Dr. Lott takes on the Gun Violence Archive.....

[2aguy]

No.....they have been called into question by anti gunners....who realize that his data show they are completely wrong.....in fact.....the truth that normal people carrying guns does not increase the violent crime rate or the gun murder rate has been proven through actual statistics not associated with Lott....and his research which shows crime rates are lower in states with Concealed carry laws is also proven since the 90s......

No you mean academics. Even one of your favorites Kleck knows Lott is a joke.

Finally, Lott claims that “the vast majority of” studies of the impact of right-to-carry laws indicate that they reduce crime. Unlike Lott, I do not believe that truth is determined by majority vote. It is not the most popular conclusion that is most likely to be correct; it is the one supported by the methodologically strongest research, no matter how numerous or rare the technically stronger studies may be. Lott’s primary research, and that of others who drew the same conclusions, relied on county crime data that were essentially worthless for tracking crime trends before and after right-to-carry laws were passed, because they did not correct for widespread failures of law enforcement agencies to report their crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting program. The technically soundest studies that were not afflicted by this problem have found that right-to-carry laws have no net effect one way or the other on crime rates.

Gary Kleck and John Lott Offer Closing Thoughts in Dispute over Gun Research | Ari Armstrong

Lies and more lies......it is actual research....not pulling numbers out of your ass and saying....hey....I like the sound of that number so it must be right.


Lott did everything a researcher needs to do and his critics failed to actually use the research he had to test his results.....they then refused to admit their mistake....

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.



In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

Nobody who can be taken seriously supports lotts work.

Says the anti gunner who realizes that the entire belief system about guns in America is a lie and a myth.....and that Lott exposes this is why you guys attack him....considering he is only one of many actual researchers who come to his conclusions....as I show over and over ........

Yes Kleck is a real anti gunner. You are a gun nut who believes any lies you are fed.

You twit....both Lott and Kleck began their research into guns and self defense as anti gun.......moron......

 

[Brain357]

Lott’s data and honesty have been repeatedly called into question by other academics. In one case, he claimed to have done a survey that found in 98 percent of cases when a weapon is used in self-defense, it was only brandished and not fired. When other academics asked for his data, Lott claimed he lost it as the result of a catastrophic hard drive crash.

No.....they have been called into question by anti gunners....who realize that his data show they are completely wrong.....in fact.....the truth that normal people carrying guns does not increase the violent crime rate or the gun murder rate has been proven through actual statistics not associated with Lott....and his research which shows crime rates are lower in states with Concealed carry laws is also proven since the 90s......

No you mean academics. Even one of your favorites Kleck knows Lott is a joke.

Finally, Lott claims that “the vast majority of” studies of the impact of right-to-carry laws indicate that they reduce crime. Unlike Lott, I do not believe that truth is determined by majority vote. It is not the most popular conclusion that is most likely to be correct; it is the one supported by the methodologically strongest research, no matter how numerous or rare the technically stronger studies may be. Lott’s primary research, and that of others who drew the same conclusions, relied on county crime data that were essentially worthless for tracking crime trends before and after right-to-carry laws were passed, because they did not correct for widespread failures of law enforcement agencies to report their crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting program. The technically soundest studies that were not afflicted by this problem have found that right-to-carry laws have no net effect one way or the other on crime rates.

Gary Kleck and John Lott Offer Closing Thoughts in Dispute over Gun Research | Ari Armstrong

Lies and more lies......it is actual research....not pulling numbers out of your ass and saying....hey....I like the sound of that number so it must be right.


Lott did everything a researcher needs to do and his critics failed to actually use the research he had to test his results.....they then refused to admit their mistake....

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.



In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

According to academics including Kleck he did it wrong.

Wow.....you can't stop lying......

A look at peer reviewed economists and sociologists and what they believe the research in the field shows.....

Economists' and Criminologists' Views on Guns: Crime, Suicides, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws by John R. Lott, Gary A. Mauser :: SSRN

Abstract:
Economists and Criminologists have very different models of human behavior. A total of 74 out of all 130 academics who published peer-reviewed empirical research on gun issues in criminology and economics journals responded to our survey. T

hat was a 57% response rate. Looking at their views on their views on deterrence and regulations generally, our survey finds that these two groups have very different views on gun regulations that vary in systematic, predictable ways.

Our survey results are consistent with those predictions and statistically significant.


While economists tend to view guns as making people safer, criminologists hold this position less strongly.

Combining all the economists and criminologists together shows that researchers believe that guns are used more in self-defense than in crime;

gun-free zones attract criminals;



concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the typical American;

and that permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate.

All those results are statistically significant. The survey of economists was conducted from August 25th to September 12th 2014. The survey of criminologists was conducted from May 29th to June 14th 2015.

You realize economists study the economy right? They don't even belong in the gun debate.

 

[Brain357]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

 

[Brain357]

Economics is the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.

 

[2aguy]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

Wrong......another lie.

 

[2aguy]

And since you all of a sudden love Dr. Gary Kleck...here he is making you look stupid on your belief that limiting magazine capacity for guns is a good idea.....

Kleck shows how stupid that idea is.....you know...with actual research...
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Abstract:
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.

LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

 

[Brain357]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

Wrong......another lie.

Then post some academics who defend his work.

 

[Brain357]

And since you all of a sudden love Dr. Gary Kleck...here he is making you look stupid on your belief that limiting magazine capacity for guns is a good idea.....

Kleck shows how stupid that idea is.....you know...with actual research...
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Abstract:
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.

LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

I guess he skipped all the times a shooter was stopped at reload.

 

[2aguy]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

Wrong......another lie.

Then post some academics who defend his work.

I have...over and over .....and then you deny them.....twit.

 

[2aguy]

And since you all of a sudden love Dr. Gary Kleck...here he is making you look stupid on your belief that limiting magazine capacity for guns is a good idea.....

Kleck shows how stupid that idea is.....you know...with actual research...
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Abstract:
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.

LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

I guess he skipped all the times a shooter was stopped at reload.

That would be none......and you have been shown that each example you tried to give was wrong. and you keep lying about it....

 

[2aguy]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

Wrong......another lie.

Then post some academics who defend his work.

I already did.....twit.

James Q. Wilson.... a leading researcher......twit.

http://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/13

In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent.

The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited inChapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a “statistically significant downward shift in the trend” of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135).


This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. That conclusion might be very useful to authorities who contemplate the enactment of RTC laws.

 

[2aguy]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

Wrong......another lie.

Then post some academics who defend his work.

And here.....

twit.....


http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...12-Am-Law-Econ-Rev-2012-Aneja-aler_ahs015.pdf

ADDENDUM to “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy,” American Law and Economics Review, 13:2; Fall, 2011. In section four (pp. 578-584) of the above referenced article the authors report their efforts to replicate some of the results of analyses conducted by a panel of the National Research Council (NRC) and reported in Firearms and Violence (2004). Based on this analysis, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang (2011) conclude that they “cannot replicate the NRC results using the NRC’s own data set” (p. 583) and that the NRC committee “published tables that could not be replicated.” (p. 614). Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report. The results presented in Tables 1b and 2b of Section 4 of the article do not replicate the NRC results because different data and models were used in the attempted replication effort. Thus, the results reported in the article should not be interpreted to mean that if one uses the data and model used by the NRC panel the results they reported cannot be replicated. In fact, replication using the NRC’s data and models produces results that are identical to those reported by the NRC panel. Once again, section four of the ALER article demonstrates one of the major conclusions of the NRC panel – assessments of the impact of right-tocarry laws are so subject to data, covariates, time frame used, and the model characteristics that it is impossible to credibly demonstrate their causal effects using the existing data and methods. In addition, we believe that the

 

[Brain357]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

Wrong......another lie.

Then post some academics who defend his work.

I have...over and over .....and then you deny them.....twit.

You post Lott defending himself over and over.

 

[Brain357]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

Wrong......another lie.

Then post some academics who defend his work.

I already did.....twit.

James Q. Wilson.... a leading researcher......twit.

http://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/13

In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent.

The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited inChapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a “statistically significant downward shift in the trend” of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135).


This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. That conclusion might be very useful to authorities who contemplate the enactment of RTC laws.

Political science?

 

[Brain357]

Shocking how Lott is the only one who will defend Lott.

Wrong......another lie.

Then post some academics who defend his work.

I already did.....twit.

James Q. Wilson.... a leading researcher......twit.

http://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/13

In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent.

The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited inChapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a “statistically significant downward shift in the trend” of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135).


This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. That conclusion might be very useful to authorities who contemplate the enactment of RTC laws.

Anyone living?

 

[Brain357]

A 2004 meeting by National Research Council — the preeminent research body in the United States, part of the National Academy of Sciences and chartered by Congress — examined the question, and an associated report from a research committee of experts, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review,” concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support claims about right-to-carry laws and crime: - See more at: Right-to-carry laws: Revisiting the link between guns and violent crime - Journalist's Resource

A member of the committee, political scientist James Q. Wilson, then at Pepperdine, agreed with the report’s overall conclusions, but in a dissent wrote that the evidence “suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.” This dissent was challenged by the National Research Council, which stated that “the scientific evidence does not support” Wilson’s position. - See more at: Right-to-carry laws: Revisiting the link between guns and violent crime - Journalist's Resource

 

[JoeB131]

You post Lott defending himself over and over.

The thing is, no one has ever replicated Lott's results, and they are in contradiction to plain old common sense.

You would have to believe that Americans pull their guns in response to crimes 5,000,000 times a year, but only manage to kill 200 or so bad guys.

When you read a 2TinyGuy or a Racist from Cleveland or any of our other resident gun nuts fantasize about all the people they just can't wait to shoot, it becomes hard to believe the gun culture can show THAT much restraint. They all want to be George Zimmerman living the dream, but few of them act on it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Dr. Lott"
lol
Lott has been completely discredited.

Said no honest person, ever.

 

[Brain357]

"Dr. Lott"
lol
Lott has been completely discredited.

Said no honest person, ever.

You think Kleck is dishonest. Interesting.

 

[2aguy]

You post Lott defending himself over and over.

The thing is, no one has ever replicated Lott's results, and they are in contradiction to plain old common sense.

You would have to believe that Americans pull their guns in response to crimes 5,000,000 times a year, but only manage to kill 200 or so bad guys.

When you read a 2TinyGuy or a Racist from Cleveland or any of our other resident gun nuts fantasize about all the people they just can't wait to shoot, it becomes hard to believe the gun culture can show THAT much restraint. They all want to be George Zimmerman living the dream, but few of them act on it.

That is wrong...the guys who tried didn't use his numbers....and failed to apologize for condemning him for it......twit...


The number from Bill Clinton was 1,500,000 times a year twit...........and no...gun owners are not out to kill people.......that is the lie from the anti gunners like you....

Gun owners are the most law abiding members of the community.....and only shoot when the moron attacking them just will not run away......