As discussed previously on this thread:

States with concealed handgun laws experience increases in violent crime

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=28201.msg251248#msg251248

Dr. Lott's fairly lengthy original critique of Donohue, et al. is here: https://crimeresearch.org/2017/07/badly-flawed-misleading-donohue-aneja-weber-study/

And a follow-up, wherein Lott critiques Donohue's responses to Lott's criticism is here: https://crimeresearch.org/2017/07/responding-john-donohues-responses-evaluation-new-study/

My belief is that more research will disprove and overshadow the whackjobs who use spurious science to prove their agenda like the ex Dr. Wakefield and his fake autism link to vaccines. Most of the firearm studies are either paid for by the NRA or paid for by the anti2a faction. Neither is beneficial to society.

My belief is that more research will disprove and overshadow the whackjobs who use spurious science to prove their agenda like the ex Dr. Wakefield and his fake autism link to vaccines. Most of the firearm studies are either paid for by the NRA or paid for by the anti2a faction. Neither is beneficial to society.

Please post a list of all the NRA-funded firearm studies you can locate.

NRA did do a few polls, but a poll is not the same as a study.

Please post a list of all the NRA-funded firearm studies you can locate.
NRA did do a few polls, but a poll is not the same as a study.

That's what I meant. Same difference...

That's what I meant. Same difference...

No, BIG difference. 

A poll is a statistical sampling of people responding to questions with their OPINIONS.

A study is an attempt to isolate specific factors affecting something using actual data, observations and recorded information, then developing a conclusion and positions based on facts presented, not people's opinions.

No, BIG difference. 
A poll is a statistical sampling of people responding to questions with their OPINIONS.
A study is an attempt to isolate specific factors affecting something using actual data, observations and recorded information, then developing a conclusion and positions based on facts presented, not people's opinions.

Yes, that's part of my point. We need more studies and less polls.

So, you no longer agree with your comment that most of the firearm studies are paid for by the NRA or the anti-2A factions?

My belief is that more research will disprove and overshadow the whackjobs who use spurious science to prove their agenda like the ex Dr. Wakefield and his fake autism link to vaccines. Most of the firearm studies are either paid for by the NRA or paid for by the anti2a faction. Neither is beneficial to society.

No, BIG difference. 

A poll is a statistical sampling of people responding to questions with their OPINIONS.

A study is an attempt to isolate specific factors affecting something using actual data, observations and recorded information, then developing a conclusion and positions based on facts presented, not people's opinions.

That's what I meant. Same difference...

Obviously a "poll" and "research" conducted by an academic (possibly published in a peer-reviewed journal) are NOT the same. But just to allow you an attempt to make any sense at all of your assertion, please direct us to the poll(s) wherein people were asked "Did relative rates of crime go up or down in states enacting "liberalized" firearm carry laws compared to states not enacting such measures?". Oh, and tell us which such polls were conducted/paid for by the NRA and which were funded by Bloomberg, et al.

 Did omni make a new account macksac?

I would like to see national statistics that separate gang/drug related shootings vs. everything else. 

I would like to see national statistics that separate gang/drug related shootings vs. everything else.

Like this one?

But the reality is that gun homicides are overwhelmingly tied to gang violence. In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related.
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.
That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm

Like this one?

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm

That's a higher number than I expected for suicides.  But I heard that in Waikiki, they average about 1 suicide a day in 2015.  And majority are Japanese tourist.

Great article. When the FBI Director nominee starts talking about common sense gun control, it's data like this that helps to define what that means. Like I said, I'm confident that the data will help us defend our 2a rights, especially against factions like the Brady Campaign.

That's a higher number than I expected for suicides.  But I heard that in Waikiki, they average about 1 suicide a day in 2015.  And majority are Japanese tourist.

The stat "60% of reported gun deaths are suicides" has been common knowledge in the gun-debate for a long time.  It always leads to follow-up debates on whether a gun ban would stop suicides, or would they then opt for asphyxiation (including use of gasses like carbon monoxide and hanging) and poisons (including drug overdoses).  More people commit suicide via the #2 (asphyxiation) and #3 (poison) methods than those who use a gun -- #1 method.

What the anti's fail to acknowledge is suicide by gun, or any other method, is not "violence".  It's self-inflicted death.  Also, there are many who believe suicide is an individual's right. 

Therefore, any discussion of reducing suicides by restricting guns is not consistent with their other positions related to suicide.

Another confounding argument that the anti2a faction uses is that firearm deaths are outpacing vehicle deaths. From the data it's not that firearm deaths are dramatically increasing, it's that vehicles have become dramatically more safer to drive.

i'm sure you guys will find this pretty interesting:  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

does anyone know if a more recent version of this is available?

Interesting stuff. It highlights the need for further study. The inconsistencies allow both sides of the argument to use the data for their own use, and that doesn't solve anything.

• Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent...

• Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings...

• Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results...

• Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent.

• Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.

• Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent.

• No study reviewed attempted to evaluate the effects of zero tolerance laws on violence in schools, nor did any measure the effect of the Gun-Free Schools Act on carrying of firearms in schools.

• On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement.
  

Interesting stuff. It highlights the need for further study. The inconsistencies allow both sides of the argument to use the data for their own use, and that doesn't solve anything.

• Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent...

• Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings...

• Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results...

• Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent.

• Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes.

• Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent.

• No study reviewed attempted to evaluate the effects of zero tolerance laws on violence in schools, nor did any measure the effect of the Gun-Free Schools Act on carrying of firearms in schools.

• On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement.
  

Bottom line -- you can't prove a causal relationship between human behavior and the presence/absence of an inanimate weapon where such a relationship doesn't exist.

People are going to do whatever violence they choose to do.  They will use the most effective weapon available.  The flip side is almost always ignored -- a firearm represents the most effective method of self defense when violence happens.  Cops don't carry guns to just look bad-ass.

David Codrea article yesterday commenting on such "research" (in this case by Donohue's longtime anti-gun fellow-Californian lifelong research grantee Garen Wintemute):

California Using Agenda ‘Research’ to Justify Gun Edicts

https://www.oathkeepers.org/california-using-agenda-research-justify-gun-edicts/

“California doesn’t have money to fix roads, but drops millions on gun violence research,” Townhall.com Weekend Editor Jennifer Van Laar reported Saturday. “One thing legislators have found the money for is anti-gun research. They call it ‘gun violence research,’ but make no mistake, there is only one acceptable outcome for the research.”

That “research” will be provided via an exclusive arrangement with UC Davis “researcher Garen Wintemute“ if a bill pending in the Assembly passes … Wintemute’s organization will be the only one the CA DOJ is required to share its Gun Violence Restraining Order data with. As a result, other researchers who want to independently verify any of his findings will probably not be able to. Under SB 536, the DOJ would have the discretion to deny other researchers access to that data, which is publicly funded.”

That’s problematic for a variety of obvious reasons, including a lesser-known one learned through personal experience.  The man has a documented tendency to “exaggerate.”
* * * * *
If the State of California does grant Wintemute exclusive access to tax-funded data, don’t be surprised if this is the quality of the work product the legislators use to dream up yet further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.