STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Morpheus, Apr 4, 2013.

  1. Morpheus

    Columbia Gorge
    Anyway, back on the farm.

    Likes Received:
    I apologize is there is another thread on this, couldn't find one.

    STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence | ThinkProgress

    A pro-gun buddy for mine forwarded this to me a little bit ago, it also made the news a few weeks back.

    I've been digging into it as the whole summary struck me as having some serious flaws. The first issue I had was with the group that produced the 'study.' Center for American Progress is the group who did or sponsored the study. Their CEO and president worked on both the Obama and Clinton administrations, this doesn't automatically mean they are bias but it sure does slant it that way.

    The other item was they use a lot of correlation to show causation, which is poor science.

    Has anyone else dug through this report and really looked at the numbers? I've been doing some looking and something about the numbers just don't feel right.

    Anyone? And if there is another thread, please point me to it.
  2. bzltyr

    Portland Metro area
    Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Anyone that worked with Obama or Clinton and did a study, I wouldn't believe. Thanks for the story.
  3. Caveman Jim

    Caveman Jim
    West of Oly
    Kokanee Slayer Silver Supporter 2016 Volunteer 2017 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    Same here, just the liberals spinning anything they can to furter their destruction on the Constitution!!!
  4. Misterbill

    Yakima County, Washington
    New Member

    Likes Received:
    Places that have more guns have the same or lower crime rates, but guns are used more often. -NO SH*T.

    In other news, the sky is blue.

    When you have to track GUN violence as a separate category, you're already being misleading.

    Are you less raped if the perpetrator uses a knife? Less robbed? Less dead?

    Chicago is one of the most violent cities in the USA and it's damn near impossible to own a gun legally.
    England has hardly guns in the society as a whole and their violent crime is worse than ours.
    Massachusetts, which has so many barriers to gun ownership that the number of gun owners has dwindled something like 75% since the 80s hasn't seen any drop in crime except those reflected in national trends. It has fairly low crime. It ALWAYS DID.

    I agree entirely with the notion that fewer guns in a society will lead to that tool being used less frequently.

    It also means that the stronger, younger, meaner criminal will have no barrier whatever to committing crimes of violence against those smaller, weaker, older or less able. -How wonderful... We get the law of the jungle.

    This is the kind of dishonesty and warped thinking that the Antis engage in. Fortunately, stuff like this is TRIVIALLY easy to turn on it's head.

    The liars and poltroons who generate this stuff are worthy of nothing but utter contempt. They aren't just wrong, which I could understand, but they KNOW they ARE wrong and lie about it to reach a goal they won't publicly admit to. -Disarming as many Americans as possible.
  5. drew

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    They also include firearm suicides in overall firearm deaths and use it a separate measure too.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Really looks like they're trying to get people to buy into correlation proves causation assumption which is a logical fallacy.
  6. mo1826


    Likes Received:
    I'm sure one could do a study that says that individuals who own a lot of warm clothing are more likely to be caught out in the cold and freeze to death. Not only that but among individuals who have frozen to death many of them were wearing their warm clothing!

    Therefore, having a winter coat in the home puts you and your family at greater risk of freezing to death.
  7. 2506

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    I must commend Mr. Bill for his use of the word 'poltroon.' Outstanding, sir.

    State of Flux
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:

    Despite this complex web of factors that influence the rate of gun violence, this report finds a clear link between high levels of gun violence and weak state gun laws. Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have an aggregate level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104 percent higher, in fact—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

    The data analyzed in this report relate to the following 10 indicators of gun violence:
    1.Overall firearm deaths in 2010
    2.Overall firearm deaths from 2001 through 2010
    3.Firearm homicides in 2010
    4.Firearm suicides in 2010
    5.Firearm homicides among women from 2001 through 2010
    6.Firearm deaths among children ages 0 to 17, from 2001 through 2010
    7.Law-enforcement agents feloniously killed with a firearm from 2002 through 2011
    8.Aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011
    9.Crime-gun export rates in 2009
    10.Percentage of crime guns with a short “time to crime” in 2009

    Using these data, we rank each state according to the rate of each indicator of gun violence and create an overall ranking of the states across all 10 indicators, resulting in an overall state ranking for the prevalence of gun violence. Finally, we compare this overall state gun-violence ranking with a Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ranking of states based on the strength of their gun laws.

    I'd agree with the suicide thing, that slants the numbers a bit. States with more tall buildings have more jumpers I'll bet too!
    America Under the Gun | Center for American Progress
  9. tiggers97

    United States
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Ok. Here is what your looking for.
    1. First Link. You have to read this carefully to get the meat out of it. Basically, the own authors can be quoted as saying that their report really doesn't prove anything, just insinuates the desired results. If you look a bit, other early articles have other quotes from the author/peers that add further fuel to the bonfire.
    2. Second link. The most damaging. It shows the bias of the report, and how they squeezed the data till they got what they wanted (like looking at only the top/bottom 10. Leaving out DC, etc). About the only thing it really shows is that the NE USA might have better mental health services for preventing suicideds. Which the proposed laws do nothing to reduce/prevent.

    3. And just to throw them off guard: reduction in toxic chemicals linked to reduction in crime? i.e. ask them have you really looked at all the causes? Or are you just going after symbolic laws?

    Edit: one more of interest to the subject.
  10. Kevinkris

    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    i looked that the numbers the used also, absolutely wrong. suicide is violent yes, who is the victim?... the person who did it; this could still be accomplished without any firearms present. accidental death: violent? yes but how would a law prevent that? well lower numbers of guns available or better gun safety training and practices; no laws needed. crime gun exports? what? so selling an item in a legal manner counts as a violent occurrence? im still confused on this one.

    to top it off, this does not cover the number of rapes, robberies, muggings, burglaries, assaults, strong arm thefts, home invasions, kidnappings or other violent crimes committed without guns nor the number of crimes prevented by those carrying guns legally and using them in a safe and legal manner, unless you count the ones they used to make it look worse by lumping in the righteous killings in with murders. absolutely misleading study aimed at doing nothing but misinforming the public.

Share This Page