Guns Do Not Stop Crime

[Skolnick]

Next month's edition of the Scientific American has an article titled "More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows". You can read the article at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

There are too many logical flaws to go over all of them, but my favorite is ...

Two paragraphs after stating "data don't matter to a lot of people. It was similar in other places I visited. What matters more is APPARENT logic: guns stop criminals, so they keep people safer." The author states "Researchers POSIT that even if keeping a gun at home does thwart the odd break-in, it MAY also change the gun owner's behavior in ways that put that person and his or her family more at risk."

So there you have it. Your logic is APPARENT; but a guess that something MAY change behavior is presented as well-founded.

Also, there is the old chestnut that "a gun in the home was ASSOCIATED with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance." The key word is "associated".

By titling the article the way they did, that sentence conveys the notion that a gun for protection in YOUR home will make you less safe -- but association is not causal.

For example, the number of people who drown is associated with the sale of ice cream. Is it ice cream that causes people to drown? Is it the likelihood of drowning that causes people to buy ice cream? Or is it something else, like temperature, that cause some people to buy ice cream and others to swim?

A person with a propensity to violence is more likely to have a gun in the house than a Mennonite. In a home with a propensity to violence one would expect higher gun ownership than average.

Also, the author states "Overall in Alabama, an estimated 12 percent of residents have PERMISSION to carry concealed firearms, possibly the highest such rate in the country." Possibly the highest such rate in the country, only if you don't count the states, like Vermont and Arkansas, with Constitutional Carry. Remember she doesn't claim that Alabama's do carry, only that they have permission. That sentence shows that Melinda doesn't know her topic.

And one last favorite! (I told you there are too many examples) The author notes "Kleck counters that the NCVS might underestimate self-defense because people who do not trust government surveyors will be afraid to admit that they used their gun. Yet people who participate in the NCVS are told at the start that they are protected under federal law and that their responses will remain anonymous." How many of you would trust a government survey that promises anonymity?

[tkroenlein]

Sounds a lot like the ruling in Friedman v HP. Illogical logic.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Draal]

Author needs to put the hash pipe down.

[Rangerdeepv]

Sounds like another good education gone to waste.......................

[JTHunter]

Author needs to put the hash pipe down.

Sounds like another good education gone to waste.......................

 

True, so true!!

[markthesignguy]

I wait with bated breath for John Lott's take on her screed.

 

Should be epic.

 

Also a look behind the scenes to discover the $$ source is warranted.

(I smell bloomie turd)

[OldMarineVet]

Scientific American has sure gone downhill since I was in high school. Read 6 paragraphs and saw nothing even close to scientific. Could have come from any magazine.

 

The dramatic first paragraph was comical:

 

"After I pulled the trigger and recovered from the recoil, I slowly refocused my eyes on the target. There it was—a tiny but distinct circle next to the zombie's eye, the first bullet hole I'd ever made. I looked down at the shaking Glock 19 in my hands. A swift and strong emotional transformation swept over me. In seconds, I went from feeling nervous, even terrified, to exhilarated and unassailable—and right then I understood why millions of Americans believe guns keep them safe."

 

First time she ever shot a firearm and she almost hits the zombie's eye (guessing she was trying to hit the eye.) She's missing her calling. She should quit writing crappy articles and use her unusual talent tp join the police force or military. My only concern would be the feelings she had after firing her first shot. Seems perverted.

 

Mark, you might not see a response from John Lott regarding this article. I stopped after the 6 paragraphs but can guess Lott has better things to do. Are there other Scientific American readers around that would believe this article? If so, they won't believe a response from Lott no matter what he says.

[Kaeghl]

Paragraph number 4 is a re-spiel of a piece from the Kellerman Study.

 

Someone tell the author that his research gave him access to a study that has been proven to be a pack of lies, cherry picked data and failed so many peer reviews that it is used in some statistics classes as an example of how NOT to do a study/paper.

 

Kellerman has disavowed his own study. He had to, after refusing to release his data for months, even using the old "I can't find it on my computer" . Sounds like the 'dog ate my homework', doesn't it?

[Hazborgufen]

Honestly, even if the premise is correct, who cares? It's also a fact that guns do not cause crime. Murder rates have significantly dropped when compared to rates in previous decades while the total number of guns in circulation have dramatically increased.

 

So if guns don't stop crime and guns don't cause crime it seems like guns are completely neutral to crime rates. No need to legislate against them just leave them be.

 

Of course that won't be the logical outcome.

[OldMarineVet]

Honestly, even if the premise is correct, who cares? It's also a fact that guns do not cause crime. Murder rates have significantly dropped when compared to rates in previous decades while the total number of guns in circulation have dramatically increased.

 

So if guns don't stop crime and guns don't cause crime it seems like guns are completely neutral to crime rates. No need to legislate against them just leave them be.

 

Of course that won't be the logical outcome.

I care deeply. These anti-gunners are all about words. If you let them lie they spin all sorts of propaganda. And it helps them! Sneaky, lying, cowards. Their ends justify their means.

 

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

[Skolnick]

Scientific American has sure gone downhill since I was in high school.

 

I agree.

 

In 2008, the Scientific AMERICAN was bought by a BRITISH group that is owned by a GERMAN group. Since that time, left-wing politics started slipping into the columns and articles.

 

In the pieces by the columnists, and especially the editor, Mariette DiChristina, they have been continuously -- and blatantly -- belligerent of the Trump Administration.

 

At times, the hard science articles sport a casual mention of Global Warming. For example, an article might say that solar minimums have a beneficial effect on Global Warming. Nothing conspicuous, but it leaves the solid impression (without the need of proof) that there is Global Warming -- and that it is bad. On the other side of the spectrum, articles about social issues (e.g. health, education, diet, and even immigration) do get overt on what programs government ought to spend my tax dollars.

 

A scientific magazine advocating for STEM education in a column is one thing; advocating for tax dollars to be spent on green energy in an article is quite another.

[drumgod]

 

Scientific American has sure gone downhill since I was in high school.

 

I agree...

 

+2

 

From the very first paragraph it is obvious that this is an opinion piece and not an objective look at available data.

[seanc]

The dramatic first paragraph was comical:

 

"After I pulled the trigger and recovered from the recoil, I slowly refocused my eyes on the target. There it was—a tiny but distinct circle next to the zombie's eye, the first bullet hole I'd ever made. I looked down at the shaking Glock 19 in my hands. A swift and strong emotional transformation swept over me. In seconds, I went from feeling nervous, even terrified, to exhilarated and unassailable—and right then I understood why millions of Americans believe guns keep them safe."

 

 

Sounds like it should be the beginning of an awesome Glock commercial!

[Hap]

 

The dramatic first paragraph was comical:

 

"After I pulled the trigger and recovered from the recoil, I slowly refocused my eyes on the target. There it was—a tiny but distinct circle next to the zombie's eye, the first bullet hole I'd ever made. I looked down at the shaking Glock 19 in my hands. A swift and strong emotional transformation swept over me. In seconds, I went from feeling nervous, even terrified, to exhilarated and unassailable—and right then I understood why millions of Americans believe guns keep them safe."

 

 

Sounds like it should be the beginning of an awesome Glock commercial!

 

If she really feels that way she's either badly taught or delusional. "Unassailable" is the last thing you want to feel when you've got a gun - since, if you need to use it, odds are some dirtbag is in the process of assailing you. I'll bet on delusional, but I'll leave the final assessment to the professionals.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

Scientific American has sure gone downhill since I was in high school.

 

I agree.

 

In 2008, the Scientific AMERICAN was bought by a BRITISH group that is owned by a GERMAN group. Since that time, left-wing politics started slipping into the columns and articles.

 

In the pieces by the columnists, and especially the editor, Mariette DiChristina, they have been continuously -- and blatantly -- belligerent of the Trump Administration.

 

At times, the hard science articles sport a casual mention of Global Warming. For example, an article might say that solar minimums have a beneficial effect on Global Warming. Nothing conspicuous, but it leaves the solid impression (without the need of proof) that there is Global Warming -- and that it is bad. On the other side of the spectrum, articles about social issues (e.g. health, education, diet, and even immigration) do get overt on what programs government ought to spend my tax dollars.

 

A scientific magazine advocating for STEM education in a column is one thing; advocating for tax dollars to be spent on green energy in an article is quite another.

 

 

I used to do some work for them, up until the late '00s, and this is one of the primary reasons why I stopped. I'm quite liberal in many aspects, although a constitutional Libertarian in general philosophy, but the thing that annoyed me was that a magazine that is supposed to have a strongly objective, empirical, and politically neutral slant began drifting well away from that philosophy after the new owners took over.

 

Sorry, I'm of the old-school journalistic philosophy, as well as being directly involved in a lot of high-level scientific research verification and publishing, and that goes against literally every standard I held and followed in those fields, so I didn't need their money anymore.

[lockman]

The premise of safety is not measurable. Guns do not keep you safe. Safety is a state of mind and not a physical quantifiable item.

[Xwing]

As usual, an author with an ax to grind is spewing anti-gun common phrases and pretending to give them legitimacy.

[Teufel Hunden]

So they are also advocating for disarming law enforcement, right? /purpleoff

[Smallbore]

So they are also advocating for disarming law enforcement, right? /purpleoff

Do not forget our military.

North Korea may have funded this author.

[gregivq]

This isn't the first time Scientific American tries to adhere to a very familiar agenda.

[Skolnick]

Next month's edition of the Scientific American has an article titled "More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows". You can read the article at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

 

A rebuttal by John Lott and a re-rebuttal is now at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-mean-more-violent-crime-or-less-a-researcher-aims-at-scientific-american1/

[C0untZer0]

Shouldn't they change their name to UnScientific American ?

[SiliconSorcerer]

We should also not forget another important point.

The author is ugly.

[GTX63]

More guns do not need to stop more crimes. I only need my gun to stop the crime affecting me.

[JTHunter]

We should also not forget another important point.

The author is ugly.

More guns do not need to stop more crimes. I only need my gun to stop the crime affecting me.

 

Agreed !! Although, if something happens in a public place, it would be nice to have my firearm to be able to stop either a nut or a possible terrorist even if they are not directly affecting me - yet.

[vito]

Some here might miss the real point: these ignorant anti-gun writers absolutely KNOW that guns are bad, that people who like guns are dangerous weirdos and that anyone with a gun in their hand is on the verge of being overpowered by their desire to kill and maim! And since they KNOW all this to be true, they just need to find the right words to explain to the rest of us knuckleheads why are so misguided as to believe something other than what they KNOW. I think it is so telling by this author, and many others of that ilk that they admit to having total unfamiliarity and ignorance of guns and shooting, yet one range visit, or even firing one bullet instantly makes them an expert who now understands why millions and millions of people buy guns, carry guns, shoot guns and actually believe that we should take individual responsibility for our own defense.

 

But none of this matters. The Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Shumer's of the world will now be able to say, "Its been proven that guns do not reduce crime; why now the Scientific American has said so!". Anyone who disagrees, or dares use real data to show how wrong they are of course is to be dismissed without looking at the data presented because OBVIOUSLY, if they support the ownership and use of guns they must be stooges of the gun industry and that evil, nefarious organization, the dreaded NRA.

 

I have often told the story of a discussion with a nephew of mine, who lives in the suburbs of New York City with his wife and two children who told me he keeps a baseball bat by his bedside to protect his family in the event of a home invasion. When I asked him if he really thought he would prevail in a battle between one or more armed criminals with just his baseball bat, he admitted that it was not likely that he would prevail. He said he would call 911 immediately and the police would help him. When I asked if he really thought the police would get there in time to protect him and his family from potentially murderous criminals, he admitted it was not likely. When I then asked if he might stand a better chance if he owned a gun and knew how to use that gun safely and effectively, he reluctantly agreed that a gun would be a lot better than a baseball bat. But he then immediately added that he KNOWS that guns are bad, that having a gun in his home would more likely lead to his death than if he didn't have a gun, that no one but the police should be allowed to have guns, etc, etc. When I pointed out the obvious disconnect between his earlier admissions of fact and his spouting of anti-gun speaking points, he just stammered a bit and then said "but I keep a baseball bat next to the bed to protect my family". Sigh.

[MrTriple]

But none of this matters. The Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Shumer's of the world will now be able to say, "Its been proven that guns do not reduce crime; why now the Scientific American has said so!". Anyone who disagrees, or dares use real data to show how wrong they are of course is to be dismissed without looking at the data presented because OBVIOUSLY, if they support the ownership and use of guns they must be stooges of the gun industry and that evil, nefarious organization, the dreaded NRA.

They’re gonna say these things regardless of the evidence, but they’re increasingly irrelevant and so is the gun control movement. People are waking up (or have already woken up) to the fact that gun control doesn’t work, as evidenced by the massive growth in licensed concealed carriers and by the massive losses the gun control movement has suffered nationwide.

 

This study, like the rest, will only be embraced by the increasingly diminishing minority of Americans that support gun control.

[BobPistol]

This is even more evidence that universities and colleges are not really education centers, but really indoctrination centers. This is how LWW's reproduce asexually, through brainwashing.

[45Badger]

I don't care if guns stop crimes or cause crimes. I like mine. And like hunting, the second amendment has nothing to do with stopping crime.

 

Infernal vigilantes..........

[chicagoresident]

The reality is its super hard to make an argument for or against guns with statistics. Everything is observed data rather then controlled studies, it's often self selecting data in any point you're trying to prove, a lot of it is statistically insignificant (especially mass shootings), and any perceived correlation is often the result of statistical censorship. Add that to no uniform data on violent crimes, and cities like Chicago who go out of their way to reclassify violent crime as other things and its downright impossible.

 

This is why the left keeps pushing to take away from real health issues and real diseases where you can do legitimate statistical research to fund the mother of all gun studies. They will create their own data sets and data drudge til they find something that fits the narrative.

 

Crime studies in general tend to be statistically disingenuous to their hidden motive.

This is even more evidence that universities and colleges are not really education centers, but really indoctrination centers. This is how LWW's reproduce asexually, through brainwashing.

Agreed. This is the problem, Universities and by extension Americans aren't studying hard sciences anymore. People are graduating with degrees that not only lack a specific skillset, but they also lack the basic fundamentals like statistics and critical thinking that used to be core at every university. They get degrees in victimhood and since they are saddled with debt and nothing to show for it they have plenty of time to put their teachings into practice.