• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

why arguing more OC/CC lowers crime is counter-productive

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
If that is all the cops do, "clean up the mess" and then leave the citizen to their own devices, this top cop deserves a free doughnut...with small coffee.
 

PeterNSteinmetz

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
177
Location
Tempe, Arizona
Because you get opposing conclusions on other studies.

This is the nature of science and particularly social science. When faced with different studies one then has to actually read and understand them to get to a consensus. Unfortunately most people are not actually equipped to or have the time to do this.

While I personally agree with a rights based approach, this does make it difficult to discuss with people who don't share one's ethical basis.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Science consensus is an oxymoron.

Science is fine ... its just not science that's followed.

You do a study, you say "this study shows this" .. you just came to an untested hypothesis. That's all. You cannot say my hypothesis is proven by the same data that created it.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I prefer using actual stories of successful SD utilizing a firearm. Yes that opens you up to the arguments that "it makes you more likely to get shot," but even if that were true, that's only one small piece of the data set. You then get to point out how everyone even the antis acknowledge that firearms are used successfully in SD far more than they are in crimes/murders. Then it just becomes a conversation about vaccines.

Vaccines can cause very serious side effects in a very small percentage of people, but you don't stop using them just because there is a 0.0001% chance of serious side effect. So to sum up, guns are like vaccines. You may never need it and in very rare cases they can cause harm, but the good far outweighs the bad.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
I prefer using actual stories of successful SD utilizing a firearm. Yes that opens you up to the arguments that "it makes you more likely to get shot," but even if that were true, that's only one small piece of the data set. You then get to point out how everyone even the antis acknowledge that firearms are used successfully in SD far more than they are in crimes/murders. Then it just becomes a conversation about vaccines.

Vaccines can cause very serious side effects in a very small percentage of people, but you don't stop using them just because there is a 0.0001% chance of serious side effect. So to sum up, guns are like vaccines. You may never need it and in very rare cases they can cause harm, but the good far outweighs the bad.

You're talking through your ten-gallon hat, no horse.

The benefits of guns and vaccines are real. The risks from gun use and vaccine use are real. The ratio or comparison personally valuated of those must be considered.

I have carried a gun for nearly twenty years and know how to mitigate its side effects.

I have had a complete schedule of military/foreign service vaccines many years ago. There are twenty-five common vaccines available and I do not regard myself at risk of any of their indications, particularly influenza. We have isolated ourselves, self-quarantined if you will, and even rhinoviruses are insignificant in rate and discomfort for residual resistance.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Sooooo....are you arguing against Jack or supporting his comments? :confused:
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
Nobody who leaves their home armed thinks "I'm going to lower the crime rate in my community today". Carry (whatever the flavor (OC or cc)) is about Self/family defense, not community statistics. It is an individual right, not a public policy calculation.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Donohue has already impeached himself and his work. Here is the paper, 3 MB, 108 pages Definitely an odd URL but it seems to work


http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...6060080104087082121071116100024124024&EXT=pdf

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2443681

Which part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

They discredit themselves absolutely with the following argument:

But an alternative explanation is that the crack cocaine problem drove up crime... The regression would identify a relationship between higher crime and the failure to adopt a shall-issue law when the real cause would have been the influence of crack.

:lol: This is why I reject the entire field of quantitative sociology on its face. It's literally the only branch of the "sciences" (applied or otherwise) where you can, with all seriousness, posit absurd political scaremongering as legitimate causation without a shred of empirical evidence (or without even offering a convincing mechanism for the causal effect), and folks will grant you credence.

What they did there is fundamentally a (rather well-disguised) appeal to emotion. Folks have an emotional reaction to the "crack cocaine epidemic" and so they reflexively assign credence to the "confounding factor", despite the fact that it's utterly without foundation in empiricism or even reason.

The "crack cocaine epidemic" was nearly entirely a fabrication of profit-driven media and agenda-driven politicians. Advancing it as fact without first offering an attempt to justify it and then doing the same for the equally unsubstantiated causal relationship between crack cocaine and crime is grounds for automatic and complete disqualification from credibility.

(By the way, speaking of agenda-driven...)
 
Last edited:
Top