Background checks save lives?

[SteveM4A1]

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.

Exactly.

 

[ncthorn]

Based on what I have seen from the study so far, I summarized my thoughts:

Addressing the Johns Hopkins Gun Study | Modern Rifleman

I see a handful of issues that will potentially exist within the study:

1. 'Controlling' for other factors is likely to place disproportionate weight on the repeal's effect
2. 5 years is not a sufficient sample
3. Crime data varies, even when sourced from reliable entities
4. The Bloomberg factor stinks here
5. Other states have seen very different results

 

[JettaKnight]

Indiana used to have universal background checks for all private handgun transactions for many years, has crime gone up since it was repealed?

When was that? I know it was law, but long before I was buying.

The reason this is relevant now is that MO just recently repealed the need for all handgun buyers to show proof of "approval" even with private party transactions.

Let's make a big jump and assume there is a causal relationship as the study concludes. Now, is 50-60 less homicides worth the burden of handgun buyers needing to have a LTCH or similar.

I don't know the answer - just playing devil's advocate.

FTR - no, I have not read the report yet.

 

[JettaKnight]

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?

The reason for studying MO is because they recently repealed the need for a LTCH or FOID for handgun purchases.

 

[Bunnykid68]

When was that? I know it was law, but long before I was buying.

The reason this is relevant now is that MO just recently repealed the need for all handgun buyers to show proof of "approval" even with private party transactions.

Let's make a big jump and assume there is a causal relationship as the study concludes. Now, is 50-60 less homicides worth the burden of handgun buyers needing to have a LTCH or similar.

I don't know the answer - just playing devil's advocate.

FTR - no, I have not read the report yet.

Kirk knows it off the top of his head, but I was thinking it ended in the early 90's, but I am flat out guessing

 

[snorko]

Kirk knows it off the top of his head, but I was thinking it ended in the early 90's, but I am flat out guessing

It was a result of the Brady law and the advent of instant background checks, so +/- 1994(?)

 

[armedindy]

stats should have no bearing on a human being rights

 

[ghuns]

Background checks save lives?

Reducing the speed limit to 20MPH would save more. It would effectively reduce motor vehicle accident deaths to 0. Who's on board?

Even if the books weren't cook in their study, so what? Are the lives of a statically insignificant number of people worth placing further burdens on the rights of the living?

Do they ever study the number of people killed because they have been effectively disarmed by overly burdensome firearms restrictions? How many people are in the ground today in places like Chicago, New York, or DC because they were stripped of the right to defend themselves?

I'm sure if Johns Hopkins did the study they would find the number to be zero.

 

[jamil]

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.

Merit matters, but... I'm not a researcher and I don't want to spend all my spare time scrutinizing every study I find interesting. The question serves only as a smell test. Everyone's biased. I'm not saying I would dismiss a study out of hand. But studies funded by donors who have existential interests in outcomes, smell like they need more scrutiny than a study funded by some group whose motive seems to be that they just want to find the truth. Studies funded by tobacco companies, for years, claimed that there's no correlation between smoking and cancer. They were obviously full of ****. And to anyone with a nose, those studies smelled like **** then.

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."

Didn't draw any conclusions except that, since gun grabbers like to say that stricter gun laws = fewer murders, if true, California's rates should nosedive. When it doesn't, they should STFU.

As far as this study, in the NPR transcript Mr. Webster made some statements the data couldn't possibly support. If he'd have just said that murders with guns went up and incidents of criminals with guns increased after the repeal, I'd have been okay with that. But he went further to say that murders went up BECAUSE of the repeal and implied that universal background checks = less crime. There's not enough data to say that. And to imply that this study shows that mandated universal background checks, which is really what they're talking about, is beyond what this study could possibly prove. I came away from the transcript suspecting that Mr. Webster is not very intellectually honest.

 

[ru6797]

It's just like when they do a study on gun violence they can homes that have had armed violence in them, or if they are doing a study on if you approve on taking guns away they call homes of know felons to see if they would like to see more gun control of course they would it makes there job easier, no guns they don't worry

 

[ru6797]

A good study would be to put a x in front of everyones name in a phone book that has guns in the home and see a year later what homes are robbed more the ones that have guns or the ones without

 

[Bunnykid68]

Found it. From Kirk Freeman "Indiana's Universal Background Check (for handguns) 1974-1998 did not result is a single prosecution that I can find".

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The reason for studying MO is because they recently repealed the need for a LTCH or FOID for handgun purchases.

1) A fair study would be one that looks at the data before and during making the law - 18 states total.
2) A fair study would include Indiana which also repealed the law (but doesn't fit the conclusion).
3) A fair study would include all violent crime with a handgun, not just murder.
4) If you read the book by Lott, you'll find an exhaustive look at the data, not just a cursory look, and you'll find the data was cooked. The real number is 2% and with the small sample size it's outside the "statistically significant" bounds. Therefore, if you have to look at just murder with a handgun, Missouri is "statistically insignificant", Indiana is "no affect" and all 18 states that have experimented with universal background checks are either "statistically insignificant" after the law was enacted over the full range of the law OR no affect.