Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" Hypothesis Has Been Widely Discredited

[hazlnut]

Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" Hypothesis Has Been Widely Discredited

Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" Hypothesis Maintains That Gun Ownership Helps Curtail Crime. In his book More Guns, Less Crime and in other media, Lott repeatedly pushes the myth that increased gun ownership, especially increased concealed weapons permits, results in a decreased incidents of violence crime. [University of Chicago Press, accessed 12/17/12]

Stanford Law Review: Lott's Central Hypothesis Is "Without Credible Statistical Support." In a Stanford Law Review report titled "The Latest Misfires in Support of the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis," Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III studied how coding errors in data undermine Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis. The authors explain:

PW [Lott's co-authors Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley] seriously miscoded their new county dataset in ways that irretrievably undermine every original regression result that they present in their response. As a result, the new PW regressions must simply be disregarded. Correcting PW's empirical mistakes once again shows that the more guns, less crime hypothesis is without credible statistical support. [Stanford Law Review, accessed 12/3/12 via Deltoid]​

Computer Scientist Tim Lambert On Lott's Data Errors: "If Anything, Concealed Carry Laws Lead To More Crime." In an April 2003 blog post on ScienceBlogs.com, computer scientist Tim Lambert discussed Ayres and Donohue's Stanford Law Review findings, noting "Ian Ayres and John Donohue wrote a paper that found that, if anything, concealed carry laws lead to more crime." Noting that "Lott, (along with Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley) wrote a reply where they argued that using data up to 2000 confirmed the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis," Lambert summarized Ayres' and Donohue's response to Lott's defense of the data:

 

[Darkwind]

In fact, it hasn't. Hacks and their opinions don't really matter.

Just go ask the people who are dying by droves in cities where guns don't exist. Chicago would be a good start.

 

[hazlnut]

Read this gun nutters.

There's a lot more debunking of your hero Lott to come.

This guy is a joke.

 

[Katzndogz]

Criminals would NEVER commit a criminal act on someone that is unarmed. Everyone knows that they target people with their own guns.

 

[AquaAthena]

In fact, it hasn't. Hacks and their opinions don't really matter.

Just go ask the people who are dying by droves in cities where guns don't exist. Chicago would be a good start.

And from England:

Great Britain has a problem. Kind of like Chicago.

Gun crime in Britain is up 600% since 1978.

“More guns caused this!” morons would say.

Well, in the late 1990s, Britain banned handguns and severely restricted long guns. The numbers of guns in the hands of British subjects (not citizens… as armed men are citizens) are way down.

Crime since the Dunblane massacre ban on weapons has more than doubled!

Great Britain: How’s that gun control working for ya? | GunsSaveLife.com

more:

 

[Papageorgio]

Guns have been around since the founding of this country, it was the gun that was used to help separate the US from the British.

Now, two hundred plus years later the gun is now a problem.

The gun hasn't changed, society has, maybe we need to look at the cause instead of looking at symptom.

People don't kill people because of guns, the gun is the weapon, take away the gun and they will use something else, maybe have many more bombings?

Knee jerk reactions are not needed, getting to the root of the problem is.

 

[hazlnut]

Lott is a fraud.

Fantasy stats have been flushed.

I hope every journalist that interviews him has copies of all the articles debunking him.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't you dare debunk Lott. Think of the economic cost of all the lost gun sales.

And don't listen to the people talking about Sandy Hook!!!! You do realize that those twenty were part of the 47% that do not pay taxes and just soak up taxpayer money, don't you?