Shootings in Britain

[2aguy]

Wow....you are dumb.......about the guys in your link...

You DO realise that this is an ongoing debate within the Econ Journal Watch? Your Moody and Marvell’s comments were subsequently responded to below:

More Gun Carrying, More Violent Crime · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, right-to-carry, synthetic controls, law and economics, criminal law, illegal behavior, violent crime

Carlisle Moody and Thomas Marvell (2018) have offered a number of criticisms of some older work on the impact of RTC laws on crime, while ignoring the recent literature that has found a strong connection between such laws and violent crime and/or murder (Siegel et al. 2017; Donohue 2017; Donohue, Aneja, and Weber 2018; Cook and Donohue 2017), which even includes work by their own former co-author Paul Zimmerman (2014). Their criticisms include preposterous claims such as that the crack epidemic “has had no effect on murder” and that the statistically significant finding that RTC laws increase the murder rate in the post-crack period should be disregarded because the analysis over a shorter period lacks the power to discern an effect (since it clearly did discern an effect).

…And so it goes on. The main point to take home from this is that John Lott’s so called “research” is not accepted by mainstream academia.

Here are other debunking articles about Lott if you are interested:

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

https://www.stophandgunviolence.org...the-NRAs-Favorite-Academic-March-6-2019-3.pdf

Guns, Lies, and Fear - Center for American Progress

In fact if you Google “debunking John Lott” you get 1.5 million hits.

Vox......you use Vox? Why not the Brady Center for Gun control....you doofus.

 

[2aguy]

Anyway, we’ve strayed off topic. So how many shootings were there in the UK in October?

No, you forgot to answer the actual questions....

Do you think a woman should be raped or should she be able to use a gun to stop the rape?

You haven't answered that question, and tried to deflect by going after Lott.....

Next...

If a woman stops a rape with a gun and you had the ability to go back in time and take that gun away from her, before the rape, would you?

Please answer these....

 

[2aguy]

Anyway, we’ve strayed off topic. So how many shootings were there in the UK in October?

Doesn't matter how many shootings there were, the point you are dodging is whether gun control keeps criminals from getting guns in Britain...it doesn't. Britain has always had a low murder rate, with guns or without, even when they had access to guns.......the question is whether gun control stops them from getting guns....it does not.

Also, as to your other failed point...when you tried to say that crime rates went down around the world.......and then have to face the fact that gun crime rates in the U.S. went down faster in the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns.........the variable of gun ownership did not increase gun crime in the U.S.....showing you have no point.........all countries experienced lower crime rates, including the U.S. as it increased gun ownership.......showing guns in the hands of law abiding people does not increase the gun crime rate...

There are at least two problems with these claims.
First, homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe, Canada, and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement.

Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates
-----
Part of the reason that the collection of homicide data in Australia is so recent a phenomenon is because it has tended to be so rare. Politically, it simply wasn't a national priority. Australia is a small country, with only a few more million people than Florida spread out over an entire continent. In the relatively high homicide days of the early 1990s, Australia's homicides totaled around 300. This means in a bad crime year, in which homicides increase by only 20 or 30 victims, it could swing overall rates noticeably.
-----
This brings us to our other problem with using post-1996 homicide data as definitive proof of anything. The numbers are too small to allow us to extrapolate much. As data analyst Leah Libresco wrote in 2017 in The Washington Post:

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths...
---
Faced with a lack of evidence that the 1996 law caused Australia to follow the same trend in homicides as both the US and Canada, advocates for laws like Australia's then fall back on the strategy of pointing out that Australia's homicide rates are lower than the US's. The problem with this strategy, of course, is that Australia's homicide rates were not comparable to those in the US either before or after 1996. The causes of the difference in rates between the two countries obviously pre-date modern gun regulation measures in both countries. (We might also point out that several US states—some of which have very lax gun laws—have very low homicide rates comparable to Australia's.)
Attempts to explain this away have been numerous, and in many ways, justifying gun control policy has come down to endless attempts at using regression analysis to find correlations between gun policy and homicide rates. These can often be interesting, but their value often rests on finding the right theoretical framework with which to identify the most important factors.
Those who work in public policy and who lack a good foundation in broader issues around criminality tend to just go directly to legal prohibitions as the key factor in homicide rates. But this isn't exactly the approach taken by those who engage in more serious study of long-term trends in homicides.
Famed crime researcher Eric Monkonnen, for example, in his essay "Homicide: Explaining America's Exceptionalism," identified four factors he thought most likely explained the higher rates in the United States: the mobility of the population, decentralized law enforcement, racial division caused by slavery, and a generally higher tolerance for homicide. Monkonnen concludes: "To assume that an absence of guns in the United States would bring about parity with Europe is wrong. For the past two centuries, even without guns, American rates would likely have still been higher."
Monkonnen's conclusions on this matter don't necessarily make him laissez-faire on gun control. But they do illustrate his recognition of the fact that factors driving differences in homicide rates between two very different societies go far beyond pointing to one or two pieces of legislation. And if gun control laws are to be posited as the cause of declines in homicide, there needs to be a clear "before and after difference" in the jurisdiction in whic
-----
Perhaps recognizing that homicide rates haven't actually changed all that much in the wake of 1996, some defenders of Australia's gun legislation have tried to gild the lily by claiming that an additional benefit of legislation has been a decline in suicide rates. This is a common strategy among gun control advocates who often like to claim gun control is a suicide prevention measure.
For example, it's not difficult to find media headlines proclaiming "suicide figures plummeted" in Australia after the adoption of the 1996 law. But Australia runs into a similar problem here as with gun control: suicide rates fell substantially during the same period in Canada, the US, and much of Europe.
Moreover, in recent years, suicide rates in Australia and the US have climbed upward again. There's little doubt that suicide rates fell from 1995 to 2006, dropping from 12 per 100,000 to under nine per 100,000. But after that, suicide rates climbed to a ten-year high in 2015, rising again to 12 per 100,000, or a rate comparable to what existed before the 1996 gun measure. In other words, suicides are back to where they were. But as recently as 2017, we're still hearing about how gun control also makes suicides decline.

The Myth That Australia's Gun Laws Reduced Gun Homicides | Ryan McMaken

 

[2aguy]

Wow....you are dumb.......about the guys in your link...

You DO realise that this is an ongoing debate within the Econ Journal Watch? Your Moody and Marvell’s comments were subsequently responded to below:

More Gun Carrying, More Violent Crime · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, right-to-carry, synthetic controls, law and economics, criminal law, illegal behavior, violent crime

Carlisle Moody and Thomas Marvell (2018) have offered a number of criticisms of some older work on the impact of RTC laws on crime, while ignoring the recent literature that has found a strong connection between such laws and violent crime and/or murder (Siegel et al. 2017; Donohue 2017; Donohue, Aneja, and Weber 2018; Cook and Donohue 2017), which even includes work by their own former co-author Paul Zimmerman (2014). Their criticisms include preposterous claims such as that the crack epidemic “has had no effect on murder” and that the statistically significant finding that RTC laws increase the murder rate in the post-crack period should be disregarded because the analysis over a shorter period lacks the power to discern an effect (since it clearly did discern an effect).

…And so it goes on. The main point to take home from this is that John Lott’s so called “research” is not accepted by mainstream academia.

Here are other debunking articles about Lott if you are interested:

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

https://www.stophandgunviolence.org...the-NRAs-Favorite-Academic-March-6-2019-3.pdf

Guns, Lies, and Fear - Center for American Progress

In fact if you Google “debunking John Lott” you get 1.5 million hits.

Okay, dipshit.....

1) Vox talks suicide....mass public shootings in gun free zones, and guns making you safer.......

your link says Lott dismisses the link between guns and suicide....so does the Psychiatric community...

Lott dismisses the link between guns and suicide

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

Now the Psychiatric community....

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide

There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used.

Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%)

.
Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.
========

 

[2aguy]

Wow....you are dumb.......about the guys in your link...

You DO realise that this is an ongoing debate within the Econ Journal Watch? Your Moody and Marvell’s comments were subsequently responded to below:

More Gun Carrying, More Violent Crime · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, right-to-carry, synthetic controls, law and economics, criminal law, illegal behavior, violent crime

Carlisle Moody and Thomas Marvell (2018) have offered a number of criticisms of some older work on the impact of RTC laws on crime, while ignoring the recent literature that has found a strong connection between such laws and violent crime and/or murder (Siegel et al. 2017; Donohue 2017; Donohue, Aneja, and Weber 2018; Cook and Donohue 2017), which even includes work by their own former co-author Paul Zimmerman (2014). Their criticisms include preposterous claims such as that the crack epidemic “has had no effect on murder” and that the statistically significant finding that RTC laws increase the murder rate in the post-crack period should be disregarded because the analysis over a shorter period lacks the power to discern an effect (since it clearly did discern an effect).

…And so it goes on. The main point to take home from this is that John Lott’s so called “research” is not accepted by mainstream academia.

Here are other debunking articles about Lott if you are interested:

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

https://www.stophandgunviolence.org...the-NRAs-Favorite-Academic-March-6-2019-3.pdf

Guns, Lies, and Fear - Center for American Progress

In fact if you Google “debunking John Lott” you get 1.5 million hits.

Mass public shootings in gun free zones......Lott is right....when shooters choose their targets that have no connection to them, they choose gun free zones...

Like the Sandy Hook shooter...who attended the elementary school, the middle school and the high school, only the elementary school lacked a police resource officer....you doofus....

Now Lott, and other sources...

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”
Similarly, in the Dayton, Ohio, mass shooting on Sunday, which immediately followed the El Paso murders, the victims were attacked as they exited a nightspot that was a gun-free zone.
And, in the Garlic Festival shootings in Gilroy, California last week, the victims were trapped inside a fenced area after going through metal detectors to make sure that they were disarmed. The shooter avoided the metal detectors by cutting through the fence and then attacking a victim pool that the Gilroy authorities had rendered incapable of defending themselves.
So it is that these most recent massacres share the one common element of almost all mass casualty shootings: gun-free zones.In addition to the El Paso shooter’s “manifesto,” there is abundant anecdotal evidence that mass casualty shooters prefer gun-free zones. For example, in 2016, Dearborn Heights, Michigan, ISIS supporter Khalil Abu Rayyan had an online discussion with an undercover FBI agent in which he discussed his plan for a “martyrdom operation” by attacking a Detroit church. He told the agent that this would be an easy target because “people are not allowed to carry guns in church.” Fortunately, Abu Rayyan was arrested before he could achieve martyrdom.
Similarly, in 2015, Elliot Rodger murdered six people in a Santa Barbara, California, gun-free zone. In his 141-page “manifesto,” he explained that in planning his attack he had decided against launching it in other locations where someone with a gun might be present to cut short his killing spree.
In the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater massacre, the killer’s diary showed that he had decided against attacking an airport because of its “substantial security.” And, out of the seven movie theaters within 20 minutes of the shooter’s home, he chose the only one that had posted signs declaring it to be a gun-free zone.
Given this record, anyone concerned with eliminating — or at least substantially reducing — mass public shootings must ask whether or not gun-free zones pose a danger to the public by attracting killers who prefer an unarmed victim pool and should give serious consideration to the following propositions:



3/3-/18

Orlando, Pulse Night club shooter wanted to attack Disney land

http://fox6now.com/2018/03/28/pulse-shooters-initial-target-was-disney-site-prosecutors-say/


Prosecutors say the Orlando nightclub shooter intended to attack Disney World’s shopping and entertainment complex by hiding a gun in a stroller but became spooked by police and chose the gay club as his target.

3/5/18
Profile of a School Shooter | National Review

The second thing: The shooter reveals that he thought seriously about whether his target would be a “gun free zone.” I mention this not to endorse any particular policy, but to make it clear that it is by no means rare for those who would do harm to first scope out their destinations and to make sure that they won’t encounter much resistance. The shooter openly explains that he chose the local elementary school, rather than the school he was really angry with (his own), because it lacked an armed guard. He also admits to having researched how long it took cops to respond in the area (15 minutes), and how long it would be before SWAT was on site (45 minutes). This echoes comments made by the shooter at Isla Vista, who considered carrying out his attack on Halloween, but decided against it because there’d be “too many cops walking around during an event like Halloween, and cops are the only ones who can hinder my plans.”

The actual story linked above...

“I HAVE TO BEAT **** **** . .” he wrote nine days before the Sept. 28, 2016, shooting in a misspelled reference to the Sandy Hook killer,**** ****. “Atleast 40.”

Two days later, he debated whether he should attack his middle school, from which he’d been expelled, or his elementary school, just up the road.

He decided on Townville Elementary because it was closer and had no armed security.


“Itll be like shooting fish in a barrel,” he wrote his friends, whose identities remain unclear, along with whether the FBI has tracked any of them down. The agency declined to comment, citing Jesse’s open case.

In the chat, he said he had researched police response times for the area and found that it would take them 15 minutes to get there, maybe 45 for SWAT. He said he would throw pipe bombs into each classroom before he got in a shootout with police and killed himself with his shotgun. He said he had been planning a massacre for two years.

=========


The Colorado theater shooter evidence...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...ingle-out-cinemark-theater.html#ixzz2F4pLqhxu

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.
A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.
There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.
So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks


FBI: Dearborn Heights ISIS supporter planned to attack Detroit church

In conversation's between Abu-Rayyan and the undercover agent, Abu-Rayyan described his desire to commit a martyrdom operation.

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

“It's easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would've heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can't do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here."

He had also told the undercover agent that a church would be an easy target because people are not allowed to carry guns there and that it would make the news.

----------------
Minnesota…...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...prep-school-massacre-police-article-1.1776006

The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.
The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.
About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.
LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.


************************


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer

http://gunwars.news21.com/blog/2014/07/building-a-safer-sandy-hook/

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.

The Vox author is an idiot.....

 

[2aguy]

Wow....you are dumb.......about the guys in your link...

You DO realise that this is an ongoing debate within the Econ Journal Watch? Your Moody and Marvell’s comments were subsequently responded to below:

More Gun Carrying, More Violent Crime · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, right-to-carry, synthetic controls, law and economics, criminal law, illegal behavior, violent crime

Carlisle Moody and Thomas Marvell (2018) have offered a number of criticisms of some older work on the impact of RTC laws on crime, while ignoring the recent literature that has found a strong connection between such laws and violent crime and/or murder (Siegel et al. 2017; Donohue 2017; Donohue, Aneja, and Weber 2018; Cook and Donohue 2017), which even includes work by their own former co-author Paul Zimmerman (2014). Their criticisms include preposterous claims such as that the crack epidemic “has had no effect on murder” and that the statistically significant finding that RTC laws increase the murder rate in the post-crack period should be disregarded because the analysis over a shorter period lacks the power to discern an effect (since it clearly did discern an effect).

…And so it goes on. The main point to take home from this is that John Lott’s so called “research” is not accepted by mainstream academia.

Here are other debunking articles about Lott if you are interested:

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

https://www.stophandgunviolence.org...the-NRAs-Favorite-Academic-March-6-2019-3.pdf

Guns, Lies, and Fear - Center for American Progress

In fact if you Google “debunking John Lott” you get 1.5 million hits.

Moron, you vox source lies.....they claim that Lott only says gun free zones means civilians can't carry weapons when Lott specifically means areas with high security and the ability of people to carry guns.....actual gun free zones, you doofus.....

 

[2aguy]

Wow....you are dumb.......about the guys in your link...

You DO realise that this is an ongoing debate within the Econ Journal Watch? Your Moody and Marvell’s comments were subsequently responded to below:

More Gun Carrying, More Violent Crime · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, right-to-carry, synthetic controls, law and economics, criminal law, illegal behavior, violent crime

Carlisle Moody and Thomas Marvell (2018) have offered a number of criticisms of some older work on the impact of RTC laws on crime, while ignoring the recent literature that has found a strong connection between such laws and violent crime and/or murder (Siegel et al. 2017; Donohue 2017; Donohue, Aneja, and Weber 2018; Cook and Donohue 2017), which even includes work by their own former co-author Paul Zimmerman (2014). Their criticisms include preposterous claims such as that the crack epidemic “has had no effect on murder” and that the statistically significant finding that RTC laws increase the murder rate in the post-crack period should be disregarded because the analysis over a shorter period lacks the power to discern an effect (since it clearly did discern an effect).

…And so it goes on. The main point to take home from this is that John Lott’s so called “research” is not accepted by mainstream academia.

Here are other debunking articles about Lott if you are interested:

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

https://www.stophandgunviolence.org...the-NRAs-Favorite-Academic-March-6-2019-3.pdf

Guns, Lies, and Fear - Center for American Progress

In fact if you Google “debunking John Lott” you get 1.5 million hits.

Then your other link is simply an attack on the NRA, you dumb ass.....wow, that's unbiased....

 

[2aguy]

Wow....you are dumb.......about the guys in your link...

You DO realise that this is an ongoing debate within the Econ Journal Watch? Your Moody and Marvell’s comments were subsequently responded to below:

More Gun Carrying, More Violent Crime · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, right-to-carry, synthetic controls, law and economics, criminal law, illegal behavior, violent crime

Carlisle Moody and Thomas Marvell (2018) have offered a number of criticisms of some older work on the impact of RTC laws on crime, while ignoring the recent literature that has found a strong connection between such laws and violent crime and/or murder (Siegel et al. 2017; Donohue 2017; Donohue, Aneja, and Weber 2018; Cook and Donohue 2017), which even includes work by their own former co-author Paul Zimmerman (2014). Their criticisms include preposterous claims such as that the crack epidemic “has had no effect on murder” and that the statistically significant finding that RTC laws increase the murder rate in the post-crack period should be disregarded because the analysis over a shorter period lacks the power to discern an effect (since it clearly did discern an effect).

…And so it goes on. The main point to take home from this is that John Lott’s so called “research” is not accepted by mainstream academia.

Here are other debunking articles about Lott if you are interested:

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

https://www.stophandgunviolence.org...the-NRAs-Favorite-Academic-March-6-2019-3.pdf

Guns, Lies, and Fear - Center for American Progress

In fact if you Google “debunking John Lott” you get 1.5 million hits.

Research showing guns stop crime.....

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53714acce4b0bb13e3c90e93/t/53c97327e4b00a460e54c128/1405711143901/2009_Hinckley_Journal.pdf#page=63

CONCLUSION It is difficult to make a strong conclusion on the impact concealed carry permits have on crime because there are studies that show contradictory results. However, based on the thorough research conducted by John R. Lott (2003), the evidence from the case study in Dade County, and the research conducted by Kleck and Mertz (1995), it appears that benefits of allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon outweigh the negatives that guns can bring upon a society. The concerns mentioned above against the policy are not substantiated by the evidence available. The evidence suggests that children are more likely to drown or die in a bicycle accident then they are to die from a loaded unlocked gun. In addition, private gun owners are far less likely to mistakenly kill someone then a police officer is (Lott Jr., 1998). Ultimately the policy appears to be effective in terms of crime reduction.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


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

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

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).

===

“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..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review

Lott mustard..

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=law_and_economics

Taking apart ayre and donahue one....


“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..


Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....criminals smuggle guns....they even get them onto your Island...very easily....

I’ve never denied that, although I’d not say “very”. I’ve seen numerous estimates from 500,000 to 4 million illegal firearms in the UK, sadly about as many come from the USA as Eastern Europe, thanks a bunch Yanks. Ultimately, no-one knows for sure, but as these weapons are bought by criminals, for criminals, by your own criteria, they don’t count.

And yet you don't use the same excuse when I explain that our gun murders are concentrated among actual criminals........while normal people have guns and our gun murder rate went down, not up.

 

[Vagabond63]

27 years of actual experience of more guns in more hands, also carried in public and the crime rates went down...

So on the one hand, you claim more unregistered guns in private hands results in a reduction in crime, and on the other hand your latest Jon (lies a) Lott "research" clearly demonstrates that although gun purchases have sky rocketed, gun crime hasn't shown an equal corresponding dive. Interesting.

 

[Vagabond63]

Anyway, back to topic. How many shootings were there in the UK last month? I've found 2 in November so far, surprised you've not frothed about them.

 

[2aguy]

27 years of actual experience of more guns in more hands, also carried in public and the crime rates went down...

So on the one hand, you claim more unregistered guns in private hands results in a reduction in crime, and on the other hand your latest Jon (lies a) Lott "research" clearly demonstrates that although gun purchases have sky rocketed, gun crime hasn't shown an equal corresponding dive. Interesting.

You again, don't know what you are talking about.

1) As more Americans went out and now own and carry guns, our gun crime rate did not go up, our gun murder rate did not go up. You know this, you have been shown this. You pretend not to know what this means.

When the global crime rate was going down, Americans were buying lots of guns.....and over 27 years our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%.

If your theory is correct, our gun crime rate should have gone up....it did not, it went down.

This means that the variable of gun ownership does not increase the gun crime rate or the gun murder rate, making gun control laws silly and pointlesswhen they target normal gun owners.

Gun ownership does not increase gun crime or gun murder...that is what America shows. You know this, yet pretend to not understand it.

2) Our current gun crime rate is confined almost exclusively to the cities completely controlled by the democrat party, and their criminal justice policies......they attack the police and defund them, they release violent, known criminals over and over again.

Normal people owning and carrying guns is not driving the gun crime rate in democrat party controlled cities...their polices of attacking police and releasing violent gun criminals, with multiple felonies, over and over again.

So again, you don't understand anything you are posting about.

 

[2aguy]

Anyway, back to topic. How many shootings were there in the UK last month? I've found 2 in November so far, surprised you've not frothed about them.

You keep trying to make a point with the number of shootings in Britain.....you have been shown over and over that Britain has always had a very low murder rate and a very low gun murder rate even when British citizens were able to own guns.......access to guns does not increase the gun murder rate or control it.....as the 27 year experience in America shows.

The willingness of criminals to murder each other and innocent victims is what determines your gun murder rate.

You know this, you pretend to not understand it.

Meanwhile...in the United States.....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent rapes, robberies and murders...saving lives. This number comes from our Centers for Disease control research.

Lives saved because Americans can own and carry guns.

 

[2aguy]

Anyway, back to topic. How many shootings were there in the UK last month? I've found 2 in November so far, surprised you've not frothed about them.

And back to the questions you refuse to answer...

Would it be better for you if a woman is raped, brutally and possibly murdered, or that she be able to save herself using a gun?

If a woman uses a gun to stop a rape, and you had the ability to go back in time to take that gun away from her...would you?

 

[Vagabond63]

As more Americans went out and now own and carry guns, our gun crime rate did not go up, our gun murder rate did not go up.

Without proper registration, monitoring and control, you have absolutely no idea of how many Americans bought how many guns. It is therefore equally valid to state that the same number of Americans just added 1-10+ more guns to their gun existing collections; also gun permits do not necessarily mean guns are owned by everyone with a permit, just like everyone who has a driving licence doesn’t necessarily own a car, while others have more than one car.

 

[Vagabond63]

If your theory is correct, our gun crime rate should have gone up

Might be someone’s theory, but it’s never been mine.

 

[Vagabond63]

This means that the variable of gun ownership does not increase the gun crime rate or the gun murder rate,

Neither does it decrease the gun crime rate or the gun murder rate. Without proper registration and reporting you cannot prove your theory of “more guns in private hands = less crime”. If anything, more guns in private hands makes life easier for professional criminals to acquire guns illegally. So called “responsible gun owners” are even able to sell their “private property” to anyone. Do you seriously think criminals don’t go to gun fairs for that very reason?

 

[Vagabond63]

Our current gun crime rate is confined almost exclusively to the cities completely controlled by the democrat party, and their criminal justice policies...

I see you voted for Trump, no surprise then, that you keep repeating this drivel.

 

[Vagabond63]

Meanwhile...in the United States.....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent rapes, robberies and murders...saving lives. This number comes from our Centers for Disease control research.

No it doesn’t. This comes from Gleck & Co. projections based on an extrapolated telephone sample. Depends on where you look but ESTIMATES and/or PROJECTIONS based on these sample surveys range from 180,000 to 2.5 million ( the latter, a figure you used to quote ad nauseam until you were laughed off the board).

 

[Vagabond63]

And back to the questions you refuse to answer...

I tend not to answer pointless non-question questions or “questions” that are in reality, Appeal to Emotion fallacies, which incidentally prove that you have no factual evidence to offer; you just peddle fear.

I could just as easily ask you, “Would it be better for you if a child finds a gun and kills themselves with a legal gun that was carelessly left lying around, or that the owner should have had compulsory and sufficient training in how to store a gun safely in order to obtain a gun permit and/or gun? Texas boy, 3, dies after accidentally shooting himself in the chest at birthday party

Oh, as for time travel, that opens up a whole new can of worms. Ever read A sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury? A Sound of Thunder - Wikipedia Very prescient.