Background checks save lives?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rockhopper46038

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    89   0   0
    May 4, 2010
    6,742
    48
    Fishers
    Cherry picking data, must likely. The study was conducted by a known anti-gun organization. Interestingly, they didn't edit out the most telling point in the story - overall, as more guns have been purchased, violent crime has decreased.
     

    ghostdncr

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Feb 14, 2013
    552
    18
    Louisville
    Anyone with even a teaspoon of knowledge about statistics also knows you can select and cook data to arrive at any conclusion you like. Stories like this are cooked with the hopes of being gobbled up by those folks in the middle with no current knowledge or impression either way.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Laughable. The other side has no idea what it is talking about. The level of absolute ignorance on the anti-civil rights side is astounding.

    Background checks were STILL performed. The morons think that state law trumped federal law.

    We need to beat them to death with this. To think that they are crowing about this!
     

    bingley

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 11, 2011
    2,295
    48
    Anyone with even a teaspoon of knowledge about statistics also knows you can select and cook data to arrive at any conclusion you like. Stories like this are cooked with the hopes of being gobbled up by those folks in the middle with no current knowledge or impression either way.

    This can be applied to any and all statistical studies. For instance, I hear that a rise in gun purchases correlates with a drop in crime. That can't be true, because see above. I hear that 90% of civilian self-defense shootings end in five rounds or fewer. That can't be true, because see above. I hear Obamacare is unaffordable. That can't possibly be true, because see above.

    Laughable. The other side has no idea what it is talking about. The level of absolute ignorance on the anti-civil rights side is astounding.

    Background checks were STILL performed. The morons think that state law trumped federal law.

    It sounds like they are aware of this, according to the reporter (see below). I find the language to be a bit confused, and lawyer Kirk can tell us. The remainder of the article seems to suggest the study is of PTP, rather than federal background checks. But to know for sure, you'll have to read the actual study. I don't find reporters to be very reliable in summarizing studies.

    [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Webster and colleagues found that the spike in murders in Missouri following the PTP law repeal only occurred for murders in Missouri committed with a firearm and was widespread across the state's counties…. [/FONT]For firearm sales by federally licensed firearm dealers, federal law requires prospective purchasers to pass a criminal background check and sellers to maintain records of the sale. But federal law and laws in most states exempt these regulations when the firearm seller is unlicensed. The researchers suggest that universal background checks and firearm purchaser licensing affect homicide rates by reducing the availability of guns to criminals and other prohibited groups.

    Repeal of Missouri's background check law associated with increase in state's murders -- ScienceDaily

    Whatever position I hold, I'm open to challenges and the possibility that I might be wrong. This study is such a challenge, and I'm just trying to be fair, all things considered. If you trust yourself, why worry that truth won't come out at the end? If you can't swallow the possibility that you might be wrong about something, man, is this world a tough place for you!
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Before you accept it, ask yourself whas the study performed honestly? Who paid for it? Did the funders have agendas? What other studies support or conflict with this result? What, exactly does this study imply? We don't have a PTP law in Indiana. Does it mean the murder rate would decrease if we adopt such a law? Would California's Murder rate skyrocket if they adopted Indiana's gun laws. After California adopted all the nutty new laws recently, if it's true that stricter gun laws = fewer murders, we shuld expect their rates to nosedive.
     

    bingley

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 11, 2011
    2,295
    48
    Before you accept it, ask yourself whas the study performed honestly? Who paid for it? Did the funders have agendas?

    Unless you're studying the development of fungus in your refrigerator, all studies need a funder. There is nothing as a politically neutral funder. If you think that the funders having a political agenda is enough to dismiss the study, then you can use this argument to dismiss all scientific and humanistic studies in the 20th century.

    You need to look at the merit of the study first. I'm just trying to be fair here. It seems that nobody here has actually read the study itself. News media often misreports research results.

    What other studies support or conflict with this result? What, exactly does this study imply? We don't have a PTP law in Indiana. Does it mean the murder rate would decrease if we adopt such a law? Would California's Murder rate skyrocket if they adopted Indiana's gun laws. After California adopted all the nutty new laws recently, if it's true that stricter gun laws = fewer murders, we shuld expect their rates to nosedive.

    These are intelligent questions. I'd ask the same questions of the study. Incidentally, I'm not in agreement with your last statement. Crime rate, being a product of many factors, can never be correlated to gun ownership rate so easily. From what I tell from the article, it doesn't seem that the study says "stricter gun laws = fewer murders."
     
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 21, 2013
    4,905
    63
    Lawrence County
    One state? Why one state - Missouri? Because it seems to fit your conclusion? I believe 38 states have similar background checks - why not include all the data? Maybe it doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion?

    Lott was on Cam last night and brought up these same problems with this "study". No critical analysis at all. No one asking why all 38 states weren't included. No one asking why, if we're going state by state, wasn't the same consideration given to the other 37 and the results listed side-by-side. You know why. Lott did the work and guess what - none of the other 37 states corroborate the conclusion drawn from Missouri.
     

    bingley

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 11, 2011
    2,295
    48
    One state? Why one state - Missouri? Because it seems to fit your conclusion? I believe 38 states have similar background checks - why not include all the data? Maybe it doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion?

    Or maybe they didn't have the money? 38 states could mean 38 times the time in data collection. Perhaps some of us pro-gun folks need to donate money so they can do a more comprehensive study and get evidence as to whether background checks influence crime rate. I mean, we've got arguments either way, but they're all theoretical. Who knows how things actually play out out there?

    Anyway, did you read the study? I haven't. I don't know why people have closed off their minds.
     

    HeadlessRoland

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 8, 2011
    3,521
    63
    In the dark
    Even if there is a correlative relationship, there certainly can't be proven a causal relationship. Moreover, I find the possibility of a correlational relationship possible, but not likely given how many other factors are at play here. A system as complex as society has so many variables that to claim one source of anything has a causal effect on anything within that system is just impossible to claim. If I wanted, I could correlate the temperature of Ulan Bator, Mongolia to the price of oranges in Florida. Co-relation is fairly meaningless and causality fairly impossible to establish. Statistics is a very precise machine which one of a thousand things being the slightest bit off will totally and completely break and invalidate the results obtained by utilizing it. If the article's editor can properly explain to me what p-value was utilized to derive significance and explain why the null hypothesis was rejectable and can provide proof of a truly random sample and can explain their experimental design and methodology, then I might - might - see what they have to say. Until then, like so many other "scientific" studies before it, and more yet to be born, right into the trash can it goes.
     

    SteveM4A1

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 3, 2013
    2,383
    48
    Rockport
    The analyses controlled for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other state laws adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime

    I especially like this part. I would like to read the actual study and not just articles on it. They can throw around all of the statistics they want in regards to % increase in this and % increase in that. Most intelligent people understand that those numbers can be skewed by their "analysis control". It will be interesting to see if any good peer reviews come of this.
     
    Top Bottom