|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEBRUARY
2018
"If you are not a communist/socialist by the time you are 20, you have not got the good of the world at heart.The paradigm has changed. We are in the era of "perception". The powerful used to control our perceptions through the various media. The internet has provided alternative perceptions, and they are at polarizing war. Is Donald Trump a good guy or a crazy apple? That all depends on who you listen to, and what facts you believe.
If you are not a Capitalist by the time you are 40, you are not a realist."
Using cross-sectional time-series data for US counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths.Note that Lott and Mustard used "cross-sectional time-series data for counties". What that means is they examined the data from local government areas (which in the USA can have local laws) to look at the effect of those local carry laws on various crimes.
John Lott and David Mustard have used regression analysis to argue forcefully that 'shall-issue' laws (which give citizens an unimpeded right to secure permits for concealed weapons) reduce violent crime. While certain facially plausible statistical models appear to generate this conclusion, more refined analyses of more recent state and county data undermine the more guns, less crime hypothesis. The most robust finding on the state data is that certain property crimes rise with passage of shall- issue laws, although the absence of any clear theory as to why this would be the case tends to undercut any strong conclusions. Estimating more statistically preferred disaggregated models on more complete county data, we show that in most states shall- issue laws have been associated with more crime and that the apparent stimulus to crime tends to be especially strong for those states that adopted in the last decade. While there are substantial concerns about model reliability and robustness, we present estimates based on disaggregated county data models that on net the passage of the law in 24 jurisdictions has increased the annual cost of crime slightly -- somewhere on the order of half a billion dollars. We also provide an illustration of how our jurisdiction-specific regression model has the capacity to generate more nuanced assessments concerning which states might profit from or be harmed by a particular legal intervention.We can see here that Ayres et al have cleverly avoided the point. Lott and Mustard found "We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal." What did Ayres et al do? First they went from county to state data, (Which blurs the detail) and found that certain "property crime" has increased. No mention of "violent crime". It got aggregated into "crime". Not something a journalist who is pushing for gun control would notice. And then, to polish it off, they invent a prediction model (See global warming prediction models, and how well they work!)