John Lott testifies before congress on gun violence.....

[August West]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

A 'must-read.' Should be required in schools.

Should they read Lott`s nonsense before or after their active shooter drill?

 

[BULLDOG]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

And they won't stop a single crime.

That's it. Get it all out. I know you are disappointed that the universal background check thing didn't go your way, so go ahead and get all those angry feelings out and have a good cry. You'll feel better later when you finally realize you have to accept the reality of what happened.

Do you need a pat on the head? I ain't bothered by this in the slightest. In fact I actually want a background check law written that has a chance to prevent crime.

What you morons are pushing, won't.

At this point, what you want doesn't matter. Trump supporters have fought any and all efforts for a long time. The country finally decided your wishes are unreasonable, and therefore not a concern any more. You gun nut Trump supporters kinda remind me of the little kid with his hand stuck in a cookie jar. If you could have cooperated even a little, and let go of some of the cookies, the outcome might have been different.

Fuck you, history proves your demands will never end until every law abiding citizen is disarmed. The days of compromise and cooperation are long gone.

.

You continue to make such absurd remarks, and don't seem to realize how goofy they are. Perhaps you could point to the historical time in the US when every law abiding citizen was disarmed. Gun nuts have constantly refused to compromise or cooperate. That's why you no longer hold the power you once did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Lott has long-ago been discredited, and is errant claims debunked.

“Lott’s empirical claim that only three mass shootings have occurred where civilians are allowed to carry firearms is also false. He misclassified shootings in Umpqua Community College in Oregon; Hiahleah, Florida; and elsewhere as occurring in gun-free zones. But as Politifact has reported, Umpqua permitted people with concealed-carry licenses to carry arms on campus. And it was widely noted that several students there were armed at the time of the shooting.”

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Universal Background checks fail Constitutional muster.

People can whine all they wish about not having UBC, but they won't be happening. Majorities do not supersede the Constitution.

Wrong.

The courts have consistently upheld UBCs to be perfectly Constitutional.

Colorado Gun Laws Constitutional, Says U.S. District Judge

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

A 'must-read.' Should be required in schools.

Should they read Lott`s nonsense before or after their active shooter drill?

Did you read the book you're criticizing????


NO?


One more Liberal windbag.

 

[August West]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

A 'must-read.' Should be required in schools.

Should they read Lott`s nonsense before or after their active shooter drill?

Did you read the book you're criticizing????


NO?


One more Liberal windbag.

I don`t read fantasies with the exception of Lord Of The Rings. Lott has been bouncing around for decades from one college to another and he`s been thoroughly repudiated.
Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies
He couldn`t produce the data to support his survey because his hard drive crashed in 1997. LOL! You people are easily played.
John Lott - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

A 'must-read.' Should be required in schools.

Should they read Lott`s nonsense before or after their active shooter drill?

Did you read the book you're criticizing????


NO?


One more Liberal windbag.

I don`t read fantasies with the exception of Lord Of The Rings. Lott has been bouncing around for decades from one college to another and he`s been thoroughly repudiated.
Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies
He couldn`t produce the data to support his survey because his hard drive crashed in 1997. LOL! You people are easily played.
John Lott - Wikipedia

"I don`t read ,,,"


Those first three words are all anyone need know about Liberals.


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter



How about you just change your avi to "Imbecile".....I don't believe anyone else is using it.....





"On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott's More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: Despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott's simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional 10 years of data - including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, DC - that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention."
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072BVYMSK/?tag=ff0d01-20

 

[2aguy]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

A 'must-read.' Should be required in schools.

Should they read Lott`s nonsense before or after their active shooter drill?

Did you read the book you're criticizing????


NO?


One more Liberal windbag.

I don`t read fantasies with the exception of Lord Of The Rings. Lott has been bouncing around for decades from one college to another and he`s been thoroughly repudiated.
Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies
He couldn`t produce the data to support his survey because his hard drive crashed in 1997. LOL! You people are easily played.
John Lott - Wikipedia

He hasn't been repudiated you numb nuts, he is the foremost expert on guns and self defense. You asshats have tried to destroy his life for years.

No...moron, the anti-gunners have lied about him......

Here is his defense against their attacks...

The Hard Drive....

Response to Malkin's Op-ed

It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash.


2) As to the “claim” that I lost my data in a computer crash on July 3, 1997, I have offered Malkin the statements from nine academics (statements attached), four of whom I was co-authoring papers with at the time and who remember quite vividly also losing the data that we had on various projects. David Mustard at the University of Georgia spent considerable time during 1997 helping me replace gun crime data. Other academics worked with me to replace data on our other projects. Just so it is clear, this computer crash basically cost me all my data on all my projects up to that point in time, including all the data and word files for my book, More Guns, Less Crime, and numerous papers that were under review at journals. The next couple of years were hell trying to replace things and the data for this survey which ended up being one sentence in the book, was not of particular importance. However, all the data was replaced, including not only the large county level data, the state level data, as well as the survey data, when the survey was redone.

Data sharing...

John Lott's website

Here two critics make asshats of themselves when they misuse his data...

Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC

Abstract
In an article titled “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy” published in the American Law and Economics Review in 2011, Abhay Aneja, John Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang report on their inability to replicate regression estimates appearing in the 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. They suggest that there are flaws in the data that John Lott had supplied to the NRC. This suggestion could sow seeds of doubt with respect to the many studies that have used that data.

The source of the replication problem, however, was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang did not estimate the correct model specification—a problem that they have acknowledged in subsequent communications. However, in these later communications they do not make clear that the basis for their doubts about the Lott-originated data has disappeared.

 

[2aguy]

Universal Background checks fail Constitutional muster.

People can whine all they wish about not having UBC, but they won't be happening. Majorities do not supersede the Constitution.

Wrong.

The courts have consistently upheld UBCs to be perfectly Constitutional.

Colorado Gun Laws Constitutional, Says U.S. District Judge

Moron, the District judge is ignoring Heller, Caetano, Miller, McDonald.......thinking that the Supreme Court was too divided at the time to call them out and bitch slap them....

 

[2aguy]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Lott has long-ago been discredited, and is errant claims debunked.

“Lott’s empirical claim that only three mass shootings have occurred where civilians are allowed to carry firearms is also false. He misclassified shootings in Umpqua Community College in Oregon; Hiahleah, Florida; and elsewhere as occurring in gun-free zones. But as Politifact has reported, Umpqua permitted people with concealed-carry licenses to carry arms on campus. And it was widely noted that several students there were armed at the time of the shooting.”

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

Politifact is lying you asshat.....the community college forced students who wanted to carry to apply for permission, it wasn't openly allowed...you asshat.

Those students were no where near the shooter on the campus, you asshat.....Lott clearly stated the policy and what happened...you hacks never quit lying.

 

[westwall]

And they won't stop a single crime.

That's it. Get it all out. I know you are disappointed that the universal background check thing didn't go your way, so go ahead and get all those angry feelings out and have a good cry. You'll feel better later when you finally realize you have to accept the reality of what happened.

Do you need a pat on the head? I ain't bothered by this in the slightest. In fact I actually want a background check law written that has a chance to prevent crime.

What you morons are pushing, won't.

At this point, what you want doesn't matter. Trump supporters have fought any and all efforts for a long time. The country finally decided your wishes are unreasonable, and therefore not a concern any more. You gun nut Trump supporters kinda remind me of the little kid with his hand stuck in a cookie jar. If you could have cooperated even a little, and let go of some of the cookies, the outcome might have been different.

Don't count your chickens.....

I would say that at this point, that sounds like good advice for you.

And especially for you sweetie, your predictions haven't panned out the way you have hoped for for the last three years.

Seems like it is you who need to take valium.

We are all fine, you're the hysterical one.

Soo, take a chill pill and be happy!

 

[BULLDOG]

That's it. Get it all out. I know you are disappointed that the universal background check thing didn't go your way, so go ahead and get all those angry feelings out and have a good cry. You'll feel better later when you finally realize you have to accept the reality of what happened.

Do you need a pat on the head? I ain't bothered by this in the slightest. In fact I actually want a background check law written that has a chance to prevent crime.

What you morons are pushing, won't.

At this point, what you want doesn't matter. Trump supporters have fought any and all efforts for a long time. The country finally decided your wishes are unreasonable, and therefore not a concern any more. You gun nut Trump supporters kinda remind me of the little kid with his hand stuck in a cookie jar. If you could have cooperated even a little, and let go of some of the cookies, the outcome might have been different.

Don't worry about that. I'm as happy as a dog with two dicks.





Don't count your chickens.....

I would say that at this point, that sounds like good advice for you.

And especially for you sweetie, your predictions haven't panned out the way you have hoped for for the last three years.

Seems like it is you who need to take valium.

We are all fine, you're the hysterical one.

Soo, take a chill pill and be happy!

 

[OKTexas]

Exactly like I said before... requiring background checks for the purpose of reducing crime is impotent.
Just how many criminals do you think buy guns legally?
Just how many criminals who either plan specifically to use a gun in a crime, or carry it as part of the overall likelihood of committing crimes, do you think buy guns where they will be photographed, and registered?
Easy. Exactly 0.
If one is serious about reducing crime than you have to address the cause of why they are in that business to start with. And that isn't going to happen. Because they could be raaacist.

Like I already said multiple times, you are free to whine about it all you want, but that won't change the fact that the vast majority of Americans are demanding universal background checks, and we will have them. You don't have to be happy about it.

The vast majority of Americans are not informed on the topic, all they have to go on is the emotional 30 second sound bites delivered by the commie media. When fully informed those numbers would drop dramatically.

.

Sour grapes?

Nope, just more facts. You know, those little things you commies can't seem to comprehend.

.

You love to use the word Commie. You're a blowhard idiot.

Wear it proudly commie, you have no regard for the laws or the Constitution. You need a T-shirt that says "I'm a commie, your rights mean nothing to me".

.

 

[OKTexas]

Universal Background checks fail Constitutional muster.

People can whine all they wish about not having UBC, but they won't be happening. Majorities do not supersede the Constitution.

You hold your breath on that one.

It's an intrastate transaction, the feds have no authority on the topic.

.

Purchase of fully automatic rifles could be considered an intrastate transaction too, right?

True, and it's none of the feds business if one is transferred between two people eligible to own them.

.

 

[OKTexas]

And they won't stop a single crime.

That's it. Get it all out. I know you are disappointed that the universal background check thing didn't go your way, so go ahead and get all those angry feelings out and have a good cry. You'll feel better later when you finally realize you have to accept the reality of what happened.

Do you need a pat on the head? I ain't bothered by this in the slightest. In fact I actually want a background check law written that has a chance to prevent crime.

What you morons are pushing, won't.

At this point, what you want doesn't matter. Trump supporters have fought any and all efforts for a long time. The country finally decided your wishes are unreasonable, and therefore not a concern any more. You gun nut Trump supporters kinda remind me of the little kid with his hand stuck in a cookie jar. If you could have cooperated even a little, and let go of some of the cookies, the outcome might have been different.

Fuck you, history proves your demands will never end until every law abiding citizen is disarmed. The days of compromise and cooperation are long gone.

.

You continue to make such absurd remarks, and don't seem to realize how goofy they are. Perhaps you could point to the historical time in the US when every law abiding citizen was disarmed. Gun nuts have constantly refused to compromise or cooperate. That's why you no longer hold the power you once did.

You're not too smart, are ya. The British tried and look what they got for it. Why do you think the founding States insisted on the 2nd Amendment? Now you commies have been slowly chipping away at it since the mid 60's. In just my life time it has gone from just getting a cash register receipt, to tons of bullshit paperwork and background checks, just to buy a gun. Enough is enough.

.

 

[CWayne]

Universal Background checks fail Constitutional muster.

People can whine all they wish about not having UBC, but they won't be happening. Majorities do not supersede the Constitution.

Wrong.

The courts have consistently upheld UBCs to be perfectly Constitutional.

Colorado Gun Laws Constitutional, Says U.S. District Judge

An incorrect ruling which will be overturned via the SCOTUS, as well as the constitutional challenge of privacy rights violations such a law, would create.