right? No need to answer that, lmao, the answer is obvious. The fact that you've quoted studies and linked to a website that directly contradict your previous study says that you didn't even bother fully reading the news articles about the studies, much less the studies themselves.

In closing, I'll leave you with this"

Firearm murders are down, as is overall gun violence — even as gun ownership increases. FACT.

 

I miss those drive in movie theaters in the back seat with Susy Rotten Crotch, the car windows all steamed up.

 

The differences in coverage between the Dylann Roof and Bryce Williams incidents is clear as day. In one, you have a progressive media taking special care to point out the "racist" motivations behind one, but not the other, even though racist motivations were present in both circumstances. We went deep into the background and even posting habits of one, but not the other. The reason is not surprising to those of us with the proper perspective on the issue. There's a reason why black on white crimes are intentionally hidden from the public, while white on black crimes, despite being much rarer in frequency, are given extraordinary amounts of attention. One does not fit the progressive left-wing narrative, and the other does. It's that simple.

Yes, I'm sure it bothers you that double standards and hypocrisy inherent within progressivism are pointed out with regularity. Thanks for the suggestion, but I enjoy pointing out the failures of that sorry ideology too much to stop.

- - - Updated - - -

They have no answer for this. No left-wing talking point to recite. Expect much obfuscation and dodging in response.

 

I can comprehend it quite well you seem to be having an issue with it.

 

Then you're being either willfully ignorant or insipidly stubborn, so I highlighted and underlined the information that essentially disproves your contentions. Deal with it, or in your case, don't.

 

Yes i am quite familiar with you latching onto a line in an entire article and not letting go.. Read the entire thing before you call anyone ignorant.

 

You just described your entire post history.. Sad you cant see it. Face it your "study" has flaws that were easily pointed out.. Instead of admitting this you just keep repeating crap over and over again thinking people will give up.. Not going to happen. You are wrong. Period. Let that sink in...

 

You haven't logically and factually demonstrated "flaws"...instead, you just spout your opinion and try to pass that off as defacto proof of your assertions. Sorry, but that dog of yours won't fly....but it seems that's all you've got. So it's not worth my time to respond to you further, and you may have the last word and tout your false sense of victory to whomever cares.