Why doesn't Gun Control or Right to Carry affect the crime rate significantly?

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Snip:

Summary:

If you Google “John Lott” and “research fraud,” you get nearly150 results,

Today,when Igoogle Steven Levitt + research fraudI get 68,200 results, John Lott gets 17,300. I don't think that the number of results you find on google are a good indication of the veracity of your argument. Many of the hits are duplicates. If you look only at the raw numbers it would appear that John Lott is a far more reliable source.

As for your examples of evidence against John Lott, all but one are op-ed pieceswith nothing to really back them up except opinion. One even says that studies show that allowing people to be armed increases crime rates. This is true, in that property crimes do increase (due to the fear that criminals have of coming across an armed victim), while violent crimes decrease. This is hardly being honest. If they looked only at violent crime, they would see a different result. My being armed is about personal protection, not property protection.

Another links the legalization of abortion with a decrease in crime. Strange, the majority of abortions occur in the same populations that have the highest rates of violent crime. Maybe there are other forces at work.I question his objectivity in coming up with his study results.

Armed citizens will have very little affect on the burglary of an unoccupied residence or business, but they will have an affect on the personal, violent attacks on the citizenry. Isn't the whole idea behind being armed self defense, not defense of property while you are away?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Snip:

Summary:

If you Google “John Lott” and “research fraud,” you get nearly150 results,

Today,when Igoogle Steven Levitt + research fraudI get 68,200 results, John Lott gets 17,300. I don't think that the number of results you find on google are a good indication of the veracity of your argument. Many of the hits are duplicates. If you look only at the raw numbers it would appear that John Lott is a far more reliable source.

As for your examples of evidence against John Lott, all but one are op-ed pieceswith nothing to really back them up except opinion. One even says that studies show that allowing people to be armed increases crime rates. This is true, in that property crimes do increase (due to the fear that criminals have of coming across an armed victim), while violent crimes decrease. This is hardly being honest. If they looked only at violent crime, they would see a different result. My being armed is about personal protection, not property protection.

Cry all you want. He's a PROVEN fraud. Google searches don't cut it. Go search a scholarly database to findstudies published by research and statistics professionals proving him a fraud. I just tried to save you time and disappointment.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting weltanshauung. The final clause is to excuse the invincibly ignorant.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Summary:

If you Google “John Lott” and “research fraud,” you get nearly150 results, starting off with a 2003 article published inScience magazine by Donald Kennedy, the editor in chief, whichcriticizes Lott’s “cooked data.” You get an article by Yale LawSchool professors Ian Ayres and John Donohue, published in the StanfordLaw and Economics Working Paper series, who have run the numbers.“In most states,” they wrote in 2002, right-to-carry laws “havebeen associated with more crime,” not less. Most important, you getthe exhaustive 2004 report from the prestigious NationalResearch Council, which found “no credible evidence” supporting Lott’sthesis – pretty much what “Freakonomics”said.

So enough quoting John Lott and enough whining about me not providing "citation".

So a Google Search is a good 'proof?'

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Summary:

If you Google“John Lott” and “research fraud,” you get nearly150 results,

Today,when Igoogle Steven Levitt + research fraudI get 68,200 results, John Lott gets 17,300. I don't think that the number of results you find on google are a good indication of the veracity of your argument. Many of the hits are duplicates. If you look only at the raw numbers it would appear that John Lott is a far more reliable source.

As for your examples of evidence against John Lott, all but one are op-ed pieceswith nothing to really back them up except opinion. One even says that studies show that allowing people to be armed increases crime rates. This is true, in that property crimes do increase (due to the fear that criminals have of coming across an armed victim), while violent crimes decrease. This is hardly being honest. If they looked only at violent crime, they would see a different result. My being armed is about personal protection, not property protection.

Cry all you want. He's a PROVEN fraud. Google searches don't cut it. Go search a scholarly database to findstudies published by research and statistics professionals proving him a fraud. I just tried to save you time and disappointment.

But now it isn't a good 'proof?'

Did you miss the part where that was one of Gordie's points?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting weltanshauung. The final clause is to excuse the invincibly ignorant.

So you've done the massive volume of researchand statistical analysisnecessary to validate his studies? SomethingthatallGROUPS of professionals that have attempted have failed to do, but youlittle ole' you managed to do it all on your own. Please, publish your results. Theworld is waiting anxiously. You might make yourself famous.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting weltanshauung. The final clause is to excuse the invincibly ignorant.

So you've done the massive volume of researchand statistical analysisnecessary to validate his studies? SomethingthatallGROUPS of professionals that have attempted have failed to do, but youlittle ole' you managed to do it all on your own. Please, publish your results. Theworld is waiting anxiously. You might make yourself famous.

Have you done the massive volume of research and statistical analysis necessary to invalidate his studies?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

blah blah blah

I quoted that paragraph out of an article I linked. If you had actually read them before running your mouth you would have realized it wasn't me saying that, and probably would have chose (properly so)to keep quiet.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting weltanshauung. The final clause is to excuse the invincibly ignorant.

So you've done the massive volume of researchand statistical analysisnecessary to validate his studies? SomethingthatallGROUPS of professionals that have attempted have failed to do, but youlittle ole' you managed to do it all on your own. Please, publish your results. Theworld is waiting anxiously. You might make yourself famous.

Have you done the massive volume of research and statistical analysis necessary to invalidate his studies?

No, but many others that are infinitely more qualified than myselfhave done the massive volume of research and analysis necessary to disprove them. No one, not a single person, has been able to replicate his conclusions. Read the articles before rambling. Don't cry for citation and then cry about it and fail to read it when provided.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

blah blah blah

I quoted that paragraph out of an article I linked. If you had actually read them before running your mouth you would have realized it wasn't me saying that, and probably would have chose (properly so)to keep quiet.

Did I make any claim that you had stated it? It was part of your post, and you didn't whine about the quoted paragraph providing a google search count as 'proof?'

I realized that you didn't say that about the search. You also failed to give it the same level of veracity that you now attribute to the post of Gordie.


On a related note, it is not your decision whether or not I should "keep quiet."



AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Have you done the massive volume of research and statistical analysis necessary to invalidate his studies?

No, but many others that are infinitely more qualified than myselfhave done the massive volume of research and analysis necessary to disprove them. No one, not a single person, has been able to replicate his conclusions. Read the articles before rambling. Don't cry for citation and then cry about it and fail to read it when provided.

Where did I "cry for citation?" Then where did I subsequently "cry about it?"

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

Whether John Lott's study is valid or disproved really doesn't matter in this discussion, because the number of guns has NOT been proven to substantially change the crime rate anyway (I don't think Lott's findings even claim that, do they?).

I think we can all agree that gun control doesn't affect the crime rate much, the discussion I was hoping for was WHY?

...Orygunner...

 

[wrightme]

imported post

The easy answer is the obvious one (at least obvious to us). Criminals do not follow the gun control laws.
All the regulations controlling firearm ownership will NOT prevent criminals from acquiring and using firearms in the commission of crime. They only provide sentence enhancement once arrested.

On a similar note, figuring out if regulations that encourage (or at least do not discourage) lawful firearm ownership prevent crime is much more difficult. As has been mentioned often, with crime, there are way too many variables to take into account. To prove cause/effect is quite difficult. At best, there may be correlations.

 

[les_aker]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

As for your examples of evidence against John Lott, all but one are op-ed pieceswith nothing to really back them up except opinion. One even says that studies show that allowing people to be armed increases crime rates. This is true, in that property crimes do increase (due to the fear that criminals have of coming across an armed victim), while violent crimes decrease. This is hardly being honest. If they looked only at violent crime, they would see a different result. My being armed is about personal protection, not property protection.

That's a good example of the type of critical thinking that routinely escapes the various do-gooders who think they have to qualify other people's freedom. What I've noticed is that there are a fair number of people who don't like the research that Lott does and how he presents it. But when you look at the reasons why they don't like it, it usually boils down to something in his research that shows how the things the do-gooders are so hung up on doing aren't really making anyone "safe" or "safer". It just makes the do-gooders "feel" better and being able to "feel" better is more important to them than worrying about infringing on other people's rights.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

Whether John Lott's study is valid or disproved really doesn't matter in this discussion, because the number of guns has NOT been proven to substantially change the crime rate anyway (I don't think Lott's findings even claim that, do they?).

Considering that his book is called "More guns, less crime"I'm going to go with yes, yes he does claim exactly that. That's why it was relevant to the discussion.

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Orygunner wrote:

Whether John Lott's study is valid or disproved really doesn't matter in this discussion, because the number of guns has NOT been proven to substantially change the crime rate anyway (I don't think Lott's findings even claim that, do they?).

Considering that his book is called "More guns, less crime"I'm going to go with yes, yes he does claim exactly that. That's why it was relevant to the discussion.

Yes, I know that's his claim, but does he try to prove the fact that it's a SIGNIFICANT change, or just a little one?

I haven't actually read his study, so I just don't know. maybe I should find it and give it a read myself.

Any studies trying to prove the relationship between guns and crime are doomed to fail if they don't address and factor in ALL the factors that contribute the crime rate.

...Orygunner...

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

This is a totally gratuitous assumption. Please provide citations in support of your assertions concerning the use of seat belts, the weight tables, helmet wear, and thunderstorm activities of members of this forum. Otherwise admit that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

You cannot possible know what people on this forum do in their cars or anywhere else. I suspect this is just more of your projection of YOUR habits on member of the forum to justify your ridiculous positions. Moreover you are thankfully not in the position of deciding what the risk others must assume should be. Your math is flawed and your methods of assessing the risk to any particular individual are based on faulty reasoning that fails to take into account the locations where people must live and work.

Shall we take a poll to prove me right? I've listened to comments and seen pictures. I don't need any more proof of anything.

As for flawed reasoning in my statistics, I said NATIONAL AVERAGE. If you'd like to go out and collect samples from each and every place that each and every person goes to in their daily lives, and then compile that massive mound of information into something usable... go right ahead. It won't prove anything.




As for concerns of what "might happen,"I'll do as I always do and bring it back to drunk driving, to which, as always, there is no counter-argument against because there cannot be. What MIGHT happen does, in fact, matter very much.

Shall we take a poll? No we shall not! You shall be asked to support YOUR proposition with a citation from the source of data as is the general rule of order for this forum. (please see the rules for posting). Your unsupported opinion means nothing. It is NOT up to me to provide citations against your unsupported position, it is you who have put forth the premise and it is YOU who must provide the data.

As for gathering of data, again that is your problem. There is no support for your position no matter what scale you pretend to use. Again, I am not the one pushing the concept, and I am therefore NOT the one who must provide the data. Your unsupported opinion is worthless.

Actually your DWI argument is worthless as well. Driving is a privilege not a right and therefore it is subject to regulation for different reasons then carrying a firearm which is a protected right.

It would appear that you have no support for your arguments, no actual data to support your positions, and no valid comparable regulatory area to support your position that preemptive laws are legal where rights are concerned. So basically your entire position is gratuitous and without merit and it can be dismissed with equal gratuity.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Shall we take a poll? No we shall not! You shall be asked to support YOUR proposition with a citation from the source of data as is the general rule of order for this forum. (please see the rules for posting). Your unsupported opinion means nothing. It is NOT up to me to provide citations against your unsupported position, it is you who have put forth the premise and it is YOU who must provide the data.

LOL! Are we reading the same board?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Shall we take a poll? No we shall not! You shall be asked to support YOUR proposition with a citation from the source of data as is the general rule of order for this forum. (please see the rules for posting). Your unsupported opinion means nothing. It is NOT up to me to provide citations against your unsupported position, it is you who have put forth the premise and it is YOU who must provide the data.

LOL! Are we reading the same board?

Well there has never been any question that you can't understand what is posted in a thread. But since you seem confounded by my suggestion.

Please read ALL of This thread. Take particular note of item seven.

You contend that my activities in the exercise of my RIGHTS can legally be preempted without evidence that I would do anyone harm. I have asked for citations supporting your position per the forum rules.

I looked at the citations you provided in this thread, and not one of them is related to the question at hand.

While the concept of citations for support for your positions may seem difficult for you to understand, it is easily understood by others here. Of course it does help if supporting citations actually exist, and I recognize that this is a problem for you.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

While I cannot conclusively state whether Lott's data is correct or not, the links posted by AWD do not evidence it either way. The links provide opinions with further links to dubious data. LA Times op-ed pieces or narrowly and poorly researched articles from the very left-leaning St. Louis Post-Dispatch do not refutation make.

For example, one of the links is to "Gun Guys" opinion which is based on a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about the effects of MO CCW law in which they base their entire article on Franklin County, St. Louis County and KC LEOs, all of whom were successfully sued for refusing to process and grant CCW permits and St. Charles County, one of only 11 out of 114 counties to vote against CCW. That CCW numbers in their counties would be low would be expected for numerous reasons. Further, the big spike in CCW issues was not until the third year following the law when all the lawsuits finished, a sufficient number of trainers were approved and the frustrations of the process had been worked out for the most part. I don't yet know the final numbers in KC, MO for 2008, but at the end of the 3rd quarter, their homicide rate was up but their murder rate down due to the high number of justifiable homicides, mostly by CCW licensees. This followed 2 years of ever increasing CCW endorsements being issued. This does not mean that Lott is right or wrong, but it certainly calls into question the conclusions in the link.

I don't think that several Op-ed pieces constitutes effective rebuttal of Lott. I will await further data to draw a final conclusion on the matter.

Regardless, I think the frequent stories of self-defense in public with legally owned firearms provides at least anecdotal evidence that even if more guns do not equal less crime, they certainly equal fewer victims among those willing to provide for their own defense.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

I looked at the citations you provided in this thread, and not one of them is related to the question at hand.

That's because, honestly, I really don't give two shits about off-topic arguing with you. I've had the victimless crime debate a million times before on this board. This thread is actually semi-productive. Leave it that way.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

While I cannot conclusively state whether Lott's data is correct or not, the links posted by AWD do not evidence it either way. The links provide opinions with further links to dubious data. LA Times op-ed pieces or narrowly and poorly researched articles from the very left-leaning St. Louis Post-Dispatch do not refutation make.

I just said you're free to go look up the academic journal articles yourself. I threw out some google links because that's all the effort and time I'm going to expend on an internet argument with people thatalready have their minds made up. I've seen the papers. I've read the papers. Thepapers exist. Thepapers are thorough. Lott is a fraud. Your refusal to research things yourself does not make them false.