University asks historian to defend his research on gun ownership book
Jeffrey C. Dege
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_defend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml
University asks historian to defend his research on gun ownership book
By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/3/2001
Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a
controversial book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by
his department to write a detailed defense of his research for the book.
The 2000 book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,"
won the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history, but a story last month in
the Globe appeared to confirm a pattern of questionable research claims.
"What is important is that he defend himself and the integrity of his
scholarship immediately," said James Melton, Emory history department
chairman. "Depending upon his reponse, the university will respond
appropriately."
Melton added, "If there is prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct,
the university has to conduct a thorough investigation. Whether it be
a purely internal inquiry, or the university brings in distinguished
scholars in the field, will depend on how Michael responds. It is
important that he be accorded due process."
Bellesiles's book argued that few Americans had owned guns in early
America, and that more than half of those that were owned were old or
broken. The book set off a storm of protest by gun-owner organizations,
but independent scholars also raised serious questions about the veracity
of Bellesiles's research. The Globe story confirmed allegations that
San Francisco probate records, which Bellesiles had cited in his book
as one of his sources, had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and
fire. It also confirmed that an article by Bellesiles on his Web site,
defending his work, misstated the contents of some 18th-century Vermont
probate records.
Melton, in a telephone interview yesterday, said, "I advised him that he
needed to find a public professional forum where he would give a full
and complete response to the allegations against him." Melton's letter
to Bellesiles asked for "a detailed point by point response."
Bellesiles, responding by e-mail to a request for comment by the Globe,
confirmed he will write a response in the quarterly newsletter of the
Organization of American Historians. He wrote, "I am trying to treat
errors in an honest, scholarly, and non-confrontational form."
David Mehegan can be reached by e-mail at d-me...@globe.com.
--
It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and
by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate
the habit of thinking about what we are doing. The precise opposite is the
case. Civilization advances by extending the numbers of important operations
which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are
like cavalry charges in battle -- they are strictly limited in number, they
require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.
-- Alfred North Whitehead
Russ Anderson
>
>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_defend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml
>
>
>University asks historian to defend his research on gun ownership book
>
>
>By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/3/2001
>
>Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a
>controversial book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by
>his department to write a detailed defense of his research for the book.
Too bad whatever University John Lott's hanging out at this
week does not do the same thing.
--
Russ Anderson RAS group SGI r...@sgi.com
Drew Lanz
You think that Lott should write a detailed defense of the research in one of his books? That's odd. He listed his data sources
and described his methodology in the books and papers I've read. Most of the people who disagree with Lott claim that his
research does not support his conclusion. I don't know of any credible claim that Lott has invented data, or used any slight-of
hand in his presentation.
Do you have some sort of claim to make about Lott's research?
Regards,
Drew ---------------------------------------------
| I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back. |
| drew...@skypoint.com |
| http://www.skypoint.com/members/drewlanz |
Jeffrey C. Dege
John Lott included a defense in the second edition of his book.
In any case, the situations are hardly comparable. Lott has often been
accused of reading too much from his results, and occassionally of using
inappropriate techniques. But his results are reproducible. His data
is available, his methods are clearly described, and his critics have
followed the method on the data and obtained the same results.
Bellesiles has been caught in outright fraud - claiming to have used
material in his research that simply does not exist.
--
The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being
only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to
duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community
welfare and existence.
-Sir Robert Peel.
Gilly
Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:3BBCD884...@skypoint.com...
> Russ Anderson wrote:
>
> > In article jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
> > >
> >
>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_d
efend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml
> > >
> > >
> > >University asks historian to defend his research on gun ownership book
> > >
> > >
> > >By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/3/2001
> > >
> > >Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a
> > >controversial book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by
> > >his department to write a detailed defense of his research for the
book.
> >
> > Too bad whatever University John Lott's hanging out at this
> > week does not do the same thing.
>
> You think that Lott should write a detailed defense of the research in one
of his books? That's odd. He listed his data sources
> and described his methodology in the books and papers I've read. Most of
the people who disagree with Lott claim that his
> research does not support his conclusion. I don't know of any credible
claim that Lott has invented data, or used any slight-of
> hand in his presentation.
>
> Do you have some sort of claim to make about Lott's research?
Aside from setting out to prove a foregone conclusion, advocating
vigilantism, and using economic modeling techniques to creatively interpret
crime statistics; Lott has never even addressed the criticism that his
studies about concealed handguns as a deterrent to crime never made the
slightest attempt to control for other factors that may have influnenced
local crime statistics during a period when numerous other anti-crime
enactments and policy changes were being tried and implemented.
All Lott ever 'proved' was that general reductions in crime occurred
coincidentally *in some areas* with laws permitting concealed handguns, when
reduction in crime was already a trend and where numerous other anti-crime
measures were also being implemented at the same time.
Russ Anderson
>Russ Anderson wrote:
>> In article jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
>> >
>> >http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_defend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml
>> >
>> >
>> >University asks historian to defend his research on gun ownership book
>> >By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/3/2001
>> >
>> >Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a
>> >controversial book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by
>> >his department to write a detailed defense of his research for the book.
>>
>> Too bad whatever University John Lott's hanging out at this
>> week does not do the same thing.
>
> You think that Lott should write a detailed defense of the research
> in one of his books? That's odd. He listed his data sources
> and described his methodology in the books and papers I've read.
The question is not if Lott (or Bellesiles) listed sources (they
both did), but if the sources are as claimed.
> Most of the people who disagree with Lott claim that his
> research does not support his conclusion. I don't know of any credible
> claim that Lott has invented data, or used any slight-of
> hand in his presentation.
I don't doubt that you don't know.
> Do you have some sort of claim to make about Lott's research?
Q: What are the indications that Lott's study of changes in
concealed carry laws is flawed?
A: Apart from the obvious mistakes (e.g., Lott's inability to
accurately identify when states changed their carry laws), several
researchers have shown that small changes in the statistical
models Lott uses to reach his conclusions result in large
changes in his findings - an important indication that his
research is fundamentally flawed. Researchers who have
reanalyzed Lott's data, for example, found no beneficial impact
from changes in carry laws when Florida was not included in the
study, or when they restricted their analysis to counties that
had populations greater than 100,000 people.
Q: John Lott's claim is "more guns, less crime," but a substantial
portion of that claim is based on his use of two voter exit polls.
Can he use these polls to make this claim? And, does the evidence
support the claim?
A: No. Lott inappropriately uses two voter exit polls to make
assertions about changes in the level of gun ownership by adults
in 14 states, and then compounds his mistake by using this data
to make the assertion that "states with the largest increases in
gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes."
First, according to the Voter News Service (the organization
responsible for the 1996 poll) their data is designed to be
nationally representative, but does not provide representative
data about individual states. Second, according to the Voter News
Service it is not possible to compare the 1988 and 1996 exit poll
numbers on gun ownership because of differences in how the questions
were asked. The fact that making the comparison produces results
about changes in the level of gun ownership in America that are
wildly out of whack with other survey data support this conclusion.
By comparing the two exit polls, and applying a formula that he
devised, Lott concludes that the percentage of adults who own a
firearm increased by 50% from 1988 to 1996, and the gun ownership
among women increased at the fastest pace - yet, the best available
evidence on gun ownership (from the General Social Survey) indicates
that gun ownership has remained essentially unchanged for men and
women since at least 1980. (Changes in Firearm Ownership Among Women,
1980-1994; Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995) Because
Lott has inappropriately misused the exit polls in conducting his
study, and so radically miscalculated changes in gun ownership, it
is simply impossible for him to make any assertions about the
relationship between changes in gun ownership and the crime rate.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/lott.asp
Russ Anderson
>On 4 Oct 2001 21:00:49 GMT, Russ Anderson <r...@sgi.com> wrote:
>>In article jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
>>>
>>>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_defend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>>University asks historian to defend his research on gun ownership book
>>>
>>>
>>>By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/3/2001
>>>
>>>Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a
>>>controversial book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by
>>>his department to write a detailed defense of his research for the book.
>>
>>Too bad whatever University John Lott's hanging out at this
>>week does not do the same thing.
>
>John Lott included a defense in the second edition of his book.
Lott also had to make corrections is his second edition.
Page 3
Lott writes ``If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the
time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to
brandish a weapon to break off an attack.'' In fact, Kleck's
survey [15] indicates that 24% fired the weapon and the
NCVS indicates that 40% fired the weapon [25]. Five other
surveys give numbers between 34% and 67% [14].
In the second edition Lott changes ``national surveys'' to ``a
national survey that I conducted''. While that makes his
statement technically correct, it is still highly misleading,
since it does not mention the seven surveys that contradict
Lott's own, unpublished, one.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/Lotts_of_Errors.html
>In any case, the situations are hardly comparable. Lott has often been
>accused of reading too much from his results, and occassionally of using
>inappropriate techniques. But his results are reproducible. His data
>is available, his methods are clearly described, and his critics have
>followed the method on the data and obtained the same results.
There are other examples at:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/Lotts_of_Errors.html
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/lott.asp
>Bellesiles has been caught in outright fraud - claiming to have used
>material in his research that simply does not exist.
Lott sited "national surveys" but in reality it was his own,
unpublished, one (in the above example). Does that difference
constitute "outright fraud" or simply very misleading?
Mary Rosh
has given it out to people on both sides of the debate and he gave it
out as soon as his research gotten attention, which was a few months
before it was actually published in January 1997.
By contrast, Bellesiles changes his stories multiple times on where he
got the California data and it turns out after each new story that the
data was not at the place that he claimed. Other data that he used
from the Northeast was off by a factor of 4 times. The Boston Globe
also really nailed him on the complete mischaracterization of the
quotes regarding guns being broken. Their September 11th story went
through example after example where he had claim that the probate
records listed a broken gun when in fact they did no such thing. He
also has many dozens of quotes that do not fit the original sources he
sites. As people have said, he may have accidentally misphrased
something a couple of times, but not more than 50 times.
You provide one example from Lott that isn't even a clear case and in
any case could have been a simple lack of clarity even if you are
right. Can you give me five more cases? Can you point to one case
that people claim that they couldn't replicate Lott's work? Lott
produces many thousands of regressions, and you would think that just
out of simple transcribing errors there would be a few significant
errors. How many can you point to? How many errors in reporting his
regressions has he made that alter his conclusions? I know of none.
Show me one case.
r...@sgi.com (Russ Anderson) wrote in message news:<9plavk$pcjp4$1...@fido.engr.sgi.com>...
Drew Lanz
> In article Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> writes:
> >Russ Anderson wrote:
> >> In article jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_defend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >University asks historian to defend his research on gun ownership book
> >> >By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/3/2001
> >> >
> >> >Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a
> >> >controversial book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by
> >> >his department to write a detailed defense of his research for the book.
> >>
> >> Too bad whatever University John Lott's hanging out at this
> >> week does not do the same thing.
> >
> > You think that Lott should write a detailed defense of the research
> > in one of his books? That's odd. He listed his data sources
> > and described his methodology in the books and papers I've read.
>
> The question is not if Lott (or Bellesiles) listed sources (they
> both did), but if the sources are as claimed.
>
Except, of course, Lott's sources actually existed while Bellesiles' apparently did not. You and the Bradys may disagree with
Lott's conclusions all you like, he still didn't pull a "Bellesiles" in his research.
>
> > Most of the people who disagree with Lott claim that his
> > research does not support his conclusion. I don't know of any credible
> > claim that Lott has invented data, or used any slight-of
> > hand in his presentation.
>
> I don't doubt that you don't know.
>
> > Do you have some sort of claim to make about Lott's research?
>
> Q: What are the indications that Lott's study of changes in
> concealed carry laws is flawed?
>
> A: Apart from the obvious mistakes (e.g., Lott's inability to
> accurately identify when states changed their carry laws),
These mistakes are not specified in the URL you listed. Where can I find out if they actually exist? Shall I just believe the Sara
(show tables of data including 18 and 19 year olds and refer to them as children) Brady web site?
> several
> researchers have shown that small changes in the statistical
> models Lott uses to reach his conclusions result in large
> changes in his findings - an important indication that his
> research is fundamentally flawed. Researchers who have
> reanalyzed Lott's data, for example, found no beneficial impact
> from changes in carry laws when Florida was not included in the
> study, or when they restricted their analysis to counties that
> had populations greater than 100,000 people.
>
This information is found in the data Lott included. The data on Florida did actually exist. The data on large population counties
did actually exist. The distinction between a disagreement with conclusion and dishonest (Bellesiles) research apparently eludes
you.
This information is found in the data Lott included. The voter polls actually occurred. Lott's formula for comparison is
disclosed. The distinction between a disagreement with conclusion and dishonest (Bellesiles) research apparently eludes you.
If you disagree with Lott and his conclusions, just say so. If you want to claim that he's dishonest like Bellesiles apparently
is, please feel free to show it at your convenience.
>
> http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/lott.asp
Gilly
>
> If you disagree with Lott and his conclusions, just say so. If you want to
claim that he's dishonest like Bellesiles apparently
> is, please feel free to show it at your convenience.
Yeah, Russ, why don't you point out the flaws in Lott's economic
assumptions. Then DrewL could ignore you too, like the coward he is.
Drew Lanz
A fascinating list of arguments with Lott's conclusions.
[Yawn] ... the usual stuff about "other factors" that could
be measured to actually demonstrate an alternate cause-
effect theory, but somehow never are actually measured,
or even specified.
No mention of any invented data - ala Bellesiles, however.
gillupie apparently didn't understand the question.
Mary Rosh
You obviously haven't read Lott's work. He accounted for many more
factors that influence crime rates than any previous study. He
accounted for arrest rates, conviction rates, prison sentence lengths,
death penalty execution rates, per capita number of police,
expenditures on police, different hiring policies for police
departments, different types of police strategies, illegal drug
prices, many income measures, poverty, unemployment, the most
extensive demographics ever controlled for in a study on crime, and
many, many other factors. Lott examines county and state level data
in his first edition and also includes city level data in his second
edition.
> All Lott ever 'proved' was that general reductions in crime occurred
> coincidentally *in some areas* with laws permitting concealed handguns, when
> reduction in crime was already a trend and where numerous other anti-crime
> measures were also being implemented at the same time.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You shouldn't
just accept as truth what the gun control groups claim. Please take a
few minutes and actually look at his work. He found that crime rates
fell faster in those areas with the laws than in those areas without
the laws.
Drew Lanz
gillupie still doesn't understand the distinction between a
disagreement with conclusions, and the use of invented
data like Bellesiles apparently provided.
If you think I have ignored something important, please
point it out before you call me a coward. Especially if you
have something that speaks to research honesty, and not
disagreements on conclusion, per the question I asked.
To do otherwise is rather cowardly behavior, gillupie.
Gilly
Mary Rosh <mary...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:23fa92fe.01100...@posting.google.com...
"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns", with David
Mustard in the Journal of Legal Studies; "Multiple Victim Public Shootings,
Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and
Public Law Enforcement", working paper with William Landes; his book "More
Guns, Less Crime".
> He accounted for many more
> factors that influence crime rates than any previous study.
In neither 'study', none of the statistical tables appended to either, nor
his book does he take into account any other factor besides the enactment of
laws permitting concealed handguns. I watched him end a televised
book-selling interview because he couldn't address a direct question about
control factors. It's you who obviously hasn't read any of his material
(largely because most advocates of second amendment rights have abandoned
him for the whore he is.)
> He
> accounted for arrest rates, conviction rates, prison sentence lengths,
> death penalty execution rates, per capita number of police,
> expenditures on police, different hiring policies for police
> departments, different types of police strategies, illegal drug
> prices, many income measures, poverty, unemployment, the most
> extensive demographics ever controlled for in a study on crime, and
> many, many other factors. Lott examines county and state level data
> in his first edition and also includes city level data in his second
> edition.
You'll name the 'edition' you're talking about and give quotes from your
extensive library or shut up and blow away. None of these controls exists.
Gilly
Hehehe, Lott's 'research', as opposed to his 'conclusions' (terminology
which obviously eludes DrewL's comprehension) does not include the
rudimentary requirement of control for other influencing factors and you
obviously have no reply. Lott is dilletante economist, dabbling in
criminology using outmoded, ineffectual economic modelling research
techniques.
In his own words from "Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and
Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law
Enforcement"
"In contrast, the economic model of crime predicts that a shall
issue law will raise the potential perpetrator's cost of acting (e.g., he
might be wounded or killed if he acts) and lower his expected benefit
(e.g., he will do less damage if he encounters armed resistance).
Although not all offenders will alter their behavior in response to a
shall issue law, some individuals will be deterred from carrying out a
shooting spree because the resulting changes in costs and benefits
will be sufficiently large to make their net gain from acting negative.
How large the deterrent effect is depends on how many potential
offenders are close enough to the margin so that the passage of a
shall issue law changes the net benefit from positive to negative.
Economics predicts, therefore, that shall issue laws will reduce the
number of mass shootings (subject to the "greater availability of
guns" qualification noted above) though the magnitude of this
response is uncertain."
iow, "I have no idea what the fuck I'm doing."
> No mention of any invented data - ala Bellesiles, however.
> gillupie apparently didn't understand the question.
Gee, DrewLie, you asked for 'some sort of claim' or criticism of Lott's
research, not criticism of Bellesiles. Didn't I comply correctly with what
you requested? Am I now disqualified? Or is it just that you have no reply
and were rushed to figure out some way to dismiss the reasons why even 2d
Amendment advocates don't answer Lott's phone calls anymore?
Gilly
> Gilly wrote:
>
> > Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BBE9C0C...@skypoint.com...
> > >
> > > If you disagree with Lott and his conclusions, just say so. If you
want to
> > claim that he's dishonest like Bellesiles apparently
> > > is, please feel free to show it at your convenience.
> >
> > Yeah, Russ, why don't you point out the flaws in Lott's economic
> > assumptions. Then DrewL could ignore you too, like the coward he is.
>
> gillupie still doesn't understand the distinction between a
> disagreement with conclusions, and the use of invented
> data like Bellesiles apparently provided.
My argument is with Lott's research method's--no control for crime-reduction
measures other than the laws permitting concealed handguns. You had no
reply, and you still don't. If you think of one, feel free to post it here.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
>>
>> gillupie still doesn't understand the distinction between a
>> disagreement with conclusions, and the use of invented
>> data like Bellesiles apparently provided.
>
>My argument is with Lott's research method's--no control for crime-reduction
>measures other than the laws permitting concealed handguns. You had no
>reply, and you still don't. If you think of one, feel free to post it here.
You disagree with Lott's method. Fine.
But the issue we started with is Bellesiles, and how he claimed to use
materials that simply don't exist.
Do you have any evidence that Lott claimed to use data that doesn't exist?
--
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, directed, indoctrinated,
numbered, estimated, regulated, commanded, controlled, law-driven,
preached at, spied upon, censured, checked, valued, enrolled, by creatures
who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.
-- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Drew Lanz
Yes gillupie, I've heard you and many others claim that many "other
factors" could have caused the results that Lott found. These "other
factors" are often suggested to be the makings of an alternate cause-
effect theory. The theory, along with the details of the proclaimed
"other factors" are conveniently never actually provided in these
discussions, however. I'd wager that this instance, even with the
great gillupie's help, will be no different.
If Lott had provided information on a dozen of the "other factors"
gillupie dreams of, he'd likely be criticized by gillupie for not
including the 13th and 14th imaginary "other factors". This would
likely continue until Lott was criticized for not providing data on
sunspots and gnomes, as causes for crime reduction. These
criticisms do not constitute a claim of dishonest research or
invented data -ala Bellesiles. These are just more criticisms of
Lott's conclusions, a belief that the conclusion is not supported.
Bellesiles is not being criticized for providing a conclusion for which
the data were not completely collected. Bellesiles is not being criticized
for not measuring some innumerable quantity of "other factors". Those
would be arguments with Bellesiles conclusions. Russ and gillupie
have several criticisms of Lott's conclusions which are similar to these.
Bellesiles is being criticized for apparently inventing data, falsifying
data, and citing resources that simply do not exist. Those are criticisms
of research. Russ and gillupie have provided no criticisms of Lott's
research which are similar to these.
If our gillupie does not yet grasp this distinction, I hope that others can
be more helpful than I have apparently been. Since I asked the questions
that apparently flusters him so, I'll be ready to help in any way I can.
Regards,
Drew ---------------------------------------------
| I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back. |
| drew...@skypoint.com |
Mary Rosh
>
> "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns", with David
> Mustard in the Journal of Legal Studies; "Multiple Victim Public Shootings,
> Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and
> Public Law Enforcement", working paper with William Landes; his book "More
> Guns, Less Crime".
>
> > He accounted for many more
> > factors that influence crime rates than any previous study.
>
> In neither 'study', none of the statistical tables appended to either, nor
> his book does he take into account any other factor besides the enactment of
> laws permitting concealed handguns. I watched him end a televised
> book-selling interview because he couldn't address a direct question about
> control factors. It's you who obviously hasn't read any of his material
> (largely because most advocates of second amendment rights have abandoned
> him for the whore he is.)
Are you serious? For the simplest regressions by Lott look at just
the first table with the regressions (First edition (1998), Table 4.1,
pp, 52-53 and the appendix information that goes with it on pages
181-184). Measures of income, poverty, unemployment, demographics,
population densities, arrest rates, etc.. Later regressions account
for many different gun laws (e.g., pp. 84-5, p. 90). For prison
sentences and conviction rates see He also reports information on
the number of police and expenditures on police (chp. 7). Other parts
of chapter 4 go through conviction rates and prison sentence lengths.
In the second edition, Chapter 9 has a wealth of information with new
data on everything from hiring practices for police to many different
types of policing policies (e.g., community policing or "broken
windows" strategies).
>
> > He
> > accounted for arrest rates, conviction rates, prison sentence lengths,
> > death penalty execution rates, per capita number of police,
> > expenditures on police, different hiring policies for police
> > departments, different types of police strategies, illegal drug
> > prices, many income measures, poverty, unemployment, the most
> > extensive demographics ever controlled for in a study on crime, and
> > many, many other factors. Lott examines county and state level data
> > in his first edition and also includes city level data in his second
> > edition.
>
> You'll name the 'edition' you're talking about and give quotes from your
> extensive library or shut up and blow away. None of these controls exists.
I don't believe that you have read either edition of Lott's book. No
one who has read his work would even pretend that "none of the
statistical tables appended to either, nor his book does he take into
account any other factor besides the enactment of laws permitting
concealed handguns." While Handgun Control has claimed this, they
only do it because they believe that gullible people like you will
simply repeat the claims without checking.
Gilly
> Gilly wrote:
>
> > Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BBF58AE...@skypoint.com...
> > > Gilly wrote:
> > >
> > > > Drew Lanz <drew...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3BBE9C0C...@skypoint.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > If you disagree with Lott and his conclusions, just say so. If you
> > want to
> > > > claim that he's dishonest like Bellesiles apparently
> > > > > is, please feel free to show it at your convenience.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, Russ, why don't you point out the flaws in Lott's economic
> > > > assumptions. Then DrewL could ignore you too, like the coward he
is.
> > >
> > > gillupie still doesn't understand the distinction between a
> > > disagreement with conclusions, and the use of invented
> > > data like Bellesiles apparently provided.
> >
> > My argument is with Lott's research method's--no control for
crime-reduction
> > measures other than the laws permitting concealed handguns. You had no
> > reply, and you still don't. If you think of one, feel free to post it
here.
>
> Yes gillupie, I've heard you and many others claim that many "other
> factors" could have caused the results that Lott found.
Gosh, you sound positively outraged by our unreasonable demands on the poor,
beleaguered economist. Really, DrewL, even a quasi-intellectual like
yourself ought to know that controlling for other factors that may account
for the predicted result is a pretty rudimentary part of any honest
research. Levels of certain crimes were reduced in *some* areas
contemporaneously with enactments that permitted concealed handguns. At a
time when even democrats were pissing themselves to appear 'tough on crime',
decreases in crime were already a trend before the laws permitting handgun
concealment, not to mentionj every politician with a mouth was touting one
crime-reduction measure or other. Aren't you in the least bit curious
whether other crime reduction measures may have accounted for reduced crime
rates before you throw yourself behind extremist vigilante schemes to arm
the populace?
>
> If Lott had provided information on a dozen of the "other factors"
> gillupie dreams of,
Your conjecture aside about how Gilly might have reacted if Lott had
actually performed his research in a competent manner, you may want to
compare notes with Mary Rosh in this thread who's actually trying to claim
that Lott *did* take a host of those nasty 'other factors' into
consideration. I may just decide to bow out and let one right-wing kook
battle it out with the other. rofl
Drew Lanz
No gillupie. I'm not outraged at all. Russ made a parallel
between Lott and Bellesiles. I asked whether the criticisms
of Lott were the same as those of Bellesiles. Neither you
nor Russ seemed to be able to show any similarities.
> Really, DrewL, even a quasi-intellectual like
> yourself ought to know that controlling for other factors that may account
> for the predicted result is a pretty rudimentary part of any honest
> research.
One who failed in this way could have their conclusions
questioned. Bellesiles invented data, a completely different
type of failure. (pesky distinctions often trip up our gillupie)
> Levels of certain crimes were reduced in *some* areas
> contemporaneously with enactments that permitted concealed handguns. At a
> time when even democrats were pissing themselves to appear 'tough on crime',
> decreases in crime were already a trend before the laws permitting handgun
> concealment, not to mentionj every politician with a mouth was touting one
> crime-reduction measure or other. Aren't you in the least bit curious
> whether other crime reduction measures may have accounted for reduced crime
> rates before you throw yourself behind extremist vigilante schemes to arm
> the populace?
>
I find the topic fascinating! In fact, I think that it'd be just
nifty if all of the presumed "other factors" were detailed,
specified, and measured. It'd be great to see that these
"other factors" had consistent, reliable, and predictable
effects on the reduction of crime. I like to know when
policies actually reduce crime in America.
You, a critic of Lott, should be equally interested. If this
work were done, and it supported the alternate theory you
really, really want to believe explains the changes Lott found,
it would entirely debunk Lott and all of his work.
The data for the "other factors" I've seen you proclaim
are public. Many people are equally interested and at least
as well financed as a college prof.
Still, after all of these years, the alternate theory is nothing
more than an amorphous claim of "other factors" with no
supporting data whatsoever. Do you know why this would
be, gillupie?
Is that question - in any way - interesting to you, gillupie?
>
> > If Lott had provided information on a dozen of the "other factors"
> > gillupie dreams of,
>
> Your conjecture aside about how Gilly might have reacted if Lott had
> actually performed his research in a competent manner, you may want to
> compare notes with Mary Rosh in this thread who's actually trying to claim
> that Lott *did* take a host of those nasty 'other factors' into
> consideration. I may just decide to bow out and let one right-wing kook
> battle it out with the other. rofl
Literally any study which drew a conclusion could be criticized
for not including information on some "other factor" which may
or may not support some alternate theory that may or may not
exist.
If all you have is a claim that some "other factors" could have
caused the result *anyone* found in *any* study, you have
surprisingly little. If, at the same time, you have no study which
lists, collects, or compares these "other factors", nor anything
that even looks like an alternate theory explaining how these
"other factors" may have caused the results found ... you have
absolutely nothing.
I do concur on one point, however. Bowing out now would be
a wise choice for you, gillupie.
Russ Anderson
Gee Drew, how can you not see that the Voter News Service poll is
not what Lott claimed it was. To try to dismiss this as a
"disagreement with conclusion" is simply unbelivable.
> If you disagree with Lott and his conclusions, just say so. If you want
> to claim that he's dishonest like Bellesiles apparently
> is, please feel free to show it at your convenience.
I do not claim to know Lott's intentions, the way you claim to
know Bellesiles', but the simple fact is that Lott's source is
not what he claimed. Maybe Lott was just sloppy and made an
honest error in using a poll in a way that is could not, but
the fact remains that his source is not what he claimed, just
like Bellesiles'.
Russ Anderson
>> claim that he's dishonest like Bellesiles apparently
>> > is, please feel free to show it at your convenience.
>>
>> Yeah, Russ, why don't you point out the flaws in Lott's economic
>> assumptions. Then DrewL could ignore you too, like the coward he is.
>
>gillupie still doesn't understand the distinction between a
>disagreement with conclusions, and the use of invented
>data like Bellesiles apparently provided.
>
>If you think I have ignored something important, please
>point it out before you call me a coward. Especially if you
>have something that speaks to research honesty, and not
>disagreements on conclusion, per the question I asked.
>To do otherwise is rather cowardly behavior, gillupie.
Sure, here is another example, from a response to Jeffrey.
Look at this change in Lott's second edition:
Page 3
Lott writes ``If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the
time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to
brandish a weapon to break off an attack.'' In fact, Kleck's
survey [15] indicates that 24% fired the weapon and the
NCVS indicates that 40% fired the weapon [25]. Five other
surveys give numbers between 34% and 67% [14].
In the second edition Lott changes ``national surveys'' to ``a
national survey that I conducted''. While that makes his
statement technically correct, it is still highly misleading,
since it does not mention the seven surveys that contradict
Lott's own, unpublished, one.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/Lotts_of_Errors.html
Now what does this say about the "national surveys" that Lott
claimed as a source in his first edition, and why did he feel
compelled to change the wording to "a national survey that I
conducted" if the original data existed as claimed?
Again, maybe Lott was just sloppy or made an honest mistake,
reading too much into polls that have limitations, but the
same could be true in Bellesiles' case. Regardless, Lott
did not make this change based on "a disagreement with
conclusions".
Gilly
Sorry if I took what you actually said literally, but you're always
sniveling at people to answer you only in the terms you spell out. I
could've sworn you said this:
> > > > > > Drew Lanz wrote in message
> > > > > > > If you disagree with Lott and his conclusions, just say so.
I just made the mistake of taking DrewL at his word again. Or, are you now
taking those words back? Because DrewL promises us with each and every post
he's not going to take anything back. Or am I obliged to read something
into that challenge that's not there or forfeit my right to respond
according to the Rules of Drewl?
>
> > Really, DrewL, even a quasi-intellectual like
> > yourself ought to know that controlling for other factors that may
account
> > for the predicted result is a pretty rudimentary part of any honest
> > research.
>
> One who failed in this way could have their conclusions
> questioned.
Does that mean I'm permitted to continue? Or have I violated another of
your quibbly little ground rules? To me, if Lott's conclusions are
invalidated by faulty economic research procedures, challenges to Bellesiles
attempt at refutation are moot--unless you're trying to make some kookified
argument about the vast left-wing conspiracy and the liberal mindset.
> > Levels of certain crimes were reduced in *some* areas
> > contemporaneously with enactments that permitted concealed handguns. At
a
> > time when even democrats were pissing themselves to appear 'tough on
crime',
> > decreases in crime were already a trend before the laws permitting
handgun
> > concealment, not to mentionj every politician with a mouth was touting
one
> > crime-reduction measure or other. Aren't you in the least bit curious
> > whether other crime reduction measures may have accounted for reduced
crime
> > rates before you throw yourself behind extremist vigilante schemes to
arm
> > the populace?
> >
>
>
> If all you have is a claim that some "other factors" could have
> caused the result *anyone* found in *any* study, you have
> surprisingly little. If, at the same time, you have no study which
> lists, collects, or compares these "other factors", nor anything
> that even looks like an alternate theory explaining how these
> "other factors" may have caused the results found ... you have
> absolutely nothing.
Go look at what I have. It's in the message you've been ignoring all this
time. Oh, check out Mary Rosh's post, too, with list of 'other factors'
she's claiming Lott did include. rofl
But, far be it from me to make the outlandish claim that other crime
reduction measures may have actually reduced crime and may account for the
crime reductions Lott attributes to concealed handgun permits. Lott's
inability to differentiate how much crime reduction was due to which cause
is Lott's problem, not mine. He's left the unsupported conclusion based on
his surmise that the concealed handguns accounted for any amount of crime
reduction. Coincidental reduction in crime was coincidental with enactment
of laws permitting concealed handguns *in some areas*. It's something of a
leap of right-wing faith to claim that the crime reduction was actually due
to concealed handguns, don't you think? Unfortunately for you and Lott, I'm
not the one making the assertion.
Mary Rosh
accepts Lambert as correct, these are almost all disagreements than
errors. Lambert's disagreements are not "errors." None of these
things come remotely close to Bellesiles book, where Bellesiles can't
point to where he got his data or he changes several times where he
got it or people can't replicate his results. I don't know about the
discussion on things such as "weighting" that Lambert objects to, but
here is a discussion of eight of the 12 so-called "errors." For
thousands of errors found by Clayton Cramer regarding Bellesiles:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/ArmingAmericaLong.pdf
Lambert's claims and responses:
Page 10
Lott states that child-resistant bottle caps actually have resulted in
``3,500 additional poisonings of children under age 5 annually from
[aspirin-related drugs] ...[as] consumers have been lulled into a
less-safety-conscious mode of behavior by the existence of safety
caps.'' I reviewed the literature on this topic and found that the
only study to conclude that child-resistant packaging caused harm is
the one cited by Lott. All the other studies (none of them mentioned
by Lott) found substantial reductions in poisonings [27]. The most
recent and sophisticated study [27] found a 45% reduction in deaths.
Furthermore, no evidence for the claimed ``lulling'' effect
exists--studies have found that people do not store medicines with
child-resistant caps differently from medicines without them.
Response: Harvard's Kip Viscusi did the study that Lott cites. There
is nothing in error here. Lott makes a statement and cites the paper
that provides the evidence. Lambert might believe that another paper
is more "sophisticated," but that is not the same as an error.
Page 5
The ``hot burglary'' rate in Canada is 9% [26] which is less than than
that for the US. The ``hot burglary'' rate in England is indeed higher
than that for the US, but if that is enough to conclude that guns
cause this difference, we should also conclude that guns cause the US
homicide rate to be far higher than that of England. Lott also claims
that American burglars spend more time than their foreign counterparts
``casing'' a house. This is pure speculation--he has no evidence at
all for this claim.
Response: Lott cites David Kopel for this evidence on Canada. I have
no idea whether Lambert is right about the 9% rate, but the error, if
that is true, lies with Kopel. As to the second and longer discussion
on England, Lambert agrees that the number used by Lott is correct,
but disputes how he interprets this. Lott has a hypothesis and the
evidence surely seems consistent with it. Even if Lambert is right
tha t this is speculation, someone needs to explain to Lambert that
speculation is not "error."
Page 113
Lott's claim that there is no worldwide relationship between gun
ownership and crime rates is false. Using gun ownership data from the
International Crime Victimization Survey Killias found significant
correlations between gun ownership and homicide rates [13].
Response: Look up the paper entitled "Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A
Cross-Country Analysis," by Professor Jeff Miron at:
http://econ.bu.edu/miron/
There are other papers, but again this is not an error.
Page 68
Lott claims that blacks benefit more than other groups from
concealed-handgun laws. However, his own table 5.2 shows that blacks
did not benefit more.
Page 160 (161 in 2nd edition)
Lott falsely claims that women and blacks benefit the most from
concealed-handgun laws in terms of reduced rates of murder. His own
table 5.2 shows that the change in murder rates was the same for
blacks and whites and for women and men.
Response: Lott obviously reports all the data and results including
Table 5.2, though he also notes that 5.2 can only use state level data
and he notes the weaknesses of state level data. In any case, women
are getting a bigger drop in crime against them even though they get
permits at a lower rate. The county level data clearly shows that
both of these statements are correct. Lambert might disagree with
Lott, but no one other than Lamber could classify these two points as
"errors."
Page 160 (161 in 2nd edition)
Lott claims that the ``halo'' effect from shall issue laws also
protects juveniles who are not eligible for concealed weapon permits.
As discussed earlier the fact that juvenile homicides declined as much
as adult homicides is evidence that the crime decreases were not
caused by the shall issue laws, not evidence for extra benefits from
such laws. It seems as if Lott can interpret any outcome at all as
evidence for benefits from shall issue laws.
Response: This is an error? How is this an error. Lott points out
that getting criminals to leave an area because some victims can
defend themselves can reduce crimes against other people. Lambert
responds by saying this is an error because: "It seems as if Lott can
interpret any outcome at all as evidence for benefits from shall issue
laws." This is not a serious discussion.
Page 32 of [17]
Lott claims that ``Guns are used for defensive purposes about five
times as often as they are used for crimes.'' In fact, the National
Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the number of gun crimes
(about 850,000 in 1996 [23]) is about twelve times as much as the
number of defensive gun uses (about 72,000 in 1996 [23]). This is
surely not surprising--criminals are more likely to be involved in a
situation where a gun might be useful, and so have more incentive to
carry a gun. They can also only choose to commit crimes on the
occasions when they are carrying a gun.
Lott arrives at his claim by taking the lowest available estimate for
gun crimes (430,000 from the FBI's UCR) and a high estimate for
defensive gun uses (An average of the estimates computed by Kleck
[14], omitting the NCVS estimate). While that produces a ratio
favourable to Lott's position, it is impossible for both estimates to
be correct. According to the respondents in Kleck's survey (which is
the basis for all the estimates computed in [14]) one fifth of his
estimated 2.5 million defensive gun uses were against gun crimes,
implying that every single time a criminal committed a gun crime, they
encountered an armed victim. This is clearly impossible.
Response: Lott is very clear what he is doing here. Lambert may
disagree, but it is not an "error." Lott discusses the NCVS survey
and notes that it has a big problem in not directly asking people
whether they used a gun defensively. Taking the average of the
surveys that do directly ask people implies about 2 million defensive
gun uses. 2 million is about 5 times bigger than 430,000.
Page 4
Lambert claims that Lott makes an error in citing Southwick for the
2.5 times ratio. Possibly Lott could have gone into this more, but
what he writes is literally correct.
r...@sgi.com (Russ Anderson) wrote in message news:<9pshi8$q1366$1...@fido.engr.sgi.com>...
Mary Rosh
*Cut*
>
> Go look at what I have. It's in the message you've been ignoring all this
> time. Oh, check out Mary Rosh's post, too, with list of 'other factors'
> she's claiming Lott did include. rofl
I gave detailed page cites for the different factors that Lott
accounted for. You obviously haven't read Lott's work. No one who
has read it would even seriously try to claim he hasn't accounted for
hundreds of other factors, far more than any previous study on crime.
If you can't even be honest on something as easily checked as this, it
is impossible to expect you to be honest on anything else.
>
> But, far be it from me to make the outlandish claim that other crime
> reduction measures may have actually reduced crime and may account for the
> crime reductions Lott attributes to concealed handgun permits.
Lott in fact argues that there are a lot of factors that are a lot
more important in explaining crime rates than guns. If you read his
book, you would find that he argues that by far the most important
factors are the arrest and conviction rates.
Russ Anderson
>Lambert lists 12 so-called "errors" in Lott's book. Even if one
>accepts Lambert as correct, these are almost all disagreements than
>errors.
It is interesting that Mary comments on other "errors" that Lambert
sites, but does not comment on the Page 3 change that I posted.
> Lambert's disagreements are not "errors." None of these
>things come remotely close to Bellesiles book, where Bellesiles can't
>point to where he got his data or he changes several times where he
>got it or people can't replicate his results.
The Page 3 change, where Lott changes "national surveys" into
"a national survey that I conducted" falls into that category.
Mary, any comment on Lott's Page 3 change?
Russ Anderson
>Lambert lists 12 so-called "errors" in Lott's book. Even if one
>accepts Lambert as correct, these are almost all disagreements than
>errors. Lambert's disagreements are not "errors."
Trying to characterize problems in Lott's book as "disagreements"
is simply wrong.
> None of these
>things come remotely close to Bellesiles book, where Bellesiles can't
>point to where he got his data or he changes several times where he
>got it or people can't replicate his results.
So where is Lott's data for the claimed "lulling" effect (below)?
>Lambert's claims and responses:
>
>Page 10
>Lott states that child-resistant bottle caps actually have resulted in
>``3,500 additional poisonings of children under age 5 annually from
>[aspirin-related drugs] ...[as] consumers have been lulled into a
>less-safety-conscious mode of behavior by the existence of safety
>caps.'' I reviewed the literature on this topic and found that the
>only study to conclude that child-resistant packaging caused harm is
>the one cited by Lott. All the other studies (none of them mentioned
>by Lott) found substantial reductions in poisonings [27]. The most
>recent and sophisticated study [27] found a 45% reduction in deaths.
>Furthermore, no evidence for the claimed ``lulling'' effect
>exists--studies have found that people do not store medicines with
>child-resistant caps differently from medicines without them.
>
>Response: Harvard's Kip Viscusi did the study that Lott cites. There
>is nothing in error here. Lott makes a statement and cites the paper
>that provides the evidence. Lambert might believe that another paper
>is more "sophisticated," but that is not the same as an error.
If Lott wants to be viewed as a serious researcher, he needs to
behave like a serious researcher. Serious researchers look at
all the available studies. They cannot just select a single study
that supports their view and ignore many others that contradict it.
To do so is an "error".
That is one of the things that differenciate serious research from
professional propagandists like Rush Limbaugh and Jason Lewis,
that consistently pick (or twist) data that supports their view,
and ignore (or dismiss) data that contradicts it. That some
people do not know the difference could go a long way in explaining
why some people view Lott as a serious researcher (as apposed to
a propagandist).
Again, there is no data to support Lott's "lulling" effect claim.
Mary Rosh
what Viscusi found. People who have examined Bellesiles work note
literally thousands of misquotes and inaccurate descriptions of what
sources have said. (For one documented set of misquotes see:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/ArmingAmericaLong.pdf)
2) Viscusi's work is vastly superior to the work that Lambert cites.
You should look at the two set of papers. ALL the papers that Lambert
cites make the same mistake, they compare the simple before and after
rate of poisonings. The problem with this is that poisonings for
everything have been falling over time. You could have picked any
year (not just a year related to changing bottle designs) and the
average number of poisonings would be lower in the later period.
Viscusi breaks things down much more carefully and looks at changes in
trends.
3) As to the data on the "Lulling" effect, I would have thought that
was obvious, but then again I should have realized that neither
Lambert or you have actually read Viscusi's paper. The evidence for
it is in Viscusi's paper.
r...@sgi.com (Russ Anderson) wrote in message news:<9pv2ch$q9o5t$1...@fido.engr.sgi.com>...
Gilly
> "Gilly" <0@0> wrote in message
news:<9pt5q0$2fa$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> *Cut*
>
> >
> > Go look at what I have. It's in the message you've been ignoring all
this
> > time. Oh, check out Mary Rosh's post, too, with list of 'other factors'
> > she's claiming Lott did include. rofl
>
> I gave detailed page cites for the different factors that Lott
> accounted for. You obviously haven't read Lott's work. No one who
> has read it would even seriously try to claim he hasn't accounted for
> hundreds of other factors, far more than any previous study on crime.
> If you can't even be honest on something as easily checked as this, it
> is impossible to expect you to be honest on anything else.
You gave page cites, alright, but not to any indication of how crime
reduction measures other than laws permitting concealed handguns may have
accounted for the statistical reductions in crimes in those areas where
crime actually went down after enactment of concealed handgun laws. None of
the tables in the Lott studies I named contain anything but various state
crime statistics. There is no accounting for what may or may not be
responsible for trends and year-to-year changes those statistics. Nothing
but conjecture piled on top of coincidence.
I saw him totally duck the question of lack of control in his 'research' in
a question-and-answer session at a televised university forum, and his
credibility sunk to the bilge immediately after that--except for a few
remaining self-decieved worshippers like yourself.
> >
> > But, far be it from me to make the outlandish claim that other crime
> > reduction measures may have actually reduced crime and may account for
the
> > crime reductions Lott attributes to concealed handgun permits.
>
> Lott in fact argues that there are a lot of factors that are a lot
> more important in explaining crime rates than guns.
So his work provides no support for the advocates of concealed handgun laws?
No wonder they've all quit mentioning him.
> If you read his
> book, you would find that he argues that by far the most important
> factors are the arrest and conviction rates.
And what makes this any less conjecture than his foregone conclusion that
concealed handguns were the cause of crime reduction where, in fact, crime
reductions actually occurred?
Mary Rosh
> Mary Rosh <mary...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:23fa92fe.01100...@posting.google.com...
> > "Gilly" <0@0> wrote in message
> news:<9pt5q0$2fa$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
> > *Cut*
> >
> > >
> > > Go look at what I have. It's in the message you've been ignoring all
> this
> > > time. Oh, check out Mary Rosh's post, too, with list of 'other factors'
> > > she's claiming Lott did include. rofl
> >
> > I gave detailed page cites for the different factors that Lott
> > accounted for. You obviously haven't read Lott's work. No one who
> > has read it would even seriously try to claim he hasn't accounted for
> > hundreds of other factors, far more than any previous study on crime.
> > If you can't even be honest on something as easily checked as this, it
> > is impossible to expect you to be honest on anything else.
>
> You gave page cites, alright, but not to any indication of how crime
> reduction measures other than laws permitting concealed handguns may have
> accounted for the statistical reductions in crimes in those areas where
> crime actually went down after enactment of concealed handgun laws. None of
> the tables in the Lott studies I named contain anything but various state
> crime statistics. There is no accounting for what may or may not be
> responsible for trends and year-to-year changes those statistics. Nothing
> but conjecture piled on top of coincidence.
That is simply not true about the Tables, unless you only looked at
the Tables up through Chapter 2. The first table in Chapter 4, for
example, provides a long list of different variables and the appendix
provides a continued breakdown for the different demographic
characteristics. As to his results, I really should just tell you to
actually read the book. But just to be nice, Lott finds that the most
important factors that determine crime are related to law enforcement.
The three most important factors are arrest and conviction rates and
the length of the prison sentence. For murder rates, he also found
strong evidence supporting the death penalty. Poverty, income
measures, and unemployment affect crime rates, but the impact is
relatively small. Age, gender, and race demographics together explain
between 15 and 20 percent of the variation in crime rates, depending
upon the type of crime. Waiting periods and the Brady Act tend to
increase crime rates.
>
> I saw him totally duck the question of lack of control in his 'research' in
> a question-and-answer session at a televised university forum, and his
> credibility sunk to the bilge immediately after that--except for a few
> remaining self-decieved worshippers like yourself.
I don't believe you, but, in any case, there is a simple way to verify
whether he has accounted for other factors and that is to note that
even his critics have pointed to the extensive data set that he has
put together and shared with them. No previous study on crime had
come even close to accounting for all the different factors dealt with
in his research.
> > >
> > > But, far be it from me to make the outlandish claim that other crime
> > > reduction measures may have actually reduced crime and may account for
> the
> > > crime reductions Lott attributes to concealed handgun permits.
> >
> > Lott in fact argues that there are a lot of factors that are a lot
> > more important in explaining crime rates than guns.
>
> So his work provides no support for the advocates of concealed handgun laws?
> No wonder they've all quit mentioning him.
The drop in crime from concealed handgun laws is what you find even
after the other factors have been accounted for.
>
> > If you read his
> > book, you would find that he argues that by far the most important
> > factors are the arrest and conviction rates.
>
> And what makes this any less conjecture than his foregone conclusion that
> concealed handguns were the cause of crime reduction where, in fact, crime
> reductions actually occurred?
You really should read the book, but get the second edition. It
provides a nice lesson in statistics, even for the uninitiated.
Several Harvard Professors have nice blurbs on the back of the book
saying what an excellent job that he has explaining the statistics.
In any case, you have many different states adopting these laws in
many different years and Lott finds that the states that are changing
their laws have a drop in crime rates relative to the states that
don't. this is after the other factors have been accounted for.
However, as Lott quickly points out, you need a lot more to make a
convincing case, and he proceeds to present a half dozen different
sets of evidence. For example, he shows are closely linked the
decline crime rates are to the percentage of the adult population with
permits. He shows how the drops vary in predictable ways across
different types of crime. Crimes where there is contact between the
victim and the criminal (and the thus the permitted gun might make a
difference) fall relative to crime rates where there is no contact.
Differences across different types of crime also vary relative to the
rates that different types of victims will have gun. some of his
more interesting results are when you compare adjecent counties on
different sides of state lines and see what happens to the crime rate
for the counties in the states that change their concealed carry rules
relative to the states that don't change their rules. You can look at
this yourself.