Started By
Message

re: Obama's CDC study on Firearms.

Posted on 3/5/18 at 3:40 pm to
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16635 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 3:40 pm to
quote:

I will read this report tonight, but there was an ecological study published in 2015 in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine called "Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime," which measured state-level rates of ownership and violent crime rates, and could not find evidence that suggested the that gun ownership served as a deterrent to criminal activity.


AJAM, like the vast majority of medical publications, is pro-gun-control. They would never publish a study that said otherwise.

John Lott has studied the same topic exhaustively, in far more detail and has continued to update his research as more data has come available and has drawn the opposite conclusion. Gun-control advocates have created a cottage industry in discrediting Lott but they have never been able to argue against the data or his methodologies.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
36311 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 3:50 pm to
quote:

AJAM, like the vast majority of medical publications, is pro-gun-control. They would never publish a study that said otherwise.


And? I can read a source and make my own decisions.

quote:


John Lott has studied the same topic exhaustively, in far more detail and has continued to update his research as more data has come available and has drawn the opposite conclusion. Gun-control advocates have created a cottage industry in discrediting Lott but they have never been able to argue against the data or his methodologies.




I have More Guns, Less Crime, and I've only read the introduction and maybe the first chapter, but he wasn't as rigorous with the data as I'd like, instead summarizing or referencing primary source data for a point. I dropped it because it wasn't the type of analysis I wanted, but I'll finish it if you insist his methodologies are sound. It reads to me to be too polemical to be a worthwhile study of the actual data.
Posted by SidewalkDawg
Chair
Member since Nov 2012
9820 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 3:51 pm to
quote:

John Lott has studied the same topic exhaustively, in far more detail and has continued to update his research as more data has come available and has drawn the opposite conclusion. Gun-control advocates have created a cottage industry in discrediting Lott but they have never been able to argue against the data or his methodologies.


Additionally there was a Harvard study done by Don Kates and Gary Mauser at the link here:

LINK

That seeks to determine the efficacy of gun bans. The conclusion to this study is here:

quote:

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence  from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual  portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the  general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific  evidence  cannot  remotely  approach  the  persuasiveness  of  conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal  more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on  that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least  require showing that a large number of nations with more  guns have more death and that nations that have imposed  stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions  in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are  not observed when a large number of nations are compared  across the world. 


quote:

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to  determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better  contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was  with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did  not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us  where not to aim public health resources.150  


first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram