TexasCHLforum.com

wgoforth wrote:

mreavis wrote:I'm 25.

Too ladys I was actually talking to I do apologize if I offended you. Tone is hard to interpret on the internet. When I said "go use your brain" for example. I didn't mean to suggest you never had or needed to try it out. I was saying let your brain do the work for you not the media. If you reread what I said in a friendly but lecture sort of way you will get achieve the tone I was going for.


However, WGoforth, as the one I keep hearing complaints from, it easily could be argued the things you have been facebook messaging me and a few of the post on this topic are just as insulting to me.

Again though I never meant to insult anyone directly and I am entitled to my opinion. I do apologize one last time if I offended anyone. And I do expect you to leave me, my facebook, and my reputation in unconcerned communities alone. *I* don't want this to have to be a bigger deal.

I'm famous! lol. Hardly see how the CHL community is an unconcerned community.
I couldn't find this on the news story comments, where is it??

The article is completely related to the forums. The slander against me, like the lines you have started to remove from your previous posts are what I am referring too. I agree this should be dealt with personally. And I apologize more than once. We can let it go or you can keep making a bigger deal out of it. I don't want this to become a bigger issue but if you keep slandering me, facebook messaging me, or attempt to create further problems in my life I promise you it will become a bigger issue.

mreavis wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

mreavis wrote:I'm 25.

Too ladys I was actually talking to I do apologize if I offended you. Tone is hard to interpret on the internet. When I said "go use your brain" for example. I didn't mean to suggest you never had or needed to try it out. I was saying let your brain do the work for you not the media. If you reread what I said in a friendly but lecture sort of way you will get achieve the tone I was going for.


However, WGoforth, as the one I keep hearing complaints from, it easily could be argued the things you have been facebook messaging me and a few of the post on this topic are just as insulting to me.

Again though I never meant to insult anyone directly and I am entitled to my opinion. I do apologize one last time if I offended anyone. And I do expect you to leave me, my facebook, and my reputation in unconcerned communities alone. *I* don't want this to have to be a bigger deal.

I'm famous! lol. Hardly see how the CHL community is an unconcerned community.
I couldn't find this on the news story comments, where is it??

The article is completely related to the forums. The slander against me, like the lines you have started to remove from your previous posts are what I am referring too. I agree this should be dealt with personally. And I apologize more than once. We can let it go or you can keep making a bigger deal out of it. I don't want this to become a bigger issue but if you keep slandering me, facebook messaging me, or attempt to create further problems in my life I promise you it will become a bigger issue.

(1) I edited the post here as I didn't realize it was you, but I thought it was forwarded from the news site. Once I realized it was you, my comment made no sense, so I edited it. I note you also edited, we all do.
(2) Anyone is welcomed to look at the public comments made on the news site, and here are my only private messages to you on FB for all to see. What slander there might be is beyond me. I am leaving your replies out as those are your property.
Hi Matthew... don't know if you realize it, but many responding concerning the stats given in the gun story were from CHL instructors. I am both CHL as well as NRA instructor. I only say this as you stated that your working at Red's may mean you know what you are talking about. Whether you realize it or not, your tone was very insulting, and you have become a topic on the Texas CHL forum, and one lady expressed she would never go there again. FWIW.
next:
Thought you might like to see how you affected one lady http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=55931" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
next:
Thinking your not seeing the trees for the forest. You state that we are as biased as they. So that means unless we come to your conclusion we are biased? Isn't that pretty biased?? Considering the age and length of time as instructors and training, isn't it possible we have already studied this and come to honest conclusions based on facts??
next:
Its not I that found you insulting, but several good ladies were hurt by statements, not tones, you made. No level of merit? Hmm, and working part time at a shooting range does?

As you, I am ready to drop it, but thought it neccessary to answer charges of slander.

Finally, an apology to the group. I should not have chased a rabbit, but stuck to demanding what the "notable studies" that were not revealed in the news story were. As Matthew, I apologize for allowing personality to enter in, and mods are of course welcome to delete/lock as they see fit....esp since there is an earlier thread running.

Beautiful! The end was all I was looking for. And again my apologies to those I upset or offended. We don't need to keep this beast alive any longer.

After reviewing the 1,000 page source study (not really 1,000 pages) :-) I again state, you can make STATISTICS say anything. look at flat numbers. No formulas, no "corrections" no removal of this or that, or addition of this or that.

Here's something to chew on...if there were, before RTC, 1,000 murders and 500 agg assaults; then after RTC only 700 murders, yet 600 agg assaults, how would you rate this? The number of murders decreased, yet the number of agg assaults increased. Total crime dropped by 7%, but the agg assaults increased by 20%.

The reason the number of agg assaults increased could, for all intensive purposes, be because they were stopped before they became murders. Murder suspects are not typically charged with murder AND agg assault.

Stats are easily manipulated to say what you want.

LabRat wrote:

wgoforth wrote:The report was very good...untill she put in her unsubtantiated claim at the end, that "several notable studies have shown violent crimes go up with gun sales. Ya'll need to floood the comment section below the story.

http://weareaustin.com/news/top-stories ... 4829581054" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed. Left an email for the General Manager asking for a response to the "our research" comment and the assertion that more concealed carry means more crime. Let's see what that person says.

I also asked that this reporter be restricted from reporting untill the comments are explained or retracted.

LabRat

Received a reply from the news station:

Thanks so much for the e-mail -- and for watching KEYE TV News. The source for that last part of the story was a Stanford University study. Here is a link to that study:

http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/89/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have a great afternoon,
Suzanne Black
KEYE TV News Director

Have not had a chance to read the data yet. But I will.

LabRat

RGreene wrote:After reviewing the 1,000 page source study (not really 1,000 pages) :-) I again state, you can make STATISTICS say anything. look at flat numbers. No formulas, no "corrections" no removal of this or that, or addition of this or that.

Here's something to chew on...if there were, before RTC, 1,000 murders and 500 agg assaults; then after RTC only 700 murders, yet 600 agg assaults, how would you rate this? The number of murders decreased, yet the number of agg assaults increased. Total crime dropped by 7%, but the agg assaults increased by 20%.

The reason the number of agg assaults increased could, for all intensive purposes, be because they were stopped before they became murders. Murder suspects are not typically charged with murder AND agg assault.

Stats are easily manipulated to say what you want.

Welcome to the forum

That's true
One of my required college Textbooks was

LabRat wrote:

LabRat wrote:

wgoforth wrote:The report was very good...untill she put in her unsubtantiated claim at the end, that "several notable studies have shown violent crimes go up with gun sales. Ya'll need to floood the comment section below the story.

http://weareaustin.com/news/top-stories ... 4829581054" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed. Left an email for the General Manager asking for a response to the "our research" comment and the assertion that more concealed carry means more crime. Let's see what that person says.

I also asked that this reporter be restricted from reporting untill the comments are explained or retracted.

LabRat

Received a reply from the news station:

Thanks so much for the e-mail -- and for watching KEYE TV News. The source for that last part of the story was a Stanford University study. Here is a link to that study:

http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/89/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have a great afternoon,
Suzanne Black
KEYE TV News Director

Have not had a chance to read the data yet. But I will.

LabRat

http://www.campuscarry.com/opponents/re ... e-schools/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They back up this assertion with the lone supporting statement, “Professor John J. Donohue of Yale Law School found that, if anything, concealed carry laws like Texas’ ‘are associated with uniform increases in crime.’”

That statement by Professor Donahue refers to his efforts, along with Yale Law professor Ian Ayres[ii], to discredit studies[iii] by John Lott and David Mustard purporting to show that right-to-carry/shall-issue concealed handgun licensing laws lead to a decrease in crime. The study by Donahue and Ayres seeks to discredit the “more guns, less crime” assertion by extending the statistical model used in Lott and Mustard’s 1977-1992 study through 1997.

It’s important to note that the study by Donahue and Ayres focused on the nation as a whole, not on Texas. Even more significantly, it factors in only the first two years of Texas’s concealed handgun licensing program. Clearly, this study is not a scientific or mathematical analysis of the impact of Texas’s concealed handgun licensing laws.

Furthermore, Carlisle E. Moody, Professor of Economics at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, and Thomas B. Marvell, attorney-sociologist and director of Justec Research in Williamsburg, Virginia, thoroughly rebut the findings of Donahue and Ayres, in their article “The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws,” in volume 5, issue 3 (September 2008) of Econ Journal Watch. Moody and Marvell state:

While reading Ayres and Donohue’s 2003 article in the Stanford Law Review, we noticed that their analysis did not prove what they said it proved. They claimed that their model proved that shall-issue laws increased crime. Our conclusions are as follows.

More at link above

...some folks twist words...some folks twist numbers...

I have not looked at the data and probably won't bother. It appears that the Stanford group only re-analyzed the data collected by the National Research Council. It's interesting to note that the data was collected from 1977-2006, well before many states had right to carry laws. They stated that crime rates were analyzed by county. I wonder if they looked at the difference between rural and urban counties. I also wonder if they include data from California and New York and other states where there are no right to carry laws.

Note the authors of that paper
Normally I wouldn't bring up abortion on this forum but for the sake of credibility of the authors ...
http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortionAndCrime.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By legalizing abortion in 1973, did the Supreme Court also drive down the American crime rate during the later Nineties? Professors Steven D. Levitt of the U. of Chicago and John J. Donohue III of Stanford think so.

That "study" was also a farce
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL06/randylaura.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abortion Link to Crime Decrease Debunked

The author is a quack, ... feel free to relay that to the Station. The "reporter" (fiction writer) needs to VET their sources.

who is John J. Donohue III?
John J. Donohue III is a law professor and economist widely known for his writings on effect of legalized abortion on crime and for his criticism of John Lott

He earned a Ph.D. in economics from Yale in 1986 and a J.D. for Harvard

He is not ... a statistician; he represents himself as ... a researcher/research associate

RPB wrote:Note the authors of that paper
Normally I wouldn't bring up abortion on this forum but for the sake of credibility of the authors ...
http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortionAndCrime.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By legalizing abortion in 1973, did the Supreme Court also drive down the American crime rate during the later Nineties? Professors Steven D. Levitt of the U. of Chicago and John J. Donohue III of Stanford think so.

Fabulous. That makes me glad I made the decision, not to look at the data.

Here's another one that shows his political leanings:

At the Democratic Convention Clinton argued that he had put police on the street and took guns off, but that Bush has done the opposite. Was Clinton truly more anti-crime? I estimate that Clinton-era federal programs were responsible for a six to eight percent reduction in crime seen in the last decade. The Bush administration has failed to build on the Clinton administration's success in funding more police. For no good reason, a crime-control program that has a very favorable benefit/cost ratio is being cut back.
http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let the TV station know that the author of that study believes abortion reduces crime too and that John J. Donohue III has an "expert" opinion on everything (You lawyers/legal profession guys know what I mean by "expert")

Racial Bias in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence
A Test of Racial Bias in Capital Sentencing
Abortion reduces crime
Guns Reduce Crime Debate

Key Works
John J. Donohue III, and Justin Wolfers (2005), Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, Stanford Law Review 58: 791-846.
John J. Donohue III and Steven D. Levitt, Further Evidence that Legalized Abortion Lowered Crime, 39 Journal of Human Resources 29-49 (Winter 2004).
Ayres, Ian and John J. Donohue, III (2003), Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review. 55: 1193-1312.
John J. Donohue III and Peter Siegelman, Allocating Resources Among Prisons and Social Programs in the Battle Against Crime, 27 Journal of Legal Studies 1-43 (1998).
John J. Donohue III and Peter Siegelman, The Selection of Employment Discrimination Disputes for Litigation: Using Business Cycle Effects to Test the Priest-Klein Hypothesis, 24 Journal of Legal Studies 427-462 (1995).
John Donohue III and James Heckman, Continuous Versus Episodic Change: The Impact of Civil Rights Policy on the Economic Status of Blacks, 29 Journal of Economic Literature 1603 (1993).


In the News

Another Reprieve
The Economist, April 20, 2012
Death Penalty Repeal Goes To Connecticut Governor
The New York Times, April 11, 2012
Stand Your Ground And Concealed Weapons Laws
WAMU 88.5 - The Diane Rehm Show, April 03, 2012
The Random Horror Of The Death Penalty
The New York Times, January 07, 2012
=============
Seriously, he has an opinion on "everything"
http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://ideas.repec.org/e/pdo40.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Citing a study by him is like having a cart pulled by a unicorn, both require a lot of imagination to believe.

RPB wrote:John J. Donohue III has an "expert" opinion on everything (You lawyers/legal profession guys know what I mean by "expert")

He does have impressive credentials - Standford Professor, Harvard Law graduate, Yale Phd.
A good mind is a terrible thing to waste.

WildBill wrote:

RPB wrote:John J. Donohue III has an "expert" opinion on everything (You lawyers/legal profession guys know what I mean by "expert")

He does have impressive credentials - Standford Professor, Harvard Law graduate, Yale Phd.
A good mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Reminds me ...The type that when matriculation or registration for classes was going on would come ask for help and I'd say "you have a doctorate right? and they'd ask how I knew, and I'd reply all the lower classmen filled out the papers without needed help, only people in doctorate programs require assistance (and it's true)
With a few people, their education impedes their ability to think.
I'm not much a respecter of credentials from irrational people whose I.Q. is lower than mine if they can't reason logically.
But, yeah, he got money to buy credentials somewhere and sat through classes ...and... then regurgitate what the school/professor fed him in a manner that pleased them.