Doctors target gun violence as a social disease

[Pat Cannon]

And, no, John Lott couldn't find his ass with both hands if you gave him a map and a one-hand head-start. He treats statistics the same way the left does.......however suits his agenda.

Goalie, you're an educated guy, so I'm curious: do you actually know enough statistical math to read his books? Personally it was way over my head. I've always suspected there's a lot of sketchy statistics in all kinds of political debate that gets by like the emperor's new clothes: almost everybody who finds it questionable, doesn't call it out 'cause they don't want to admit they don't understand it.

[goalie]

And, no, John Lott couldn't find his ass with both hands if you gave him a map and a one-hand head-start. He treats statistics the same way the left does.......however suits his agenda.

Goalie, you're an educated guy, so I'm curious: do you actually know enough statistical math to read his books? Personally it was way over my head. I've always suspected there's a lot of sketchy statistics in all kinds of political debate that gets by like the emperor's new clothes: almost everybody who finds it questionable, doesn't call it out 'cause they don't want to admit they don't understand it.

Pat, it isn't that the statistics are faked, it is the fact that there is no way to prove cause and effect in regards to his "more guns = less crime" assertion.

Think about asserting that warm weather CAUSES crime. The stats show acorrelation there.....

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

[GunGoogler]

Pat, it isn't that the statistics are faked, it is the fact that there is no way to prove cause and effect in regards to his "more guns = less crime" assertion.

Think about asserting that warm weather CAUSES crime. The stats show acorrelation there.....

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

I make no claims on the particular data or research discussed in this thread; however, given enough data, regression analysis can show a high enough degree of correlation to be useful and a great predictor of expected results. Of course, the challenge is ensuring that the correct variables are considered or at least that a highly correlative variable isn't mistakenly--or purposely if it suits the analyst--left out to skew the result. We cannot prove causation in any of the systems that I work with, but I've used regression analysis on complex systems that has helped us predict outcomes with an acceptable 95% interval. Again, not causation, but good enough to argue.

[tman]

Back in the late sixties and early seventies, the public health community did exactly the same thing with regard to fats, and the "healthy" benefits of a low-fat diet. And the result sentenced millions to heart disease, diabetes, and premature death.

Those bastards did the same thing with cigarettes!

[jdege]

Pat, it isn't that the statistics are faked, it is the fact that there is no way to prove cause and effect in regards to his "more guns = less crime" assertion.

True of all observational studies. Correlation is not causation.

But - lack of correlation is proof of lack of causation. Lott's statistics definitively prove that increased access to guns does not cause more crime.

And, for that matter, so do the "rebuttal" studies by his critics.

Lott finds a small negative correlation between legal carry and crime. His detractors find no correlation.

Who is right? Doesn't much matter. Because they all agree that there is not a positive correlation between legal carry and crime. Allowing ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry if they choose does not increase levels of violent crime.

And that, in and of itself, invalidates every gun control law that isn't narrowly targeted at criminals.

[Grayskies]

Maybe I am missing something, but do people really have increased access to guns today?

Rifles were carry on in airplanes, you could order guns threw the mail from sears, you did not need background checks and 4473s, in alot of places (including Minnesota) you could carry with out a permit.

Now all that has changed, we (as a country) may have more guns and more people may own guns, but does the mean increased access to guns?

Also, if even with all these laws and permits and forms and fees and regulations and ect... criminals have an easier time getting guns (easier than mail order from sears) what does that say about the effectiveness of all those laws, and those enforcing them?

[Ranger01]

FWIW, my cousin is a surgeon at the Aurora, CO hospital that took in a lot of victims from the movie theater shooting (he personally operated on quite a few of them). Him and most of his colleagues (his words) agree that if someone there had been allowed to carry and was carrying (he did clarify to mean ANY person not just "professionals") they could have ended that a lot sooner (shortened version of a ~10 min conversation). I found this quite surprising considering that is the "liberal" side of the family... I walked away with a smug satisfaction...

[photogpat]

Maybe I am missing something, but do people really have increased access to guns today?

Rifles were carry on in airplanes, you could order guns threw the mail from sears, you did not need background checks and 4473s, in alot of places (including Minnesota) you could carry with out a permit.

Now all that has changed, we (as a country) may have more guns and more people may own guns, but does the mean increased access to guns?

Also, if even with all these laws and permits and forms and fees and regulations and ect... criminals have an easier time getting guns (easier than mail order from sears) what does that say about the effectiveness of all those laws, and those enforcing them?

So, if its not access to guns thats changed -- what has? I think increases in reporting and info collection (via the Intarwebs) have simply increased "awareness" of "gun incidents". FBI stats show that violence in general is decreasing in US, not rising.

[Grayskies]

I would agree.

[Heffay]

FBI stats show that violence in general is decreasing in US, not rising.

According to the guys at Freakonomics, about half of the reason for the decrease in crime rates is the legalization of abortion. The other half of the decrease in rates is from a variety of factors such as improved policing, technology, etc.

[photogpat]

FBI stats show that violence in general is decreasing in US, not rising.

According to the guys at Freakonomics, about half of the reason for the decrease in crime rates is the legalization of abortion. The other half of the decrease in rates is from a variety of factors such as improved policing, technology, etc.

Didn't they also say the lack of leaded gasoline led to this too...

[Heffay]

FBI stats show that violence in general is decreasing in US, not rising.

According to the guys at Freakonomics, about half of the reason for the decrease in crime rates is the legalization of abortion. The other half of the decrease in rates is from a variety of factors such as improved policing, technology, etc.

Didn't they also say the lack of leaded gasoline led to this too...

Possibly. The reduction in lead in the air as a result could result in a lot fewer stupid people who have no other options than a life of crime. Well, a short life of crime followed by a long life of incarceration.

And yes, I know you weren't serious.

[Hmac]

The reduction in lead in the air as a result could result in a lot fewer stupid people ....

It's not working fast enough.

[antimatter]

FWIW, the guy who runs the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) treats traffic study the same way. The idea is to remove human behavior, and simply work to reduce crashes through vehicle and road technology. As a motorcycle rider, the thought of having my passion outlawed in a pursuit of 'zero deaths' makes me angry, especially when the goal is really about reducing insurance company payouts.

Having dealt with folks with MD's in a setting not devoted to their specialty, I can tell you that a great many of them think anyone who isn't a doctor is a moron. And, that being good at one thing (medicine) makes them think they are good at everything. It's not really a liberal or conservative thing, it's snobbery.