concealed carry @ casino ? - Page 5 - 502StreetScene
Forum Garage




Remember Me?
Go Back   502StreetScene > 502 Community & Interest > Area 51 > Guns, Ammo & Grenades

Thanks Thanks:  0
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-10-2014, 08:52 PM   #61
Shane2GSX
You're Goddamn Right.
 
Shane2GSX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2005.11.15
Location: Louisville
Posts: 803
Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX
Have you read the book?

What I guess I would find questionable is, by what means permits going up have an actual causal effect on crime going down? Criminals obviously don't go around looking up how many people have recently gotten concealed to carry permits. I'm struggling to see how that would affect them as a whole.

Or do they only show correlation? (Not that that would undermine the results mind you, correlations are a very powerful tool in science for both deductive and inductive knowledge - assuming of course they used proper controls - which is one thing being peer reviewed would help to insure.)
__________________
2007 Acura TSX | DD
1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX | 11.8 @ 116
Shane2GSX is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:30 PM   #62
RomanDad
Registered User
 
RomanDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2014.06.08
Location: Henryville, IN
Posts: 44
RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad RomanDad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane2GSX View Post
Have you read the book?

What I guess I would find questionable is, by what means permits going up have an actual causal effect on crime going dow to draw direct causn? Criminals obviously don't go around looking up how many people have recently gotten concealed to carry permits. I'm struggling to see how that would affect them as a whole.

Or do they only show correlation? (Not that that would undermine the results mind you, correlations are a very powerful tool in science for both deductive and inductive knowledge - assuming of course they used proper controls - which is one thing being peer reviewed would help to insure.)

I have read the book... And yes, that's where the debate remains... Did violent crime go down BECAUSE of CCW or did the two just happen to occur simultaneously. And Lott acknowledges that the causes of crime are far too complex to draw direct causal connections.

BUT... AGAIN... What we can say with certainty is- INCREASED FIREARMS OWNERSHIP (it has skyrocketed in the last 20 years as well) and INCREASED PUBLIC CARRY OF FIREARMS, has not had any NEGATIVE effect on crime rates, as they have SERIOUSLY GONE DOWN... CCW licensees are MORE law abiding than the general public, and there is even evidence they are equally or more law abiding than the police themselves.

And for the individuals who do carry and have prevented crimes from being committed on themselves, the POSITIVE individual impact is obvious.


So... If somebody is engaging in an activity, which may benefit himself (perhaps to the point of saving his or a family member's life), and has no measurable negative impact on society as a whole (or perhaps even a POSITIVE impact as the correlation with downward trending violent crime suggests- certainly there is SOME deterrence factor among criminals when they have to weigh the benefit of the crime versus the possibility the victim may be armed), then why would anybody logically object to it?


And assuming you're not familiar with the way CCW shall issue laws have progressed, here is a handy little animation that illustrates the change since the late 1980's when the Libby Cafeteria Massacre in Texas really got the movement rolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

Last edited by RomanDad; 07-10-2014 at 09:37 PM..
RomanDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 11:03 PM   #63
McBob
Registered User
 
McBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2007.11.16
Posts: 10,878
McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob
We also landed on the moon Shane. I didn't see it first hand though. You're just going to have to take my word for it.
McBob is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 07-11-2014, 10:14 AM   #64
Jank
.
 
Jank's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2009.02.04
Location: TriFive
Posts: 2,185
Jank Jank Jank Jank Jank Jank Jank Jank Jank Jank Jank
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad View Post
I have read the book... And yes, that's where the debate remains... Did violent crime go down BECAUSE of CCW or did the two just happen to occur simultaneously. And Lott acknowledges that the causes of crime are far too complex to draw direct causal connections.

BUT... AGAIN... What we can say with certainty is- INCREASED FIREARMS OWNERSHIP (it has skyrocketed in the last 20 years as well) and INCREASED PUBLIC CARRY OF FIREARMS, has not had any NEGATIVE effect on crime rates, as they have SERIOUSLY GONE DOWN... CCW licensees are MORE law abiding than the general public, and there is even evidence they are equally or more law abiding than the police themselves.

And for the individuals who do carry and have prevented crimes from being committed on themselves, the POSITIVE individual impact is obvious.


So... If somebody is engaging in an activity, which may benefit himself (perhaps to the point of saving his or a family member's life), and has no measurable negative impact on society as a whole (or perhaps even a POSITIVE impact as the correlation with downward trending violent crime suggests- certainly there is SOME deterrence factor among criminals when they have to weigh the benefit of the crime versus the possibility the victim may be armed), then why would anybody logically object to it?


And assuming you're not familiar with the way CCW shall issue laws have progressed, here is a handy little animation that illustrates the change since the late 1980's when the Libby Cafeteria Massacre in Texas really got the movement rolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
Ah, someone gets it. Refreshing.
__________________
1993 M35a3
Jank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 11:01 AM   #65
240
Registered User
 
240's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2004.04.21
Location: 502
Posts: 11,110
240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBob View Post
We also landed on the moon Shane.
Debatable




/sarcasm
240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 12:45 PM   #66
McBob
Registered User
 
McBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2007.11.16
Posts: 10,878
McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob McBob
Quote:
Originally Posted by 240 View Post
Debatable




/sarcasm
It's a conspiracy mannnn. The flag ain't 'posed to move around. There ain't no air on the moon mannnn. :straightens out tin hat:
McBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 02:31 PM   #67
Shane2GSX
You're Goddamn Right.
 
Shane2GSX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2005.11.15
Location: Louisville
Posts: 803
Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad View Post
I have read the book... And yes, that's where the debate remains... Did violent crime go down BECAUSE of CCW or did the two just happen to occur simultaneously. And Lott acknowledges that the causes of crime are far too complex to draw direct causal connections.

BUT... AGAIN... What we can say with certainty is- INCREASED FIREARMS OWNERSHIP (it has skyrocketed in the last 20 years as well) and INCREASED PUBLIC CARRY OF FIREARMS, has not had any NEGATIVE effect on crime rates, as they have SERIOUSLY GONE DOWN... CCW licensees are MORE law abiding than the general public, and there is even evidence they are equally or more law abiding than the police themselves.
The data I've seen sure seems to point that way. Being a social science, it is more complex than other sciences (physical sciences) and thus requires more work, more controls, etc. I for one would like to see much more real scientific research done in this field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad View Post
And for the individuals who do carry and have prevented crimes from being committed on themselves, the POSITIVE individual impact is obvious.


So... If somebody is engaging in an activity, which may benefit himself (perhaps to the point of saving his or a family member's life), and has no measurable negative impact on society as a whole (or perhaps even a POSITIVE impact as the correlation with downward trending violent crime suggests- certainly there is SOME deterrence factor among criminals when they have to weigh the benefit of the crime versus the possibility the victim may be armed), then why would anybody logically object to it?
I tend to agree, but there are other factors to consider as well. There are statistics both ways in terms of gun ownership, which umbrellas the CCW issue. Many other studies (some I've posted), are not favorable for gun ownership. So it does go both ways.

I will say that some of the information you've provided has swayed my opinion and whetted my appetite for more information on this topic.

It's good to see someone on here that can support their arguments with something of substance.
Shane2GSX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 07:13 PM   #68
xbrandonx
Show me them boobies!
 
xbrandonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2005.03.28
Location: x502x
Posts: 5,135
xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx
Send a message via AIM to xbrandonx Send a message via Yahoo to xbrandonx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane2GSX View Post
The data I've seen sure seems to point that way. Being a social science, it is more complex than other sciences (physical sciences) and thus requires more work, more controls, etc. I for one would like to see much more real scientific research done in this field.

I tend to agree, but there are other factors to consider as well. There are statistics both ways in terms of gun ownership, which umbrellas the CCW issue. Many other studies (some I've posted), are not favorable for gun ownership. So it does go both ways.

I will say that some of the information you've provided has swayed my opinion and whetted my appetite for more information on this topic.

It's good to see someone on here that can support their arguments with something of substance.
The problem with social sciences you cannot control (almost) all variables like you can in a lab setting. IE: Typically crime is associated with poverty and poor economics, however even amid the continued recession, crime continues to fall. So the poverty = crime isn't holding true either. Is it poverty + firearm ownership = to scared to resort to crime?

Do any of those actually effect the other, or is it just a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that gun free zones are usually picked for targets? Coincidence that some of the cities that have high violent crime statistics also have strict gun laws? While you can show charts that show a positive or negative correlation between the two, you could possibly also find that the amount of people in violent cities use IE, which if true, would also explain the increase in violent crimes.

Also, we need to ban oil importation from Norway so that we do not break up families in Nebraska

__________________
02 Nissan SE-R Spec V Turbo. 06 Chevy Silverado 4x4. 05 Honda VTX 1800 F Spec 3.
xbrandonx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 08:44 PM   #69
Shane2GSX
You're Goddamn Right.
 
Shane2GSX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2005.11.15
Location: Louisville
Posts: 803
Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX
Quote:
Originally Posted by xbrandonx View Post
The problem with social sciences you cannot control (almost) all variables like you can in a lab setting. IE: Typically crime is associated with poverty and poor economics, however even amid the continued recession, crime continues to fall. So the poverty = crime isn't holding true either. Is it poverty + firearm ownership = to scared to resort to crime?

Do any of those actually effect the other, or is it just a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that gun free zones are usually picked for targets? Coincidence that some of the cities that have high violent crime statistics also have strict gun laws? While you can show charts that show a positive or negative correlation between the two, you could possibly also find that the amount of people in violent cities use IE, which if true, would also explain the increase in violent crimes.

Also, we need to ban oil importation from Norway so that we do not break up families in Nebraska

Hahaha, nice.

You're exactly right. To the general public, the "hard" sciences are considered to be the physical sciences, because they often rely on complex laws (descriptions of a phenomena of nature) that are highly mathematical that the average person cannot perform. However, in scientific circles, the hard sciences are social sciences, because of exactly what you explained; they are complex with many, many variables. And they're broad in scope and performed in the real world, where you can't run tests easily in a lab. Add to that, the average person also doesn't understand the relationship between correlation and causation. Our wonderful human brains tend to have a discontinuous mindset about this. (We think it's one or the other, and all or nothing). Hence you get all these absurd graphs.



People are pointing out the flaw in assuming correlation = causation obviously, but it undermines how important correlation actually is in science.

What people either don't know, or don't concern themselves with, are the details of correlations and how they're used mathematically in science. Correlations are plotted on a statistical vector and weighed in terms of likely-hood of causation. In plain English, correlations can be strong or weak and ranked in terms of likely-hood.

In fact, most of science uses these and correlation is a very powerful tool.

So when people say there is a "direct" correlation, or negative inverse relationship, without actually providing the ranking, it's really not telling you much, because the correlation could be meaningless, or useful.

That's one reason peer review is so important in science. Anybody can submit a paper, but if your math is wrong, or you make generalized statements about data correlation without providing evidence which would tell the tale of HOW STRONG the data is related, it fails peer review and obviously then publishing.

It really takes out the guess work for the general public (although of course it's all there for anyone to investigate with citations and references).

Anyway, point being, again, there is data both ways, but what all of us should be really interested in if we're after truth, and not upholding an agenda (2nd amendment or blindly taking guns away, or whatever it may be), is peer reviewed science [if it's not peer reviewed it ain't science anyway].

Last edited by Shane2GSX; 07-11-2014 at 08:56 PM..
Shane2GSX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 09:01 AM   #70
xbrandonx
Show me them boobies!
 
xbrandonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2005.03.28
Location: x502x
Posts: 5,135
xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx
Send a message via AIM to xbrandonx Send a message via Yahoo to xbrandonx
It's still really hard to prove the correlation regardless on social sciences. While you can show that the number of firearm owners are up and crime is down at the same time, you can say that more guns doesn't equal more crime. But does the fact that there are more guns out there deter crime? While it can be argued so (as I believe based on what Ive seen) there are too many other variables to be able to lock down. At the same time crime is down gun owners are up incarceration is also up. Is it moreso the threat of jail the reason crime is down. Are so many violent criminals in jail that they are incarcerating criminals faster than they can commit violent crimes.

On the other side had firearm owners dropped in the same period and crime fell at the same rate you still couldn't have the positive correlation needed to make the statement less guns equal less crime with 100% certainty. You would have basis for your argument though as people who are saying more guns=less crime are saying.
xbrandonx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2014, 04:16 PM   #71
Shane2GSX
You're Goddamn Right.
 
Shane2GSX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2005.11.15
Location: Louisville
Posts: 803
Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX Shane2GSX
Quote:
Originally Posted by xbrandonx View Post
It's still really hard to prove the correlation regardless on social sciences. While you can show that the number of firearm owners are up and crime is down at the same time, you can say that more guns doesn't equal more crime. But does the fact that there are more guns out there deter crime? While it can be argued so (as I believe based on what Ive seen) there are too many other variables to be able to lock down. At the same time crime is down gun owners are up incarceration is also up. Is it moreso the threat of jail the reason crime is down. Are so many violent criminals in jail that they are incarcerating criminals faster than they can commit violent crimes.

On the other side had firearm owners dropped in the same period and crime fell at the same rate you still couldn't have the positive correlation needed to make the statement less guns equal less crime with 100% certainty. You would have basis for your argument though as people who are saying more guns=less crime are saying.
Well, proof in science is a logical conclusion based on evidence.

I agree with everything you're saying but that's why I was saying they can weigh the correlation in terms of how likely it is to be causal or true.

For example, take the wonderful topic of global warming. All of the data gathered about weather trends, warming, atmospheric green house gas concentrations, etc., etc., correlate with human activity.

Now one could easily point out that it's merely a correlation, and that you don't know the causal relationship, or if some of it is coincidence.

But that's without knowing the strength of the correlations. Turns out, by the time you control for all the impactful variables, etc., human activity stands an extremely high chance at being the cause.

Again, if these studies posted are peer reviewed, they must be explicit about the correlation and how strong it is, what variables were controlled for, etc. And the claims of the reports or studies are obviously peer reviewed too.

The report posted up by RomanDad, far as I can tell and could find, is NOT peer reviewed, so we don't know. It doesn't even look to be in a journal format either, so I'm not sure how serious to take it.

So yeah I agree Brandon, but that's why I was saying peer review would take care of your posted concerns, bc it would be explicit of the strength of the correlation.
Shane2GSX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2014, 09:50 PM   #72
xbrandonx
Show me them boobies!
 
xbrandonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2005.03.28
Location: x502x
Posts: 5,135
xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx xbrandonx
Send a message via AIM to xbrandonx Send a message via Yahoo to xbrandonx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane2GSX View Post
For example, take the wonderful topic of global warming. All of the data gathered about weather trends, warming, atmospheric green house gas concentrations, etc., etc., correlate with human activity.
If Pirates would stop burning the ships that they capture then global warming would slow down. I mean, look at the chart you posted. That's gotta be it. It's not people it's the pirates!
xbrandonx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.