The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence

1
I am still digesting the paper, but here is the link. Note the conclusion from the abstract:
Conclusions: 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://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/ ... idence.pdf

At the link you'll find the full abstract as well as the paper, neither behind a pay wall. The way I see it, it's the person, not the gun. But you know I'd write that.

CDFingers
The wheel is turning and you can't slow down. You can't let go and you can't hold on.
You can't go back and you can't stand still. If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will

Re: The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence

2
This is one analysis since the journal article is behind a paywall. Kleck's article was published in 2015 which means it was likely done in 2014 or earlier.
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.
https://crimeandjusticeresearchalliance ... ime-rates/

I'd like to see him redo this with more current studies. Wonder how many in his 41 studies were medical or public health ones which seem to have a bias against guns.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence

6
This article using studies as of 2014/2015 shows a mixed conclusion, there is no strong showing that gun ownership does or does not affect crime. Data does change over time and if he wants to prove his thesis one way or the other, it's worth analyzing new studies. As I said I'd exclude medical and public health studies and only use criminological and sociological studies.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence

8
BearPaws wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:14 pm
CDFingers wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:07 pm I'm not so sure that humans have changed in the intervening years.

CDFingers
I'm not sure that any change has been for the better, frankly.
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.

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.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence

9
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.
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.

Don't get me started on what some cycling advocates call the "Geller Taxonomy."
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence

10
I seem to recall STEM has similar issues with crap studies and reproducible results affirming a preferred interpretation of data. Room-temperature superconductors ring a bell? How about the pharmacological utility of pseudo-Sudafed? Once again, the problem isn't the tool, it's a software problem.

Sure, the causality loop is one problem with interpreting gun ownership/violence correlations. Do people arm up because of increasing crime, or does increasing access to guns increase the likelihood they get used when people turn violent? But there's a mechanistic side too - increasing gun theft feeds both sides of the loop.

Break the cycle. No, not the bicycle.

Re: The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence

11
YankeeTarheel wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 5:23 pm
BearPaws wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:14 pm
CDFingers wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:07 pm I'm not so sure that humans have changed in the intervening years.

CDFingers
I'm not sure that any change has been for the better, frankly.
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.

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".
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 31 guests

cron