/k/ BTFO, Stanford study about the right to carry doesn'

>>34330858
>shitlib university (((study))) shows guns are nothing but bad and you should turn them in
Point noted.

File: image.jpg (261KB, 2048x987px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 2048x987px

>>34330858

File: Screenshot_2017-06-22-06-44-17.png (526KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1440x2560px

Yeah but i think this methodology is pretty bs, not to mention I'm already weary of college institutions actually putting out anything worthwhile these days.

the funny thing is anti gunners will use this to confirm their own bias rather than actually questioning the study/statistic. In summation statistics can be made to show whatever it is that you want to prove or disapprove.

>>34330876
not an argument

>>34330883
>the funny thing is anti gunners will use this to confirm their own bias rather than actually questioning the study/statistic
Be honest here, did you actually read it yourself or are you intentionally rejecting it to confirm your own bias?

>>34330858
How about I shoot you in the face instead.
>sage

File: 1539.jpg (149KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x820px

>>34330858

>>34330891
Thats part of my problem with it, there is no argument. I'm just supposed to accept this guy's models as the holy grail

>>34330883
If ever one of these studies used rigorous and independently verifiable methodology, I might listen. However, they invariably begin heavily biased towards reaching a certain result and do whatever they can to reach said result. As has been stated already in this thread, their methodology is suspect, so the result is discarded. Bias has nothing to do with it, junk is junk.

I fail to see how no matter what it's effect is how I am made safer by not having a gun to defend myself with in the shit neighborhoods I spend time in.

>>34330892
it goes both ways.

>>34330915
I know, just as long as we're aware of it.

Texas in general has some violent big cities but nothing compared to their neighbor to the south Mexico.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/murder-rate-reaches-record-high-in-mexico/
>Newly released figures reveal that one person was murdered every twenty minutes in Mexico in May.
I'll take Texas over the no gun shithole next door... also build a wall.

>>34330906
This
The only numbers he offers is x went up 15% or 7% without giving or even citing his raw data

>>34330876
Hmmmmm I wonder if the demographic shift away from whites in America has anything to do with rising violent crime and mirrors the same timeframe the study has....

File: Screenshot 2017-06-22 at 2.36.09 AM.png (205KB, 499x255px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 499x255px

>study doesn't factor in niggers

>>34330858
>Crime data
They use this phrase a lot in the article without explaining once what crime data, where this crime data comes from or who supplied it. Typical made up liberal bullshit. Throw this propaganda in the trash with the rest.

>>34330858
How stupid are you?

>Discussions about politics or current events belong on /pol/.

>Do not post threads about gun control. They belong on /pol/.

>>34330949
This isn't about politics or gun control it's about a study release by Stanford.

And?
I don't give a fuck. The American citizen's right to bear arms trump's people's fee-fees or their safety from Tyrone.

>>34330973
Your rights have been violated before so you'll submit like the good goy you are

>>34330876
>make up a fake state by fucking around with crime stats from 4 random real states and thinking this means anything

Libtards are really this retarded. College is officially a joke.

>>34330987
it's been a joke for at least ten years now when everyone went in with the expectation that they were "buying" a degree, i.e.,
>I paid this much and flunked out wtf?!

>>34330876
>we made up information about something that literally does not exist (you'll have to trust us with our methodology) and then we used it to make future estimates, give up your guns thanks

https://youtu.be/5WXV1PxUiAM?t=31

>>34330858
I haven't read the full report yet, but the article already tells me this is going to be full of shit.

>Donohue cites a 2013 report from the National Crime Victimization Survey that showed in 99.2 percent of the violent attacks in the United States, no gun is ever used defensively – despite the nearly 300 million guns in circulation in the country today.
This is already ridiculous, if it's just talking about concealed and open carry, why are they quoting the 300 million number? Those aren't all handguns and they are owned by a wide range of demographics.

There is no mention of ethnic, religious or economic makeup and differences between the states used to generate this fake state, which is ludicrous.

What a disgusting example of manipulating language to imply correlation equals causation. It's a fucking joke that this kind of fallacy will be allowed to be used in court.

And the worst part,
>the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.
This idiot has the audacity to call himself an academic while making a blanket statement declaring that right to carry is DIRECTLY responsible for an increase in crime.

>>34330987
Yep, big red flag right there. It's like he desperately searched for states and hand picked data from different years to create a scenario that would give him the desired outcome

>>34330987
>>34331005
>I do not understand statistics, the posts

>>34330891
but claiming that a study is flawed due to methodological problems is actually an argument, Anon

>>34331041
statistics can be easily distorted, fuckhed.

The trick of using a fake state amalgamated from cherry picked historical data is a statistical trick as old as time itself.

By using it as evidence for your cause you only hurt yourself.

>>34331041
>>34331041
the're right, without explining the raw data or the definintions of the variables used there was clearly cherry picking to get a specific outcome.

>>34330906
>>34330929
>>34330973
>>34331005
>>34331045
/thread.

>>34331052
Never said they couldn't.

However, if you understood them, you could actually offer a defense of your position more than hurr durr fake statistics and name calling.

>>34331101
You haven't actually said or done anything that would make the paper's claims valid, so what do you expect us to be defending against?

>>34330858
> this bait
Fuck it I got time. Youre reading the study incorrectly. For example, if you take away my right to carry, im going to shoot you in the face. And im pretty sure theres a dude here thatll rape you for it as well.

>>34331110
>You haven't actually said or done anything
No, a Stanford professor did. The onus would now be on you, anon, to offer a defense that is actually worth a damn.

Almost like getting fire on target.

>>34331160
I'm sorry, that's just not how academic peer review works.

It's up to the person presenting the paper to defend it's merits, and you haven;t done a single bit of that yet.

>>34330858
You could make the argument that people will start going and getting permits if the area they are in is violent.

These statistics are cherry picked at best

>>34330858

This study does not prove that correlation equals causation

>>34330858
Doesn't the FBI crime stats show the exact opposite though?

Too busy to dig into the study right now, but anyone have a TL;dr of the Stanford methodology and definitions of "violent crime"?

File: what this study is.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>34330858
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

> Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1]

> People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for *deeply entrenched beliefs.* [emphasis mine] People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

This paper, like every other study I've read trying to link guns with crime or a lack thereof, is a prime example of confirmation bias. For every city that has a ton of crime with very few guns, there's a city with very little crime and a lot of guns.

There's more that goes into why an area has crime than just the mere presence of firearms. Culture plays a large part in that.

So this paper is wrong because correlation != causation and confirmation bias.

Thanks for the bait, it was tasty.

>>34331165
>I am presenting this paper
>working papers issued under the auspices of national research institutions haven't already had a modicum of peer review
>you aren't just triggered to the point a soccer mom would feel sorry for your hurt feelings

>>34330876
Oh mama this is a bad way to imagine how crime rates would go up.

From this sort of thing Yesterday this time in Texas it was 84 degrees, and today it's 86 degrees! In a few short months it will be over 150 degrees every day! And the reason I'm going with is that I had a hamburger for dinner.

I wish I'd never ate that burger

>bacon and deli mustard though

File: 1497887101179.jpg (57KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x960px

God damn, Stanford. As some anon pointed out in the other thread, at least make sure your model matches actual hard data, since DPS provides all conviction data for LTC holders.

Their model shows that RTC laws led to 24,000 additional violent crimes in Texas during 2006. Yet there were only about 150 LTC holders arrested for any crimes that year. Whoever is committing those other violent crimes, it isn't LTC holders, so how can they point the finger at the RTC law being the cause?

You think they would have gone back and verified their model didn't end in a conclusion that does not compute with established arrest records.

>>34330858
>Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law.
>higher than it would have been had the state not adopted the law.

lmfao

Who are these assholes trying to fool here?

>>34331197
>is triggered
>doesn't understand peer review
>misplaces the onus of proof

Your butt is well and truly blasted.

>>34331206
B-but plenty of LTC holders get their guns stolen and lose them, and those are used in the other 20000+ crimes! Geez, just use some COMMON SENSE anon.

>>34330858

So basically what these guys did is a priori assume that concealed carry causes crime, then they looked for data that showed the crime increasing - and then plotted it without modification onto a graph, which shows that, surprise - increasing levels of crime. All that, and it doesn't even match with reality because the thing they're comparing their projections with is the model they invented to create them.

I don't know guys, I think we've been pretty thoroughly rekt here. Perhaps it's time for us to all surrender our firearms.

File: 5B5E5CD7-9488-4CE2-BFAE-A64953AE7394-1684-000002E0FB56E29D.png (27KB, 304x750px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 304x750px

>>34330876
1993 was the peak of crime in the US. It has decreased 50% since then. This study is bullshit

Do an analysis from 1993-2003 and see if you have the same results. They wont.

pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

>Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

>>34331220
I know you're memeing, but that would also require roughly 1/5 of all 1,100,000 violent crimes that year to be committed with stolen LTC-holder guns.

>>34331277

That must be that gunshow loophole I've been hearing so much about.

>>34331313

And the shoulder thing that goes up. Extra mega super deadly!

>won't someone think of the chilluns!

>>34330876
Does it take into consideration New Orleans niggers? An increase in Texas black population could be correlated with an increase in crime.

>>34331313
No no no. The gunshow loophole is a knitting class that is taught alongside CCW courses at gunshows.

>>34330858
They think I buy guns because I need them.

>bill of needs

>>34331332
>The gunshow loophole is a knitting class that is taught alongside CCW courses at gunshows.

heh

>>34330928
Mexican here, we are a clear example of one of the current arguments i see here while you take guns away from citizens, the criminals and the corrupt still have acces to them, also, even if they were not corrupt they cant be everywhere all the time. Fortunately theres some awake on that side and some politicians are making moves to get our arms back

>>34330932
It almost certainly is, and you can see it on those FBI charts that show minority population vs crime rate in cities. This argument is a dead end with the liberal crowd, though. Instead I like to point to statistics that show that carry permit holders are the least likely people to hurt anyone, which helps my argument that legal gun owners are not the problem. I especially like this line for people on the fence, 'We can't prove one way or the other that more guns in the hands of lawful people makes things safer, but we can and have proven that it doesn't make things more dangerous.'

>>34331370
Viva la Autodefensas! Maybe if you guys can get your guns back you can start stringing up Sinaloas.

If they are referring to the RTC law passed in 2015: Fuck off its' too early to tell.

If they are referring to anything before then: fuck off violent crime in texas has been falling since the year 2000

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

>>34331277
Quick correction, that should be 110,000 violent crimes, not 1,100,00. Sorry, Texans. Don't shoot me.

>>34330858
Real crime data exist for EVERY state as far back as 1960s. Hmmm let's create a synthetic trend for this test.

>I wonder why they did that?

>>34330876
Nice fucking sample size.
We should really rename Texas Marksman "studies" to Noguns Rockthrowing or something.

>>34330891
Don't need one. The original source is biased.

File: 1434413909386.gif (27KB, 300x232px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x232px

>>34330858
>cherry picked horseshit is presented to just be accepted instead of being critically analyzed
>caring what academics, who are almost exclusively authoritarian leftists, have to say anyway

wew

>>34331041
>you just don't understand statistics

ah it's one of these threads

moving on then

A fucking highschooler can point out the flaws here. Im in college btw not much better. But anyway
>correlation =/= causation

Take the texas example. The study doesnt mention all the other factors at play in violent crime other than possession of a firearm. What about illegal immigration? Legal immigration? Catostrophic weather events leading to civil unrest? General rise in civil unrest associated with current and formal pollitical trends not to mention the fucking HOUSING CRASH which forced a lot of people into poverty which of course leads to even more unrest. Remember that folks cant fake the numbers but they can fake why they exist.

>>34330913
Hey you quit thinking for yourself acting in your own best interests and noticing differences in things

File: yelling.jpg (195KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1600x1066px

>>34331206
now THAT'S an argument

>>34330858
The CDC begs to fucking differ, study is flawed as others have already pointed out.

>>34331974

>that pic

White women disgust me.

>>34330866
>Stanford
>shitlib university

Ask me how I know you never went to a good school and you make poverty wage.

>>34332009
maybe she's going to kiss him?

>>34332019
Was it because you studied at jew U

"synthetic control"

does that just seem like bullshit? hey let me manipulate the control thus manipulate the outcome. like the fact that you didn't have a control and just made one up should make this study auto-trashed

>>34332957
It was designed for economic studies where having an actual control would be unethical or impossible.

>>34332975
sounds like jew trickery speak to me, boy

>>34330858
>a right
>does or does not "work"
I don't think that I think about rights in a totally different way to you. Universal suffrage is pretty much a fucking disaster, but I still think everyone should have a right to vote.

These are the types of threads that make me love /k/...

>L-look at this study guys ... lmao your btfo
Immediately followed by posts ripping the methodology of a "synthetic control" to shreds, along with pointing out numerous other questionable assumptions and unaccounted for variables, with only a little bit of "git fucked commie" interspersed for good measure
>h-heh you guys sure are buttmad

/k/- statistics 101

>>34333053
Sure do wish the dumb fuckers that conducted this "study" had stopped by to chat

Also,
>51It should be noted that, even with the enormous stock of guns in the U.S., the vast majority of the time that someone is
threatened with violent crime no gun will be wielded defensively. A five-year study of such violent victimizations in the United
States found that victims failed to defend or to threaten the criminal with a gun 99.2 percent of the time — this in a country
with 300 million guns in civilian hands (Planty and Truman, 2013).

Lmao. Who the fuck funded this? I didnt see an acknowledgement.

>>34330876
Why didn't they use all the states instead of 3-4?
What major were the students who conducted the studies?

>>34330858

It's a right so it doesn't matter if it works or not lad.

Zero fucks were given this day.

File: 1450650657715.jpg (30KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x500px

>>34330858
Pretty sure I've seen her gagging in penis before..

>>34333012
> Cold weather causes murder

Shoving Houston's entire population into a city 1/3 it's size might also be a contributing factor as well.

>>34330858
But crime as a whole has been dropping for years now. I think 2015 was the only exception, but that was because of the riots that happened all year around.

>>34330876
>Texas and California
Makes sense, similar demos.
>Nebraska and Wisconsin
Wat!?!

File: th (6).jpg (17KB, 253x246px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 253x246px

>>34331370
>Firewall when?

>>34332975
>economic studies
Just a dog whistle for flagrant bullshit.

>>34330858

First the shills came for /pol/ with Kekistani cringe threads and divide-and-conquer tactics straight outta Saul Alinsky's playbook. Then they ruined /gif/ with cuck threads and BBC disguised as normal threads. Now they're coming here. Too bad, fuckos, the running ends here.

>(((Stanford)))

>>34330984

No, I won't.

>>34330987
In the words of Futurama
"Oh please, everyone knows 21st century colleges were just glorified daycares"

File: tfw you want to be operating but get stuck on watch.gif (351KB, 263x239px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 263x239px

>>34330876
>We made up a false state instead of studying crime rate to rate of conceal carry in dozens of states that actually exist just to support our preconceive hypothesis
And yet college students wonder why everyone thinks they're a fucking joke

>>34332073
lol how poor and dumb are you?

>>34330858
I just want some sauce.

>>34333821
Lana Rhoades

>>34333829
>Lana Rhoades
Thanks. No idea why it took 97 posts before someone said something.

>>34333544
don't remind me
>/gif/
>looking for blowjob threads
>nope, only "webms that make you want to suck dick"
>so blowjob threads with people complaining/praising about how gay everyone else is and occasionally some troll posting actual gay stuff thinking they are clever
can't even just sit down and relax while looking at some good ol' porn without dealing with bullshit like this

>(((STANFORD)))

>>34333981

What if there's a social engineering campaign out there to feminize and replace white men? And, perhaps, to masculinize white women... just think about how many have tattoos and are bisexual these days. All the conspiracy theories that have come true recently make it seem like anything could be true.

>>34330858
It'd be great if we had mods that enforced rules they made in the fucking stickies.

>>34330876
>comparing a state that has lots of spice to a state that does not
they know what they're doing

>>34330876
John Donohue is well known for being a butthurt anti-gun statistician. Him and John Lott get into shit slinging matches every so often where they try to debunk each others' newest study.

>>34333053
/thread

>>34335599
redpilled me on John Donohue. Whats his end game?

File: Pop Team Epic but I still see crops that I haven't seen before..png (12KB, 418x280px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 418x280px

>>34330858
>violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states
Uh .... I bet Stanford only checked the numbers.
But not the causation. I find it plausible that states with rising crime rates allow their citizens to carry guns to protect themselves. As the government seems unable to provide that service.

>>34330858
california and chicago have real violence problems ....you can do all the studies you want...it doesn't change the reality that having weaponry gives the common man power...power to defend themselves from predators, tyrants, militias, and foreign invasion.....

the only thing that stops bad men with guns is good men with guns.

Also, what part of shall not be infringed do these fools not understand?

File: 6941145770526.jpg (47KB, 550x900px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 550x900px

>>34333544

appeal to authority the thread

File: DCzyaB8VYAEanBe.jpg (62KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 450x600px

>>34330858

I quickly looked over the paper and it appears to be a bunch of arm waving bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Donohue_III

http://www.nber.org/authors/abhay_aneja

http://www.nber.org/authors/kyle_weber

All anti-gun shills... They just wrote this up to justify Bloomberg giving them more money.

>>34330858
Based on a "synthetic control". In other words it's junk science.

>>34335915
also the rise in violent crime is the reason many States have passed right to carry laws.

>>34330858
Lana did a Tushy video?!

>>34332009
Brown women are 50x worse. And they don't have the looks to make up for it.

File: 1495840205944.png (832KB, 798x666px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 798x666px

chicago is proof gun control works, amirite?

File: 1498087777837.jpg (34KB, 599x449px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 599x449px

>>34330858
>it's another correlation=causation thread with OP that faggot leading it

>>34336003
what?

File: Offset-hipoint-irons.jpg (50KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 720x960px

>>34330902
>June 2017
>Still backing Trump

kek

>>34330959
This has to be bait, no one is this stupid

>>34336057
Baltimore is a very safe city...

>>34336368
and so is New Orleans

>>34333422

It's almost as if there are factors other than the number of guns in an area.

Whatever the merits of the Stanford study, few on /k/ are even close to being qualified to refute it.

>>34330876
And also comparing to control states with no changes in laws, during a economic down turn in US/Mexico which really cranked up crime. Heck sailing on Falcon Lake you had better be armed. This researcher achieved his goals.... good job dude your research project will get you a good job with a political action group pretty fast.

>>34336929
This. Very little has actually been offered as a remotely vigorous counterargument. Just ad hom instead of refutation and dismissing methods rather than demonstrating how they are wrong.

You guys couldn't even out-argue Manletstiny

>>34336929
>>34336966
>take junk science
>point out the various flaws in its methodology
>???????
>JohnLott.jpg

>>34336929
frankly, no one in this thread has made a qualified defense of the study either.

failing to see your point here.

>>34336929
I guess being corrupted by my four years does not make a difference.
Quote from article

>>>RTC laws led to increases in violent crime of 13-15 percent after ten years, with positive but not statistically significant
effects on property crime and murder

I can't see a corresponding bump in the FBI crime statistics.... why? Because one is reported to LEO crime and the other is a survey... hmmmmmm

So if you defend yourself with a weapon you might want to report it to police perhaps? Just to cover yourself...

I'm gonna ring PPRI at Texas A&M and see if any folks there have looked at the report and see what they think...

>>34336929
see
>>34331165

>>34337005
My point is that if you are forming an opinion of this study (either way) based on anything you read on /k/, you might be retarded.

>>34337039
you might be retarded then.

>>34337039
As a member of an industrialized society, it is often necessary to perform a cursory examination of academic data.

The key is to look for other experts.

For example, John Lott thinks John Donahue is a dumb, lying faggots, and has been saying so for more than a decade. John Donahue thinks Lott is a fraud.

Both of these men are competent researchers and statisticians.

From this, we can gather than the science is not settled.

>>34337039
You're retarded if you believe something asserted without evidence cant be dismissed without evidence

File: 1449999747896.jpg (38KB, 490x290px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 490x290px

>>34330858

File: Dunning Kruger Chart.jpg (22KB, 639x470px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 639x470px

this thread in a nutshell

>>34337063
>asserted without evidence

well, except for that whole paper backing it up...

>>34337108
Please show his sources then

>>34337108
https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/2

It isn't hard to find papers.

They're flying around like shrapnel these days.

File: boaEjCY.gif (208KB, 323x221px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 323x221px

>>34336966
Texas, in 1996, when it passed RTC laws, had a populate of 19,280,000 and 123,270 recorded violent crimes, for a rate of 0.006. So about six incidents per thousand people.

In 2015 population was 27,469,000 with 113,227 violet crimes committed, for a rate of 0.004. So, four incidents per thousand people.

Now keep in mind crime is a multi-variable equation, but this seems to indicate RTC laws don't make crime worse.

>>34330876
>literally taking a pre law trend and continuing it

Gee fucking williger, lemme guess, the trend of increased crime was seen in non RTC states as well?

It's fucking terrible.

>>34336929
Because it's common knowledge that level of education and economic status are the real cause of low or high amounts of crime. The only, ONLY people claiming that amount of [legal] firearms affect crime level is false-flagging to distract people from the real economic disparity in our country.

If this is 'new' to you then you are beyond help.

>>34336288
Why not
dudes doing great

>>34331206
So the issue of a lack of any cause and effect mechanism is a major issue. One counter-argument they would make though is that the passage of these laws may have had some psychological effect in the population that explains the correlation. Utter bullshit, but some people would buy it.

Thankfully we can easily argue against the modeling exercise itself. I see at least 2 glaring issues from skimming the paper.

1) A major potential determinant of violent crime, race, seems to be completely ignored. Now, this isn't some /pol/ tier bullshit, in any analysis of socioeconomics you want to at least address the issue. In a lot of cases the effects might be statistically insignificant in the context of the model, but you pretty much always address it. I didn't see that here, and having a variable that potentially powerful omitted from consideration pretty much kills their analysis.

2)Their "synthetic control" they created isn't in of itself as much of an issue as at lot of you are making it out to be. In general the technique itself is valid enough. The real issue with it is that this is constructed by a comparison with those states which did not have a RTC law passed. By the end of the periods of consideration, there were very few of those states left WITHOUT a RTC law passed. This makes the model very sensitive to any commonalities between those states, particularly in the last years the analysis covers. In my very casual skimming, it seems that in those states where there is a large divergence with crime being higher in RTC states, the effect is largely in those last few years as well. Again, this is a serious issue from a model construction standpoint.

TL;DR: from a purely statistical standpoint we can pretty much dismiss this as utter bullshit.

>>34337366
yeah, he's fucking crushing the impeachment speedrun

>>34337348
>green worse
>red middle
>yellow best
>Utah gray
I'm sure this is a joke

>>34337403
low quality b8
Trump will not be impeached
He's doing fine

File: 1438203046226668.jpg (325KB, 576x792px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 576x792px

>>34330858
>a hub of communism and other anti-American brainwashing.
Ya no thanks.

>>34336929
>>34336966

see
>>34337402
In terms of qualifications, I've studied econometrics, ie, the type of statistical analysis they're doing here, at undergraduate and graduate levels at Northwestern University. So I know a little bit of what I'm talking about.

>>34337474
Khorne wrote it.

>>34330858
>increasing crime
But violent crime has been DECREASING for fucking decades, the first time we saw any increase in homicide per-capita was in the last couple of years, which is probably a bit disingenuous to bring up given that there are people openly calling for race war in the streets. I'm pretty sure you decide you're going to murder people over the color of their skin and THEN buy a gun, not the inverse.

>>34336855
Like the factor that it's Chicago

>>34337488
>Obama takes office in 2009, economy in the shitter due to Dubya
>Obama's fault for the shit economy

>Trump takes office in 2017, economy doing better due to Obongo
>Trump responsible for the good economy

>GOP blocks everything obongo does for 6 years
>GOOD FUCK THAT NIGGER

>Dems try to block everything Trump is doing
>FUCK THE DEMS REEEEE

Everything is good when my side does it, but when they do it, it's bad!

File: 1490673254216.jpg (16KB, 448x336px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 448x336px

>>34337499

>>34337599
The issue isn't that the Democrats are blocking what Trump is doing, it's that they aren't doing it democratically, but through the treachery of courts and obviously unconstitutional obstruction. If the Democrats had the votes to actually stonewall Trump that'd be one thing, it would literally be their responsibility to do so as elected officials, but courts are supposed to be impartial and to serve the Constitution, not their parties.

File: 1495923164120.jpg (44KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x480px

>>34337628
Classism and open mockery of the working class is an ugly behavior and you do yourself no credit whatsoever by engaging in it.

>>34337599
Completely irrelevant to your foolish prediction that Trump would be impeached

>>34337402
Nice. Good to see that there are actually academically inclined people here.

>>34337599
You're changing the subject. He literally will not be impeached. The Republicans will NEVER vote to impeach one of their own and it is no longer plausible that they will lose enough seats for the Democrats to do it on their own.

You need to understand how Impeachment works dude. First you need to be guilty of something, then the House and Congress both need to vote on it, THEN you need to actually figure out what to do about it because impeachment doesn't even have hard and fast rules.

At each stage the Republicans dominate the legislative bodies that could actually effect such a decision.

>>34337183
So, what's the correlation coefficient, just to express it more quantitatively?

>>34337712
Of course they won't impeach. While trump is in office the GOP can ram through all the legislation that they want. They will only impeach when supporting him is detrimental to their chances of reelection.

>>34337749
So, in the run up to the midterms?

>>34337739
>correlation coefficient
Seeing how crime decreased, it would almost certainly be between 0 and -1

>>34337749
>While trump is in office the GOP can ram through all the legislation that they want.

How's that worked out so far?

>>34337749
They won't do it then, either. Trump's popularity is not easily quantifiable, actually looking at the aggregate it's about what you'd expect given the situation. He'll probably make it the full 8 years.

>>34337761
No. Actually the Republicans are gaining speed--they won Georgia by a larger margin than Trump did. People do not see Trump and the RNC as synonymous, they are separate entities that fluctuate in relative popularity. The Republicans actually have a golden opportunity here to do whatever they want behind the curtain while Trump absorbs all the media attention. If they were smart, they'd be smashing the Democrats' demographic advantage by mass-deporting everyone--and really that's what it looks like is going to happen after the midterms when they no longer need fear imminent reelection.

>>34337798
>they won Georgia
Yeah, both sides like to claim that special elections are indicative of traction for the midterms. Neither side has been historically correct about that.

>>34337739
>normalized coefficient
>quantitative

Either you don't know that the correlation coefficient is a normalized value, or you don't understand what quantitative means, or both.

>>34337090
not an argument

>Violent crime has increased so you should give up your means to defend yourself

Really activates my almonds

>>34337839
inb4 only pretending to be retarded

File: allwilldie.jpg (47KB, 245x326px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 245x326px

>>34330858

Until you explain the methodology I don't care.

Fun fact you have less than the average amount of limbs.

Violent crime has gone down and it keeps going down.

More importantly correlation does not equal causation.

And even if it did

>>34337402
> One counter-argument they would make though is that the passage of these laws may have had some psychological effect in the population that explains the correlation.

Saying that an honest man concealing a pistol somehow leads those around him to commit assault reeks of blaming the victim for the criminals behavior. It's a stone's throw from finding that when women are allowed outside after dark, sexual assaults rise 10%, ergo we cannot allow women outside after sundown.

I don't care if the correlation coefficient is a big fat 1. That idea of restricting the rights of someone known to be law-abiding because criminals cannot function in society should irk anyone with a strong grasp of cause/effect or justice.

>>34338038
Well yes, agreed. From a values standpoint I'm right there with you. I'm more pointing out that that's the type of argument that they would use to explain the causation, and people who don't care as much about the issue will buy it. So we need to be prepared to address it.

>>34337628

Oh man please keep doing this attacking the middle america handed trump an election.

Can I tell you how you can make your San Francisco values more appealable to the middle class?

>>34337798
>He'll probably make it the full 8 years.

Nope. Left will rise up and remove him.

>>34338348
That would put us very close to an actual civil war.

>>34338348
With what leadership?

>>34338435
>muh civil war

keep fear mongering

>>34338435
Civil War is never going to happen, stop larping.

>>34338348
>not factoring in Generation Z

>>34338512
>>34338940
Why not, the Left are dumb enough to try.

>/k/ gets triggered: the thread

>>34339003
the Left just need to take control the senate, house, and courts. No violent revolution is needed.

>>34339087
Yes, but they're stupid enough to think violence is necessary.

>>34339097
in their mind they think they are the hero of their own story. Most of them just need a job and hobby to be honest.

>>34339097
I think you might be confusing the right's rhetoric for the left's here.

>>34339136
No I'm not, it's a shared sentiment among the most radical parts of each side.

>>34335800
Fuck off kike

File: 1486527536383.jpg (284KB, 758x515px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 758x515px

>>34339136
>Literally celebrities calling for assassination and holding the president's severed head
>But Billy Joe said he wanted to hang Obongo!
You are a psychotic.

Gun studies from either side tend to be shit because they generally assume that number of guns, access to guns, or something directly related to guns is the driving factor behind use of firearms for either suicide or crime. They generally tend to ignore economic, demographic, geographic, social, and many other driving factors because they're difficult to tie directly to guns in any meaningful way.

Guns are not a problem or solution in and of themselves. Misuse is bad, but it is the end result of negative factors related to the points I'd outlined above. Proper use is good, and again, the end result of many factors.

Hard data driven research based on a topic with so many difficult to quantify factors is essentially useless. You can either rely 100% on hard numbers and miss the nuance that is making up the bulk of your actual cause/effect, or you can start to pull in soft sciences that rely A TON on assumptions and have essentially no definitive proof.

Call me defeatist if you'd like, but I don't think conclusions can be drawn positive or negative on firearms laws based on studies like this, even if they're neutral and well intentioned.

>>34330858
>Stanford
diploma mills aren't a reputable source

>>34339253
Stanford is a good school overall and has high acceptance standards, BUT a few departments and majors are beyond fucked up. That's actually the case with most schools you hear about. Berkeley is a good school too, it's just that large segments of it have been overrun by morons. Doesn't mean the untainted parts are any worse. My guess is this study and most studies in general are coming out of sociology departments, which are the worst of the worst.

>>34339234
Numbers don't lie and you could definitely draw a percentage point to those gun related incidents to certain racial, social, geographical, economic reasons and get numbers for each one. But its namely the environment in which the gun is treated that determines the amount of deaths. Guns are effective if not specialized tools for murder. Human nature and capacity for murder should always be taken into account though whether a gun is in involved in the situation or not.

>>34339283
>Stanford is a good school
>Berkeley is a good school
yup it's a trash diploma mill

sorry you fell for the college meme, good luck in retail.

>>34330858
>justified text
Into the fucking trash it goes.

>>34332019
that salt

ask me how i know you're 200k in debt and are making minimum wage

>>34339364
hah

>>34333758
Apparently smart enough not to wash anything of value down that liberal tainted drain, unlike some people.

>>34330858

Even if that's true (I doubt it), I don't care. Reducing crime isn't the point.

>>34339136
>I think you might be confusing the right's rhetoric for the left's here.
>Lefties literally out trying to assassinate senator just because he's on the right side of the spectrum
Mhmmmm...

>>34330876
I agree, ai mean, weren't it university professors and royal doctors and scientists from the 1700-1800's that wrote the books that formed the minds of guys like HP Lovecraft, telling them that if you were not white anglo saxon, you were a mongerl sub human lesser race.

Edgy /pol/ trolling aside...college educated men recognised the world over as authorities in intellectual academia said and believed this.

Also college fags from the 1980's said Japan was going to rule the world in the 2,000's...

>>34330876
>>34330883
It's just like that 22 veterans dying a day stat that keeps on being believed as gospel.

That's 8,030 vets a year...we'd run out of Vietnam veterans by now. There wouldn't be any veterans anymore!

File: 1497929053774.jpg (213KB, 599x828px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 599x828px

>>34330934
im waiting for standord to address pic related

>>34340249
what are you trying to suggest?

>>34340294
that white people are the problem

>>34330858
sauce on the qt?

>>34340795
Lana Roades

>>34330876
>correlation

Universities are becoming a mistake. We learned that this shit doesn't fly in fucking public High School.

>>34330858
>simulated city

WOW so a bunch of made up data for a made up city they made up?

>>34340854
>>34340795
She's not very good at talking, fluff stuff is shot well tho.

>>34340907
>are becoming a mistake
they have been since the early 60s.

File: forgot about this holy shit if 2003fags defend this they are delusional.jpg (57KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x720px

>>34340933
Refute this anon. Proof that Gun Control works to stop mentally ill people from buying guns.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

>Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness

>>34340941
I don't need her to talk when I'm watching her scene but sometimes she looks dead inside is not very enthusiastic.

>>34330858
Or maybe because the crimes are increasing, the people want guns?

File: hmmmmmmmmm.png (98KB, 926x242px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 926x242px

really makes u think

>>34339136
>being this delusional

>>34341132
>>>Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness

What does that have to with anything related to gun control?

>>34331041
You're right because they totally predicted the crime rise and decline we should trust their predictions of crime for this instance.

It's not like they're still fighting and re-analyzing the data to explain the crime wave that went down in the 90s. Right guys? Trust us, yeah we couldn't predict the increase or the decrease, but we can totally predict the next ten years.

I don't trust their methodology. This isn't about understanding statistics, it's about trusting that this instance of statistics correspond to reality.

>>34336966
I hope your group is getting extra credit for this.

>>34330949
>Gun control threads belong on /pol/
MODS=FAGS

>>34337403
gonna keep riding on that imaginary train eh?
>no russian ties
>impeachment may fuck over the dems involved
>no proof of obstruction beyond hearsay from a disgraced former FBI head.
nothing is going to stick and you are still gonna try to squeeze out some shitty excuse for a victory because you are that petty.

>>34336966
the counter argument is that the sample size is ridiculously small and the sole guy responsible for the study is known for anti-gun rhetoric.
the study is about as infallible as the one proving vaccines cause autism.

>>34339087
you guys are doing a awfully shitty job at that don't you think?
No one you've attempted to put in office made it.
I don't even follow elections anymore because I know Conservative candidates are going to win.

>>34339136
Since when has the right been about silencing people thought violence?
that's Antifa's deal and well, that's your sides answer to the right.

File: FB_IMG_1497650001297.jpg (66KB, 640x1280px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x1280px

>>34330858

>>34330949
>expecting the mods to do anything when they can just ignore reports

>>34340249
>uses white as key 3 separate times

obviously, the color was removed and what it proves is a clear skewing of information.

>>34341147
I hope she does well.

>>34333927
/k/unts are embarrassed to admit they like her since she let herself be defiled by nigger dicks

>>34330858
>"Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law."


>"than it would have been"


annnnnnnnd disregarded

Complete speculative bullshit. There is NO way to determine what the crime rate "would have been". Only what the crime rate IS and WAS. The numbers are literally made the fuck up.

>>34342409
race traitors can die of aids

>>34331014
Does Donohue cite Zimmerman's defense against the violent attack by Martin as one of the 0.8%?
300M? Fuck. I have my share, but the number I am allowed to carry is 0.

>>34330858
>Stanford
>Theoretical figures not based on any modern-day numbers
>using third-world countries as example.

>>34332019
Whatever you say, Tim (((Wise)))

>>34337535
And the fact that Chicago is full of niggers.

>>34337628
Not an argument.

>>34331014
You missed the worst part. He didn't even claim violent crime went up, just that it fell slower than it should have.

>>34330858
>SHALL

>>34331005
yeah that's like totally convincing

>>34332019
Oh wow, that's such a good argument. Please, do tell me all about how you're highly educated in every single field and in no debt whatsoever, kind sir.