12.8 million Americans carry guns for self defense….and crime is down again in 2014 says FBI...

[Skylar]

Strawman. As when did I quote such a 'study' in the post you're replying to.

Shall we look at the states with the highest gun ownership rates together and see what their crime rates are? Then compare them to the states with the lowest. Top 10 vs. Lowest 10.

You know what the results are going to be.

Prove it. You're claiming a causative relationship. That concealed carry have decreased crime rates. But you can't establish causation. You merely allude to it. And none of the studies on the matter claim causation. They claim correlation.

You know the difference. But you really hope we don't.

Problem is....the States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well. When the 'effect' of lower crime rates exists even when your imagined 'cause' of higher concealed carry permits doesn't.....your 'cause' isn't.

You're intentionally trying to claim causation when you know you can't prove it.

And please show us where your information comes from ….I have already pointed out it probably comes from the Violence Policy Center…an anti gun group….if it doesn't please link…..

You haven't 'pointed' anything out. You've made an allegation you can't back up. Refuting an argument I didn't make.

And of course, you still can't establish causation between higher concealed carry permits and and lower crime rates. As lower crimes rates occur without concealed carry permits.

And you know you can't establish causation. Which is why you refused to address it.

And here is the actual research showing that concealed carry lowers the crime rate…..

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

Lott...list of papers...

Of course, the single paper that Shermer cites was mentioned and discussed at length in the review of the literature that Lott provided in More Guns, Less Crime (click on screen shots to make them larger). Unfortunately, Scientific American wasn’t willing to allow a link to this list of papers.



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


A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

And quote your study claiming causation. even John R. Lott.....whose studies are paid for by the gun industry, doesn't claim causation. He claims correlation. You're spamming a block of links to studies you've never read, you can't quote....and that don't back your claims.

QUOTE the studies where they establish causation. As remember, the National Academy of Sciences has rejected Mr. Lott's methodology as lacking evidence for causation.

So let me guess.....the National Academy of Science contradicts you. So now you ignore the National Academy of Science. Have you ever heard of the cherry picking fallacy? Confirmation bias?

Because you're living it.

John Lott is not paid by the gun industry…that is a lie. And please link to the National Academy of Sciences that disputes Lott…..that would be helpful…….

And of course Lott isn't the only study to show this as that long list of studies show…and Lott didn't cherry pick his data…he looked at every single county in the United States….where as the anti gun researchers actually do cherry pick their info.

Oh, I'm sure its just a coincidence that Lott's fellowship at his college is paid for by the Olin Foundation, which is tied at the hip with the Olin Corporation....one of the largest manufacturers of ammunition in the country.

Laughing....how much of your brain did you have to shut down before your narrative started making sense?

 

[Brain357]

Strawman. As when did I quote such a 'study' in the post you're replying to.

Shall we look at the states with the highest gun ownership rates together and see what their crime rates are? Then compare them to the states with the lowest. Top 10 vs. Lowest 10.

You know what the results are going to be.

Prove it. You're claiming a causative relationship. That concealed carry have decreased crime rates. But you can't establish causation. You merely allude to it. And none of the studies on the matter claim causation. They claim correlation.

You know the difference. But you really hope we don't.

Problem is....the States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well. When the 'effect' of lower crime rates exists even when your imagined 'cause' of higher concealed carry permits doesn't.....your 'cause' isn't.

You're intentionally trying to claim causation when you know you can't prove it.

And please show us where your information comes from ….I have already pointed out it probably comes from the Violence Policy Center…an anti gun group….if it doesn't please link…..

You haven't 'pointed' anything out. You've made an allegation you can't back up. Refuting an argument I didn't make.

And of course, you still can't establish causation between higher concealed carry permits and and lower crime rates. As lower crimes rates occur without concealed carry permits.

And you know you can't establish causation. Which is why you refused to address it.

And here is the actual research showing that concealed carry lowers the crime rate…..

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

Lott...list of papers...

Of course, the single paper that Shermer cites was mentioned and discussed at length in the review of the literature that Lott provided in More Guns, Less Crime (click on screen shots to make them larger). Unfortunately, Scientific American wasn’t willing to allow a link to this list of papers.



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


A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

Most by lott who is pretty much disgraced for making up survey results.

Do you anti gun extremists have to lie about everything….Lott and Kleck and the other gun researchers are not the ones lying…..the anti gun researchers constantly make up studies that lie because they can't get the truth to comport with their desire to ban guns...

Hey lott is the one making up survey results. I've never heard of such an offense by anti gun researchers.

 

[Skylar]

And I ask again....shall we compare average crime rate of the top 10 states with the highest gun ownership rates with the bottom 10 states with the lowest gun ownership rates.

If more guns means less crime.....then it should be an obvious win for you. Yet every time I ask you if you want compare them......you try and change the subject.

Why is that? Don't you have confidence in your premise?

You have yet to link to that information…..can't find the Violence Policy Center study….? That is actually a piece of crap…….

The only one who has mentioned the 'Violence Policy Center' study is you. You keep swinging at that strawman. I've proposed that we find which 10 states have the highest and lowest gun ownership rates. And then compare their average crime rates.

Shall we? You've been avoiding my question like it were on fire. We both know what the results are going to be.

 

[2aguy]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

1) “The National Research Council, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, assembled a panel to look into the impact of concealed-carry laws; 15 of 16 panel members concluded that the existing research, including Lott’s, provided “no credible evidence” that right-to-carry laws had any effect on violent crime.”

The National Research Council report actually concluded as follows: “The committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Lurie somehow manages not to mention that despite evaluating every possible gun law, the Council found no evidence that any law had any impact. The Council was noncommittal about every policy. The panel standard response was simply advocating that more money be available to academics to fund additional research.

In fact, right-to-carry laws were actually the only type of law where there was dissent. James Q. Wilson, who at the time was possibly “the most influential criminal justice scholar of the 20th century,” concluded: “I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”

The National Research Council panel was put together by the Clinton administration. As Wilson notes, the panel used a much tougher standard in evaluating the research showing that concealed handgun reduce violent crime than they used in looking at the critics: “To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.”


In any case, a survey of the published peer-reviewed research shows strong support for the benefit from right-to-carry laws. The debate is between most researchers saying that there is a benefit and the rest of the published work saying that there is no effect. More recent research continues to show a benefit.

2) “that Lott had drawn inaccurate correlations: Cities had experienced a spike in crime in the 80’s and 90’s in part because of the crack epidemic, not because of strict gun laws.”

But from the very start, Lott’s research has addressed the crack cocaine issue. As Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley (Stanford Law Review, 2003) summarize the research at that point:

“One of Ayres and Donohue’s greatest concerns is the apparent failure of previous research to account for the differential geographic impact of cocaine on crime. Lott’s book (and the Lott and Mustard paper) reported that including price data for cocaine did not alter the results. Using yearly county-level pricing data (as opposed to short-run changes in prices) has the advantage of picking up cost but not demand differences between counties, thus measuring the differences in availability across counties. Research conducted by Steve Bronars and John Lott examined the crime rates for neighboring counties . . . on either side of a state border. When the counties adopting the law experienced a drop in violent crime, neighboring counties directly on the other side of the border without right-to-carry laws experienced an increase. . . . Ayres and Donohue argue that different parts of the country may have experienced differential impacts from the crack epidemic. Yet, if there are two urban counties next to each other, how can the crack cocaine hypothesis explain why one urban county faces a crime increase from drugs, when the neighbor- ing urban county is experiencing a drop? Such isolation would be particularly surprising as criminals can easily move between these counties. . . . Even though Lott gave Ayres and Donohue the cocaine price data from 1977 to 1992, they have never reported using it.”

In his third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (2010) Lott uses new data from Fryer et al to attempt to measure the impact of crack cocaine from 1980 to 2000.

Critics such as Ayres and Donohue claim that the results can be explained away by the impact of crack cocaine, but they haven’t done any concrete analysis to show this.

 

[Brain357]

And I ask again....shall we compare average crime rate of the top 10 states with the highest gun ownership rates with the bottom 10 states with the lowest gun ownership rates.

If more guns means less crime.....then it should be an obvious win for you. Yet every time I ask you if you want compare them......you try and change the subject.

Why is that? Don't you have confidence in your premise?

You have yet to link to that information…..can't find the Violence Policy Center study….? That is actually a piece of crap…….

The only one who has mentioned the 'Violence Policy Center' study is you. You keep swinging at that strawman. I've proposed that we find which 10 states have the highest and lowest gun ownership rates. And then compare their average crime rates.

Shall we? You've been avoiding my question like it were on fire. We both know what the results are going to be.

There are a lot of questions he has to avoid. He can't show his DGU numbers are even mathematically possible either. Doesn't stop him from using them though, he's not concerned with the truth, just selling guns.

 

[Skylar]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

 

[2aguy]

And I ask again....shall we compare average crime rate of the top 10 states with the highest gun ownership rates with the bottom 10 states with the lowest gun ownership rates.

If more guns means less crime.....then it should be an obvious win for you. Yet every time I ask you if you want compare them......you try and change the subject.

Why is that? Don't you have confidence in your premise?

You have yet to link to that information…..can't find the Violence Policy Center study….? That is actually a piece of crap…….

The only one who has mentioned the 'Violence Policy Center' study is you. You keep swinging at that strawman. I've proposed that we find which 10 states have the highest and lowest gun ownership rates. And then compare their average crime rates.

Shall we? You've been avoiding my question like it were on fire. We both know what the results are going to be.

Not avoiding it….you haven't shown a link to back up what you claim……I know of the Violence Policy Center lied about that so if they aren't who you are using…..show us the stats…….

 

[Skylar]

And I ask again....shall we compare average crime rate of the top 10 states with the highest gun ownership rates with the bottom 10 states with the lowest gun ownership rates.

If more guns means less crime.....then it should be an obvious win for you. Yet every time I ask you if you want compare them......you try and change the subject.

Why is that? Don't you have confidence in your premise?

You have yet to link to that information…..can't find the Violence Policy Center study….? That is actually a piece of crap…….

The only one who has mentioned the 'Violence Policy Center' study is you. You keep swinging at that strawman. I've proposed that we find which 10 states have the highest and lowest gun ownership rates. And then compare their average crime rates.

Shall we? You've been avoiding my question like it were on fire. We both know what the results are going to be.

There are a lot of questions he has to avoid. He can't show his DGU numbers are even mathematically possible either. Doesn't stop him from using them though, he's not concerned with the truth, just selling guns.

Minor detail. Hardly worth mentioning.

 

[2aguy]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

And it was shown why…….the hate for gun ownership is really strong and they have a lot of influence…it reaches everywhere….and the clinton administration was rabidly anti gun….and even there own research disputed what they claimed.

 

[2aguy]

And please show us where your information comes from ….I have already pointed out it probably comes from the Violence Policy Center…an anti gun group….if it doesn't please link…..

You haven't 'pointed' anything out. You've made an allegation you can't back up. Refuting an argument I didn't make.

And of course, you still can't establish causation between higher concealed carry permits and and lower crime rates. As lower crimes rates occur without concealed carry permits.

And you know you can't establish causation. Which is why you refused to address it.

And here is the actual research showing that concealed carry lowers the crime rate…..

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

Lott...list of papers...

Of course, the single paper that Shermer cites was mentioned and discussed at length in the review of the literature that Lott provided in More Guns, Less Crime (click on screen shots to make them larger). Unfortunately, Scientific American wasn’t willing to allow a link to this list of papers.



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


A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

Most by lott who is pretty much disgraced for making up survey results.

Do you anti gun extremists have to lie about everything….Lott and Kleck and the other gun researchers are not the ones lying…..the anti gun researchers constantly make up studies that lie because they can't get the truth to comport with their desire to ban guns...

Hey lott is the one making up survey results. I've never heard of such an offense by anti gun researchers.

hemenway, donohue, kellerman, the Violence policy center have all actually fabricated research……I have posted all of it you can look it up…..

 

[2aguy]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

When the research is credible…it gets listed…when it isn't it is shown why it is crap, as I just did….there are 29 studies on concealed carry and crime…..18 show it reduces crime, 10 shows no effect and only one shows that it increases crime….I have linked to all of them…..you state something and expect us to believe you …..

 

[2aguy]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

In fact, right-to-carry laws were actually the only type of law where there was dissent. James Q. Wilson, who at the time was possibly “the most influential criminal justice scholar of the 20th century,” concluded:

“I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”


The National Research Council panel was put together by the Clinton administration. As Wilson notes, the panel used a much tougher standard in evaluating the research showing that concealed handgun reduce violent crime than they used in looking at the critics: “To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.”

 

[M14 Shooter]

Crime is down everywhere. Including those states with the lowest gun ownership rates. With the average crime rates in those states with the lowest gun ownership rates being lower than than those states with the highest gun ownership rates.
Kicking the shit out of both of your assertions.

What does it do to the claim that more guns = more crime?

 

[2aguy]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

In fact, right-to-carry laws were actually the only type of law where there was dissent. James Q. Wilson, who at the time was possibly “the most influential criminal justice scholar of the 20th century,” concluded:

“I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”


The National Research Council panel was put together by the Clinton administration. As Wilson notes, the panel used a much tougher standard in evaluating the research showing that concealed handgun reduce violent crime than they used in looking at the critics: “To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.”

Look up James Q. Wilson….see who he is …...

 

[Brain357]

You haven't 'pointed' anything out. You've made an allegation you can't back up. Refuting an argument I didn't make.

And of course, you still can't establish causation between higher concealed carry permits and and lower crime rates. As lower crimes rates occur without concealed carry permits.

And you know you can't establish causation. Which is why you refused to address it.

And here is the actual research showing that concealed carry lowers the crime rate…..

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

Lott...list of papers...

Of course, the single paper that Shermer cites was mentioned and discussed at length in the review of the literature that Lott provided in More Guns, Less Crime (click on screen shots to make them larger). Unfortunately, Scientific American wasn’t willing to allow a link to this list of papers.



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


A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

Most by lott who is pretty much disgraced for making up survey results.

Do you anti gun extremists have to lie about everything….Lott and Kleck and the other gun researchers are not the ones lying…..the anti gun researchers constantly make up studies that lie because they can't get the truth to comport with their desire to ban guns...

Hey lott is the one making up survey results. I've never heard of such an offense by anti gun researchers.

hemenway, donohue, kellerman, the Violence policy center have all actually fabricated research……I have posted all of it you can look it up…..

Post an example.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're intentionally trying to claim causation when you know you can't prove it.

Like CCJ, you'd have more credibility if you mentioned this every time it happens...

 

[2aguy]

Crime is down everywhere. Including those states with the lowest gun ownership rates. With the average crime rates in those states with the lowest gun ownership rates being lower than than those states with the highest gun ownership rates.
Kicking the shit out of both of your assertions.

What does it do to the claim that more guns = more crime?

Gee wiz M14…..now you went and did it……..you brought truth and reality into the discussion…….you know they can't respond to that….

 

[M14 Shooter]

Problem is....the States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well.

Problem is... You cannot prove this.

 

[Brain357]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

When the research is credible…it gets listed…when it isn't it is shown why it is crap, as I just did….there are 29 studies on concealed carry and crime…..18 show it reduces crime, 10 shows no effect and only one shows that it increases crime….I have linked to all of them…..you state something and expect us to believe you …..

Almost all 18 are disgraced lott...

 

[M14 Shooter]

As lower crimes rates occur without concealed carry permits.

Where, specifically, does this happen?