testtest

Rand Corp. finds that 99.6% of Gun Control Studies are not Scientific

wmg1299

wmg1299

Professional
This week the Rand Corporation released their findings that only 123 of 27,900 gun control studies used valid scientific methods. For those of you who like to avoid math as much as I do, that equals 0.4%. It's wishful thinking to believe that 99.6% of these studies being junk science will prevent the mainstream media from covering any of them that support the anti-gun narrative, but it is still nice to know. Unlike these "researchers" I actually cite my sources, so you can check out the article for yourself.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Junk Science: RAND Finds only 123 of 27,900 Gun Control Studies Meet Rigorous Scientific Standards - The Truth About Guns

We’ve all heard stories — on a monthly basis, if not more often — about alleged “studies” that allegedly show that if we just pass a few more gun control measures, we can finally turn the tide on the criminal misuse of firearms. Various big gun control groups love to tout these studies to...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com www.thetruthaboutguns.com
 
wmg1299 said:
This week the Rand Corporation released their findings that only 123 of 27,900 gun control studies used valid scientific methods. For those of you who like to avoid math as much as I do, that equals 0.4%. It's wishful thinking to believe that 99.6% of these studies being junk science will prevent the mainstream media from covering any of them that support the anti-gun narrative, but it is still nice to know. Unlike these "researchers" I actually cite my sources, so you can check out the article for yourself.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Junk Science: RAND Finds only 123 of 27,900 Gun Control Studies Meet Rigorous Scientific Standards - The Truth About Guns

We’ve all heard stories — on a monthly basis, if not more often — about alleged “studies” that allegedly show that if we just pass a few more gun control measures, we can finally turn the tide on the criminal misuse of firearms. Various big gun control groups love to tout these studies to...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Click to expand...
…Hmm. Wonder if Rand used scientific methods to determine that ?? 🤔😁

(sorry…couldn’t help myself 😉)
 
Has a lack of facts ever deterred the gun grabbers? To those who have even casually paid attention, it is obvious that those who demand "gun control" are far more interested in "people control" than any of the moralistic reasons they advance to support the restriction of someone else's rights.

Why does the pro 2A community allow the fascist left to define terms? Quit allowing them to call it "gun control". That is a disingenuous term that is crafted to make their position seem reasonable. Let's call it what it is-gun rights restriction and confiscation.

Why don't we push back against their implicit assertion that anyone who owns firearms is predisposed to criminal and dangerous behavior? I realize there are some who do, but why don't we demand that they quit trying to draw this link?

The anti-gun minority in this country has been given a pass by the media because they are useful idiots for the political elites. Our society has been brainwashed to believe that our feelings matter more than the truth. If we remain convinced that good intentions absolve us from adverse consequences when it comes to public policy, we will quickly find ourselves the subjects of a small group of tyrants.
 
An irrefutable truth I learned in grad school statistics it that you can make the numbers say whatever you want to support your position. It's why studies are generally meaningless without a clear methodology. Statistical dishonesty is the worst kind of lie because public policy is often based upon the reports.
 
Blackmesa96 said:
Has a lack of facts ever deterred the gun grabbers? To those who have even casually paid attention, it is obvious that those who demand "gun control" are far more interested in "people control" than any of the moralistic reasons they advance to support the restriction of someone else's rights.

Why does the pro 2A community allow the fascist left to define terms? Quit allowing them to call it "gun control". That is a disingenuous term that is crafted to make their position seem reasonable. Let's call it what it is-gun rights restriction and confiscation.

Why don't we push back against their implicit assertion that anyone who owns firearms is predisposed to criminal and dangerous behavior? I realize there are some who do, but why don't we demand that they quit trying to draw this link?

The anti-gun minority in this country has been given a pass by the media because they are useful idiots for the political elites. Our society has been brainwashed to believe that our feelings matter more than the truth. If we remain convinced that good intentions absolve us from adverse consequences when it comes to public policy, we will quickly find ourselves the subjects of a small group of tyrants.
Click to expand...
Well said indeed Blackmesa96! Now I know you've all heard this before but I'm going to say it anyway.
"Gun control" is being able to hit youy target!
 
Here's the actual RAND report, I think. It's not as rosy as made out to be

www.rand.org

The Science of Gun Policy: Second Edition

Unbiased evidence about the likely effects of gun laws is critical to developing fair and effective gun policies. This report, part of the RAND Gun Policy in America initiative, updates the available evidence about the potential effects of 13 laws and adds analyses of five new classes of law.
www.rand.org www.rand.org

The "key points" they make are (emphasis added)

Key Findings​

Scientific evidence on gun policies' effects is modest but supports a few conclusions​

  • Of more than 200 combinations of policies and outcomes, surprisingly few have been the subject of methodologically rigorous investigation. Notably, research into five of the examined outcomes is either unavailable or almost entirely inconclusive, and three of these five outcomes represent issues of particular concern to gun owners or gun industry stakeholders.
  • Available evidence supports the conclusion that child-access prevention laws, or safe storage laws, reduce self-inflicted fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries, including unintentional and intentional self-injuries, among youth.
  • There is supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in firearm homicides and moderate evidence that they increase the total number of homicides.
  • There is moderate evidence that state laws prohibiting gun ownership by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders decrease total and firearm-related intimate partner homicides.
  • There is moderate evidence that waiting periods reduce firearm suicides and total homicides and limited evidence that they reduce total suicides and firearm homicides.
  • No studies meeting the authors' inclusion criteria have examined the effects of gun-free zones, laws allowing armed staff in kindergarten through grade 12 schools, or required reporting of lost or stolen firearms.

Recommendations​

  • States without child-access prevention laws should consider adopting them as a strategy to reduce firearm suicides and unintentional firearm injuries and deaths.
  • States with stand-your-ground laws should consider repealing them as a strategy for reducing firearm homicides.
  • States without laws prohibiting gun ownership while individuals are subject to domestic violence restraining orders should consider passing such laws as a strategy for reducing total and firearm-related intimate partner homicides.
  • States without waiting period laws should consider adopting them as a strategy for reducing suicides and homicides.
  • To improve understanding of the real effects of gun policies, Congress should consider appropriating funds for a significant program of research on gun policy and gun violence reduction at levels comparable to the government's current investment in other threats to public safety and health.
  • To improve understanding of outcomes of critical concern to many in gun policy debates, the U.S. government and private research sponsors should support research examining the effects of gun laws on a wider set of outcomes, including crime, defensive gun use, hunting and sport shooting, officer-involved shootings, and the gun industry.
  • To foster a more robust research program on gun policy, Congress should consider eliminating or loosening the restrictions it has imposed on the use of gun trace data for research purposes.
  • Researchers, reviewers, academics, and science reporters should expect new analyses of the effects of gun policies to improve on earlier studies by persuasively addressing the methodological limitations of earlier studies, such as problems with statistical power, model overfitting, covariate selection, and poorly calibrated standard errors.
 
StillLearning said:
Here's the actual RAND report, I think. It's not as rosy as made out to be

www.rand.org

The Science of Gun Policy: Second Edition

Unbiased evidence about the likely effects of gun laws is critical to developing fair and effective gun policies. This report, part of the RAND Gun Policy in America initiative, updates the available evidence about the potential effects of 13 laws and adds analyses of five new classes of law.
www.rand.org www.rand.org

The "key points" they make are (emphasis added)

Key Findings​

Scientific evidence on gun policies' effects is modest but supports a few conclusions​

  • Of more than 200 combinations of policies and outcomes, surprisingly few have been the subject of methodologically rigorous investigation. Notably, research into five of the examined outcomes is either unavailable or almost entirely inconclusive, and three of these five outcomes represent issues of particular concern to gun owners or gun industry stakeholders.
  • Available evidence supports the conclusion that child-access prevention laws, or safe storage laws, reduce self-inflicted fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries, including unintentional and intentional self-injuries, among youth.
  • There is supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in firearm homicides and moderate evidence that they increase the total number of homicides.
  • There is moderate evidence that state laws prohibiting gun ownership by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders decrease total and firearm-related intimate partner homicides.
  • There is moderate evidence that waiting periods reduce firearm suicides and total homicides and limited evidence that they reduce total suicides and firearm homicides.
  • No studies meeting the authors' inclusion criteria have examined the effects of gun-free zones, laws allowing armed staff in kindergarten through grade 12 schools, or required reporting of lost or stolen firearms.

Recommendations​

  • States without child-access prevention laws should consider adopting them as a strategy to reduce firearm suicides and unintentional firearm injuries and deaths.
  • States with stand-your-ground laws should consider repealing them as a strategy for reducing firearm homicides.
  • States without laws prohibiting gun ownership while individuals are subject to domestic violence restraining orders should consider passing such laws as a strategy for reducing total and firearm-related intimate partner homicides.
  • States without waiting period laws should consider adopting them as a strategy for reducing suicides and homicides.
  • To improve understanding of the real effects of gun policies, Congress should consider appropriating funds for a significant program of research on gun policy and gun violence reduction at levels comparable to the government's current investment in other threats to public safety and health.
  • To improve understanding of outcomes of critical concern to many in gun policy debates, the U.S. government and private research sponsors should support research examining the effects of gun laws on a wider set of outcomes, including crime, defensive gun use, hunting and sport shooting, officer-involved shootings, and the gun industry.
  • To foster a more robust research program on gun policy, Congress should consider eliminating or loosening the restrictions it has imposed on the use of gun trace data for research purposes.
  • Researchers, reviewers, academics, and science reporters should expect new analyses of the effects of gun policies to improve on earlier studies by persuasively addressing the methodological limitations of earlier studies, such as problems with statistical power, model overfitting, covariate selection, and poorly calibrated standard errors.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
Drilled down some more when I got home.
While a reduction of 1,500 deaths over a decade may seem significant (not really to me), I wonder how that would affect deaths possible from the 500K-1.5M annual defense shootings, reported by the CDC, if these laws start interfering with self defense (as if they already aren't)

www.rand.org

What Science Tells Us About the Effects of Gun Policies

There are significant gaps in the available research on the effects of gun policies. However, the strongest evidence suggests laws aimed at preventing children from accessing guns would reduce firearm self-harm, and unintentional injuries and deaths among children.
www.rand.org www.rand.org


As for stand-your-ground laws, in our initial review of the research, we found only limited or moderate evidence for the effect of such laws on total and firearm homicides; however, four new studies meeting our inclusion criteria have since been published, and all of these suggest that stand-your-ground laws elevate homicide rates. Because these laws are designed to empower victims of crime to defend themselves more effectively, it might be suggested that the rise in homicide rates is an intended effect of the laws, if the increases were driven by a surge in justifiable homicides. Although more research is needed to draw definitive conclusions about how much of the increase in homicide rates is attributable to justifiable homicides, there is reason to doubt that justifiable homicides explain the increase that stand-your-ground laws seem to cause. Consider, for instance, that there were a combined 2,201 firearm homicides in 2017 in Florida and Texas, according to data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Both states have stand-your-ground laws. If the effect size estimates for stand-your-ground laws are correct, then between 144 and 396 of these deaths could be attributable to the laws. But across the entire United States, there are only about 230 justifiable homicides recorded in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports annually, according to records compiled by the Violence Policy Center. Therefore, many of the additional homicides attributable to the laws in Florida and Texas must be criminal homicides.



Does Weak Evidence Mean Gun Laws Don’t Work?​

With a few exceptions, there is a surprisingly limited base of rigorous scientific evidence concerning the effects of many commonly discussed gun policies. This does not mean that these policies are ineffective; they might well be quite effective. Instead, it partly reflects shortcomings in the contributions that science has made to policy debates. It also partly reflects the policies we chose to investigate, all of which have been implemented in some U.S. states and so have proven to be politically and legally feasible (at least in some jurisdictions). This decision meant that none of the policies we examined would dramatically increase or decrease the stock of guns or gun ownership rates in ways that would produce more readily detectable effects on public safety, health, and industry outcomes.

Even a 1-percent reduction in homicides nationally would correspond to approximately 1,500 fewer deaths over a decade.
Furthermore, the United States has a large stock of privately owned guns in circulation—estimated by the Small Arms Survey to be more than 393 million firearms in 2017. Laws designed to change who may buy new weapons, which weapons they may buy, or where and how they can use guns will predictably have only a small effect on, for example, homicide rates or participation in sport shooting, which are affected much more by the existing stock of firearms. But although small effects are especially difficult to identify with the statistical methods common in this field, they may be important. Even a 1-percent reduction in homicides nationally would correspond to approximately 1,500 fewer deaths over a decade.

By highlighting where scientific evidence is accumulating, we hope to build consensus around a shared set of facts that have been established through a transparent, nonpartisan, and impartial review process. In so doing, we also mean to highlight areas where more and better information could make important contributions to establishing fair and effective gun policies.
 
StillLearning said:
Here's the position on Shall Issue laws.
Wholly crap.....I'm down a rabbit hole, now

www.rand.org

Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime

Analysis of the impact of concealed-carry laws on violent crime in the United States
www.rand.org www.rand.org
Click to expand...
I'm a geek who finds these things interesting, and I appreciate you taking the time to locate them. I personally am more inclined to believe Rand's position that the results of these studies are too unreliable to draw scientific conclusions than I am to buy the "blood in the streets" conclusions published by Bloomberg.
 
wmg1299 said:
I'm a geek who finds these things interesting, and I appreciate you taking the time to locate them. I personally am more inclined to believe Rand's position that the results of these studies are too unreliable to draw scientific conclusions than I am to buy the "blood in the streets" conclusions published by Bloomberg.
Click to expand...
I have been trying to find the "original" data for most things posted anymore. No matter what "side" they come from. However, there are only so many hours in a day.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top