More Guns, Less Crime

[McBell]

1. It's a start.
2. It's absurd to compare a small town to Washington D.C. That's bad methodology.
3. Would you mind re-posting that link? Thanks.

1. Thank you
2. so much for post #98
3. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 post #50

 

[Autodidact]

Crime rate of Morton Grove, Ill., with gun ban: 2,268 per 100,000.
Crime rate of Kennesaw, GA, with gun requirement: 2,027 per 100,000

Difference of about 10%.

a study by David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Colin Loftin, published in the journal Sociology and Social Research1 argues that Kennesaw's crime statistics show that rather than a decrease, there was a statistically insignificant increase in crime afterward. On the other hand, these same researchers found that Morton Grove, Illinois had a "large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports" after that city banned handguns.
Paul Helmke
Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.
Here are some additional facts: After guns were mandated in Kennesaw, a gun was sold at a gun show there and was used to shoot New York City Police Officer Tanagiot Benekos in 1998. At least five other guns purchased at Kennesaw gun shows have been recovered in New York City crimes, including a murder and an attempted murder.



McDowall, D., B. Wiersema, and C. Loftin (1989). "Did mandatory firearm ownership in Kennesaw really prevent burglaries?" Sociology and Sociological Research, 74: 48-51.



btw, the ordinance is actually symbolic; no one has ever been charged under it.



You know that WorldNet is a ridiculously skewed right-wing nut sheet, right? How about we try to stick to more nuetral and informative sources?


Now, Joe, are we in agreement or not that a valid way to explore the question is to try to hold other factors constant and look at the one in question? That's the way science works.

 

[Alceste]

btw, the ordinance is actually symbolic; no one has ever been charged under it.

That's a damn good point. I read that article and thought to myself "now what are the odds that after this bylaw was passed everybody in the whole town rushed out and bought a gun to be compliant?" Zero, was my conclusion. Nobody trips over themselves to eagerly comply with vexatious bylaws that conflict with their values. More likely scenario: those who already had guns bought more guns, some people who were going to buy guns anyway bought them, and those who don't want guns in the house / car / children's playroom didn't buy them, and the crime rate did exactly what the crime rate would have done anyway.

I did notice the article didn't mention whether gun ownership in Kennesaw actually went up as a result of the law.

Now, Joe, are we in agreement or not that a valid way to explore the question is to try to hold other factors constant and look at the one in question? That's the way science works.

No, Auto, the way science works is you go to the most extreme right wing internet magazine you can find, accept at the very core of your being that everything you find there is God's plain talking truth - unfiltered by the "liberal bias" of globally respected academics and award winning investigative journalists - and then you argue like the dickens using the findings of any obscure, non-reviewed and dubious "expert" who supports your belief, regardless of their scientific credentials.

Here's your science for you. Video

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Before I move on to your other replies I want to know if you still believe that a difference of less than two is statistically significant?

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,

Before I move on to your other replies I want to know if you still believe that a difference of less than two is statistically significant?

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over after I've answered it? It's not the absolute number, it's the percentage. A difference between 14,047 and 14,049 is NOT statistically significant. A difference between 2 and 4 is. Get it? The second example is a difference of 100%, which is statistically significant. That's why the authors of the study used it. Now can we move on?

 

[Autodidact]

Apparently not. I feel like Charlie Brown when Lucy holds the football.

 

[Alceste]

Apparently not. I feel like Charlie Brown when Lucy holds the football.

Don't worry, Auto, you've kicked the ball clear out of the park a dozen times on this thread. It would be like Lucy holding the football, Charlie kicking it out of the park, and Lucy pretending to still be holding the football, or busting into a rant about tennis.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., we're on page 11 of a thread entitled "More Guns Less Crime" and we don't know yet whether the OP is taking the position that more guns lead to less crime. And it doesn't look like we're going to find out, either. So, setting that aside, let's go back to the OP. The OP seems to be advocating the position that concealed carry laws reduce crime, is that right, Joe? Is that your position? And I get that you're drawing that conclusion from:

This is exactly what Mr. Lott has done. He did an analysis of every county in the U.S. And he found that those counties with strict gun control laws tended to have higher crime rates that those with more liberal gun control laws. And that coincided with gun ownership and concealed to carry permits. I quoted where Mr. Lott got his information from. You are free to look into greater detail if you would like or read the book.

Right? According to you, Lott says that counties with concealed carry laws have a lower crime rate than counties that don't have such laws. Could you present that data, please? Thank you.

 

[SoyLeche]

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over after I've answered it? It's not the absolute number, it's the percentage. A difference between 14,047 and 14,049 is NOT statistically significant. A difference between 2 and 4 is. Get it? The second example is a difference of 100%, which is statistically significant. That's why the authors of the study used it. Now can we move on?

Well, if you are going from 2 to 4 you probably have a very small sample size, so you are unlikely to get statistical significance out of it.

I agree with Lott's basic hypothesis, but from what I've read there were some pretty major flaws in his analysis. When those are corrected the correlation dissapears (that isn't to say that the data then show that more guns equals more crime - just that the number of guns doesn't appear to have an impact on crime).

Bibliography (books I've read that mention Lott and the issues with his anyalysis) :
Stephen Levit in Freakonomics
Ian Ayers in Supercrunchers

 

[Autodidact]

Well, if you are going from 2 to 4 you probably have a very small sample size, so you are unlikely to get statistical significance out of it.

I agree with Lott's basic hypothesis, but from what I've read there were some pretty major flaws in his analysis. When those are corrected the correlation dissapears (that isn't to say that the data then show that more guns equals more crime - just that the number of guns doesn't appear to have an impact on crime).

Bibliography (books I've read that mention Lott and the issues with his anyalysis) :
Stephen Levit in Freakonomics
Ian Ayers in Supercrunchers

Thank you, Soy, that was a helpful post
The problem was not sample size, but that there aren't that many homicides in either state per year. Yes, 2 vs. 4 is not great data, but to the extent that it supports any conclusion, it certainly is not that more guns cause less crime. You either conclude nothing, or that more guns cause more homicides.

Much more helpful is the chart that shows a near perfect correlation between gun ownership and IIRC homicides in several different locations.

I am not familiar with Mr. Lott's work and was just trying to engage Joe Stocks on the substance of his position. At this point, I have no idea what his position is or why he started this thread.

 

[SoyLeche]

Thank you, Soy, that was a helpful post
The problem was not sample size, but that there aren't that many homicides in either state per year. Yes, 2 vs. 4 is not great data, but to the extent that it supports any conclusion, it certainly is not that more guns cause less crime. You either conclude nothing, or that more guns cause more homicides.

Much more helpful is the chart that shows a near perfect correlation between gun ownership and IIRC homicides in several different locations.

I am not familiar with Mr. Lott's work and was just trying to engage Joe Stocks on the substance of his position. At this point, I have no idea what his position is or why he started this thread.

I haven't read anything in this thread except the last couple of posts, so I didn't know what the context was. Thanks for the explanation.

In summary - it is possible for a difference of 2 to be statistically significant. It is much more likely that a difference of 2 is not statistically significant, which merely means that no conclusion can be made from the difference.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over after I've answered it? It's not the absolute number, it's the percentage. A difference between 14,047 and 14,049 is NOT statistically significant. A difference between 2 and 4 is. Get it? The second example is a difference of 100%, which is statistically significant. That's why the authors of the study used it. Now can we move on?

Let's stay honest here. I believe it was a difference of less than two. I don't believe that is statistically significant, although I am aware that would put North Dakota at a higher homicide by firearm rate than Manitoba.

Since, central to Lott's thesis is that concealed carry and more specifically 'shall issue' gun laws prevent crime we would have to do a county by county analysis to see how many homicides were committed by people that bought their guns with a concealed carry permit. Because we certainly cannot include firearm deaths caused by criminals that obtained their guns illegally.

 

[Autodidact]

Since, central to Lott's thesis is that concealed carry and more specifically 'shall issue' gun laws prevent crime we would have to do a county by county analysis to see how many homicides were committed by people that bought their guns with a concealed carry permit. Because we certainly cannot include firearm deaths caused by criminals that obtained their guns illegally.

1. Go for it. It's your thread. Lay some analysis on us, like I did.
2. Why not, are their victims any less dead?

What is Lott's thesis?
What is your thesis?
What position are you asserting in this thread?
Isn't it pitiful that we're on p. 12 and we still don't know that?

Like the Kennesaw example. A criminal stole a gun that a Kennesaw resident was required to have in his house, and used it to murder a New York cop. The cop is dead. This death must be included as one of the consequences of this law.

This is the second time in one thread you've cheated me, Joe. I'm beginning to doubt your integrity. I asked a question first, then answered yours first, because you told us you would then answer mine. Try to show some honesty.

Are you or are you not saying that More Guns cause Less Crime?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

Would you be willing to discuss this:

A COMPARISON OF VIOLENT AND FIREARM CRIME RATES IN THE CANADIAN PRAIRIE PROVINCES AND FOUR U.S. BORDER STATES, 1961-2003

I believe we could have a fruitful debate dissecting this paper because it directly compares and contrasts Manitoba and North Dakota.

 

[Autodidact]

Joe:

1. What is your claim? What are you trying to say in this thread?
2. Whatever your claim is, if you have something that you want to cite in its support, please do so--like I did.

Thank you. p. 12 and we don't know what you're saying or why.

 

[Autodidact]

Is it me, or is this getting downright comical. Joe: I assume you had some purpose in starting this thread, some position you're advocating? What is it? Is it too much to ask?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Auto,

. What is your claim? What are you trying to say in this thread?

The claim that I am making or that Lott is making and that I agree with is that concealed carry or 'shall issue' laws reduce crime.

Now, this claim has been sidetracked by you. You have brought up flawed comparisons like comparing entire countries instead of doing a more detailed local analysis. I had to spend time trying to dispell these errors, but found that you would make more on top of that (like including criminals that obtain guns illegally and committing crimes as proof tha more guns actually produce more crime).

To truly assess Lott's claim we have to look at what states and counties have 'shall issue' laws. A high crime area in a state that doesn't have a 'shall issue' law means very little.

I know this is the point where you go off on the title of the thread. To which I will repeat that I named the thread the title of Lott's book. Obviously his thesis is more detailed than those four words.

Whatever your claim is, if you have something that you want to cite in its support, please do so--like I did.

Well, what you cited didn't help us much because it didn't address Lott's thesis. The bulk of Lott's evidence is from the FBI's yearly crime data from all of the counties in the U.S. which I don't believe is accessible on the internet.

I did post a link in post #114. While it strays a bit from Lott's thesis it tackles certain claims that you have been making.

 

[kai]

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

now that is amazing

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Auto,



The claim that I am making or that Lott is making and that I agree with is that concealed carry or 'shall issue' laws reduce crime.

Now, this claim has been sidetracked by you. You have brought up flawed comparisons like comparing entire countries instead of doing a more detailed local analysis. I had to spend time trying to dispell these errors, but found that you would make more on top of that (like including criminals that obtain guns illegally and committing crimes as proof tha more guns actually produce more crime).

To truly assess Lott's claim we have to look at what states and counties have 'shall issue' laws. A high crime area in a state that doesn't have a 'shall issue' law means very little.

I know this is the point where you go off on the title of the thread. To which I will repeat that I named the thread the title of Lott's book. Obviously his thesis is more detailed than those four words.



Well, what you cited didn't help us much because it didn't address Lott's thesis. The bulk of Lott's evidence is from the FBI's yearly crime data from all of the counties in the U.S. which I don't believe is accessible on the internet.

I did post a link in post #114. While it strays a bit from Lott's thesis it tackles certain claims that you have been making.

O.K., only 12 pages later and now we know what you're claiming, which is that concealed carry laws reduce crime. I don't know anything about the subject and have no opinion on it, never having considered it. I will see what I can find out there about whether this thesis is correct or not.

I'm sure you can understand why I responded to the thesis that more guns cause less crime, since that was the title of your thread. I think we have seen that this is clearly not the case.

 

[Autodidact]

now that is amazing

Not really. There were also no shootings before the law, which has never been enforced. Basically the law had no effect. That does not stop World Nut Daily and anyone who has the poor judgment to read it from describing it as though it were amazing.