|
joether -> RE: Concealed Carry bans overturned in Chicago, Violent crime down sharply (4/6/2014 10:46:54 PM)
|
How many journalistic news sites starts a reader off with a pop-up ad that says to give money to the GOP to fight President Obama? None, since journalistic integrity would be hit. Which is why cnn.com and others do not do this crap. Conservatives media sites, wishing to push the 'conservative agenda' do it often. Even townhall.com's front page reads like something out of the conservative talking points memo for the day. "Join conservatives on FB!" sort of further diminishes this 'news' outlet as being of good journalistic quality, and more like one that will ignore facts if it benefits Democrats/liberals, and promote Republican/Tea Party when it does.
Knowing all of this, and looking at the article, it does raise two questions:
A ) Is the material presented, the full truth and fact? That the writer(s) has not left material or information out that might present a better and more well informed understanding to the decrease in homicides. For instances, if there exists eight rather important and positive factors that resulted in this reduction, why are then not included as well?
B ) The article is very short, while assuming a huge amount of evidence based on questionable supporting material. When there is a reduction in homicides, its a good idea to check into what factors may have gone into that decrease. To say "oh, its because of CCW" without showing good, hard evidence, doesn't prove anything. Its been a bad winter in Chicago, the economy is improving in that city, the community has been more in concert with police to help keep crime down. An the police themselves maybe doing things publically and privately to keep those numbers down.
The first 'studies' in the article comes from a Mr. John R. Lott Jr. A person known to have written quite a few, conservative oriented, books to date. So is this book of his, free of conservative bias? Likely not. Writers that push into politics rarely stay neutral. His 'book line up', is very conservative oriented. So it would be fair to seriously ask if the 'study' in his book is factual and fair, rather than heavily bias.
The other 'study' comes from brettbart.com. This forum has seen many instances in which that site has pushed the conservative agenda even when the facts were easily found that disproved it. The report it refers to, is of an equally limited quality. As its focus is solely on firearms; like 'life in a big city' exists in a vacuum. The study does not handle outside conditions in its analysis of firearms, but rather a very focus viewpoint.
Chicago has experienced quite a number of variables in recent years, that will effect the common person in that city. To say that CCW was the only major factor in the decrease in homicides, without evidences to back it up, is at best, wishful thinking. I can simply say that the ACA has done much more, since people are not needing to steal to handle medical problems. There really is not a direct connection between CCW and the decrease in homicides. To say it does, without real, solid, and well vetted material supporting the notion,....*IS*...., pushing an agenda.
Your going to post stuff like this, at least make a real argument, rather than a sloppy one. If you both accept at face value that CCW's have been the chief and only reason for the reduction of homicides in Chicago. Then its fair to ask why you do not do the same for the Theory of Climate Change given the mountain of evidence collected to date? As both of you have been against the notion presented in several threads, yet are 'fully onboard with a flimsy article that has equally flimsy evidence supporting it? The only way this works, logically and realistically, is if both of you hold some sort of religious belief in firearms. I didn't accept the Theory of Climate Change due to even a hundred scientific papers on the subject (it took quite a pile of evidence). An any of those hundred had more information within them, then the one study from 'William J. Krouse' (the second study's author). So if your going to say that CCW is indeed the sole and primary reason for the reduction of homicides in Chicago, the burden of evidence is on you.
|
|
|
|
