Magical Thinking Disguised As Gun Control

[PoliticalChic]

You know, OldLady, you're capable of researching that for yourself.

You don't know.

Off the top of my head, no. I've read about it before, and remember the US is nowhere near first. I'm not like Ms. Korean librarian, but I thank her for being her. She posted what you need to know by now.

You know liberals and research (which is almost like work) don't mix.

"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

I have her book, never read it.

"..her books...."

A dozen best-sellers.

 

[deanrd]

1. A wise wonk one posited that, for Liberals, feeling passes for knowing.

That succinct statement explains why the Democrats/Liberals offer cures that are known not to be effective, and why they will subscribe to every fabrication their leaders advance.

One is puzzled by how easily the drones will shut their eyes, ears and minds to clearly documented facts. Must be attributable to the training in government school.



2. Here are two facts that should inform the debate:

a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows



b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.

We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review


3. Scholars have studied the issue, and proven....PROVEN....that a possible response is totally the reverse of the solutions offered by the collectivists.

Since the above is undeniable, irrefutable,....if facts, experience and reality is to be the basis of any 'solution'.....

....I'm betting that there will be no Democrat, Leftist, Liberal, will be able to offer any solution to what all of us would like to see solved.

I thought Magical Thinking was the Republicans alternative to evolution?

 

[whitehall]

Anybody notice that the left and the media are not talking about the Fla shooter's background and motivation just like they don't talk about Hodgkinson and Paddock? There was a flurry of fake news about some sort of far right organization but that died quickly when it was proven false. There is a lot of hatred out there on the left and it is overflowing everywhere. The ironic thing is if we had more stringent mental health restrictions, the Hollywood celebs who threatened the President with everything from arson to assault and murder and dismemberment would be restricted from possessing a firearm and possibly locked away for mental evaluation. .

 

[PoliticalChic]

100% of gun murders occur where murder is illegal!

In a 2013 analysis of mass shootings going back 30 years, Mother Jones found zero of 62 shootings involved a gunman who had specifically targeted a place because it banned guns.

Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story

“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”

I don't know how anyone can feel safe in a building where anyone is allowed to walk in any time.

It's funny to me that in all these school shootings the only thing that seems to matter is the weapon used and no one wants to address the fact that these shooters just walked into a school via an open door and started blasting away.

Short of having armored guards and metal detectors at each entrance a determined attacker can blast their way past normal security measures too. Isn't that what happened at Sandy Hook?

What should you glean from this?

"Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows

 

[OldLady]

JOHN LOTT -

or does he now go by Mary ???


Defamation suit
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[48] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.[49]

A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.[50]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[51][52] The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."[53]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[54]

Charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott's research
In 1996 when Lott's research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with the Olin Corporation,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Maybe that's a coincidence, too. But it's also a fact."[55] Olin Foundation head William E. Simon strongly denied Schumer's claims in a reply letter in which he stated that: Olin Foundation was funded by the personal estate of the late John M. Olin independently of Olin Corp. Like all candidates, Lott was selected to receive his Olin Fellowship by the faculty of the university, not by Olin Foundation and certainly not by Olin Corp.[56][57]

In a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association." Lott countered: "The NRA hasn't paid for my research." Dershowitz continued: "Your conclusions are paid for and financed—The National Rifle Association—only funds research that will lead to these conclusions."[58][59] Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott's research.[60]

Disputed survey
In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[61][62] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[62] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[63] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[64] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[65]

Use of econometrics as proof of causation
In 2001, Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[66] considered multiple regression to be not of much use in proving causal arguments in studies by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue).[67]

The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of the panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC changed their behavior.[68] The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion. Wilson noted in the report that all the panel's estimates on murder rates supported Lott's conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[69] The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[70] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies affected other kinds of violent crime.

In a 2011 article for ALER, Donohue claimed the NRC panel results published from the hybrid model "could not be replicated on its data set".[71] Lott replicated the NRC's results using the NRC's copy of the Ayres & Donohue model and data set, pointing out that the model used for the ALER article was different and introduced a truncation bias.[72]

Mary Rosh persona
In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[64] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".

Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[73][74] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[74]

"I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003.[74]

"...despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. "
https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?&tag=ff0d01-20
ie=UTF8&qid=1519315314&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime+john+lott




Have you read any books on the issue?


And....if the answer is 'no,' would you describe yourself as anti-intellectual?

Good article. But you're not going to insult me into reading the book.

 

[Skull Pilot]

100% of gun murders occur where murder is illegal!

In a 2013 analysis of mass shootings going back 30 years, Mother Jones found zero of 62 shootings involved a gunman who had specifically targeted a place because it banned guns.

Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story

“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”

I don't know how anyone can feel safe in a building where anyone is allowed to walk in any time.

It's funny to me that in all these school shootings the only thing that seems to matter is the weapon used and no one wants to address the fact that these shooters just walked into a school via an open door and started blasting away.

Short of having armored guards and metal detectors at each entrance a determined attacker can blast their way past normal security measures too. Isn't that what happened at Sandy Hook?

The Door at Sandy Hook was mostly glass.

A solid steel door will not be breached with small arms fire very easily if at all. A double set of doors at the entry can act as a man trap as well

And there is no need to fortify every entrance if all entry and non emergency egress are via one access point. All the other doors would be solely for emergency purposes and be locked and alarmed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. A wise wonk one posited that, for Liberals, feeling passes for knowing.

That succinct statement explains why the Democrats/Liberals offer cures that are known not to be effective, and why they will subscribe to every fabrication their leaders advance.

One is puzzled by how easily the drones will shut their eyes, ears and minds to clearly documented facts. Must be attributable to the training in government school.



2. Here are two facts that should inform the debate:

a."Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows"
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them."
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows



b. "From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on ‘assault weapons’ was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime.

We have a unique advantage in judging calls for a ban on so-called assault weapons: We’ve done it before. From 1994 through 2004, a federal ban on “assault weapons” was in place, and it had no detectable effect on crime. The independent Task Force on Community Preventative Services found no evidence that the assault-weapon ban prevented any violence. The National Research Council’s review of the academic literature on the question found that the data “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” The Justice Department’s own study suggested that any effects of the law were too small to be statistically measured. Indeed, the only statistically significant outcome that could be detected was a steep rise in prices for various firearms that weren’t banned. Political realities being what they are, it is no surprise that Smith & Wesson shares went up almost 7 percent after the Orlando murders."
Assault-Weapon Ban: No | National Review


3. Scholars have studied the issue, and proven....PROVEN....that a possible response is totally the reverse of the solutions offered by the collectivists.

Since the above is undeniable, irrefutable,....if facts, experience and reality is to be the basis of any 'solution'.....

....I'm betting that there will be no Democrat, Leftist, Liberal, will be able to offer any solution to what all of us would like to see solved.

I thought Magical Thinking was the Republicans alternative to evolution?

"I thought Magical Thinking was the Republicans alternative to evolution?"

Those first two words in your post....."fact not in evidence."


Since you clearly cannot refute anything in the posts...I believe I a have proven my point.

 

[BULLDOG]

Anybody notice that the left and the media are not talking about the Fla shooter's background and motivation just like they don't talk about Hodgkinson and Paddock? There was a flurry of fake news about some sort of far right organization but that died quickly when it was proven false. There is a lot of hatred out there on the left and it is overflowing everywhere. The ironic thing is if we had more stringent mental health restrictions, the Hollywood celebs who threatened the President with everything from arson to assault and murder and dismemberment would be restricted from possessing a firearm and possibly locked away for mental evaluation. .

You mean like when Ted Nugent threatened Hillary, and should have had his guns removed?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Most murders are criminals killing other criminals which is why for the most part no one cares

Nobody cares about murdered people? In that case, you have no reason to have a gun of any type. Typical stupid gun nut.

My god are you that obtuse.



Most murders are criminals killing other criminals THAT is why for the most part no one cares.

You bet Dumbo. Gun nut thinking he is making sense. The crap you are spouting might be convincing to another gun nut, but not so much for sane gun owners, or even sane people who don't on guns.

So you are denying that most murder victims are criminals shot by other criminals or that over 50% of murders are concentrated in 2% of all counties?

If so please post a link

I've said nothing to indicate I believe anything you just attributed to me. You gotta quit making shit up.

You said what I said was all crap and those were the two main points of my response to your post so if you think those 2 statements are crap are you denying the veracity of them? If so please post a link to any proof that those 2 statements are in fact wrong

 

[Marion Morrison]

You don't know.

Off the top of my head, no. I've read about it before, and remember the US is nowhere near first. I'm not like Ms. Korean librarian, but I thank her for being her. She posted what you need to know by now.

You know liberals and research (which is almost like work) don't mix.

"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

I have her book, never read it.

"..her books...."

A dozen best-sellers.

I have several. There's one I see all the time and never crack open.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anybody notice that the left and the media are not talking about the Fla shooter's background and motivation just like they don't talk about Hodgkinson and Paddock? There was a flurry of fake news about some sort of far right organization but that died quickly when it was proven false. There is a lot of hatred out there on the left and it is overflowing everywhere. The ironic thing is if we had more stringent mental health restrictions, the Hollywood celebs who threatened the President with everything from arson to assault and murder and dismemberment would be restricted from possessing a firearm and possibly locked away for mental evaluation. .

"...if we had more stringent mental health restrictions,..."

That should be more stringent restrictions on the prescribing of psychotropic drugs....

"There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada."
Columbine | CCHR International

But that would point the finger at a Liberal constituency....teachers and psychologists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

JOHN LOTT -

or does he now go by Mary ???


Defamation suit
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[48] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.[49]

A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.[50]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[51][52] The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."[53]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[54]

Charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott's research
In 1996 when Lott's research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with the Olin Corporation,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Maybe that's a coincidence, too. But it's also a fact."[55] Olin Foundation head William E. Simon strongly denied Schumer's claims in a reply letter in which he stated that: Olin Foundation was funded by the personal estate of the late John M. Olin independently of Olin Corp. Like all candidates, Lott was selected to receive his Olin Fellowship by the faculty of the university, not by Olin Foundation and certainly not by Olin Corp.[56][57]

In a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association." Lott countered: "The NRA hasn't paid for my research." Dershowitz continued: "Your conclusions are paid for and financed—The National Rifle Association—only funds research that will lead to these conclusions."[58][59] Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott's research.[60]

Disputed survey
In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[61][62] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[62] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[63] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[64] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[65]

Use of econometrics as proof of causation
In 2001, Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[66] considered multiple regression to be not of much use in proving causal arguments in studies by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue).[67]

The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of the panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC changed their behavior.[68] The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion. Wilson noted in the report that all the panel's estimates on murder rates supported Lott's conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[69] The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[70] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies affected other kinds of violent crime.

In a 2011 article for ALER, Donohue claimed the NRC panel results published from the hybrid model "could not be replicated on its data set".[71] Lott replicated the NRC's results using the NRC's copy of the Ayres & Donohue model and data set, pointing out that the model used for the ALER article was different and introduced a truncation bias.[72]

Mary Rosh persona
In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[64] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".

Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[73][74] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[74]

"I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003.[74]

"...despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. "
https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?&tag=ff0d01-20
ie=UTF8&qid=1519315314&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime+john+lott




Have you read any books on the issue?


And....if the answer is 'no,' would you describe yourself as anti-intellectual?

Good article. But you're not going to insult me into reading the book.

"But you're not going to insult me into reading the book."

This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.

When you sober up, you'll agree.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nobody cares about murdered people? In that case, you have no reason to have a gun of any type. Typical stupid gun nut.

My god are you that obtuse.



Most murders are criminals killing other criminals THAT is why for the most part no one cares.

You bet Dumbo. Gun nut thinking he is making sense. The crap you are spouting might be convincing to another gun nut, but not so much for sane gun owners, or even sane people who don't on guns.

So you are denying that most murder victims are criminals shot by other criminals or that over 50% of murders are concentrated in 2% of all counties?

If so please post a link

I've said nothing to indicate I believe anything you just attributed to me. You gotta quit making shit up.

You said what I said was all crap and those were the two main points of my response to your post so if you think those 2 statements are crap are you denying the veracity of them? If so please post a link to any proof that those 2 statements are in fact wrong

You're grabbing straws there Dumbo. Concentrate on what is actually said instead of what you wish would have been said. You can't change reality just by saying something different..

 

[Marion Morrison]

Anybody notice that the left and the media are not talking about the Fla shooter's background and motivation just like they don't talk about Hodgkinson and Paddock? There was a flurry of fake news about some sort of far right organization but that died quickly when it was proven false. There is a lot of hatred out there on the left and it is overflowing everywhere. The ironic thing is if we had more stringent mental health restrictions, the Hollywood celebs who threatened the President with everything from arson to assault and murder and dismemberment would be restricted from possessing a firearm and possibly locked away for mental evaluation. .

"...if we had more stringent mental health restrictions,..."

That should be more stringent restrictions on the prescribing of psychotropic drugs....

"There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada."
Columbine | CCHR International

But that would point the finger at a Liberal constituency....teachers and psychologists.

Yeah, they replaced physical institutions with drugs of dubious effects. How's it working out? Not well, I'm afraid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Off the top of my head, no. I've read about it before, and remember the US is nowhere near first. I'm not like Ms. Korean librarian, but I thank her for being her. She posted what you need to know by now.

You know liberals and research (which is almost like work) don't mix.

"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

I have her book, never read it.

"..her books...."

A dozen best-sellers.

I have several. There's one I see all the time and never crack open.

When you do, you will find all of her scholarly tomes are fully documented.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anybody notice that the left and the media are not talking about the Fla shooter's background and motivation just like they don't talk about Hodgkinson and Paddock? There was a flurry of fake news about some sort of far right organization but that died quickly when it was proven false. There is a lot of hatred out there on the left and it is overflowing everywhere. The ironic thing is if we had more stringent mental health restrictions, the Hollywood celebs who threatened the President with everything from arson to assault and murder and dismemberment would be restricted from possessing a firearm and possibly locked away for mental evaluation. .

"...if we had more stringent mental health restrictions,..."

That should be more stringent restrictions on the prescribing of psychotropic drugs....

"There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada."
Columbine | CCHR International

But that would point the finger at a Liberal constituency....teachers and psychologists.

Yeah, they replaced physical institutions with drugs of dubious effects. How's it working out? Not well, I'm afraid.

Should I point out that a Democrat, JFK, ended mental hospitals.

 

[BlindBoo]

100% of gun murders occur where murder is illegal!

In a 2013 analysis of mass shootings going back 30 years, Mother Jones found zero of 62 shootings involved a gunman who had specifically targeted a place because it banned guns.

Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story

“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”

I don't know how anyone can feel safe in a building where anyone is allowed to walk in any time.

It's funny to me that in all these school shootings the only thing that seems to matter is the weapon used and no one wants to address the fact that these shooters just walked into a school via an open door and started blasting away.

Short of having armored guards and metal detectors at each entrance a determined attacker can blast their way past normal security measures too. Isn't that what happened at Sandy Hook?

The Door at Sandy Hook was mostly glass.

A solid steel door will not be breached with small arms fire very easily if at all. A double set of doors at the entry can act as a man trap as well

And there is no need to fortify every entrance if all entry and non emergency egress are via one access point. All the other doors would be solely for emergency purposes and be locked and alarmed.

Windows?

 

[BULLDOG]

100% of gun murders occur where murder is illegal!

In a 2013 analysis of mass shootings going back 30 years, Mother Jones found zero of 62 shootings involved a gunman who had specifically targeted a place because it banned guns.

Mike Huckabee says mass shootings are enabled by gun-free zones, but the data tells a different story

“Pushing the myth that mass shootings only take place in gun-free zones is a twisted form of victim blaming,” she says. “It effectively suggests that innocent people living their daily lives—praying in houses of worship, studying at a college library—are to blame for their own deaths because they were not armed to the teeth in places that anyone should feel safe.”

I don't know how anyone can feel safe in a building where anyone is allowed to walk in any time.

It's funny to me that in all these school shootings the only thing that seems to matter is the weapon used and no one wants to address the fact that these shooters just walked into a school via an open door and started blasting away.

Short of having armored guards and metal detectors at each entrance a determined attacker can blast their way past normal security measures too. Isn't that what happened at Sandy Hook?

The Door at Sandy Hook was mostly glass.

A solid steel door will not be breached with small arms fire very easily if at all. A double set of doors at the entry can act as a man trap as well

And there is no need to fortify every entrance if all entry and non emergency egress are via one access point. All the other doors would be solely for emergency purposes and be locked and alarmed.

You bet. Locked emergency exits. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Skull Pilot]

My god are you that obtuse.



Most murders are criminals killing other criminals THAT is why for the most part no one cares.

You bet Dumbo. Gun nut thinking he is making sense. The crap you are spouting might be convincing to another gun nut, but not so much for sane gun owners, or even sane people who don't on guns.

So you are denying that most murder victims are criminals shot by other criminals or that over 50% of murders are concentrated in 2% of all counties?

If so please post a link

I've said nothing to indicate I believe anything you just attributed to me. You gotta quit making shit up.

You said what I said was all crap and those were the two main points of my response to your post so if you think those 2 statements are crap are you denying the veracity of them? If so please post a link to any proof that those 2 statements are in fact wrong

You're grabbing straws there Dumbo. Concentrate on what is actually said instead of what you wish would have been said. You can't change reality just by saying something different..

You said I have been spewing crap.

You said that after I posted 2 times in reply to you.

The main points of those two replies I posted were

Half of all murders occur in 2% of all the counties in the US

and

Most murders are criminals killing other criminals

I take it those 2 statements were a major part of the "crap I am spouting"

So refute them and stop being such a pussy by avoiding my question

 

[OldLady]

JOHN LOTT -

or does he now go by Mary ???


Defamation suit
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[48] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.[49]

A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.[50]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[51][52] The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."[53]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[54]

Charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott's research
In 1996 when Lott's research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with the Olin Corporation,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Maybe that's a coincidence, too. But it's also a fact."[55] Olin Foundation head William E. Simon strongly denied Schumer's claims in a reply letter in which he stated that: Olin Foundation was funded by the personal estate of the late John M. Olin independently of Olin Corp. Like all candidates, Lott was selected to receive his Olin Fellowship by the faculty of the university, not by Olin Foundation and certainly not by Olin Corp.[56][57]

In a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association." Lott countered: "The NRA hasn't paid for my research." Dershowitz continued: "Your conclusions are paid for and financed—The National Rifle Association—only funds research that will lead to these conclusions."[58][59] Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott's research.[60]

Disputed survey
In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[61][62] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[62] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[63] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[64] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[65]

Use of econometrics as proof of causation
In 2001, Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[66] considered multiple regression to be not of much use in proving causal arguments in studies by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue).[67]

The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of the panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC changed their behavior.[68] The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion. Wilson noted in the report that all the panel's estimates on murder rates supported Lott's conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[69] The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[70] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies affected other kinds of violent crime.

In a 2011 article for ALER, Donohue claimed the NRC panel results published from the hybrid model "could not be replicated on its data set".[71] Lott replicated the NRC's results using the NRC's copy of the Ayres & Donohue model and data set, pointing out that the model used for the ALER article was different and introduced a truncation bias.[72]

Mary Rosh persona
In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[64] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".

Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[73][74] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[74]

"I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003.[74]

"...despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. "
https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?&tag=ff0d01-20
ie=UTF8&qid=1519315314&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime+john+lott




Have you read any books on the issue?


And....if the answer is 'no,' would you describe yourself as anti-intellectual?

Good article. But you're not going to insult me into reading the book.

"But you're not going to insult me into reading the book."

This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.

When you sober up, you'll agree.

Have you read this one?

May I suggest you're an anti-intellectual if you haven't?