JJJ

Have you actually READ ALL of those papers and studies?

I picked 3 at random and scanned the rest for DATES (I’m not doing any more homework – my consultant rate is probably a little too steep).

1. - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/000313008X362446

This first one only gives an abstract but even in those few words it tells me in they did the statistics BACKWARDS (a typical manipulation trick) essentially trying to prove a negative:

H0: (i.e., the Null hypotheses they have is essentially): Murder rates of Shall Issues laws increased after Shall Issue Policy changes were implemented (note this should not include suicides but were, more later on that)

H1: (i.e., the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis would then be) murder rates of Shall Issues laws decreased or stayed the same after Shall Issues

The POWER (i.e., 1-beta) of any statistical test lies in the REJECTION of the null (i.e., H0). When you FAIL TO REJECT H0 that’s ALL you can say – “you failed to reject.” You can NOT say you ACCEPT the null you can only say there is no evidence AGAINST it. You can never say the H0 is statistically true.

Even just the few studies I looked at, no I didn't read them all, show or discuss weak statistical correlations. One paper (one of those below) had even listed some Rho’s of .5, .6 or worse NONE (which tells me that those referenced studies themselves didn’t use NUMBERS, they were Qualitative studies, i.e., subjective studies, not Quantitative i.e., objective studies). Those small correlations are no better than coin flips of moon cycles causation.

Truth in advertising: when I say I looked at a handful of those studies I mean I skimmed them. i.e., I read intro, assumptions, conclusions and skimmed the tables and data and results. NO I did not do a line by line verification of numbers, methods, statements, etc. like I would if I were peer reviewing them.

2. Next do a search on

“Benjamin French and Patrick J. Heagerty, "Analysis of Longitudinal Data to Evaluate a Policy Change", Statistics in Medicine October 30, 2008: 5005-5025. This study concluded that "enacting a shall-issue law is associated with a weak but non-significant increase in firearm-related homicide rates."
And you get their PDF (which includes suicides lumped in later as general homicides)

Or try below to get PDF

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiI1aS00dfWAhVJ0oMKHR3dBXQQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.668.8730%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AOvVaw0R6ZRGJT-sWkkDKdZLdxGu



3. This one also includes suicides as a spate study which is good work but once you read it you realize it’s not a Shall Issue study before and after – it’s simply firearm OWNERSHIP and the suicides and homicides caused thereby.

Get the PDF here

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwil6qmJ0tfWAhVp5oMKHfqxBCMQFggrMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crema-research.ch%2Fpapers%2F2014-07.pdf&usg=AOvVaw23svo-h5BGGxYxcUzQTWDa



===================

The list you provided, I suspect is a bibliography from one such study or a google list? You didn’t critically read and digest all those did you? Are you a statistician (or mathematician or even a STEM researcher)? I think I used and referenced fewer articles/studies/papers in my Master’s thesis in Ops Research and I know I didn't critically digest and read them over night.

Studies with own data (i.e., originally researched DOJ, FBI, and State crime statistics) tend to only have data up to mid 2000’s (admittedly by quick visual scan of pub. Dates listed). Not all states are Shall Issue (I’ll call it CCW for short) at that point in time or is too early have effect one way or the other for the newer adopters.

Like the other “the science is final argument” most of those studies (all you have to do is just read intro in most of them to get the flavor) are done by those who want to show no improvement or negative impact of CCW on “murders” - and so they all seem to included category SUICIDE!

Yes suicide by gun is a gun death – but someone that determined would run a hose from exhaust into car, or drives at high speed into to something solid, or hang themselves, or cut their wrists, or over dose on something, or… the firearm is not the cause it is simply a means.

And worse for your and their argument: suicides by firearms is unrelated to CCW's laws, since the suicide (i.e., "murderer") could have previously OWNED the firearm. I note that TIME of ownership of a firearm was NOT included in these studies (when and how long was firearm owned – prior to and after CCW laws) and SHOULD have been a factor (i.e., a regression variable)!


Besides states that finally had a policy change (i.e., instituted a CCW law) ALL already had laws to allow purchase of firearms and handguns. In other words the MAJORITY of folks that went out and obtained CCW (concealed carry) ALREADY OWNED firearms and handguns in particular, they just didn’t CARRY them in public. At least they didn’t carry them concealed

Like in Here New Mexico a state that has been run by Democrats since 1912, when we became a State – allowed the CARRY (open carry) of firearms (AND YES tested multiple times in the NM Supreme Court) or carried concealed but unloaded, you can research the NM gun laws yourself . The below was BEFORE the NM Legislature passed its recent Conceal Carry law (and there other states that allowed open carry prior to Policy Change’s to allow Shall Issue):

“Article II, § 6 of the Constitution of New Mexico provides:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
“

Bottom line passing a SHALL ISSUE (CCW) didn’t cause or force people who hated guns to go buy them and those that didn’t hate guns, for the most part, already HAD THEM.


Larry


PS Brian from Jersey Channel Islands, this is not a smirk, smack, flame, critique, finger pointing, nasty attack please imagine I'm talking calmly with a happy lilt in my voice:

I don't think you truly understand WHY, I mean the actual true purpose, we in the U.S. have a 2nd Amendment. Please, take a pleasant boat ride across the channel and ask Parliament and the Royals in Great Britain if they can think of a reason why we might have 2nd Amendment. The reason is no less valid today than in 1791. Maybe more so, but and I'll leave it at that.



PPS TO the OTHER JOHN: Sorry I still concur and I still think this thread SHOULD BE closed, I will put down the keyboard and step away from the computer now.


Last edited by Larry Kehl; 10/04/17 11:17 AM.
Win10Pro,i9,64GB,2TBSSD+20TBHDDs,1080TI,BIAB'24,Scarlett18i8,Montage7,Fusion 8HD,QS8,Integra7,XV5080,QSR,SC-8850,SPLAT,FL21&others,Komp.14,IK suite&others, just a guitar player-AXE FX III &FM9T, FishmanTP, MIDIGuitar2, GK2/3'sw/GI20