Federal appeals court overturns DC's "Good Reason" restriction

[publius42]

Who came up with that 25:1 figure and how?

[natman]

Originally Posted by publius42

Who came up with that 25:1 figure and how?

If it's like most gun control statistics, somebody made it up to support whatever argument they were making at the time.

[TDL]

Who came up with that 25:1 figure and how?

The figure for 25.9% of all DC adults owning firearms is used in at least 18 peer reviewed studies, which are getting the number from the BMJ Injury Prevention journal peer reviewed study by epidemiology researchers from Columbia University and Boston University using yougov
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...oj6vx0laFZMsQ2

The 6,000 comes right from MPD (6,000 registered DC gun owners, owing 10,000 guns).

DC population is `680,000. So about 0.9% legally own guns and about 25% illegally do


Wha is interesting is to look at not just raw numbers but also relative ranking of say New Hampshire, Delaware and DC from the above, vs here:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/d...uicideGuns.pdf

if you want to show suicide is caused by guns, you use the lower DC number (5%), since DC suicide is low. If you want to prove guns cause higher homicide, you use the higher DC number (26%). And if you want to argue gun owners are a shrinking constituency, as gun control advocates do want to, you use GSS of 0.17% (about 1/5 of what DC MPS says)

But that 25.9% number used by gun control advocates including within studies they cite in written court arguments, shows something for certain -- that by citing they themselves are arguing that DC is 25:1, that 25% of DC citizens are illegally armed and less than 1% are legally armed -- and they are worried about the 1% (which is both to orders of magnitude lower, and non criminals too boot) getting carry, and claiming this will cerate large proliferation of guns.

[dreaming]

The methodology of that paper is garbage. For instance, if you advocate responsible gun ownership you were deemed a gun owner. Many, many antis would answer yes if asked if they advocate responsible gun ownership. It's a crap question. Many that would prefer no gun ownership would say yes because the focus on being "responsible".

[TDL]

The methodology of that paper is garbage.

Oh I agree. my point is that is the underlying number in some of the arguments submitted to the court in DC's case These numbers get promulgated as citations in academia and the papers that result are entered in arguments.

Most academic work is metastudy (taking a bunch of a prior papers/studies and using them to draw additional conclusions) or studies that use other studies data in some way.

It goes to the core problems with the "gun violence" and "gun violence epidemiology" studies, meta studies and building on prior studies: 1) you can chose your gun ownership rates to prove your argument; 2) the refusal to divide gun owners into obviously important discreet cohorts: a) illegally possessing ongoing criminal enterprise crack lab owners, meth dealers, gang members, bank robbers, and hitmen vs. b) legal gun owners

for that matter those different cohorts an their familes also exist in gun victims. and are also never divided to see what is really going on.

In the case of DC since we do know very specifically the precise number of legal gun owners and legal guns, and the DC government claimed that allowing them to carry will proliferate illegal guns and gun crime, the fact the 25x that number, 1/4 of Dc adults are already criminal gun possessors is ironic.

do you know the other way how other state by state gun ownership is estimated by gun control groups. you should read the studies. Some take murder, suicide, injury shootings and gun crimes, aggregate them and use that to estimate gun ownership. Duh! Perfect way to categorically prove: more guns=more crime or more gun violence!

[TDL]

FYI DC is waiving app fees on prior applications. There is a one page resubmittal form you fill out if you were denied on insufficient cause. Also processing applications already in before Racine's announcement which applicant left all sections regarding "good cause" blank after the july decision.

There is some question about applicants' whose training was more than two years ago as to whether they will waive two year expiry. It looks like they will and simply subject them in two years to the standing "refresher course" requirement at the two year renewal.

First time CCL is 16 hours plus 2 range, renewal is 4+2.

Some of you may have seen John Lott's map on prohibited areas. Professor Lott does excellent work, but whether that map reflects an exclusion zone or simply an enhanced penalty zone is another thing. if you call MPD and ask for a read out of areas where you cannot carry with your CCL you are refered to more narrow § 7-2509.07 and not wider DC code § 22–4502.01 which Lott used.

I expect one of the certified DC instructors is going to be formally and on the record asking that soon.

[armoredman]

So DC is being good about it, then, interesting.

[TDL]

FYI actual processing is running 60 days. Helped a friend with a class from end September and they all have received CCL by early Dec. That was after panel but before DC decision to forgo full court appeal. There is a large number now stacked up from huge increase in classes after that early October decision.

Obviously without good cause print based check should be 0-3 days, but perhaps they are also working off of mental health or domestic order databases that take longer. Still obviously the longest time would have been checking and certifying "good cause." So there is clearly some administrative foot dragging but at least not full 90 days or 90+90 technically allowed.