While the study may be correct, I’m not sure I would go to a law professor for statistical analysis studies. Lawyers don’t have the best credibility when it comes to objectively selecting statistical models… or anything for that matter. I think id rather see this study done by a statistician. Heck, with the politically charged nature of the subject, I would even suggest the work be done agnostically.
While this is supposed to increase our trust of the study, to anyone who stands by their pro-guns position it sounds like
Herp derp hand wave woo statistics-can-prove-anything.
It isn’t, but there must be a better elevator take-away that the study can give that actually has a snowball’s chance of swaying anyone’s opinion. But I guess he’s a professor and not a PR agent.
It’s an odd case, because the more words he puts there to explain how strong his evidence is, the less it’s going to sway anyone.
Stanford study shows Pope Catholic.
Like any red blooded gun owner is going to listen to a godless heathen.
The only relevant numbers are good Christian ones like Matthew 10:34!
Everyone knows that the most convincing arguments for gun policy are the ones which can fit on a bumper sticker.
Ah, the popular trope of the gun owner as a redneck evangelist.
From the linked article. As someone who supports concealed carry, I’m surprised how many people on this side of the argument still cite John Lott, who IMO has thoroughly discredited himself:
These new findings are strong. But there’s rarely such a thing as a slam-dunk in social science research. Donohue notes that “different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect.” Teasing out cause from effect in social science research is often a fraught proposition.
But for this very reason it’s important for policymakers on both sides of the gun control debate to exercise caution in interpreting the findings of any one study. Gun rights advocates have undoubtedly placed too much stock in Lott and Mustard’s original study, which is now going on 20 years old. The best policy is often informed by good research. And as researchers revisit their data and assumptions, it makes sense for policymakers to do the same.
I feel that unfortunately this will change nothing. There are a lot of disenfranchised white people out there. Many are suspicious of anyone who claims to speak on their behalf and are angry about the problems in the country but are unable or unwilling to understand why. I have to imagine that’s why we see more flag-waving in the mainstream media and all these reality TV shows about rural whites.
The NRA and gun lobby have masterfully taken advantage of this to give them a sense of self-empowerment and a giant cash cow.
This is what the gun debate is really about; one form of cultural identity worried about its place in the future.
Isn’t this the same Donahue who developed the Freakonomics “falling crime rate is because of Abortion” thesis?:
Anyway, as a shortcut, the actual paper we are talking about is here:
Note that this is not a peer-reviewed publication
There was a peer-reviewed version with the same title and authors, and that can be found here:
Outside of the rather amusing correction appended (“The results presented in Tables 1b and 2b of Section 4 of the article do not replicate the NRC results because different data and models were used in the attempted replication effort”), I’ve not read to see if any of the contemporary criticism of that article has been reflected in the new version.
Reading the article it seems to me they found a correlation with out proving causation. If you read to the end they are basically saying take this all with a grain of salt:
“Donohue notes that “different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect.” Teasing out cause from effect in social science research is often a fraught proposition.”
FWIW I still contend attacking the root cause of gun violence is what we need to focus on. An area’s social, economic, and cultural make up is a better indicator on whether there will be violence than what their access to guns are. Removing the tool won’t make the reasons for the violence go away. They will just find another tool, or you know, break more laws and acquire the tool anyway.
Making the (particularly effective) tool harder to get does reduce violence - if not as much in frequency, very much in severity.
More relevant is that most gun injuries and deaths aren’t from self-defence or from aggressive crime, but rather from accidents. You could fix most accidents by requiring firearms to be stored safely, unloaded, apart from their ammo. I don’t give a rat’s ass about concealed carry - but I do care about a loaded gun in a bedside table. That latter one will kill someone who didn’t deserve it.
Ah, the popular trope of pretending that gun ownership is not strongly associated with being in the rural southern US and being religious.
Jesus was a Pacifist, a Communist, an Egalitarian, and was either Black or Brown.
Funny how often he is invoked in the name of War, Capitalism, Authoritarianism, Sexism, and Racism.
Aha! But this is again, just correlation, what if they got gender reassignment surgery, aged 30 years, moved to the South and started going to church because they loved guns?
That’s literally “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Communist, indeed.
Well, you are woefully mistaken there. Accidents claim 600 lives a year, way less than those from crime.
I agree guns for the most part should be safely stored. Though proper storage won’t stop all accidents. Most accidents happen from people not following the 4 basic rules of firearm handling.
I don’t think we need more laws for it. If you have half a brain (or RTFM) you know to safely store your dangerous equipment. Those who are too stupid or don’t care aren’t going to be motivated to do anything because of a law. They probably have chemicals under the sink and brightly colored detergent gel packs lying around as well.
Your point? You try to paint 100 million people the same, you are going to need a very broad brush.