IU law professor: What are the facts about constitutional carry?

[The Bubba Effect]

So, it basically said that anti's don't have facts on their side.... so you should consider emotions the same as facts.

Someone please get brother Acteon for me, got to spread rep, blah blah.

 

[actaeon277]

I'm not sure what a thoroughly academic life with no "real world" practice experience qualifies you to do, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify you to have a considered and informed opinion on this subject....at least based on that opinion piece it doesn't.

But... FEELINGS!

 

[actaeon277]

From the Constitutional Carry thread, a slightly better thread. Although there are some morons in the comments.
NRA: Why Indiana needs constitutional carry

 

[rhino]

She does have more arrogance than most F-15 pilots I've met. Good thing there is academia...

In my world the analogy would be "more arrogance than a neurosurgeon", but I get the point.

How about a neurosurgeon who used to be an F-15 pilot?

Professor Madeira should remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."



I think Hough hits the nail on the head there. And she is teaching the next generation of lawyers.

Multiple anecdotes are data if they support your hypothesis or assertion!

As a Nobel Prize winner told me, punch back twice as hard.

Obama or algore?

 

[OakRiver]

In short; facts are important, so I'll show that in one state out of 50 there was an increase in firearm deaths after constitutional carry was passed, but I won't look at any factors which may have contributed to it but it has to be connected to constitutional carry because reasons.

 

[EPeter213]

Is the definition of peer, "One who thinks and acts exactly like you do" ??

That's pretty much my understanding. In the world of academia, I think a peer review is like having your thesis graded. Having a study reviewed may indicate that the data collected met certain standards, but but it does not automatically validate the conclusions drawn by the study authors.

 

[KLB]

In short; facts are important, so I'll show that in one state out of 50 there was an increase in firearm deaths after constitutional carry was passed, but I won't look at any factors which may have contributed to it but it has to be connected to constitutional carry because reasons.

I saw a similar assertion about shootings in IL and the passage of their carry law.

 

[KellyinAvon]

That's pretty much my understanding. In the world of academia, I think a peer review is like having your thesis graded. Having a study reviewed may indicate that the data collected met certain standards, but but it does not automatically validate the conclusions drawn by the study authors.

There seems to be a lot of inbreeding in the "peer reviewed" world. You'll have 5 people with PhD after their names who co-author papers with each other then cite each other's work since it's all peer reviewed.

I saw a lot of this when I was researching economy of scale limitation for call centers (it was for both school and work, not for fun.) They all cite each other and basically cite themselves. What is worse is they don't actually say anything (probably should have OCD in the letters behind their names, they tend to wrap around the axle and not really provide anything useful.)

 

[Anima mundi]

Jody is a really terrible writer for being an educator in law, yikes.

 

[Doug]

This is the post-truth era.

 

[HoughMade]

I almost can't believe she engaged in the comments section the way she did.

 

[myhightechsec]

I almost can't believe she engaged in the comments section the way she did.

She's willing to defend her mistaken point of view which is not common in the anti-firearm community. Of course, that doesn't stop the community from treating her like a human pinata.

 

[87iroc]

Is the definition of peer, "One who thinks and acts exactly like you do" ??

In the world of academia....yes. Heaven forbid you tick someone off that is going to peer review your stuff. They'll blow it full of holes and put you in time out until they die.

 

[chipbennett]

My favorite part of her opinion piece. Watch how she sets up her appeal to emotion logical fallacy:

It’s also more and more common to believe that “facts” are completely distinguishable from “emotions.” Under conventional Second Amendment wisdom, folks who prefer looser firearms regulation often claim the “factual” high ground, portraying folks advocating restrictions as mucking about “emotional” swamps. Yet the distinction between the two is much less clear cut. Emotions can be factual, and facts can induce emotions.

Got it? Emotions can be factual! That's important, of course, in order to try to make this work:

This is why both gun violence survivors’ stories and research studies are invaluable evidence to permitless carry debates. Survivors’ testimony, though emotional, is also factual. Fact: Witness Deandra Yates’ 13-year-old son was shot while attending a birthday party and cannot talk or control basic bodily functions.

Yes, it is fact that a 13-year-old was shot at a birthday. But that fact is irrelevant, because the statutory change under consideration would not have had any impact on that outcome, with or without the proposed change, because an LTCH is not required to carry a firearm inside a house. Also, the shooter was a teen, and a peer of the 15-year-old birthday celebrant. It is not currently lawful under existing LTCH statutes for a 15-year-old (or anyone under 18) to possess a handgun.

In other words, as a contribution to a discussion about constitutional carry, this anecdote is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Moving on from one logical fallacy, she jumps right into another: drawing an unsubstantiated conclusion, using an ex hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Conversely, expert statistical testimony, though factual, is also emotional. Fact: One peer-reviewed study concluded that Missouri’s repeal of “permit to purchase” regulation created a 29.4 percent increase in homicides the very next year. This translates into an additional 55 to 63 additional murders — a fact that is undeniably emotional.

Correlation does not prove causation.

This "peer-reviewed study" has gotten much traction, but it remains an exercise in cherry-picking. As I pointed out to the author, I find it...interesting that data are only displayed through 2010, when now in 2017, we should have at least 6 more full years of data. In other similar instances, repeal of gun control laws (including licensing laws) has led to a temporary increase in some crime, followed by a decrease to (if not below) the norm within a matter of a few years.

Her fallback to all arguments is that the history of jurisprudence "proves" that the second amendment absolute language is not absolute, and does not say what it actually says.

 

[myhightechsec]

And notice how she conflates "homicides" with "murders". The two are not the same.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Methinks she should drop the shovel.