You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NPR: Does carrying a pistol make you safer?
- Thread starter Pietro Beretta
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
wild cat mccane
New member
I would like to throw it back a bit to some people making assumptions in here.
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is the the foremost conservative think tank (ie, the Brookings Institute for conservatives).
Post two in this thread said lay concealed carry permits over crime and do it across time. AEI did it. Here it is. http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
The problem with this argument and with AEI's graph:
Observe the scale on the left hand y axis. Look at the increments. They are minuscule. Notice how small that is. So, one CANNOT even correlate (let alone impart causality) to the argument that concealed carry, over 20 years, had ANY part to this decrease in crime in America...at all.
This was pointed out to the author, who awkwardly responds by, falsely, not addressing the issue. Statistical correlation is not proven and is the minimum statistical test. Answer: concealed carry DOES NOT account for any part of the decrease in crime.
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is the the foremost conservative think tank (ie, the Brookings Institute for conservatives).
Post two in this thread said lay concealed carry permits over crime and do it across time. AEI did it. Here it is. http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
The problem with this argument and with AEI's graph:
Observe the scale on the left hand y axis. Look at the increments. They are minuscule. Notice how small that is. So, one CANNOT even correlate (let alone impart causality) to the argument that concealed carry, over 20 years, had ANY part to this decrease in crime in America...at all.
This was pointed out to the author, who awkwardly responds by, falsely, not addressing the issue. Statistical correlation is not proven and is the minimum statistical test. Answer: concealed carry DOES NOT account for any part of the decrease in crime.
Last edited:
There are many here that believe thatThey made it seem like having a gun was useless unless you got special tactical training.
I imagine there are very few here who actually believe that. Clearly many people without tactical training manage to defend themselves with firearms. Just like many incompetent drivers manage to get to work and back several times a week without killing someone or themselves.There are many here that believe that
The beauty of firearms is that they have a tremendous deterrent effect which can be quite effective even if the person holding them has no idea what to do next. But just like being a good driver will increase your safety level and reduce your chances of being killed in a traffic accident, being competent with a firearm increases your chances of using it successfully should the need arise.
And of not screwing up and making the situation worse. Which does happen from time to time. Like the woman who shot out the tires of a shoplifter and was prosecuted. Or the people every year who accidentally shoot themselves with their self defense firearms.
Statistically speaking, the odds of having a gun save your life are pretty small. That's because the odds of being in an encounter where a gun COULD save your life are pretty small....carrying a pistol does not make you safer.
In other words, if there were a pill that could cure disease X most of the time, but the odds of getting disease X were very small, then the odds of the pill saving you are also pretty small. For any given person in the population, taking the pill would have very little chance of making a difference in their life because a large majority of the people in the population will never get the disease in the first place.
But that's not why people carry. Let's think about the pill illustration again, but this time let's assume that a person HAS disease X and takes the pill. Then the odds of the pill helping become very good--for that person.
The same is true with a carry gun. It's not about the overall odds of needing a gun, it's about how it improves the chances of a positive outcome IF things go bad.
Said another way, I don't carry a gun because I EXPECT to be in a violent encounter. I don't expect that at all. The odds are really good that I'll go my whole life and never need a firearm for self-defense. I carry a gun because I don't like the idea of being in a violent encounter and not having the option of responding with a firearm given that firearms have been demonstrated to be a very effective way to resolve a violent encounter successfully.
Deaf Smith
New member
It's puzzling that so many Americans are choosing to arm themselves at a time when the FBI tells us violent crime and property crime have been falling dramatically for two decades.
Well considering CHL/CCW has been growing for over 20 years, then I'd say there is a direct correlation between CCW and crime going down.
More Guns.. less crime!
Deaf
James K said:The adult (18 and over) population of the U.S. is about 250 million. 13 million (if that is correct) licensed carriers is about 0.05% of the adult population. Whether that is bad, or good, or alarming, or comforting is up to you, but it is not anywhere near 36% or even 4%. Frankly, I doubt there are enough licensed carriers to make any real difference in crime, one way or another.
the ratio of licensed carriers to total population doesn’t tell us anything. Its the ratio of licensed carriers to violent criminals that matters. While the percentage may be low the rate of CHLs is variable and currently on the rise but the percentage of violent criminals in any society will always be the same...
My guess is there are more licensed carriers than violent criminals and if everyone actually carried everyday there would be a significant deterrent in crime.
IMO I doubt there are enough licensed carriers that actually carry every day to make any real difference in crime. I think the current trend in permits is because gun owners woke up to the fact they really don’t have any rights without one. And then I get the impression that most licence holders get their licenses for reasons other than daily use, mostly to make them feel responsible. Gun owners are a slow bunch to put 2 and 2 together...
Carrying a pistol does not make you safer.
Being able to look after yourself, with or without a CCW License, and carrying one every day? The first 6 words in this sentence, are what I call a clue.
But having made that statement, my carrying a 4th Gen Glock 19, always, gives me choices, that not carrying does not.
The average Citizen walking/driving in and around our lovely State, have never been in a fight as an adult! Let alone pointed a gun at anyone!
At my age, with a Wife who I love dearly, means I need to be aware of threat/risk, assessment whilst out and about. And I have to admit, bad guys are not in big supply around where we live or travel.
But being unaware of your immediate surroundings? Is not a good idea.
Having access to my G19, every minute, of every day, is a good one.
Being able to look after yourself, with or without a CCW License, and carrying one every day? The first 6 words in this sentence, are what I call a clue.
But having made that statement, my carrying a 4th Gen Glock 19, always, gives me choices, that not carrying does not.
The average Citizen walking/driving in and around our lovely State, have never been in a fight as an adult! Let alone pointed a gun at anyone!
At my age, with a Wife who I love dearly, means I need to be aware of threat/risk, assessment whilst out and about. And I have to admit, bad guys are not in big supply around where we live or travel.
But being unaware of your immediate surroundings? Is not a good idea.
Having access to my G19, every minute, of every day, is a good one.
mineralman55
New member
Stop Listening
Stop listening to National People's Radio. Their idiotic programs "Morning Distortion" and "All Left Wing Considered" are nothing more than propaganda for the ultra left. They went downhill over 30 years ago, and every time I think they've reached new lows they find another lower depth to plummet to.
Stop listening to National People's Radio. Their idiotic programs "Morning Distortion" and "All Left Wing Considered" are nothing more than propaganda for the ultra left. They went downhill over 30 years ago, and every time I think they've reached new lows they find another lower depth to plummet to.
NPR is my primary source of broadcast news, this story displayed less than their usual bias.
A combination of underinformed and misinformed.
Pond James Pond
New member
It's puzzling that so many Americans are choosing to arm themselves at a time when the FBI tells us violent crime and property crime have been falling dramatically for two decades.
Perhaps this would put it in perspective:
It's puzzling that so many Americans are choosing cars with airbags at a time when the road safety agencies tell us traffic accidents have been falling dramatically for two decades.
Regardless whether or not a risk is in decline, if a mitigating factor exists to further reduce that risk, why not take advantage of it? Particularly when outcomes can be devastating if you happen to be the unlucky 1 per 100,000 that night.
Stats are not a valid form of protection.
Last edited:
I listen to NPR generally on the way to and from work until the idiocy gets to me and I change the station.
1) There math is often way off.
2) There inability to follow the rules of formal logic is amazing.
3) Some of the questions reporters ask are so asinine one can only assume they did not know the interview subject or content prior to the interview and are simply winging it.
4) Correlation does not equal causation much less a directional causational link. I know there are big words in there but the concept is not hard. Perhaps, for instance, crime is lower because more and more Americans are armed. More likely there is some sort of confounding variable not considered.
For the record I find right wing news equally annoying. At least the math tends to work out more closely. I simply cannot believe some of the NPR reporters are college educated and not 16 year old high school students.
1) There math is often way off.
2) There inability to follow the rules of formal logic is amazing.
3) Some of the questions reporters ask are so asinine one can only assume they did not know the interview subject or content prior to the interview and are simply winging it.
4) Correlation does not equal causation much less a directional causational link. I know there are big words in there but the concept is not hard. Perhaps, for instance, crime is lower because more and more Americans are armed. More likely there is some sort of confounding variable not considered.
For the record I find right wing news equally annoying. At least the math tends to work out more closely. I simply cannot believe some of the NPR reporters are college educated and not 16 year old high school students.
Lohman446 said:I listen to NPR generally on the way to and from work until the idiocy gets to me and I change the station.
1) There math is often way off.
2) There inability to follow the rules of formal logic is amazing.
3) Some of the questions reporters ask are so asinine one can only assume they did not know the interview subject or content prior to the interview and are simply winging it.
4) Correlation does not equal causation much less a directional causational link. I know there are big words in there but the concept is not hard. Perhaps, for instance, crime is lower because more and more Americans are armed. More likely there is some sort of confounding variable not considered.
Indeed. Like you, I spend a lot of time listening to public radio.
I like the tone; people speak calmly and without some the stylistic affectations that make other radio unbearable. I disagree with much of it; this may make it more interesting to me.
However, it is wildly biased. The sentence on which others have already written demonstrates how the possibility that the culture of effective self-protection might be related to a drop in violent crime. It puzzles him, but he doesn't think about why he would find that puzzling.
News reader Carl Cassel once referred to Miquel Estrada, a republican judicial nominee as "that honduran immigrant lawyer". Spots by Peter Overby, a leftist political advocate, are presented as neutral reporting even though they are hit pieces aimed at his political adversaries. He delivers them in a charisma free manner (which may draw you to think he is just engaged in dispassionate reporting), but the most egregious of them are nothing but accusation and innuendo.
A Tom Steyer (a billionaire and democrat donor) group funds a weekend show with a predictable viewpoint; a few weeks ago it engaged in an enthusiastic defense of Steyer with a modest disclosure after the story that the program receives funding from his group.
A decade or so ago, Terri Gross so egregiously violated basic journalist ethics in her interview with Bill O'Reilly, a television personality at the other end of the spectrum, that the NPR ombudsman addressed the issue publicly. Also recall the mishandling of Juan Williams' termination.
This is all to say that Burnett's underlying assumption is pretty ordinary for NPR.
Last edited:
I have National Propaganda Radio tuned into my bedside clock radio. Fifteen minutes of their babbling and you will jump up screaming from your bed. I agree that at first the article seems unbiased but the underlying current of anti-gun sentiment is there for those familiar with their subtle rhetoric.
I simply cannot believe some of the NPR reporters are college educated and not 16 year old high school students.
There was poll recently that stated !0% of college graduates believe Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/judge-judy-supreme-court-poll/
There was poll recently that stated !0% of college graduates believe Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politi...me-court-poll/
The changing in theory of our colleges into businesses (lower standards until enrollment is full) and the treating of students as paying customers (of course you are going to pass to come back next year) has been incredibly detrimental to our institutions of higher learning. Couple this with institutional egocentricity and promotion of the successful students into teachers and the problems in our institutions are not likely to be solved from within them.
The use of a degree as a none bona-fide and unvalidated requirement of employment in many fields has simply created a vicious cycle that does not seem to have a reasonable end in sight.
These seem to be a bit off-topic though and I unfortunately cannot expand on them within the confines of this thread.
NPR is my primary source of broadcast news because I enjoy radio, it allows me to multitask. I can listen while I clean my guns, or while I drive. I have access to international reporting via the BBC that covers a breadth of information that the mainstream media in the states ignores.
And I am completely aware of NPR's bias, and also aware that NPR is a big influence on people who oppose gun rights and funded by them too. I've found that the ability to understand that perspective has strengthened my views, and made me more effective in articulating them.
But note that NPR is my primary source of broadcast news, not news or information in general. I don't always agree with right wing talk show hosts, but I listen to them too. The NYT makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes, but I subscribe to the Sunday edition. I read the local paper and watch the local news every day. I get news from over a dozen online sources every day too.
When I want informed opinions about specific firearms, related policy, and tactics I come here.
And I am completely aware of NPR's bias, and also aware that NPR is a big influence on people who oppose gun rights and funded by them too. I've found that the ability to understand that perspective has strengthened my views, and made me more effective in articulating them.
But note that NPR is my primary source of broadcast news, not news or information in general. I don't always agree with right wing talk show hosts, but I listen to them too. The NYT makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes, but I subscribe to the Sunday edition. I read the local paper and watch the local news every day. I get news from over a dozen online sources every day too.
When I want informed opinions about specific firearms, related policy, and tactics I come here.
stonewall50
New member
I would say this statement in the first paragraph would demonstrate they recognize its been a long time coming. 9 years ago; at that point it would have been four million. Seriously, that's what you key in on?
The thing I keyed in on is people with tunnel vision profiling people, they are going to end up getting mugged by the person they were not looking looking at because they didn't fit a description or profile that they set in their mind.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.