3 ms·

> Why would the election, that happened in Nov and was only effective the following year, matter for that year's data? As I mentioned, likely because it was a

> Why would the election, that happened in Nov and was only effective the following year, matter for that year's data? As I mentioned, likely because it was a data point that crossed city, county, and state lines. I can't think of another data point that provides that type of insight across such a broad swath of the population at a specific point in time. If you have some, please provide, it would make for a richer data set. > The best thing would likely be to look at a matrix of policies for each state to identify potential impact from a specific policy over time and in combination with the other factors. Plenty of that analysis is available, unfortunately the results don't penetrate the echo chamber. Here are a few [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254669.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254669.pdf [2] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground/violent-crime.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your... [3] https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-...

giantg2 5y ago
"As I mentioned, likely because it was a data point that crossed city, county, and state lines." That's largely not what we want when looking at policy that is typically enacted at the local level. I asked for a matrix analysis with how various policies interact and perform over time, not a single subtopic. Those seem to be on a subtopic, and generally not related to the policies typically cited for being soft on crime (topic at hand). They could be part of the matrix as they are indirectly connected. Are you aware that two of your sources contradict each other? One claims that stand your ground laws have no impact and another claims they increase violent crime and firearm homicide. Also interesting is that Rand omits some studies entirely. I would have liked to see what flaws they would have found in them rather than just leave them out (and leave us wondering if it was overlooked or due to a flaw).

giantg2 5y ago

"As I mentioned, likely because it was a data point that crossed city, county, and state lines." That's largely not what we want when looking at policy that is typically enacted at the local level. I asked for a matrix analysis with how various policies interact and perform over time, not a single subtopic. Those seem to be on a subtopic, and generally not related to the policies typically cited for being soft on crime (topic at hand). They could be part of the matrix as they are indirectly connected. Are you aware that two of your sources contradict each other? One claims that stand your ground laws have no impact and another claims they increase violent crime and firearm homicide. Also interesting is that Rand omits some studies entirely. I would have liked to see what flaws they would have found in them rather than just leave them out (and leave us wondering if it was overlooked or due to a flaw).