New Zealand man Shoots up government office with shotgun...but, that only happens here...right?

[Skylar]

So your argument is that there's no relationship between the availability of guns....and gun violence?

yes.

Then why are the proportion of gun homicides as part of total homicides in New Zealand about 1/5 of what they are here. And of course, their guns per resident is also about 1/5th.

That seems an awful strange coincidence if there is no relationship between gun availability and gun violence.

Our gun ownership has gone up as has our concealed carry permits...and our violent crime rate and our gun mirder rate and our gun accident rate has gone down...how do you explain that?

Gun ownership rates have gone down.

Worse, what possible relevance does concealed carry rates have when you just argued that the availability of guns has nothing to do with gun violence?

Recognizing of course that the Author of the study you're going to try to cite has admitted he can't factually establish a causative link between lower gun violence rates and concealed carry permits.

And you know that. And we know you know that.

sorry their doesn't have to be a link for this discussion .....it is a fact.....13 million people now carry guns for self defense....by actually counting permits.....and the gun mirder rate, the over all violent crime rate and the gun accident rate went down........

Gun ownership did not increase crime...which goes against what you said would happen....

Yeah, but it went down in States where the concealed carry rate DIDN'T go up significantly. That's a fact.

So if murder rates drop where concealed carry rates did increase AND also where concealed carry rates *don't* increase.....how can you claim that its the causation?

Oh, and you still haven't even tried to answer my question:

Then why are the proportion of gun homicides as part of total homicides in New Zealand about 1/5 of what they are here. And of course, their guns per resident is also about 1/5th.

That seems an awful strange coincidence if there is no relationship between gun availability and gun violence.

If you have no answer, just say so.

 

[Skylar]

If there is no relationship between gun availability and gun violence, then gun homicide as a proportion of total homicide in New Zealand.....should be the same as the US.

Is it?

We have more guns in this country...over 100 million more since Obama came into office...and 13 million people now carrying guns...and our gun murder rate went down....and has been going down for years....our overall violence rate has gone down since the 90s and this is when more people, not less, own and carry guns.....

If you are right, how is that possible?

Simple: there are fewer people with guns.

See, the gun ownership rate has declined while the total number of guns has increased. Meaning many of the same people just bought more guns.

Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns doesn't seem to have much to do with gun violence. Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 0 guns does seem to have some relevance.

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

 

[2aguy]

yes.

Then why are the proportion of gun homicides as part of total homicides in New Zealand about 1/5 of what they are here. And of course, their guns per resident is also about 1/5th.

That seems an awful strange coincidence if there is no relationship between gun availability and gun violence.

Our gun ownership has gone up as has our concealed carry permits...and our violent crime rate and our gun mirder rate and our gun accident rate has gone down...how do you explain that?

Gun ownership rates have gone down.

Worse, what possible relevance does concealed carry rates have when you just argued that the availability of guns has nothing to do with gun violence?

Recognizing of course that the Author of the study you're going to try to cite has admitted he can't factually establish a causative link between lower gun violence rates and concealed carry permits.

And you know that. And we know you know that.

sorry their doesn't have to be a link for this discussion .....it is a fact.....13 million people now carry guns for self defense....by actually counting permits.....and the gun mirder rate, the over all violent crime rate and the gun accident rate went down........

Gun ownership did not increase crime...which goes against what you said would happen....

Yeah, but it went down in States where the concealed carry rate DIDN'T go up significantly. That's a fact.

So if murder rates drop where concealed carry rates did increase AND also where concealed carry rates *don't* increase.....how can you claim that its the causation?

Oh, and you still haven't even tried to answer my question:

Then why are the proportion of gun homicides as part of total homicides in New Zealand about 1/5 of what they are here. And of course, their guns per resident is also about 1/5th.

That seems an awful strange coincidence if there is no relationship between gun availability and gun violence.

If you have no answer, just say so.

again...for the this discussion no link needs to be shown for decrease in gun murder, or violent crime...

The importanat point.....as more Americans own and carry guns....the gun murder rate still went down...it did not go up, which means normal people owning and carrying guns did not increase gun violence or gun murder.......wether or not it had a direct effect on lowering the violent crime rate...and 18 studies do show it does.....

but normal people carrying and owning guns did not increase the gun murder rate...it went down each year more people actually got permits and carried guns...

More guns did not increase the gun murder rate.....more guns carried by normal, law abiding people did not increase the gun murder rate.....

 

[2aguy]

We have more guns in this country...over 100 million more since Obama came into office...and 13 million people now carrying guns...and our gun murder rate went down....and has been going down for years....our overall violence rate has gone down since the 90s and this is when more people, not less, own and carry guns.....

If you are right, how is that possible?

Simple: there are fewer people with guns.

See, the gun ownership rate has declined while the total number of guns has increased. Meaning many of the same people just bought more guns.

Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns doesn't seem to have much to do with gun violence. Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 0 guns does seem to have some relevance.

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago in the 1990s........he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

Why did he do his study...because he kept hearing the arguments on both sides and it irritated him that both sides cherry picked cities to back their side of the gun argument...so he took it on himself and studied the concealed carry laws and their implementation in every single county int the United States.....



Twit...he is not the only researcher who found this....there are 18 studies.....I have posted them....

 

[2aguy]

We have more guns in this country...over 100 million more since Obama came into office...and 13 million people now carrying guns...and our gun murder rate went down....and has been going down for years....our overall violence rate has gone down since the 90s and this is when more people, not less, own and carry guns.....

If you are right, how is that possible?

Simple: there are fewer people with guns.

See, the gun ownership rate has declined while the total number of guns has increased. Meaning many of the same people just bought more guns.

Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns doesn't seem to have much to do with gun violence. Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 0 guns does seem to have some relevance.

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Here you go......

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, 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)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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 It is also available here..

“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

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

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.

For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.

In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

 

[Skylar]

Simple: there are fewer people with guns.

See, the gun ownership rate has declined while the total number of guns has increased. Meaning many of the same people just bought more guns.

Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns doesn't seem to have much to do with gun violence. Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 0 guns does seem to have some relevance.

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

 

[2aguy]

yes.

Then why are the proportion of gun homicides as part of total homicides in New Zealand about 1/5 of what they are here. And of course, their guns per resident is also about 1/5th.

That seems an awful strange coincidence if there is no relationship between gun availability and gun violence.

Our gun ownership has gone up as has our concealed carry permits...and our violent crime rate and our gun mirder rate and our gun accident rate has gone down...how do you explain that?

Gun ownership rates have gone down.

Worse, what possible relevance does concealed carry rates have when you just argued that the availability of guns has nothing to do with gun violence?

Recognizing of course that the Author of the study you're going to try to cite has admitted he can't factually establish a causative link between lower gun violence rates and concealed carry permits.

And you know that. And we know you know that.

sorry their doesn't have to be a link for this discussion .....it is a fact.....13 million people now carry guns for self defense....by actually counting permits.....and the gun mirder rate, the over all violent crime rate and the gun accident rate went down........

Gun ownership did not increase crime...which goes against what you said would happen....

Yeah, but it went down in States where the concealed carry rate DIDN'T go up significantly. That's a fact.

So if murder rates drop where concealed carry rates did increase AND also where concealed carry rates *don't* increase.....how can you claim that its the causation?

Oh, and you still haven't even tried to answer my question:

Then why are the proportion of gun homicides as part of total homicides in New Zealand about 1/5 of what they are here. And of course, their guns per resident is also about 1/5th.

That seems an awful strange coincidence if there is no relationship between gun availability and gun violence.

If you have no answer, just say so.

Then why are the proportion of gun homicides as part of total homicides in New Zealand about 1/5 of what they are here. And of course, their guns per resident is also about 1/5th.

yes...I did answer this.......the criminals in New Zealand do not commit murder because they choose not to....since they still have access to guns...don't they? They just don't pull the trigger on their victims as often as our criminals do.......it is a difference in how they view committing murder, not access to guns......since again, they still have guns in New Zealand.......

 

[bodecea]

yep......a guy in New Zealand shoots woman at her place of work........anyone hear about this in the states?

NZ Shotgun Murder Highlights Need for Armed Self-Defense - The Truth About Guns

ohn Tully is on trial for the murders of Peggy Turuhira Noble and Susan Leigh Cleveland and the attempted murder of Lindy Louise Curtis and Kim Elizabeth Adams, in a shotgun shooting at the Ashburton Work and Income NZ office on September 1, 2014.

Oh goodie! Gun deaths in other countries!

 

[Skylar]

Simple: there are fewer people with guns.

See, the gun ownership rate has declined while the total number of guns has increased. Meaning many of the same people just bought more guns.

Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 10 guns doesn't seem to have much to do with gun violence. Whether Bubba has 2 guns or 0 guns does seem to have some relevance.

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Here you go......

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, 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)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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 It is also available here..

“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

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

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.

For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.

In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

Then how do you explain comparable reductions in the murder rates in States that *didn't* significantly increase concealed carry permits?

If the reduction in murder rates exists regardless of the existence of concealed carry......how is that causation?

 

[2aguy]

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

Did you read the authors of the other papers......try that first....

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

There are 14 papers in that post that are not authored by Dr. John Lott.....

No...I ignore anyone who has been shown, like hemenway, kellerman and other anti gunners to do biased research and who worked for directly for Hand Gun Control Inc. like hemenway did.....

Lott and Kleck take no money from any gun makers or gun rights groups.......

 

[2aguy]

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Here you go......

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, 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)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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 It is also available here..

“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

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

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.

For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.

In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

Then how do you explain comparable reductions in the murder rates in States that *didn't* significantly increase concealed carry permits?

If the reduction in murder rates exists regardless of the existence of concealed carry......how is that causation?

again....that is not this discussion.......you are trying to hide from answering the actual question....why is it that gun murder did not increase when more people got concealed carry permits.....?

You are running from that question because it undermines the premise of your argument......

 

[Skylar]

yep......a guy in New Zealand shoots woman at her place of work........anyone hear about this in the states?

NZ Shotgun Murder Highlights Need for Armed Self-Defense - The Truth About Guns

ohn Tully is on trial for the murders of Peggy Turuhira Noble and Susan Leigh Cleveland and the attempted murder of Lindy Louise Curtis and Kim Elizabeth Adams, in a shotgun shooting at the Ashburton Work and Income NZ office on September 1, 2014.

Oh goodie! Gun deaths in other countries!

Its the same schtick. 2guy brings up gun violence in a specific country. But if you ask him specific questions about gun violence in that country....

...he refuses to discuss that nation any longer, won't respond to the questions and starts block posting the same page from professional gun advocate John Lott's website.

It doesn't take much set him to spamming. Just a few specific questions.

 

[2aguy]

that is wrong....the growing areas of gun ownership up are women and minorities...the General Social Survey is wrong and that is where that little factoid comes from.....the guy who runs it is anti gun, and stated he wants to bolster the will of politicians to pass more gun control...on top of that....it is a phone survey asking people if they have guns....a complete stranger calls up and asks you if you own guns...and you expect gun owners who understand the gun debate to say yes?

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Here you go......

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, 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)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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 It is also available here..

“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

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

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.

For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper.

In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research.

In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”

Then how do you explain comparable reductions in the murder rates in States that *didn't* significantly increase concealed carry permits?

If the reduction in murder rates exists regardless of the existence of concealed carry......how is that causation?

If you look at the research...the level of crime going down is greater in states that had concealed carry...but I don't have more time........

 

[2aguy]

yep......a guy in New Zealand shoots woman at her place of work........anyone hear about this in the states?

NZ Shotgun Murder Highlights Need for Armed Self-Defense - The Truth About Guns

ohn Tully is on trial for the murders of Peggy Turuhira Noble and Susan Leigh Cleveland and the attempted murder of Lindy Louise Curtis and Kim Elizabeth Adams, in a shotgun shooting at the Ashburton Work and Income NZ office on September 1, 2014.

Oh goodie! Gun deaths in other countries!

Its the same schtick. 2guy brings up gun violence in a specific country. But if you ask him specific questions about gun violence in that country....

...he refuses to discuss that nation any longer, won't respond to the questions and starts block posting the same page from professional gun advocate John Lott's website.

It doesn't take much set him to spamming. Just a few specific questions.

Wrong twit...you started talking about Lott...I have answered all of your questions you dishonest ass......

 

[Skylar]

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

Did you read the authors of the other papers......try that first....

So if someone was pro-gun, we couldn't trust their studies either?

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

There are 14 papers in that post that are not authored by Dr. John Lott.....

No...I ignore anyone who has been shown, like hemenway, kellerman and other anti gunners to do biased research and who worked for directly for Hand Gun Control Inc. like hemenway did.....

And yet here are you block posting the EXACT same page from professional pro-gun advocate John Lott website. Including every study Lott did on on the topic.

If being anti-gun renders a study ignorable, so does being pro-gun.

You can't have it both ways. And every single study you've insisted you will ignore....contradicts you. Without exception. That's the confirmation bias fallacy. That's not a rational way to view the issue.

 

[2aguy]

Since you are moving the goal posts to avoid answering questions....here you go...another paper not by the expert on the issue John Lott...


“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


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).

 

[bodecea]

yep......a guy in New Zealand shoots woman at her place of work........anyone hear about this in the states?

NZ Shotgun Murder Highlights Need for Armed Self-Defense - The Truth About Guns

ohn Tully is on trial for the murders of Peggy Turuhira Noble and Susan Leigh Cleveland and the attempted murder of Lindy Louise Curtis and Kim Elizabeth Adams, in a shotgun shooting at the Ashburton Work and Income NZ office on September 1, 2014.

Oh goodie! Gun deaths in other countries!

Its the same schtick. 2guy brings up gun violence in a specific country. But if you ask him specific questions about gun violence in that country....

...he refuses to discuss that nation any longer, won't respond to the questions and starts block posting the same page from professional gun advocate John Lott's website.

It doesn't take much set him to spamming. Just a few specific questions.

Wrong twit...you started talking about Lott...I have answered all of your questions you dishonest ass......

Goodie....more gun deaths in other countries...

 

[2aguy]

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

Did you read the authors of the other papers......try that first....

John Lott was anti gun when he did his first study...Gary Kleck was anti gun when he did his first study.............

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

There are 14 papers in that post that are not authored by Dr. John Lott.....

No...I ignore anyone who has been shown, like hemenway, kellerman and other anti gunners to do biased research and who worked for directly for Hand Gun Control Inc. like hemenway did.....

And yet here are you block posting the EXACT same page from professional pro-gun advocate John Lott website. Including every study Lott did on on the topic.

If being anti-gun renders a study ignorable, so does being pro-gun.

You can't have it both ways. And every single study you've insisted you will ignore....contradicts you. Without exception. That's the confirmation bias fallacy. That's not a rational way to view the issue.

Twit...the authors of the papers are plainly visible....14 are not authored by Lott...you know...the expert in this field........and the fact that Lott is the expert is why you don't want him included......which is nice for you.....

I have also shown why hemenway, kellerman and the other anti gunners can't be trusted....in post after post...I need to go...

 

[Skylar]

yep......a guy in New Zealand shoots woman at her place of work........anyone hear about this in the states?

NZ Shotgun Murder Highlights Need for Armed Self-Defense - The Truth About Guns

ohn Tully is on trial for the murders of Peggy Turuhira Noble and Susan Leigh Cleveland and the attempted murder of Lindy Louise Curtis and Kim Elizabeth Adams, in a shotgun shooting at the Ashburton Work and Income NZ office on September 1, 2014.

Oh goodie! Gun deaths in other countries!

Its the same schtick. 2guy brings up gun violence in a specific country. But if you ask him specific questions about gun violence in that country....

...he refuses to discuss that nation any longer, won't respond to the questions and starts block posting the same page from professional gun advocate John Lott's website.

It doesn't take much set him to spamming. Just a few specific questions.

Wrong twit...you started talking about Lott...I have answered all of your questions you dishonest ass......

No you did. I mentioned 'the guy who wrote study you're going to cite'. You went straight to Lott. And predictrably block spamed the exact same page from professional pro-gun advocate John Lott's website that you do whenever you are asked a question you can answer.

Like say....why did murder rates drop in States that *didn't* increase concealed carry at the same time they dropped in states that did increase it?

You have no answer. And if drops in the murder rate occur regardless of whether or not concealed carry permits were increased........how can you claim that concealed carry permits are the cause of it?

Even John Lott doesn't claim causation.

 

[Skylar]

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

Did you read the authors of the other papers......try that first....

John Lott is wildly pro-gun. That's a fact. And yet he's your source. You've offered us a ludicrious double standard, insisting that we can't trust anything from anyone who is anti-gun. But citing studies from a man who is openly, enthusiastically pro-gun.

You're wiping your ass with your own standards.

As for John Lott.....show us something other than John Lott citing John Lott that demonstrates John Lott was 'anti-gun' when he did his first study.

Wrong...John Lott was an Economist at the University of Chicago.....he said he was neutral on the gun issue, leaning toward more gun control...then he did his study and found out that concealed carry....lowered crime rates.....

So John Lott citing John Lott says so. A man who makes his living selling pro-gun books.

Show us somethign OTHER than John Lott citing John Lott that backs his narrative. You can't.

Your standards are ludicrously inconsistent. As you will gladly cite anyone who is pro-gun. But will ignore anyone who is 'anti-gun' as tainted. You're using the Confirmation bias fallacy. Where you only accept data that backs what you believe. And ignore any that doesn't.

Why would a rational person do the same?

There are 14 papers in that post that are not authored by Dr. John Lott.....

No...I ignore anyone who has been shown, like hemenway, kellerman and other anti gunners to do biased research and who worked for directly for Hand Gun Control Inc. like hemenway did.....

And yet here are you block posting the EXACT same page from professional pro-gun advocate John Lott website. Including every study Lott did on on the topic.

If being anti-gun renders a study ignorable, so does being pro-gun.

You can't have it both ways. And every single study you've insisted you will ignore....contradicts you. Without exception. That's the confirmation bias fallacy. That's not a rational way to view the issue.

Twit...the authors of the papers are plainly visible....14 are not authored by Lott...you know...the expert in this field........and the fact that Lott is the expert is why you don't want him included......which is nice for you.....

Again, every single study you insisted you will ignore....contradicts you. You will only accept studies as valid if they affirm what you want to believe. That's the Confirmation Bias fallacy.

Worse, you ignore your own standards. As if someone is pro-gun....you cite them. If they're anti-gun, you ignore them. By any logical standard, you'd ignore both or you'd cite both. But you only ignore those who disagree with you.

Again, that's the Confirmation Bias fallacy.

I have also shown why hemenway, kellerman and the other anti gunners can't be trusted....in post after post...I need to go...

No, you've simply alleged it. Your sole criteria for ignoring any source or any study that contradicts you.......is it contradicting you.

That's the Confirmation Bias fallacy.