John Lott on Background checks and defensive shootings...interview at SHOT show...

[2aguy]

John Lott was a guest on Dana Loeshes radio show from the 2015 shot show....here is the interview..they discuss the idiot brian gumble, background checks and defensive shootings....

CPRC on the Dana Loesch Radio Show to discuss new background check proposals and defensive gun uses - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[2aguy]

In the second segment Lott talks about the real reason for "Universal Background Checks" and he points out anti gunners just want to make it more expensive for people to own guns.....he points out that in Colorado when they put in a 65 dollar transfer fee tax on gun sales, the Republicans and one pro gun democrat put up an exemption to allow people under the poverty line to be exempt...it was voted down....

This comes in around the 5:30 mark on the audio....

again....anti gunners do not care about saving lives or lowering crime....they just want to use the law to keep law abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns....they do this because they know they can't stop criminals from getting guns...but they know that with the law, the can attack the law abiding.....

 

[2aguy]

He also discusses how stupid the background check system is....of the people denied initial permission to buy, the vast majority are normal, law abiding citizens who have names similar to criminals....who later get their guns but after going thru even more hassles....near the end he points out a case of a senior citizen who wanted to buy a gun for his wife.....when he was 20, he was in a fight with his brother on the front lawn of his home,he was arrested and plead guilty to a misdemeanor....not realizing that that was still relevant, he filled out the background check form and answered "No" to the question of wether he had a misdemeanor.....and committed perjury.....he got an anti gun nut prosecutor and went to jail for 3 years....

That is why we don't trust democrats, and anti gunners...usually one and the same.....since he also points out that when republicans try to get exemptions from anti gun taxes for poor, inner city minorities and other poor people so they don't have to pay things like the 300 dollar gun registration fee in Maryland....the democrats refuse to make the exemption......

This discussion is on the second segment of the audio near the end....

 

[2aguy]

..............

 

[Disir]

http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/the-mystery-of-mary-rosh

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, your link didn't go through...know all about it....

 

[Disir]

The Mystery of Mary Rosh - Reason.com



that one does.

 

[2aguy]

And here are other researchers confirming the data crash.....many of them....many more not quoted in this post.....

John Lott s Website


From: Dan Kahan
Date: Thu Feb 13, 2003 12:49:32 AM US/Eastern
To: letters@washpost.com
Cc: John Lott
Subject: Feb. 11, "A Fabricated Fan and Many Doubts"

Dear Editor:
A column appearing in the Post yesterday (Feb. 11, "A Fabricated Fan and Many Doubts") implies that economist John Lott made up the claim that a computer malfunction destroyed data from his research on gun control. At the time Lott was engaged in this research, we were colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School. I clearly recall John relating the computer data-loss incident to me then -- many years before the current controversy about his work arose.
Just so you know, I'm not relating this information to you because I support Lott's position on guns (I don't). I'm relating it to you because I think journalists -- even the ones you employ to write political gossip columns like this one -- should live up to their professional obligation to check out the facts before they make claims harmful to an individual's reputation.
Yours,
Dan M. Kahan

*****************************************************************
Dan M. Kahan
Professor of Law
Yale Law School
PO Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520 (regular mail)
127 Wall Street
New Haven, CT 06511 (courier)
(203) 432-8832
(815) 366-1458 (fax)

From: Floydzudd@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 11, 2003 246 PM US/Eastern
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: Article about John Lott in today's Post

Dear Editor:

The Washington Post unfairly casts doubt about whether John Lott suffered a hard disk crash on his computer in 1997 ( A Fabricated Fan and Many Doubts, February 11). I was co-authoring a paper with him at the time and I was affected by some data that were lost. We lost a very large data set that had been used to estimate the wage premium paid to workers exposed to long-term latent hazards in the workplace. The loss prevented us from performing additional research and significantly delayed publication.

Sincerely,

Richard L Manning, PhD
203 Putnam Road
New Canaan, CT 06840

From: Lawrence Kenny
Date: Tue Feb 11, 2003 258 PM US/Eastern
To: jlott@aei.org
Subject: Wash Post letter

John:
This is what I sent to the Washington Post.

John Lott and I worked together on a project examining the impact on government spending of women being granted voting privileges. Some of this research, utilizing older census data, was published in the Journal of Political Economy in December 1999. But the publication of other research utilizing recent survey data was set back when the basic data was lost in 1997 when John's hard disk crashed. Thus, assertions that John fabricated the story of his disk crashing are incorrect.

Lawrence W. Kenny
Professor of Economics
University of Florida

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:55:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Jonathan Karpoff
To: letters@washpost.com
Subject: John Lott

Dear Editor,

A column the Post published this week implies that John Lott fabricated a story that a computer crash destroyed some data related to his gun research. I have collaborated with Lott on two research projects -- neither related to guns -- and remember him talking about the crash several years ago. The crash indirectly affected one of our projects, as Lott had to divert much time to re-create his lost databases. I recall him telling me how some of his philosophical opponents refused to help him by returning a copy of some of his data, despite the fact that the only reason they had the data in the first place was that Lott had given the data to them!

During our collaborations, John Lott has been an exemplar of integrity in academic research. It is not always easy to work with John, as we sometimes have disagreed over how best to conduct our tests and write up our results. But always, Lott has been honest, insightful, and willing to consider arguments and accept data that do not agree with his prior beliefs. He is an excellent social scientist.

It is time to put to bed any rumors that question Lott's credibility or seriousness as a researcher. Give him credit for taking unpopular positions, sticking to those positions in the face of vitriolic personal attacks, and sharing his data and exposing his research to scrutiny more openly than his opponents. You -- and I -- might not like like all of his conclusions. But that makes him all the more important to engage seriously in policy debates.

Sincerely,
Jonathan M. Karpoff

 

[Disir]

Did you need the list of those that did not?

 

[2aguy]

Here is a pdf link that looks at the problem with the data set that Lott used...as it point out...the people claiming Lott's data was wrong.....screwed up their own research......

the important part is on pp.27-28 where it is stated Donohue and Zhang screwed up

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

If researchers receive reports that a data set is inconstant and unreliable, that sows seeds of doubt about all the research that has made use of that data set.


Many studies have used the Lott data in question. Since we now know that the source of ADZ’s failure to replicate was their having estimated the wrong model, we know that the published articles using Lott’s data have not been invalidated because of critical data errors. The picture as sketched by ADZ (2011) is vague, but their speculation that “it appears that Lott’s data set had errors in it” turns out to be unfounded. In two items released in 2012, ADZ themselves admit their error.


But they do so in a way that fails to take responsibility for or rectify the doubts they had sown about the data and, therefore, the studies using the data.

]In October 2012, the American Law and Economics Review published an Erratum bearing the names of ADZ along with those of John V. Pepper and Charles F. Wellford. The Erratum begins:

In section four (pp. 578-584) of the above referenced article [ADZ 2011] the authors report their efforts to replicate some of the results of analyses

VOLUME 10, NUMBER 1, JANUARY 2013 27MOODY, LOTT, AND MARVELL

conducted by a panel of the National Research Council (NRC) and reported in Firearms and Violence (2004) [sic]. Based on this analysis, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang (2011) conclude that they “cannot replicate the NRC results using the NRC’s own data set” (p. 583) and that the NRC committee “published tables that could not be replicated.” (p. 614). Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report. The results presented in Tables 1b and 2b of Section 4 of the article do not replicate the NRC results because different data and models were used in the attempted replication effort. Thus, the results reported in the article should not be interpreted to mean that if one uses the data and model used by the NRC panel the results they reported cannot be replicated. In fact, replication using the NRC’s data and models produces results that are identical to those reported by the NRC panel. (Aneja, Donohue, Pepper, Wellford, and Zhang 2012, 601)
[

The Erratum says that ADZ’s replication efforts failed because in those efforts “different data and models were used.” In fact, the problem was in the specification of the models estimated. Any concerns about the data that ADZ might have had, such as the “few small errors in the NRC data” they listed in the 2011 paper (ADZ 2011, 585),4 could not have caused the failure to replicate. So ADZ, as coauthors of the Erratum, are not being candid about the source of the problem.

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


And of course there is this item that shows to never, ever trust gun grabbers....

In two items released in 2012, ADZ themselves admit their error.
But they do so in a way that fails to take responsibility for or rectify the doubts they had sown about the data and, therefore, the studies using the data.

Never, ever trust gun grabbers...their irrational fear of guns makes them do anything to get rid of guns......

 

[Disir]

I don't have a problem with guns. I have a problem with academics that bullshit. Did you need a list of those that did not?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

John Lott was a guest on Dana Loeshes radio show from the 2015 shot show....here is the interview..they discuss the idiot brian gumble, background checks and defensive shootings....

CPRC on the Dana Loesch Radio Show to discuss new background check proposals and defensive gun uses - Crime Prevention Research Center

Actually, the correct spelling is idiot Bryant Gumbel.

 

[2aguy]

I don't have a problem with guns. I have a problem with academics that bullshit. Did you need a list of those that did not?

did not what?