Study refuting John Lott research?
- Thread starter braindead0
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Check out this link:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
It has lots of pro and con studies and rebuttals of Lott's research. It is also worth noting that other researchers have found the same thing Lott did now and it has those studies as well.
Read everything at that link and you can wipe the floor with an MMMer anyday of the week.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
It has lots of pro and con studies and rebuttals of Lott's research. It is also worth noting that other researchers have found the same thing Lott did now and it has those studies as well.
Read everything at that link and you can wipe the floor with an MMMer anyday of the week.
mister rogers
New member
Without more details I can't say for sure, there may be some new study out. I do know that shortly after Lott published his first paper a number of gun control professors came out with a paper that claimed to refute Lott. In a debate with Lott, he showed that they had cherry picked their stats by including only certain states, including only certain years, and by including only certain counties in the states that they did include - that they had acheived their result by effectively excluding the majority of the data - and that even given that they still only showed a generally neutral impact from CCW laws and did not show any significant negative impact. IIRC the opposing professors got quite upset by Lott's comprehensive rebuttal and one even blustered something about the fact that he thought they were there to critique Lott's work and not his, it was hilarious.
UnknownSailor
New member
From what I can recall, nobody has been able to positively refute Lott's conclusions, without bending the rules or fudging their data.
Baron Holbach
New member
Definition of "Bimbo"
A "bimbo" is something that belongs to or is abused by Slick Willy.
A "bimbo" is something that belongs to or is abused by Slick Willy.
Scaramanga
New member
Has Lott answered any of the latest comments by Tim Lambert ?
braindead0
New member
Not sure which are the latest, looks like most of them have been answered at least somewhat.
braindead0
New member
Found what she was referring to atjoin together dot com
New Research 'Shoots Down' Concealed-Carry Claims
11/1/2002
Feature Story
by Dick Dahl
Whenever concealed-carry permit holders go awry, as Robert S. Flores did Oct. 28 when he carried five handguns and 200 rounds of ammunition into a University of Arizona nursing school and killed three teachers and himself, the gun lobby and its supporters call it an aberration. While the incident in Tucson was unfortunate, they say, it must be measured against what they claim is concealed-carry laws' greater good: They deter crime.
While concealed-carry laws differ somewhat from state to state, they typically grant adults without records of serious crime or mental illness the right to carry concealed handguns without having to demonstrate need. For years, the National Rifle Association and pro-gunners in general have pointed to statistics showing overall drops in violent crime in the states, now numbering more than 30, that have passed these laws. Their conclusion is that crime declines because criminals fear the greater likelihood that they will encounter someone with a gun. There's only one problem with this assertion, however, according to new evidence: It's false.
Two law professors, John J. Donohue III of Stanford Law School and Ian Ayres of Yale Law School, have completed exhaustive research that contradicts the findings of economist John R. Lott, Jr., whose book, "More Guns, Less Crime," has become a pro-gunner bible. Among other claims in that book, Lott wrote that if concealed-carry laws had existed in every state in 1992, they would have prevented about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes.
Lott's research and his conclusions have been extensively criticized by economists and others who have found fault with its methodology. In addition, the claims about the deterrent value of concealed handguns have not held up well when examined through the lens of the annual FBI Uniform Crime Reports. In 1999, for instance, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence looked at the FBI numbers and found that while crime declined by 6 percent from 1997 to 1998 in the 29 states that then had concealed-carry laws, crime dropped by 7 percent in the states that did not have them. While a detailed analysis of how this year's report (which was released on Oct. 28) breaks down on the concealed-carry issue has not yet been performed, a cursory look at regional crime differences wouldn't seem to support the claim that concealed-carry laws deter crime. While crime rose 2.1 percent nationwide, the Northeast (which has, in its more populous states, some of the nation's strongest gun laws) experienced a 1.9 percent decline.
But as criminologists have long pointed out, the reasons crime increases or decreases are always complex and difficult to explain. Many theories have been offered about why crime generally dropped throughout the 1990s--a decline in the crime-prone demographic groups, the shrinkage of the crack-cocaine market, a strong economy, better policing, etc.--but nobody has the definitive answer.
The NRA and its supporters, however, claim to know why. They say that the reason crime went down in the 1990s was because more Americans were arming themselves. In defending this theory, they rely heavily on Lott. But now, if Donohue and Ayres' research passes critical muster, an important argument used by the gun lobby to fight stronger gun laws lies in jeopardy.
"While there might have been some superficial statistical evidence that supported Lott when he did his initial work, now that we've got the experience of the `90s behind us, we see that we'd gotten these huge drops in crime everywhere--much bigger in the states that did not adopt these laws," Donohue told Join Together Online. He said that supporters of concealed-carry laws "are not enthusiastic about noting that crime fell more in the states that didn't adopt these laws. So they just look at the states that passed them and say, `Look at how crime fell.'"
Donohue and Ayres' findings are contained in a lengthy article, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," currently under review for publication in the Stanford Law Review. But a shorter article based on the research and written by Donohue will be available soon as a chapter in a book, "Evaluating Gun Policy," to be published in early December by the Brookings Institution Press.
Lott and fellow economist David Mustard completed their initial research on concealed-carry laws in 1997. It examined the 10 states that passed these laws between 1987 and 1992 and was the first time a broad attempt to measure the laws' impacts had been undertaken. The first of those states was Florida in 1987, and the fact that crime dropped significantly following the law's passage attracted much attention---and many followers. Many critics have suggested that the big initial drop in Florida and other states is just as likely explained by a raft of "get tough on crime" laws in concert with concealed carry. But Lott and Mustard were convinced it was the guns. Their conclusion was evident in the title Lott chose for his 1998 book: "More Guns, Less Crime."
Donohue says he never believed that Lott's and Mustard's conclusion was correct. So he and Ayres embarked on their project to reanalyze the Lott-Mustard data and bring it forward through most of the 1990s. While he credits Lott and Mustard for demonstrating that concealed-carry laws "have not led to the massive bloodbath" that early critics had feared, he now says that their more important conclusion---that guns deter crime---is totally erroneous. In fact, Donohue indicates, there is stronger evidence that concealed-carry laws increase crime---property crime, in particular---than deter it. He says the composite crime drop in concealed-carry states is strongly affected by huge drops recorded by some of the early states to pass the laws.
One of the other problems with the Lott-Mustard conclusion, according to Donohue, is that it didn't take into consideration the crime impact of the crack-cocaine market, which emerged in the mid- to late 1980s, withered away in the early 1990s, and was more prevalent in non-carry states. "Basically, I think, crack ran up crime in a big way in the (non-carry) states when he did his analysis and made it look like that meant that crime was restrained in the (concealed carry) states. But then in the `90s, things flipped around when crime dropped from the previous run-up, and it dropped a lot faster in the (non-carry) states."
Some of the findings in the Donohue/Ayres study are especially striking. The biggest decrease in the murder rate, for instance, occurred in non-carry states. And while one would assume that robbery rates would be most affected by concealed-carry laws if guns really did have a deterrent effect, Donohue and Ayres found that the biggest decline in robberies also occurred in the non-carry states.
Their larger article in the Stanford Law Review is scheduled for the December issue, the same month when the smaller one written by Donohue for the Brookings Institution book will appear. Donohue says he knows he's striking at a basic article of faith of a notoriously powerful special interest. But he says he's confident that the research is solid. "I feel like this paper will be the final word at least until many more years of data come in," he said. "It buries the `more guns, less crime' hypothesis. I never believed John Lott, and now I don't think anyone else will."
The Donohue article, meanwhile, isn't the only one to address the issue of guns and self-defense in the Brookings book. Another, co-authored by the two co-editors, Duke University professor Philip Cook and Georgetown University associate professor Jens Ludwig, examines the value of guns as burglary deterrent. Their findings are at least as surprising as those of Donohue and Ayres. Examining data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, Cook and Ludwig found that gun ownership actually increases the likelihood that a home will be burglarized. A 10-percent increase in a county's gun-ownership rate results in a 3- to 7-percent increase in the likelihood that a home in that county will be burglarized, the authors found.
"One possible reason why the risk of burglary increases with gun prevalence is that guns are valuable loot," they wrote. "Providing some support for this theory is the fact that in 14 percent of the burglaries ... in which a gun was stolen, it was the only item stolen."
At a time when Americans once again seem to be turning their attention to the ongoing problem of gun violence in the U.S., the opportunities for re-examination of the nation's gun laws being provided by these research efforts are well-timed.
New Research 'Shoots Down' Concealed-Carry Claims
11/1/2002
Feature Story
by Dick Dahl
Whenever concealed-carry permit holders go awry, as Robert S. Flores did Oct. 28 when he carried five handguns and 200 rounds of ammunition into a University of Arizona nursing school and killed three teachers and himself, the gun lobby and its supporters call it an aberration. While the incident in Tucson was unfortunate, they say, it must be measured against what they claim is concealed-carry laws' greater good: They deter crime.
While concealed-carry laws differ somewhat from state to state, they typically grant adults without records of serious crime or mental illness the right to carry concealed handguns without having to demonstrate need. For years, the National Rifle Association and pro-gunners in general have pointed to statistics showing overall drops in violent crime in the states, now numbering more than 30, that have passed these laws. Their conclusion is that crime declines because criminals fear the greater likelihood that they will encounter someone with a gun. There's only one problem with this assertion, however, according to new evidence: It's false.
Two law professors, John J. Donohue III of Stanford Law School and Ian Ayres of Yale Law School, have completed exhaustive research that contradicts the findings of economist John R. Lott, Jr., whose book, "More Guns, Less Crime," has become a pro-gunner bible. Among other claims in that book, Lott wrote that if concealed-carry laws had existed in every state in 1992, they would have prevented about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes.
Lott's research and his conclusions have been extensively criticized by economists and others who have found fault with its methodology. In addition, the claims about the deterrent value of concealed handguns have not held up well when examined through the lens of the annual FBI Uniform Crime Reports. In 1999, for instance, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence looked at the FBI numbers and found that while crime declined by 6 percent from 1997 to 1998 in the 29 states that then had concealed-carry laws, crime dropped by 7 percent in the states that did not have them. While a detailed analysis of how this year's report (which was released on Oct. 28) breaks down on the concealed-carry issue has not yet been performed, a cursory look at regional crime differences wouldn't seem to support the claim that concealed-carry laws deter crime. While crime rose 2.1 percent nationwide, the Northeast (which has, in its more populous states, some of the nation's strongest gun laws) experienced a 1.9 percent decline.
But as criminologists have long pointed out, the reasons crime increases or decreases are always complex and difficult to explain. Many theories have been offered about why crime generally dropped throughout the 1990s--a decline in the crime-prone demographic groups, the shrinkage of the crack-cocaine market, a strong economy, better policing, etc.--but nobody has the definitive answer.
The NRA and its supporters, however, claim to know why. They say that the reason crime went down in the 1990s was because more Americans were arming themselves. In defending this theory, they rely heavily on Lott. But now, if Donohue and Ayres' research passes critical muster, an important argument used by the gun lobby to fight stronger gun laws lies in jeopardy.
"While there might have been some superficial statistical evidence that supported Lott when he did his initial work, now that we've got the experience of the `90s behind us, we see that we'd gotten these huge drops in crime everywhere--much bigger in the states that did not adopt these laws," Donohue told Join Together Online. He said that supporters of concealed-carry laws "are not enthusiastic about noting that crime fell more in the states that didn't adopt these laws. So they just look at the states that passed them and say, `Look at how crime fell.'"
Donohue and Ayres' findings are contained in a lengthy article, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," currently under review for publication in the Stanford Law Review. But a shorter article based on the research and written by Donohue will be available soon as a chapter in a book, "Evaluating Gun Policy," to be published in early December by the Brookings Institution Press.
Lott and fellow economist David Mustard completed their initial research on concealed-carry laws in 1997. It examined the 10 states that passed these laws between 1987 and 1992 and was the first time a broad attempt to measure the laws' impacts had been undertaken. The first of those states was Florida in 1987, and the fact that crime dropped significantly following the law's passage attracted much attention---and many followers. Many critics have suggested that the big initial drop in Florida and other states is just as likely explained by a raft of "get tough on crime" laws in concert with concealed carry. But Lott and Mustard were convinced it was the guns. Their conclusion was evident in the title Lott chose for his 1998 book: "More Guns, Less Crime."
Donohue says he never believed that Lott's and Mustard's conclusion was correct. So he and Ayres embarked on their project to reanalyze the Lott-Mustard data and bring it forward through most of the 1990s. While he credits Lott and Mustard for demonstrating that concealed-carry laws "have not led to the massive bloodbath" that early critics had feared, he now says that their more important conclusion---that guns deter crime---is totally erroneous. In fact, Donohue indicates, there is stronger evidence that concealed-carry laws increase crime---property crime, in particular---than deter it. He says the composite crime drop in concealed-carry states is strongly affected by huge drops recorded by some of the early states to pass the laws.
One of the other problems with the Lott-Mustard conclusion, according to Donohue, is that it didn't take into consideration the crime impact of the crack-cocaine market, which emerged in the mid- to late 1980s, withered away in the early 1990s, and was more prevalent in non-carry states. "Basically, I think, crack ran up crime in a big way in the (non-carry) states when he did his analysis and made it look like that meant that crime was restrained in the (concealed carry) states. But then in the `90s, things flipped around when crime dropped from the previous run-up, and it dropped a lot faster in the (non-carry) states."
Some of the findings in the Donohue/Ayres study are especially striking. The biggest decrease in the murder rate, for instance, occurred in non-carry states. And while one would assume that robbery rates would be most affected by concealed-carry laws if guns really did have a deterrent effect, Donohue and Ayres found that the biggest decline in robberies also occurred in the non-carry states.
Their larger article in the Stanford Law Review is scheduled for the December issue, the same month when the smaller one written by Donohue for the Brookings Institution book will appear. Donohue says he knows he's striking at a basic article of faith of a notoriously powerful special interest. But he says he's confident that the research is solid. "I feel like this paper will be the final word at least until many more years of data come in," he said. "It buries the `more guns, less crime' hypothesis. I never believed John Lott, and now I don't think anyone else will."
The Donohue article, meanwhile, isn't the only one to address the issue of guns and self-defense in the Brookings book. Another, co-authored by the two co-editors, Duke University professor Philip Cook and Georgetown University associate professor Jens Ludwig, examines the value of guns as burglary deterrent. Their findings are at least as surprising as those of Donohue and Ayres. Examining data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, Cook and Ludwig found that gun ownership actually increases the likelihood that a home will be burglarized. A 10-percent increase in a county's gun-ownership rate results in a 3- to 7-percent increase in the likelihood that a home in that county will be burglarized, the authors found.
"One possible reason why the risk of burglary increases with gun prevalence is that guns are valuable loot," they wrote. "Providing some support for this theory is the fact that in 14 percent of the burglaries ... in which a gun was stolen, it was the only item stolen."
At a time when Americans once again seem to be turning their attention to the ongoing problem of gun violence in the U.S., the opportunities for re-examination of the nation's gun laws being provided by these research efforts are well-timed.
braindead0
New member
Of course, note that none of this research seems to have been published and subjected to peer review, oh but you can get a preview if you buy the book...just in time for christmas I suppose.
I think John Lott Jr. is in the cat-bird's seat on the gun control/crime debate. His is the only study that included all the counties in the whole of the United States, while the others doing gun control studies are cherry-picking their data.
Its like Lott decided to go and study the whole universe, and their localized studies are already encompassed in his study.
Waaay to go, John!!!
Its like Lott decided to go and study the whole universe, and their localized studies are already encompassed in his study.
Waaay to go, John!!!
They're claiming it WILL be published by the Stanford law review journal this year. At present, it's been subjected to no rebuttals.
I've seen the intro so far, will dig up the URL later for y'all. The key thing is that they claim a small rise in PROPERTY crime, not in violent crime...they claim that stays flat.
Even if they're 100% correct, that doesn't speak against fixing the DOWNSIDES of discretionary issuance (racism, cronyism, corruption, etc).
I've seen the intro so far, will dig up the URL later for y'all. The key thing is that they claim a small rise in PROPERTY crime, not in violent crime...they claim that stays flat.
Even if they're 100% correct, that doesn't speak against fixing the DOWNSIDES of discretionary issuance (racism, cronyism, corruption, etc).
braindead0
New member
Yeah, they studied a non-issue state and only chose rural counties or some such.. I'll be interested to see the whole thing, perhaps they'll be moving on to Emery..
It sounds very sketchy to me. These researchers are saying that it might be things like the effect of crack cocaine that spured people to commit more violent crime in places that guns are less available to the public during the time period of Lotts research?
Burlgaries? John Lotts book says that crimes like burglary are likely to increase as a result of more guns because criminals substitute violent crimes for the more safer crimes when more people are armed so where do they come across bringing up burglary? So less car jacking and more car theft or larceny when you're not around. Just what are these guys trying to say?
How are they going to prove it was crack by the way? There is a way to check CCW permits issued in different counties but what about crack usage? Are they going by arrest records?
I have John Lotts book and it is very straight forward. Its not really rocket science. What about Gary Glecks research? I'm very interested in Dr. Lotts response.
Burlgaries? John Lotts book says that crimes like burglary are likely to increase as a result of more guns because criminals substitute violent crimes for the more safer crimes when more people are armed so where do they come across bringing up burglary? So less car jacking and more car theft or larceny when you're not around. Just what are these guys trying to say?
How are they going to prove it was crack by the way? There is a way to check CCW permits issued in different counties but what about crack usage? Are they going by arrest records?
I have John Lotts book and it is very straight forward. Its not really rocket science. What about Gary Glecks research? I'm very interested in Dr. Lotts response.
Mike in VA
New member
Ca ca del toro. Sheople will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. Reminds me of a Samuel Johnson quote about second marriages - "the triumph of hope over experience."
Words mean things...
Must find data to support my theory...
I am never encouraged when researchers start out with a strong opinion, prove it and then crow about how they were right all along.
What I find so interesting is that they never compare crime rates, only the delta of change.
Bradyville has 50 murders per 100,000
Colt City has 10 murders per 100,000
Now - if Bradyville experiences a 10% drop in the murder rate over a 10 year period, and Colt City experiences only a 5% drop, Bradyville MUST be a safer city - right?
I can't wait to see how they "adjust" for rural areas vs. urban areas. They always do.
Folks, this is Exhibit A in why we need to reduce our reliance on the utility argument. It may work for us at some point, but if thats all we got to hang our hat on, you can bet that they will find away to take it away from us.
As will all "studies" from leftists, the truth does not actually matter - what matters is that the media trumpets the "earth shaking conclusions of the study" that "shatters the myths of concealed carry" etc.
This stuff is not for serious thinkers who are at all concerned with the truth, this is pablum for the masses and we should all wish them a big tummy ache when they suck it down like good little piggies.
Must find data to support my theory...
I am never encouraged when researchers start out with a strong opinion, prove it and then crow about how they were right all along.
What I find so interesting is that they never compare crime rates, only the delta of change.
Bradyville has 50 murders per 100,000
Colt City has 10 murders per 100,000
Now - if Bradyville experiences a 10% drop in the murder rate over a 10 year period, and Colt City experiences only a 5% drop, Bradyville MUST be a safer city - right?
I can't wait to see how they "adjust" for rural areas vs. urban areas. They always do.
Folks, this is Exhibit A in why we need to reduce our reliance on the utility argument. It may work for us at some point, but if thats all we got to hang our hat on, you can bet that they will find away to take it away from us.
As will all "studies" from leftists, the truth does not actually matter - what matters is that the media trumpets the "earth shaking conclusions of the study" that "shatters the myths of concealed carry" etc.
This stuff is not for serious thinkers who are at all concerned with the truth, this is pablum for the masses and we should all wish them a big tummy ache when they suck it down like good little piggies.
braindead0
New member
Considering the only place I found this was on a mega anti website....
Oh well, I just wanted to gnow what the bimbo was talking about.
Oh well, I just wanted to gnow what the bimbo was talking about.