https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/ ... idence.pdfConclusions: Technically weak research mostly supports the hypothesis, while strong research does not. It must be tentatively concluded that higher gun ownership rates do not cause higher crime rates, including homicide rates.
https://crimeandjusticeresearchalliance ... ime-rates/In the article, “The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence,” Kleck examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime, especially violent crimes. Kleck conducted a literary review of 41 studies to determine which studies on this topic are better or worse methodologically and to find a relationship between gun ownership and homicide. Kleck used three criteria to sort the studies: 1) a validated measure of gun prevalence 2) authors controlled for confounding variables, and 3) researchers used suitable causal order procedures. In the 41 studies Kleck reviewed there were 90 unique findings. Kleck found only 28 of findings (31%) were based on valid measures of gun prevalence. Eleven percent of the findings (12%) controlled for more than five confounding variables. Only four findings (8%) met all three conditions of Kleck’s critical analysis and only ten (9%) met two or more of the criteria. The findings of the studies showed that 21 (52%) showed positive and significant associations between gun levels and homicide rates, but when Kleck accounted for the reliability of the studies in his analysis, he found that on 17% of the findings were positive and significant. In conclusion, Kleck noted that the more methodologically sound the study is, the less likely it supports the hypothesis that more guns is correlated to more crime.
I'm not sure that any change has been for the better, frankly.CDFingers wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:07 pm I'm not so sure that humans have changed in the intervening years.
CDFingers
Well, in 2015, TOS showed up. In 2016, with hostile foreign help, he was "elected". In 2017 he began he reign of incompetence, graft, and terror, and his loyal thralls love him.
In my former life as a bicycling educator, I railed against some truly abhorrent "junk science" poll results--from push polls, of course--so I totally get what your saying here.YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 5:23 pm
On a more serious note, this is why Social Science needs to be as ruthless, relentless, and unbiased as STEM Science. It's just to easy to design confirming studies and not subject them to rigorous review. Especially where the media are involved (and, no, I am NOT a "media basher") the sensational frequently subsumes the true facts and conclusions. Lay people buy it. Remember when Barr totally mis-represented the Mueller Report? THAT became the "conclusion" despite being wrong.
Agree YT, more quantitative studies and fewer qualitative studies. Qualitative studies are fine to expand on issues that quantitative studies have proven, they give more context but they can also turn into "human interest stories" that are more emotional than rational. Newspaper reporters are generally journalism or English majors, few newspapers have science reporters anymore who can analyze a study and put it into context. Instead studies get hyped and garbage science gets its "15 Minutes of Fame".YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 5:23 pmWell, in 2015, TOS showed up. In 2016, with hostile foreign help, he was "elected". In 2017 he began he reign of incompetence, graft, and terror, and his loyal thralls love him.
On a more serious note, this is why Social Science needs to be as ruthless, relentless, and unbiased as STEM Science. It's just to easy to design confirming studies and not subject them to rigorous review. Especially where the media are involved (and, no, I am NOT a "media basher") the sensational frequently subsumes the true facts and conclusions. Lay people buy it. Remember when Barr totally mis-represented the Mueller Report? THAT became the "conclusion" despite being wrong.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 2 guests
