12.8 million Americans carry guns for self defense….and crime is down again in 2014 says FBI...

[Brain357]

Problem is....the States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well.

Problem is... You cannot prove this.

Wisconsin had decreasing violent crime till they got concealed carry, then it went up.

 

[2aguy]

And here is the actual research showing that concealed carry lowers the crime rate…..

http://crimepreventionresearchcente...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

Lott...list of papers...

Of course, the single paper that Shermer cites was mentioned and discussed at length in the review of the literature that Lott provided in More Guns, Less Crime (click on screen shots to make them larger). Unfortunately, Scientific American wasn’t willing to allow a link to this list of papers.



Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

Most by lott who is pretty much disgraced for making up survey results.

Do you anti gun extremists have to lie about everything….Lott and Kleck and the other gun researchers are not the ones lying…..the anti gun researchers constantly make up studies that lie because they can't get the truth to comport with their desire to ban guns...

Hey lott is the one making up survey results. I've never heard of such an offense by anti gun researchers.

hemenway, donohue, kellerman, the Violence policy center have all actually fabricated research……I have posted all of it you can look it up…..

Post an example.

Violence Policy Center…I have to go but this is just one of many times they lie…..and hemenway, kellerman and donohue have been shown to do shoddy and in most cases, outright dishonest work….

http://pjmedia.com/blog/debunking-a-pro-gun-control-study-using-their-own-stats/

For their gun ownership data, VPC cited the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey from an article originally published in 2005 in the journal Pediatrics. The BRFSS is “operated by state health departments in collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” a department in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Calling this “the most up-to-date, comprehensive source for state gun ownership rates,” VPC attempted to match this 2002 survey data with 2007 firearms mortality data from theCDC, which immediately invalidates their dataset.

When asked to define this “apples and oranges” comparison of two unrelated datasets, Carl Moody, economics professor at William and Mary, called it a “screw-up.”

To give VPC a fair opportunity to make their point with properly-collated data, this report cites 2002 CDC mortality and FBI violent crime data. But first, VPC committed another sophomoric error which must be addressed.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research defines the “margin of sampling error” (MOSE) as:

Basically, the margin of sampling error is the price you pay for not talking to everyone in your population group. The MOSE describes the range that the answer likely falls between if we had talked to everyone instead of just a sample.

In other words, deleting most of a dataset in their press release enabled VPC to “cherry-pick” data that “proved” their predetermined conclusion that firearms represent a negative value to society.

 

[Skylar]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

In fact, right-to-carry laws were actually the only type of law where there was dissent. James Q. Wilson, who at the time was possibly “the most influential criminal justice scholar of the 20th century,” concluded:

“I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”


The National Research Council panel was put together by the Clinton administration. As Wilson notes, the panel used a much tougher standard in evaluating the research showing that concealed handgun reduce violent crime than they used in looking at the critics: “To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.”

Look up James Q. Wilson….see who he is …...

Why color me shocked. You're alluding to an argument you won't actually articulate nor produce evidence for.

I believe that's called 'Argument by Insinuation'. Yet another llovely fallacy of logic to go with your book ends of the Cherry picking fallacy and Confirmation bias. See, if you're going to name someone, YOU provide the evidence as to who they are and what they present.

Let me show you how its done. Gary Kleck. He's a criminologist. And he shreds Lott's findings.

Lott and Mustard argued that their results indicated that the laws caused substantial reductions in violence rates by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering an armed victim. This conclusion could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals. One can always speculate that criminals’ perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is–a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.


Gary Kleck
Targeting Guns

So can we add Gary Kleck to your shit list of sources you must ignore, oh-avatar-to-confirmation-bias?

 

[2aguy]

Problem is....the States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well.

Problem is... You cannot prove this.

Wisconsin had decreasing violent crime till they got concealed carry, then it went up.

They just got it moron…you know this….and you lie by omission…and their gun crime is concentrated in strict gun control Milwaukee, where they don't have enough police and they don't prosecute gun criminals……..dittos chicago…they just got concealed carry as well….

Minnesota…just passed the 5% mark, with 19% of that 5% now being women…their crime rate has gone down…..dittos Florida….20,000 concealed cary permits a month are being issued and their crime rate is at a 44 year low….

Baltimore….licencing, registration, fingerprinting, magazine limit, purchase per month limit, hard to get a concealed carry permit….rising gun crime…dittos Chicago, and D. C…...

 

[2aguy]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

In fact, right-to-carry laws were actually the only type of law where there was dissent. James Q. Wilson, who at the time was possibly “the most influential criminal justice scholar of the 20th century,” concluded:

“I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”


The National Research Council panel was put together by the Clinton administration. As Wilson notes, the panel used a much tougher standard in evaluating the research showing that concealed handgun reduce violent crime than they used in looking at the critics: “To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.”

Look up James Q. Wilson….see who he is …...

Why color me shocked. You're alluding to an argument you won't actually articulate nor produce evidence for.

I believe that's called 'Argument by Insinuation'. Yet another llovely fallacy of logic to go with your book ends of the Cherry picking fallacy and Confirmation bias. See, if you're going to name someone, YOU provide the evidence as to who they are and what they present.

Let me show you how its done. Gary Kleck. He's a criminologist. And he shreds Lott's findings.

Lott and Mustard argued that their results indicated that the laws caused substantial reductions in violence rates by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering an armed victim. This conclusion could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals. One can always speculate that criminals’ perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is–a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.


Gary Kleck
Targeting Guns

So can we add Gary Kleck to your shit list of sources you must ignore, oh-avatar-to-confirmation-bias?

Yeah…be careful who you quote…they have an extensive body of work…….see you assholes later….

 

[2aguy]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

In fact, right-to-carry laws were actually the only type of law where there was dissent. James Q. Wilson, who at the time was possibly “the most influential criminal justice scholar of the 20th century,” concluded:

“I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”


The National Research Council panel was put together by the Clinton administration. As Wilson notes, the panel used a much tougher standard in evaluating the research showing that concealed handgun reduce violent crime than they used in looking at the critics: “To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.”

Look up James Q. Wilson….see who he is …...

Why color me shocked. You're alluding to an argument you won't actually articulate nor produce evidence for.

I believe that's called 'Argument by Insinuation'. Yet another llovely fallacy of logic to go with your book ends of the Cherry picking fallacy and Confirmation bias. See, if you're going to name someone, YOU provide the evidence as to who they are and what they present.

Let me show you how its done. Gary Kleck. He's a criminologist. And he shreds Lott's findings.

Lott and Mustard argued that their results indicated that the laws caused substantial reductions in violence rates by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering an armed victim. This conclusion could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals. One can always speculate that criminals’ perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is–a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.


Gary Kleck
Targeting Guns

So can we add Gary Kleck to your shit list of sources you must ignore, oh-avatar-to-confirmation-bias?

And again…..there are a list of other studies that support Lott and Mustard….of course you need to link to rebuttals of all of that research as well….

 

[Skylar]

Another name to add to your shit list, Mr. Confirmation Bias: Albert W. Alschuler.

Whatever the reason, the regression that generates Lott and Mustard's stunning crime-reduction figures yields other results that might raise one's eyebrows. For example, Lott and Mustard examine two variables that seem to distinguish urban from rural counties-total population and population density. Both variables, however, are negatively correlated. with murder, rape, and burglary rates. 9 Perhaps, other things being equal, one is safer from murder, rape, and burglary in Chicago than in Valparaiso. More probably, however, in the words of O.J. Simpson's forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee, "Something's wrong. "


Similarly, the Lott and Mustard paper reports that, as one would expect,the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and between the ages of ten and nineteen is strongly (and positively) correlated with the rate of property crime." When one turns to Lott and Mustard's tables, however, one learns more interesting things. Contrary to ordinary expectations, the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and just a bit older is negatively correlated with the rate of property crime.' Moreover, the proportion of
the population that is black, male, and between ten and nineteen is less significantly correlated with the murder rate than is the proportion that is black, female, and over sixty-five. At the same time, the proportions of these two high-risk groups (teenage black males and elderly black females) are less powerful predictors of the homicide rate than the proportion of black women between forty and forty-nine. Jens Ludwig, noting similar anomalies in other crime categories, observes that either middle-age and retirement-age black women play a greater role in murder, assault, and auto theft than most of us have suspected or Lott and Mustard's models are misspecified.Once more, Dr. Henry Lee's immortal words might ring in one's ears: "Something's wrong”


ALBERT W. ALSCHULER
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1854&context=vulr

So murder, assault and property crime is more closely associated with the proportion of the population that is black, female and over 65.....than teen male blacks according to Lott?

Um, what the actual fuck?

And the more rural and sparely populated an area is the HIGHER the crime rate? Um, what the fuck? You know the FBI kicks the living shit out of Lott's finding, right?


Metropolitan v. Rural Crime Rate Comparison

Guess the FBI joins the National Academy of Science on your 'must ignore at all costs' list.

 

[Brain357]

Problem is....the States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well.

Problem is... You cannot prove this.

Wisconsin had decreasing violent crime till they got concealed carry, then it went up.

They just got it moron…you know this….and you lie by omission…and their gun crime is concentrated in strict gun control Milwaukee, where they don't have enough police and they don't prosecute gun criminals……..dittos chicago…they just got concealed carry as well….

Minnesota…just passed the 5% mark, with 19% of that 5% now being women…their crime rate has gone down…..dittos Florida….20,000 concealed cary permits a month are being issued and their crime rate is at a 44 year low….

Baltimore….licencing, registration, fingerprinting, magazine limit, purchase per month limit, hard to get a concealed carry permit….rising gun crime…dittos Chicago, and D. C…...

I didnt lie at all. They got comcealed carry and violent crime went up. Fact.

Again, what study supports your 5% fantasy?

 

[Brain357]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

In fact, right-to-carry laws were actually the only type of law where there was dissent. James Q. Wilson, who at the time was possibly “the most influential criminal justice scholar of the 20th century,” concluded:

“I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”


The National Research Council panel was put together by the Clinton administration. As Wilson notes, the panel used a much tougher standard in evaluating the research showing that concealed handgun reduce violent crime than they used in looking at the critics: “To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.”

Look up James Q. Wilson….see who he is …...

Why color me shocked. You're alluding to an argument you won't actually articulate nor produce evidence for.

I believe that's called 'Argument by Insinuation'. Yet another llovely fallacy of logic to go with your book ends of the Cherry picking fallacy and Confirmation bias. See, if you're going to name someone, YOU provide the evidence as to who they are and what they present.

Let me show you how its done. Gary Kleck. He's a criminologist. And he shreds Lott's findings.

Lott and Mustard argued that their results indicated that the laws caused substantial reductions in violence rates by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering an armed victim. This conclusion could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals. One can always speculate that criminals’ perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is–a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.


Gary Kleck
Targeting Guns

So can we add Gary Kleck to your shit list of sources you must ignore, oh-avatar-to-confirmation-bias?

Funny, even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another name to add to your shit list, Mr. Confirmation Bias: Albert W. Alschuler.

Whatever the reason, the regression that generates Lott and Mustard's stunning crime-reduction figures yields other results that might raise one's eyebrows. For example, Lott and Mustard examine two variables that seem to distinguish urban from rural counties-total population and population density. Both variables, however, are negatively correlated. with murder, rape, and burglary rates. 9 Perhaps, other things being equal, one is safer from murder, rape, and burglary in Chicago than in Valparaiso. More probably, however, in the words of O.J. Simpson's forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee, "Something's wrong. "


Similarly, the Lott and Mustard paper reports that, as one would expect,the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and between the ages of ten and nineteen is strongly (and positively) correlated with the rate of property crime." When one turns to Lott and Mustard's tables, however, one learns more interesting things. Contrary to ordinary expectations, the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and just a bit older is negatively correlated with the rate of property crime.' Moreover, the proportion of
the population that is black, male, and between ten and nineteen is less significantly correlated with the murder rate than is the proportion that is black, female, and over sixty-five. At the same time, the proportions of these two high-risk groups (teenage black males and elderly black females) are less powerful predictors of the homicide rate than the proportion of black women between forty and forty-nine. Jens Ludwig, noting similar anomalies in other crime categories, observes that either middle-age and retirement-age black women play a greater role in murder, assault, and auto theft than most of us have suspected or Lott and Mustard's models are misspecified.Once more, Dr. Henry Lee's immortal words might ring in one's ears: "Something's wrong”


ALBERT W. ALSCHULER
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1854&context=vulr

So murder, assault and property crime is more closely associated with the proportion of the population that is black, female and over 65.....than teen male blacks according to Lott?

Um, what the actual fuck?

And the more rural and sparely populated an area is the HIGHER the crime rate? Um, what the fuck? You know the FBI kicks the living shit out of Lott's finding, right?


Metropolitan v. Rural Crime Rate Comparison

Guess the FBI joins the National Academy of Science on your 'must ignore at all costs' list.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well, your rebuttal to the the claim at hand.

 

[Skylar]

And as to the National Academy of Sciences……

A response to Mother Jones' mistake filled article on John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center - Crime Prevention Research Center

So now the National Academy of Sciences is on your shit list too. Shocker.

So any source that contradicts your even questions your beliefs is ignored. And you only acknowledge those sources that agree with what you already believe.

Again, have you ever heard of confirmation bias. Because you're its poster child.

In fact, right-to-carry laws were actually the only type of law where there was dissent. James Q. Wilson, who at the time was possibly “the most influential criminal justice scholar of the 20th century,” concluded:

“I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that [right-to-carry] laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”


The National Research Council panel was put together by the Clinton administration. As Wilson notes, the panel used a much tougher standard in evaluating the research showing that concealed handgun reduce violent crime than they used in looking at the critics: “To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.”

Look up James Q. Wilson….see who he is …...

Why color me shocked. You're alluding to an argument you won't actually articulate nor produce evidence for.

I believe that's called 'Argument by Insinuation'. Yet another llovely fallacy of logic to go with your book ends of the Cherry picking fallacy and Confirmation bias. See, if you're going to name someone, YOU provide the evidence as to who they are and what they present.

Let me show you how its done. Gary Kleck. He's a criminologist. And he shreds Lott's findings.

Lott and Mustard argued that their results indicated that the laws caused substantial reductions in violence rates by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering an armed victim. This conclusion could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals. One can always speculate that criminals’ perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is–a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.


Gary Kleck
Targeting Guns

So can we add Gary Kleck to your shit list of sources you must ignore, oh-avatar-to-confirmation-bias?

Funny, even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

My favorite was when Lott found that the more rural and sparcely populated an area....the HIGHER the crime rate. Which the FBI just laughs at.

Or when Lott found that murder, assault and property crime was more closely tied to old black women than black male teenagers.

What steaming pile of shit process dropped that rhetorical load from its quivering haunches?

 

[Skylar]

Another name to add to your shit list, Mr. Confirmation Bias: Albert W. Alschuler.

Whatever the reason, the regression that generates Lott and Mustard's stunning crime-reduction figures yields other results that might raise one's eyebrows. For example, Lott and Mustard examine two variables that seem to distinguish urban from rural counties-total population and population density. Both variables, however, are negatively correlated. with murder, rape, and burglary rates. 9 Perhaps, other things being equal, one is safer from murder, rape, and burglary in Chicago than in Valparaiso. More probably, however, in the words of O.J. Simpson's forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee, "Something's wrong. "


Similarly, the Lott and Mustard paper reports that, as one would expect,the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and between the ages of ten and nineteen is strongly (and positively) correlated with the rate of property crime." When one turns to Lott and Mustard's tables, however, one learns more interesting things. Contrary to ordinary expectations, the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and just a bit older is negatively correlated with the rate of property crime.' Moreover, the proportion of
the population that is black, male, and between ten and nineteen is less significantly correlated with the murder rate than is the proportion that is black, female, and over sixty-five. At the same time, the proportions of these two high-risk groups (teenage black males and elderly black females) are less powerful predictors of the homicide rate than the proportion of black women between forty and forty-nine. Jens Ludwig, noting similar anomalies in other crime categories, observes that either middle-age and retirement-age black women play a greater role in murder, assault, and auto theft than most of us have suspected or Lott and Mustard's models are misspecified.Once more, Dr. Henry Lee's immortal words might ring in one's ears: "Something's wrong”


ALBERT W. ALSCHULER
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1854&context=vulr

So murder, assault and property crime is more closely associated with the proportion of the population that is black, female and over 65.....than teen male blacks according to Lott?

Um, what the actual fuck?

And the more rural and sparely populated an area is the HIGHER the crime rate? Um, what the fuck? You know the FBI kicks the living shit out of Lott's finding, right?


Metropolitan v. Rural Crime Rate Comparison

Guess the FBI joins the National Academy of Science on your 'must ignore at all costs' list.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well, your rebuttal to the the claim at hand.

Still waiting for you to even disagree. Remembering of course that crime has gone down nation wide since about 1991 to 1993. And not every state readily issues concealed carry permits.

Dispute both claims. I want you on record saying that neither are true.

Oh, and notice how you won't touch Lott's bullshit claim that the more rural and sparsely populated an area is, the MORE crime it has. Or that murder, assault and car theft is more closely associated with old black women than teen aged black males.

If I were stuck with your piece of shit stats, I'd avoid any question about them too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another name to add to your shit list, Mr. Confirmation Bias: Albert W. Alschuler.

Whatever the reason, the regression that generates Lott and Mustard's stunning crime-reduction figures yields other results that might raise one's eyebrows. For example, Lott and Mustard examine two variables that seem to distinguish urban from rural counties-total population and population density. Both variables, however, are negatively correlated. with murder, rape, and burglary rates. 9 Perhaps, other things being equal, one is safer from murder, rape, and burglary in Chicago than in Valparaiso. More probably, however, in the words of O.J. Simpson's forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee, "Something's wrong. "


Similarly, the Lott and Mustard paper reports that, as one would expect,the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and between the ages of ten and nineteen is strongly (and positively) correlated with the rate of property crime." When one turns to Lott and Mustard's tables, however, one learns more interesting things. Contrary to ordinary expectations, the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and just a bit older is negatively correlated with the rate of property crime.' Moreover, the proportion of
the population that is black, male, and between ten and nineteen is less significantly correlated with the murder rate than is the proportion that is black, female, and over sixty-five. At the same time, the proportions of these two high-risk groups (teenage black males and elderly black females) are less powerful predictors of the homicide rate than the proportion of black women between forty and forty-nine. Jens Ludwig, noting similar anomalies in other crime categories, observes that either middle-age and retirement-age black women play a greater role in murder, assault, and auto theft than most of us have suspected or Lott and Mustard's models are misspecified.Once more, Dr. Henry Lee's immortal words might ring in one's ears: "Something's wrong”


ALBERT W. ALSCHULER
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1854&context=vulr

So murder, assault and property crime is more closely associated with the proportion of the population that is black, female and over 65.....than teen male blacks according to Lott?

Um, what the actual fuck?

And the more rural and sparely populated an area is the HIGHER the crime rate? Um, what the fuck? You know the FBI kicks the living shit out of Lott's finding, right?


Metropolitan v. Rural Crime Rate Comparison

Guess the FBI joins the National Academy of Science on your 'must ignore at all costs' list.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well, your rebuttal to the the claim at hand.

Still waiting for you to even disagree.

You made a claim. You base your rebuttal of the claim in the OP in that claim.
Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not??

 

[Skylar]

Oh and is anyone interested in comparing the crime rates of states with the highest gun ownership rates with the states with the lowest gun ownership rates?

If more guns equal less crime, it should be a slam dunk. Yet whenever I offer this challenge.......I get vague evasions and awkward excuses why you DON'T want to do the comparison.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[Skylar]

Another name to add to your shit list, Mr. Confirmation Bias: Albert W. Alschuler.

Whatever the reason, the regression that generates Lott and Mustard's stunning crime-reduction figures yields other results that might raise one's eyebrows. For example, Lott and Mustard examine two variables that seem to distinguish urban from rural counties-total population and population density. Both variables, however, are negatively correlated. with murder, rape, and burglary rates. 9 Perhaps, other things being equal, one is safer from murder, rape, and burglary in Chicago than in Valparaiso. More probably, however, in the words of O.J. Simpson's forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee, "Something's wrong. "


Similarly, the Lott and Mustard paper reports that, as one would expect,the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and between the ages of ten and nineteen is strongly (and positively) correlated with the rate of property crime." When one turns to Lott and Mustard's tables, however, one learns more interesting things. Contrary to ordinary expectations, the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and just a bit older is negatively correlated with the rate of property crime.' Moreover, the proportion of
the population that is black, male, and between ten and nineteen is less significantly correlated with the murder rate than is the proportion that is black, female, and over sixty-five. At the same time, the proportions of these two high-risk groups (teenage black males and elderly black females) are less powerful predictors of the homicide rate than the proportion of black women between forty and forty-nine. Jens Ludwig, noting similar anomalies in other crime categories, observes that either middle-age and retirement-age black women play a greater role in murder, assault, and auto theft than most of us have suspected or Lott and Mustard's models are misspecified.Once more, Dr. Henry Lee's immortal words might ring in one's ears: "Something's wrong”


ALBERT W. ALSCHULER
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1854&context=vulr

So murder, assault and property crime is more closely associated with the proportion of the population that is black, female and over 65.....than teen male blacks according to Lott?

Um, what the actual fuck?

And the more rural and sparely populated an area is the HIGHER the crime rate? Um, what the fuck? You know the FBI kicks the living shit out of Lott's finding, right?


Metropolitan v. Rural Crime Rate Comparison

Guess the FBI joins the National Academy of Science on your 'must ignore at all costs' list.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well, your rebuttal to the the claim at hand.

Still waiting for you to even disagree.

You made a claim. You base your rebuttal of the claim in the OP in that claim.
Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not??

Dispute the claim. Tell us, for the record....that crime hasn't gone down nation wide since a high in 1991 or so. And that its untrue that many states don't readily issue concealed carry permits.

But you won't even disagree with me.

Why would I need to show stats for something we both agree on?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another name to add to your shit list, Mr. Confirmation Bias: Albert W. Alschuler.

Whatever the reason, the regression that generates Lott and Mustard's stunning crime-reduction figures yields other results that might raise one's eyebrows. For example, Lott and Mustard examine two variables that seem to distinguish urban from rural counties-total population and population density. Both variables, however, are negatively correlated. with murder, rape, and burglary rates. 9 Perhaps, other things being equal, one is safer from murder, rape, and burglary in Chicago than in Valparaiso. More probably, however, in the words of O.J. Simpson's forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee, "Something's wrong. "


Similarly, the Lott and Mustard paper reports that, as one would expect,the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and between the ages of ten and nineteen is strongly (and positively) correlated with the rate of property crime." When one turns to Lott and Mustard's tables, however, one learns more interesting things. Contrary to ordinary expectations, the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and just a bit older is negatively correlated with the rate of property crime.' Moreover, the proportion of
the population that is black, male, and between ten and nineteen is less significantly correlated with the murder rate than is the proportion that is black, female, and over sixty-five. At the same time, the proportions of these two high-risk groups (teenage black males and elderly black females) are less powerful predictors of the homicide rate than the proportion of black women between forty and forty-nine. Jens Ludwig, noting similar anomalies in other crime categories, observes that either middle-age and retirement-age black women play a greater role in murder, assault, and auto theft than most of us have suspected or Lott and Mustard's models are misspecified.Once more, Dr. Henry Lee's immortal words might ring in one's ears: "Something's wrong”


ALBERT W. ALSCHULER
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1854&context=vulr

So murder, assault and property crime is more closely associated with the proportion of the population that is black, female and over 65.....than teen male blacks according to Lott?

Um, what the actual fuck?

And the more rural and sparely populated an area is the HIGHER the crime rate? Um, what the fuck? You know the FBI kicks the living shit out of Lott's finding, right?


Metropolitan v. Rural Crime Rate Comparison

Guess the FBI joins the National Academy of Science on your 'must ignore at all costs' list.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well, your rebuttal to the the claim at hand.

Still waiting for you to even disagree.

You made a claim. You base your rebuttal of the claim in the OP in that claim.
Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not??

Dispute the claim. Tell us, for the record....that crime hasn't gone down nation wide since a high in 1991 or so. And that its untrue that many states don't readily issue concealed carry permits.
But you won't even disagree with me.
Why would I need to show stats for something we both agree on?

Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not?

 

[Skylar]

Another name to add to your shit list, Mr. Confirmation Bias: Albert W. Alschuler.

So murder, assault and property crime is more closely associated with the proportion of the population that is black, female and over 65.....than teen male blacks according to Lott?

Um, what the actual fuck?

And the more rural and sparely populated an area is the HIGHER the crime rate? Um, what the fuck? You know the FBI kicks the living shit out of Lott's finding, right?


Metropolitan v. Rural Crime Rate Comparison

Guess the FBI joins the National Academy of Science on your 'must ignore at all costs' list.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well, your rebuttal to the the claim at hand.

Still waiting for you to even disagree.

You made a claim. You base your rebuttal of the claim in the OP in that claim.
Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not??

Dispute the claim. Tell us, for the record....that crime hasn't gone down nation wide since a high in 1991 or so. And that its untrue that many states don't readily issue concealed carry permits.
But you won't even disagree with me.
Why would I need to show stats for something we both agree on?

Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not?

Do you even disagree with me? If you're demanding stats for facts that neither of us disagree on....you're just wasting my time.

Dispute that crime has gone down nation wide since a high of 1991 or so.

Dispute that many states don't readily offer concealed carry permits.

Do so and I'll gladly provide you with stats. But if we agree, then you're intentionally trying to waste my time. And using demands for undisputed facts as a cover for all the other bullshit you know you can't back up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well, your rebuttal to the the claim at hand.

Still waiting for you to even disagree.

You made a claim. You base your rebuttal of the claim in the OP in that claim.
Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not??

Dispute the claim. Tell us, for the record....that crime hasn't gone down nation wide since a high in 1991 or so. And that its untrue that many states don't readily issue concealed carry permits.
But you won't even disagree with me.
Why would I need to show stats for something we both agree on?

Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not?

Do you even disagree with me? If you're demanding stats for facts that neither of us disagree on....you're just wasting my time.

3rd time:
Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not?
Its -your- claim and so it is -your- job to substantiate it.
Your continued refusal to so so only indicates that you know you cannot.
So...?

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for you to even disagree.

You made a claim. You base your rebuttal of the claim in the OP in that claim.
Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not??

Dispute the claim. Tell us, for the record....that crime hasn't gone down nation wide since a high in 1991 or so. And that its untrue that many states don't readily issue concealed carry permits.
But you won't even disagree with me.
Why would I need to show stats for something we both agree on?

Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not?

Do you even disagree with me? If you're demanding stats for facts that neither of us disagree on....you're just wasting my time.

3rd time:
Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not?
Its -your- claim and so it is -your- job to substantiate it.
Your continued refusal to so so only indicates that you know you cannot.
So...?

3rd time.....demanding stats for facts that aren't in dispute is an intentional time wasting tactic. If you don't dispute the claims, then you're merely trying to waste my time.

Dispute that crime has gone down nation wide since a high of 1991 or so.

Dispute that many states don't readily offer concealed carry permits.

.....or quit wasting my time on facts we both agree on. You're stalling for a reason.

 

[NoNukes]

Yes…more Americans own guns….and crime is down again in the U.S. for the year 2014, the most recent year for crime stats.

FBI reports lower murder, crime rates in 2014 - CNNPolitics.com

The FBI report shows a 0.2% decline nationwide in violent crimes in 2014, with more than 11 million arrests made by police for almost a half-million violent crimes.

The report says that in 2014 the U.S. recorded the fewest murders since 2009. Most other violent crimes, such as robbery, burglary, theft and arson have declined, while aggravated assaults and rapes, which now includes a broader definition, were on the rise in 2014.

The 2014 numbers do not reflect an increase this year in murders and other violent crimes reported in some cities, such as Washington, Baltimore, Milwaukee and others.

Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates highlighted progress made for cities compared to decades past.

"We have witnessed a remarkable drop in crime since the 1980's -- both violent crime and crime overall. Entire cities have been transformed, unlocking tremendous potential and releasing a wave of prosperity," Yates said, adding that "even though crime is trending downward in most places, we are seeing pockets of rising violence in various locations across the country."

Anti gun extremists…..you can stop typing…I know…you will say this does not prove that Americans with guns lowered the crime rate……but it doesn't disprove it either, now does it.

Also….each time a state would vote to implement concealed or open carry, the anti gun extremists said it would lead to more violence, more blood in the streets and that every traffic fender bender would result in murder…..and they were wrong…..completely and utterly wrong….on all points.

No….Americans who are law abiding, normal and good people owning and carrying guns does not increase the crime rate….and in fact may actually help to lower it…more than a few studies show that it does lower crime rates…..especially for armed victims who are attacked by violent criminals…


Soooooo…good for you America….you are responsible gun owners…and you are keeping our Rights and freedom alive….

Murder has spiralled in 2015. Up an alarming amount.