2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
"Reasonable" gun control vs "gun nut gun control"
- Thread starter M14 Shooter
- Start date
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
Yes proven lott is a joke.
Economist Mark Duggan: Rate Of Gun Ownership "Significantly Positively" Correlated With Incidence Of Homicide. A study by economist Mark Duggan found that "changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related," as he reported in "More Guns, More Crime" in the Journal of Political Economy in 2001. Duggan wrote:
My findings reveal that changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related. This relationship is almost entirely driven by the relationship between lagged changes in gun ownership and current changes in homicide, suggesting that the relationship is not driven simply by individuals' purchase of guns in response to increases in criminal activity.
[...]
These findings contradict the results from recent work suggesting that legislation allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons (CCW) caused a significant decline in violent crime (Lott and Mustard 1997). [Journal of Political Economy, 2001]
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
see brain...there is an internet now......and there is the ability to show how these attacks are false, and just attempts to push an agenda by destroying the researcher when they can't refute the research.........
Response to Malkin s Op-ed
people who say he gave them his info. easily
John Lott s website
David Friedman defends lott against various critics...
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/my_comments_on_the_lott_co.htm
zhou, donahue used the wrong numbers when they attempted to criticize lott...and then refused to admit their error....
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
Andylusion
Platinum Member
It's funny, you would think gun control would have died after the French attacks.
Remember how France has someone of the most strict gun laws in the EU....... yet they got a bunch of Kalash assault rifles.... entirely illegal.
Yeah, that sure stopped them. THey were going to kill a bunch of people, but then they found out it was illegal to have hand guns..... rifles.... assault rifles... and that caused them to reconsider....... and just do it anyway.
The BBC was interviewing the French authorities on the World this Week, and ask how could they possibly get such high powered rifles when it's illegal to own any guns in France that are semi-automatic. The only weapons you can own without a dozen permits, is a pellet gun, and a single-shot 22 rifle. You can own a .44 or .357, but you can't buy the ammo for it.
So how oh how can they possibly have gotten hold of an ultra-banned fully automatic assault rifle??? How is it even possible??
The guy they interviewed from the French authority was hilliarious in his response. "Oh you can buy anything off the black market".............>> DUH <<!!!! He went on to say, it's easy and quick to find any kind of weapon you want on the black market in France.
As we've said millions on millions of times...... over and over and over....... Gun control laws only prevent people who already follow the laws from having guns.
People who don't follow the laws...... are not going to be stopped by gun laws.
French Police Gun Control Isn t Working for Us - Breitbart
The French police are now saying gun control doesn't do jack. How many times do we have to see the same lesson over and over, before you people stop trying to push something that doesn't work?
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
Was there fabrication and falsification in regard to the findings of the survey that Dr Lott has stated that he conducted? Even conclusive proof that he conducted a survey in 1997 would not, of itself, resolve this issue. The findings of that survey could have been fabricated even if a survey was actually carried out. The main reasons for suspecting that this happened are:
1. Dr Lott claimed his survey was conducted over a three month period in 1997. He also claimed that survey data shows that 98% of defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing weapon as early as Feb. 6, 1997, in his testimony to the Nebraska legislature.
2. Long before Dr Lott ever mentioned that the 98% figure came from his survey, he had (erroneously) attributed it to various other surveys.
3. The statistics concerning incidence of defensive gun use, frequency of firing or brandishing, and firing target (warning shots vs. shooting at the offender) are such that it is hardly conceivable they could have been legitimately produced by a sample of the size Dr Lott has mentioned.
4. Dr Lott has been unable to supply any documentation whatever of the particulars of his survey such as the exact wording of the questions asked, the sampling plan, calculations of statistics, and so on. Any text on survey research will make explicit the details of what is normally expected by way of documenting a survey. A formal listing can be found at the American Association for Public Opinion Research. And it should be borne in mind that loss of data because of a computer crash or any other reason does not relieve the investigator of the responsibility to provide such documentation. It is a clear breach of the ethics of science to promulgate a finding in the absence of data (see the Duan case, above). [Deltoid, 2/9/03]
1. Dr Lott claimed his survey was conducted over a three month period in 1997. He also claimed that survey data shows that 98% of defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing weapon as early as Feb. 6, 1997, in his testimony to the Nebraska legislature.
2. Long before Dr Lott ever mentioned that the 98% figure came from his survey, he had (erroneously) attributed it to various other surveys.
3. The statistics concerning incidence of defensive gun use, frequency of firing or brandishing, and firing target (warning shots vs. shooting at the offender) are such that it is hardly conceivable they could have been legitimately produced by a sample of the size Dr Lott has mentioned.
4. Dr Lott has been unable to supply any documentation whatever of the particulars of his survey such as the exact wording of the questions asked, the sampling plan, calculations of statistics, and so on. Any text on survey research will make explicit the details of what is normally expected by way of documenting a survey. A formal listing can be found at the American Association for Public Opinion Research. And it should be borne in mind that loss of data because of a computer crash or any other reason does not relieve the investigator of the responsibility to provide such documentation. It is a clear breach of the ethics of science to promulgate a finding in the absence of data (see the Duan case, above). [Deltoid, 2/9/03]
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
Here is one attempt by anti gunners to lie about lott...
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
The source of the replication problem, however, was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang did not estimate the correct model specification—a problem that they have acknowledged in subsequent communications. However, in these later communications they do not make clear that the basis for their doubts about the Lott-originated data has disappeared.
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
The source of the replication problem, however, was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang did not estimate the correct model specification—a problem that they have acknowledged in subsequent communications. However, in these later communications they do not make clear that the basis for their doubts about the Lott-originated data has disappeared.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
They have much lower crime rates than us. We have the most guns of any country by far and by far not the lowest crime rates.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
I got some things to do this evening. Have a good night.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
Yeah....lott debunks Duggan here...
Mark Duggan's More Guns, More Crime Paper's Fundamental Flaws
A couple of problems with Mark Duggan's paper that he knows about:
Conversations with the vice president of Handguns Magazine and Guns&Ammo lead us to believe that Guns&Ammo was severely affected by the magazine's own purchases of its copies. An analysis of state level data for six gun magazines provides additional evidence that Guns&Ammo is a very unique magazine because of these self-purchases. Because Duggan declined to share his data with us, because of the apparent problems with the Guns&Ammo data, and given the costs of acquiring and imputing both county level data sets, we decided to gather those data that are more likely to answer the empirical question on the relationship between gun ownership and crime that we are ultimately interested in. . . .
Skip Johnson, a vice president for Guns&Ammo's and Handguns Magazine's parent company Primedia, told us that between 5 and 20 percent of Guns&Ammo's national sales in a particular year were purchases by his company to meet its guaranteed sales to advertisers. These copies were given away for free to dentists' and doctors' offices. Because the purchases were meant to offset any unexpected national declines in sales, Johnson said that own purchases were very selective and produced very large swings in a relatively small number of counties. More importantly, while a precise breakdown of how these free samples are counted towards the sales in different counties is not available, these self-purchases were apparently related to factors that helped explain why people might purchase guns, and these factors included changing crime rates. Johnson indicated that the issue of self-purchases is particularly important for Guns&Ammo because the magazine had declining sales over part of this period. Handguns Magazine was much newer and experienced appreciable growth.
Duggan (2000, p. 1110): Duggan makes the adjustment for the standard errors in column 2 of table 12. Murder and violent crime show statistically significant drops after the adjustment, but Duggan knows that there are also typos for his rape and assault results. Simply divide the coefficients for rape (=-.052/.0232) and assault (=-.0699/.0277) and you will see that they have t's greater than 2.
Thus for all the violent crime categories but robbery the adjustment does not change the conclusion. In addition, there is the issue of looking at before and after averages versus before and after trends, with the symmetry in the changes in trends before and after the before and after averages do not show a big change even though the change in trends is very big, especially for robbery.
About half of his violent crime rate estimates show statistically significant drops in violent crime from right-to-carry laws and none of his results show a statistically significant increase.
The anti gunners have to lie...all the time.....because the truth and reality are not on their side....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
And again with the lies.......do the anti gun extremist ever tell the truth......
Response to Malkin s Op-ed
he most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting.
When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted." He has also incorrectly attributed the figure to newspaper polls and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.
1) The reference to the survey involves one number in one sentence in my book. Compared to the 98 percent number there was an earlier survey by Kleck that found 92 percent of defensive gun uses involved brandishing and warning shots and because the survey was asking people about events that occurred over a long period of time it is likely that it over emphasized more dramatic responses. (My number that is directly comparable to the 92 percent estimate is about 99 percent.) My point in the book was that defensive gun use rarely involves more “newsworthy” events where the attacker is killed and either survey would have made the general point. A general discussion of the different methodologies is provided here.
I never attributed my survey results to Kleck. What happened was that Dave Kopel from the Independence Institute took an op-ed that I had in the Rocky Mountain News and edited it for his web site. In the editing he added the incorrect reference to Kleck. (Statements from Kopel and others are provided in the supporting documents ). The two pieces are identical except for the reference to Kleck. As to the claim that I attributed the number to newspaper polls, that claim involves a misreading of two different sentences in an op-ed (see the material addressed in the second half of the link to point (1)). As to using the plural, that was an error. Given the years that have passed since I wrote the sentence, I cannot remember exactly what I had in my mind but the most plausible explanation is that I was describing what findings had been generated by the polls, in other words I was thinking of them as a collective body of research. I had been planning on including more of a discussion on the survey in the book, just as I have in my book that came out early this year, but I had a hard disk crash (see response (2)) and I lost part of the book along with the data.
More importantly, the survey results that I used were biased against the claim that I was making. The relevant discussions in both of my books focus on media bias and the point was that the lack of coverage of defense gun uses is understandable if most uses simply involve brandishing where no one is harmed, no shots fired, no dead bodies on the ground, no crime actually committed. If others believe that the actual rate of brandishing is lower and I had used the results of Kleck, it becomes MORE difficult to explain the lack of news coverage of defensive gun uses. The two short discussions that I have on this issue in my two books thus choose results that are BIASED AGAINST the overall point that I am making, that the media is biased against guns.
Some issues involving the source for Malkin's claims can be found here, here, and here.
Last fall, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren volunteered to investigate the claimed existence of Lott's 1997 telephone survey of 2,424 people. "I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish" that the research had been done, Lindgren wrote in his report.
Unfortunately, Malkin fails to mention that Lindgren is not an unbiased observer since I had written a journal article in Journal of Law & Politics critiquing some of his work months before he "volunteered to investigate" these claims.
It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash.
2) As to the “claim” that I lost my data in a computer crash on July 3, 1997, I have offered Malkin the statements from nine academics (statements attached), four of whom I was co-authoring papers with at the time and who remember quite vividly also losing the data that we had on various projects. David Mustard at the University of Georgia spent considerable time during 1997 helping me replace gun crime data. Other academics worked with me to replace data on our other projects.
Just so it is clear, this computer crash basically cost me all my data on all my projects up to that point in time, including all the data and word files for my book, More Guns, Less Crime, and numerous papers that were under review at journals. The next couple of years were hell trying to replace things and the data for this survey which ended up being one sentence in the book, was not of particular importance. However, all the data was replaced, including not only the large county level data, the state level data, as well as the survey data, when the survey was redone.
He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records.
* Unlike many academics, I have never asked for government support for my research. Nothing different or unusual was done in this case. While we still have the tax forms that we filed that show we made large expenditures on research assistants that year, my wife keeps our financial documents for the three years required by the IRS. I have provided my tax records from that year to several professors. Among them is a tax expert, Professor Joe Olson, at Hamline University in Minnesota, and he can verify this information. I have checked with the bank that we had an account with, but they only keep records five years back. Since wild claims have been made about the costs of the survey, some notion of its scope would be useful. The survey was structured so that over 90 percent of those questioned would only have to answer three short questions and those were usually completed in under 30 seconds. Less than one percent of those surveyed would actually answer as many as seven questions and even in that case the survey only took about two minutes. The appendix in The Bias Against Guns provides a description of the survey when it was replicated.
He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.
* I have hired lots of student RAs over the years. Since I have been at AEI in the last couple of years I have had around 25 people work for me on various projects. The students in question worked for me during the very beginning of 1997. While I can usually reconstruct who has worked for me, it requires that I have that material written down. The information on these students was lost in the hard disk crash and given that I had lost data for other projects such as three revise-and-resubmits that I had at the Journal of Political Economy it was not a particularly high priority.
I don’t have the original CD with telephone numbers from across the country that was used to obtain telephone numbers, but I have kept one that I obtained later in 1997 when I was considering redoing the survey and I still have that available.
Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.
3) I have statements from two people who took the survey and other confirmatory evidence. As to the written material, being asked for written material six years after the survey is a long time. After the survey was done, the material was kept on my computer. In addition, I have moved three times (Chicago to Yale to Pennsylvania to AEI) as well as changed offices at Chicago and Yale since the summer of 1997. Yet, besides the statements from the academics who can verify the hard disk crash as well as the statement of those who participated in the survey, I do have statements David Mustard, who I had talked to numerous times about doing the survey with me during 1996 and who remembers after that us talking about the survey after it was completed. He is “fairly confident” that those conversations took place during 1997. John Whitley and Geoff Huck also have some recollections. Russell Roberts, now a professor at George Mason, was someone else that I talked to about the survey, but he simply can’t remember one way of the other. I didn’t talk to people other than co-authors about the survey and the research that I was doing on guns generally. This is because of the often great hostility to my gun work and also because I didn’t want to give those who disliked me a heads-up on what I was doing. I did have the questions from the survey and they were reused in the replicated survey in 2002.
Last edited:
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
This thread illustrates why there can never be an honest, good faith discussion of firearms regulatory policy.
Pity.
Pity.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
And other countries have 0 legal gun ownership and far higher gun murder rates.....culture, not guns are the issue....
Andylusion
Platinum Member
The sun came up today, and Obama is in office. Therefore Obama caused the sun to come up.
Correlation does not equal causation.
If you would like to make more correlations and assume they are the cause, then crime has declined since states started passing conceal and carry laws.
Fact is, in every country which has passed tougher gun control laws, the rate of crime in those countries has increased.
By the way, gun ownership was many times higher in the 1950s and before, and crime was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
It's true we have per capita more guns than other countries.... but we have lower ownership than ever before.
Fewer people can defend themselves, regardless of the total number of guns divided by the population.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
What topic based in politics ever has a 'good faith discussion'? That's one of the reasons we on the right, want to keep government out of as much of the economy, and society, as possible. Anything the government touches, instantly becomes "politicized". Once something is politicized, it's very difficult to separate the truth from the partisanship.
How long are the waiting lists at VA hospitals? Are they fixed now? Are you sure?
What topic involving government would you say has 'honest, good faith discussions'?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
The sun came up today, and Obama is in office. Therefore Obama caused the sun to come up.
Correlation does not equal causation.
If you would like to make more correlations and assume they are the cause, then crime has declined since states started passing conceal and carry laws.
Fact is, in every country which has passed tougher gun control laws, the rate of crime in those countries has increased.
By the way, gun ownership was many times higher in the 1950s and before, and crime was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
It's true we have per capita more guns than other countries.... but we have lower ownership than ever before.
Fewer people can defend themselves, regardless of the total number of guns divided by the population.
Actually that GSS survey is not accurate, the guy who is in charge is an anti gunner, who told John Lott he hoped the survey would help politicians pass more gun control...other surveys show ownership is higher....the one conducted by ABC news put it at 43%
Andylusion
Platinum Member
That's very interesting... thanks for telling us..... We'll wait right here.
0.o
I'm going to brush my teeth later by the way. Is there any other irrelevant things you wish to let us know about?
Andylusion
Platinum Member
The sun came up today, and Obama is in office. Therefore Obama caused the sun to come up.
Correlation does not equal causation.
If you would like to make more correlations and assume they are the cause, then crime has declined since states started passing conceal and carry laws.
Fact is, in every country which has passed tougher gun control laws, the rate of crime in those countries has increased.
By the way, gun ownership was many times higher in the 1950s and before, and crime was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
It's true we have per capita more guns than other countries.... but we have lower ownership than ever before.
Fewer people can defend themselves, regardless of the total number of guns divided by the population.
Actually that GSS survey is not accurate, the guy who is in charge is an anti gunner, who told John Lott he hoped the survey would help politicians pass more gun control...other surveys show ownership is higher....the one conducted by ABC news put it at 43%
That's confusing to me. Showing the fewer people own weapons, would seem to disprove the claim that more gun ownership causes crime.
How would showing lower ownership rates, justify banning guns?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
The sun came up today, and Obama is in office. Therefore Obama caused the sun to come up.
Correlation does not equal causation.
If you would like to make more correlations and assume they are the cause, then crime has declined since states started passing conceal and carry laws.
Fact is, in every country which has passed tougher gun control laws, the rate of crime in those countries has increased.
By the way, gun ownership was many times higher in the 1950s and before, and crime was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
It's true we have per capita more guns than other countries.... but we have lower ownership than ever before.
Fewer people can defend themselves, regardless of the total number of guns divided by the population.
Here you go on the GSS survey on gun ownership...
ABC News reports on guns mislead Americans Fox News
Yet, as I explained to the producer I spoke with, the General Social Survey poll they wanted to cite was unusual. Other polls had found much higher rates of gun ownership.
Indeed, I pointed out, much to her surprise, ABC News’ own polls show that gun ownership has changed little, currently holding at 43%. But in their reports, ABC didn’t even mention their own polls, instead cherry-picking the one with the lowest number.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
The sun came up today, and Obama is in office. Therefore Obama caused the sun to come up.
Correlation does not equal causation.
If you would like to make more correlations and assume they are the cause, then crime has declined since states started passing conceal and carry laws.
Fact is, in every country which has passed tougher gun control laws, the rate of crime in those countries has increased.
By the way, gun ownership was many times higher in the 1950s and before, and crime was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
It's true we have per capita more guns than other countries.... but we have lower ownership than ever before.
Fewer people can defend themselves, regardless of the total number of guns divided by the population.
Actually that GSS survey is not accurate, the guy who is in charge is an anti gunner, who told John Lott he hoped the survey would help politicians pass more gun control...other surveys show ownership is higher....the one conducted by ABC news put it at 43%
That's confusing to me. Showing the fewer people own weapons, would seem to disprove the claim that more gun ownership causes crime.
How would showing lower ownership rates, justify banning guns?
Lott said that the guy in charge of the GSS said if he could show that fewer people owned guns, gun grabbing politicians would have less fear of political fall out for passing new gun laws....I'll find it....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
The sun came up today, and Obama is in office. Therefore Obama caused the sun to come up.
Correlation does not equal causation.
If you would like to make more correlations and assume they are the cause, then crime has declined since states started passing conceal and carry laws.
Fact is, in every country which has passed tougher gun control laws, the rate of crime in those countries has increased.
By the way, gun ownership was many times higher in the 1950s and before, and crime was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
It's true we have per capita more guns than other countries.... but we have lower ownership than ever before.
Fewer people can defend themselves, regardless of the total number of guns divided by the population.
Actually that GSS survey is not accurate, the guy who is in charge is an anti gunner, who told John Lott he hoped the survey would help politicians pass more gun control...other surveys show ownership is higher....the one conducted by ABC news put it at 43%
That's confusing to me. Showing the fewer people own weapons, would seem to disprove the claim that more gun ownership causes crime.
How would showing lower ownership rates, justify banning guns?
Here is Lott addressing the GSS and it's director....
CPRC at Fox News Is gun ownership really down in America - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org
Here is the whole piece that he wrote....
Is gun ownership really down in America Fox News
Surely, gun control advocates such as GSS director Tom Smith view this decline as a good thing. In a 2003 book of mine, I quoted Smith as saying that the large drop in gun ownership would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations.
Other gun control advocates have mentioned to me that they hope that if people believe fewer people own guns, that may cause others to rethink their decision to own one themselves. It is part of the reason they dramatically exaggerate the risks of having guns in the home.
The Associated Press and Time ignored other polls by Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post. These polls show that gun ownership rates have been flat over the same period. According to Gallup, household gun ownership has ranged from 51 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 1999. In 2014, it was at 42 percent – comparable to the 43-45 percent figures during the 1970s.
A 2011 Gallup poll with the headline “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993” appears to have gotten no news coverage.
The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows an even more stable pattern, with household gun ownership between 44 and 46 percent in 1999. In 2013, the ownership rate was 43 percent.
There are other measures that suggest that we should be very careful of relying too heavily on polling to gauge the level of gun ownership. For example, the nationally number of concealed handgun permits has soared over the last decade: rising from about 2.7 million in 1999 to 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2014. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has grown dramatically over time –doubling from 2006 to 2014.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Footage disproves repeating claims of Gaza starvation as war ramps up. (PallyWeid)- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 0
-
Turning into a good night for normal people in European elections- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 1
-
-
