Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
3rd time.....3rd time: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.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.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??
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?
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...?
Thank you for proving that you know you cannot substantiate your claim.3rd time.....3rd time: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.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?
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...?
Absent that substantiation, your argument in counter to the OP cannot be shown to hold any water whatsoever.
Disagree?
Substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".
On the contrary -- you are.You're stuckThank you for proving that you know you cannot substantiate your claim.3rd time.....3rd time: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.Can you substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well,' or not?
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...?
Absent that substantiation, your argument in counter to the OP cannot be shown to hold any water whatsoever.
Disagree?
Substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".
However...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.
On the contrary -- you are.You're stuckThank you for proving that you know you cannot substantiate your claim.3rd time.....3rd time: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.
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...?
Absent that substantiation, your argument in counter to the OP cannot be shown to hold any water whatsoever.
Disagree?
Substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".
You made a claim. You based your counter on that claim.
I see you've run away from your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".So...if more guns mean less crime.....why doesn't it?
However...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.
More guns... less crime.
This - does - disprove the claim that more guns = more crime.
False -- it is your responsibility to provide substantiation for your claim when asked to do so.Its my responsibility to provide stats for any facts that are in disputeOn the contrary -- you are.You're stuckThank you for proving that you know you cannot substantiate your claim.3rd 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...?
Absent that substantiation, your argument in counter to the OP cannot be shown to hold any water whatsoever.
Disagree?
Substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".
You made a claim. You based your counter on that claim.
I see you've run away from your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".So...if more guns mean less crime.....why doesn't it?
Not surprising that you'd do that rather than admit you cannot substantiate it.
You're looking at microcosms. I'm looking at the whole picture.Then why is are their higher violent crime rates in states and death by gun rates in states with higher gun ownership rates?However...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.
More guns... less crime.
This - does - disprove the claim that more guns = more crime.
Run away from what?I see you've run away from your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".So...if more guns mean less crime.....why doesn't it?
Not surprising that you'd do that rather than admit you cannot substantiate it.
False -- it is your responsibility to provide substantiation for your claim when asked to do so.Its my responsibility to provide stats for any facts that are in disputeOn the contrary -- you are.You're stuckThank you for proving that you know you cannot substantiate your claim.3rd time.....
Absent that substantiation, your argument in counter to the OP cannot be shown to hold any water whatsoever.
Disagree?
Substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".
You made a claim. You based your counter on that claim.
But, you refuse to do so because you know you cannot.
Disagree?
Substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well"
You're looking at microcosms. I'm looking at the whole picture.Then why is are their higher violent crime rates in states and death by gun rates in states with higher gun ownership rates?However...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.
More guns... less crime.
This - does - disprove the claim that more guns = more crime.
Crime, as you say, has dropped, nationwide, since 1991. The number of guns has gone up every year since then.
More guns and less crime disproves more guns = more crime.
Incorrect.Laughing....nope. Its my responsibility to substantiate with evidence any claim in dispute.False -- it is your responsibility to provide substantiation for your claim when asked to do so.Its my responsibility to provide stats for any facts that are in disputeOn the contrary -- you are.You're stuckThank you for proving that you know you cannot substantiate your claim.
Absent that substantiation, your argument in counter to the OP cannot be shown to hold any water whatsoever.
Disagree?
Substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well".
You made a claim. You based your counter on that claim.
But, you refuse to do so because you know you cannot.
Disagree?
Substantiate your claim that "States without concealed carry have seen reductions in crime as well"
I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that the number of guns in the US has gone up while crime in the US has gone down.A state is not a 'microcosms'.You're looking at microcosms. I'm looking at the whole picture.Then why is are their higher violent crime rates in states and death by gun rates in states with higher gun ownership rates?However...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.
More guns... less crime.
This - does - disprove the claim that more guns = more crime.
Crime, as you say, has dropped, nationwide, since 1991. The number of guns has gone up every year since then.
More guns and less crime disproves more guns = more crime.
Why color me shocked. You're alluding to an argument you won't actually articulate nor produce evidence for.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 …...
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?
Here you go… a study that shows the effect of concealed carry….
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.
Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.
It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).
'And the results…..
IV. Results and Concluding Remarks
Results are presented on Table 1
. The CCW dummy variable is significant and positive, but the assault weap-
ons ban is insignificant.
Given that the average gun-
related murder rate over the period in question was
3.44, the results of the present study indicate that states
with more restrictive CCW laws had gun-related murder
rates that were 10% higher.
In addition, the Federal assault weapons ban is significant and positive, indicat-
ing that murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal ban was in effect.
These results corroborate the findings of Lott and Mustard (1997). These results sug-
gest that, even after controlling for unobservable state
and year fixed effects, limiting the ability to carry con-
cealed weapons may cause murder rates to increase.
There may, however, be other explanations for these
