California politicians say you can't have guns, cops say you are on your own...nice...

[Brain357]

However, widespread defensive gun use is amyth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible. In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find1,600 verified DGUs in 2014. This means that 99.936 percent of Kleck’s claimed DGUs arenowhere to be found, despite those very surveys stating that more than 50 percent of DGUs are reported to the police (meaning there should be a record of them). With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence.

 

[2aguy]

And yet now with bad police work it is going up…just like it is going up in all the cities that have attacked their own police forces….while it went down when more Americans started carrying guns.
No…..it is a big country. Crime in Wisconsin is going up because of their police policies, just like in Chicago and the other major cities. The rest of Wisconsin also has concealed carry, and they are not experiencing an uptick in crime…..allowing normal people to carry guns does not increase gun crime since normal people don't commit the crime. The criminals are already using guns….with or without gun control…the normal people will not break the law. Chicago and other democrats controlled cities, baltimore, D.C., Detroit……strict gun control and the crime rate through the roof…

Detroit…..pushing concealed carry and the crime rate is now finally going down…….Minnesota….just passed the 5% mark on concealed carry permits…crime rate has gone down…dittos Florida…...

I didn't say it effects crime rates. But like i said crime was going down in wi when they didn't have carry. You can't claim carry has brought down crime. Crime was going down long before the carry fad.

Nope…..studies show that concealed carry lowers the crime rate…I have posted links to those studies repeatedly, pretending that they don't exist doesn't change that fact, that truth or that reality.

And studies show it doesn't and studies show it increases crime. What we know is wi lowered crime without carry just like states with carry lowered crime. Carry does not effect crime rates.

Here is the breakdown….

16 papers…. concealed carry reduced crime

10 papers… had no effect on crime

1 paper… increased crime

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.

Yes most that say it lowers crime are associated with lott and should be treated as one study.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Not most……and the others not associated with lott, the other 12that say the same thing, and vs. the one that says it increases crime?

And since Lott is the preeminent researcher in this field…good of you to throw out his work because it doesn't support your child like view of reality.

 

[2aguy]

However, widespread defensive gun use is amyth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible. In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find1,600 verified DGUs in 2014. This means that 99.936 percent of Kleck’s claimed DGUs arenowhere to be found, despite those very surveys stating that more than 50 percent of DGUs are reported to the police (meaning there should be a record of them). With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence.

Wrong brain……you are making up numbers out of your ass vs. 40 years of actual research…another child like response to reality. The Gun Violence Archive actually lies……have been caught lying…and of course you have to use them to cover your inability to accept reality.

 

[2aguy]

Why Concealed Carry Could Not Have Caused the Two-Decade Dip In Crime Rates

Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded 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.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — therearemanymorecatalogingthenumerouswaysinwhichLotthaserred.

the actual studies…….

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

Why Concealed Carry Could Not Have Caused the Two-Decade Dip In Crime Rates

Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded 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.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — therearemanymorecatalogingthenumerouswaysinwhichLotthaserred.

Wow….you are using the Trace…..a Bloomberg funded group to quote from ….bloomberg, who has given millions for gun control laws……..nice try though….

 

[2aguy]

Why Concealed Carry Could Not Have Caused the Two-Decade Dip In Crime Rates

Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded 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.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — therearemanymorecatalogingthenumerouswaysinwhichLotthaserred.

Yeah…sadly for you James Q. Wilson also worked on the National Research Council ….and he says the did some crap work…

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]

And what does James Q. Wilson say in conclusion…..

In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous.

 

[Brain357]

I didn't say it effects crime rates. But like i said crime was going down in wi when they didn't have carry. You can't claim carry has brought down crime. Crime was going down long before the carry fad.

Nope…..studies show that concealed carry lowers the crime rate…I have posted links to those studies repeatedly, pretending that they don't exist doesn't change that fact, that truth or that reality.

And studies show it doesn't and studies show it increases crime. What we know is wi lowered crime without carry just like states with carry lowered crime. Carry does not effect crime rates.

Here is the breakdown….

16 papers…. concealed carry reduced crime

10 papers… had no effect on crime

1 paper… increased crime

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.

Yes most that say it lowers crime are associated with lott and should be treated as one study.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Not most……and the others not associated with lott, the other 12that say the same thing, and vs. the one that says it increases crime?

And since Lott is the preeminent researcher in this field…good of you to throw out his work because it doesn't support your child like view of reality.

Lott is a disgraced researcher for many reasons as you already know. Only gun nuts believe his work.

 

[2aguy]

However, widespread defensive gun use is amyth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible. In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find1,600 verified DGUs in 2014. This means that 99.936 percent of Kleck’s claimed DGUs arenowhere to be found, despite those very surveys stating that more than 50 percent of DGUs are reported to the police (meaning there should be a record of them). With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence.

And sadly….James Q. Wilson also points out what the actual council stated ….

Lott argued that murder rates decline after the adoption of RTC laws even after allowing for the effect of other variables that affect crime rates.

The committee has confirmed this finding as is evident in its Tables 6-1, 6-2,6-5 (first row), 6-6 (first row), and 6-7 (first two rows). This confirmation includes both the original data period (1977-1992) used by Lott and data that run through 2000. In view of the confirmation of the findings that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate, it is hard for me to understand why these claims are called “fragile.”

 

[Brain357]

Why Concealed Carry Could Not Have Caused the Two-Decade Dip In Crime Rates

Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded 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.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — therearemanymorecatalogingthenumerouswaysinwhichLotthaserred.

the actual studies…….

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Tell us about the la times and field studies. How many were surveyed?

 

[Brain357]

And what does James Q. Wilson say in conclusion…..

In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous.

Who?

 

[2aguy]

Nope…..studies show that concealed carry lowers the crime rate…I have posted links to those studies repeatedly, pretending that they don't exist doesn't change that fact, that truth or that reality.

And studies show it doesn't and studies show it increases crime. What we know is wi lowered crime without carry just like states with carry lowered crime. Carry does not effect crime rates.

Here is the breakdown….

16 papers…. concealed carry reduced crime

10 papers… had no effect on crime

1 paper… increased crime

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.

Yes most that say it lowers crime are associated with lott and should be treated as one study.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Not most……and the others not associated with lott, the other 12that say the same thing, and vs. the one that says it increases crime?

And since Lott is the preeminent researcher in this field…good of you to throw out his work because it doesn't support your child like view of reality.

Lott is a disgraced researcher for many reasons as you already know. Only gun nuts believe his work.

Nope…..you guys have tried to smear him and Kleck and you haven't succeeded…smearing the guys who show you are wrong is not disproving their research….but keep trying…..

 

[Brain357]

And studies show it doesn't and studies show it increases crime. What we know is wi lowered crime without carry just like states with carry lowered crime. Carry does not effect crime rates.

Here is the breakdown….

16 papers…. concealed carry reduced crime

10 papers… had no effect on crime

1 paper… increased crime

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.

Yes most that say it lowers crime are associated with lott and should be treated as one study.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Not most……and the others not associated with lott, the other 12that say the same thing, and vs. the one that says it increases crime?

And since Lott is the preeminent researcher in this field…good of you to throw out his work because it doesn't support your child like view of reality.

Lott is a disgraced researcher for many reasons as you already know. Only gun nuts believe his work.

Nope…..you guys have tried to smear him and Kleck and you haven't succeeded…smearing the guys who show you are wrong is not disproving their research….but keep trying…..

He can't be taken seriously.

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason

 

[2aguy]

Why Concealed Carry Could Not Have Caused the Two-Decade Dip In Crime Rates

Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded 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.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — therearemanymorecatalogingthenumerouswaysinwhichLotthaserred.

the actual studies…….

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Tell us about the la times and field studies. How many were surveyed?

Call them yourself……I am sure they would be glad to dig the study out of their hard copy files…….

 

[2aguy]

Here is the breakdown….

16 papers…. concealed carry reduced crime

10 papers… had no effect on crime

1 paper… increased crime

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.

Yes most that say it lowers crime are associated with lott and should be treated as one study.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Not most……and the others not associated with lott, the other 12that say the same thing, and vs. the one that says it increases crime?

And since Lott is the preeminent researcher in this field…good of you to throw out his work because it doesn't support your child like view of reality.

Lott is a disgraced researcher for many reasons as you already know. Only gun nuts believe his work.

Nope…..you guys have tried to smear him and Kleck and you haven't succeeded…smearing the guys who show you are wrong is not disproving their research….but keep trying…..

He can't be taken seriously.

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason

Yes…you can't destroy the research so you have to smear the researcher……and of course that still leaves the other 40 years of research on defensive gun use and the other 12 studies on concealed carry……..and smear, smear away……..it can't hide the truth, the facts or the reality….

 

[Brain357]

Why Concealed Carry Could Not Have Caused the Two-Decade Dip In Crime Rates

Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded 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.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — therearemanymorecatalogingthenumerouswaysinwhichLotthaserred.

the actual studies…….

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Tell us about the la times and field studies. How many were surveyed?

Call them yourself……I am sure they would be glad to dig the study out of their hard copy files…….

So you don't know anything about the two with the largest results? Wow it's almost like you don't care about the truth.

 

[Brain357]

Yes most that say it lowers crime are associated with lott and should be treated as one study.

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

Not most……and the others not associated with lott, the other 12that say the same thing, and vs. the one that says it increases crime?

And since Lott is the preeminent researcher in this field…good of you to throw out his work because it doesn't support your child like view of reality.

Lott is a disgraced researcher for many reasons as you already know. Only gun nuts believe his work.

Nope…..you guys have tried to smear him and Kleck and you haven't succeeded…smearing the guys who show you are wrong is not disproving their research….but keep trying…..

He can't be taken seriously.

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason

Yes…you can't destroy the research so you have to smear the researcher……and of course that still leaves the other 40 years of research on defensive gun use and the other 12 studies on concealed carry……..and smear, smear away……..it can't hide the truth, the facts or the reality….

It is mostly smearing his research actually. I don't think you really have 12 valid studies that don't involve lott. You are getting them from his website.

 

[2aguy]

Why Concealed Carry Could Not Have Caused the Two-Decade Dip In Crime Rates

Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded 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.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — therearemanymorecatalogingthenumerouswaysinwhichLotthaserred.

the actual studies…….

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Tell us about the la times and field studies. How many were surveyed?

Call them yourself……I am sure they would be glad to dig the study out of their hard copy files…….

So you don't know anything about the two with the largest results? Wow it's almost like you don't care about the truth.

Twit….they are cited in a peer reviewed paper….if you want the info. call the Times and ask them for it.

 

[2aguy]

Not most……and the others not associated with lott, the other 12that say the same thing, and vs. the one that says it increases crime?

And since Lott is the preeminent researcher in this field…good of you to throw out his work because it doesn't support your child like view of reality.

Lott is a disgraced researcher for many reasons as you already know. Only gun nuts believe his work.

Nope…..you guys have tried to smear him and Kleck and you haven't succeeded…smearing the guys who show you are wrong is not disproving their research….but keep trying…..

He can't be taken seriously.

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason

Yes…you can't destroy the research so you have to smear the researcher……and of course that still leaves the other 40 years of research on defensive gun use and the other 12 studies on concealed carry……..and smear, smear away……..it can't hide the truth, the facts or the reality….

It is mostly smearing his research actually. I don't think you really have 12 valid studies that don't involve lott. You are getting them from his website.

No…they are smearing Lott….his research has been attacked and he has defended it and I have posted it over and over……they can't take out his research so they have to go after him…...

 

[Brain357]

Why Concealed Carry Could Not Have Caused the Two-Decade Dip In Crime Rates

Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded 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.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — therearemanymorecatalogingthenumerouswaysinwhichLotthaserred.

the actual studies…….

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Tell us about the la times and field studies. How many were surveyed?

Call them yourself……I am sure they would be glad to dig the study out of their hard copy files…….

So you don't know anything about the two with the largest results? Wow it's almost like you don't care about the truth.

Twit….they are cited in a peer reviewed paper….if you want the info. call the Times and ask them for it.

I don't need them. Amazing you believe them100% without any details of them. I think it is clear who the twit is.