Study Says Concealed Carry Permits Don't Affect Crime

[Skylar]

Tell that to those who have defended themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.
The very fact that this happens daily makes his conclusion false right out of the gate.

You have to have a concealed carry permit to defend yourself with a gun?

And of course, virtually none of these 'defenses' involve actually using the gun.

 

[Skylar]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tell that to those who have defended themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.
The very fact that this happens daily makes his conclusion false right out of the gate.

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

 

[Brain357]

Tell that to those who have defended themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.
The very fact that this happens daily makes his conclusion false right out of the gate.

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

Lots of studies agree with this one.

 

[Skylar]

Tell that to those who have defended themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.
The very fact that this happens daily makes his conclusion false right out of the gate.

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

You have to have a concealed carry permit to defend yourself with a firearm?

Really? Because that must be what you're arguing...as the study you're speaking of is about concealed weapons permits.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Look hard enough and you can find a "study" that "says" anything you would like said.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tell that to those who have defended themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.
The very fact that this happens daily makes his conclusion false right out of the gate.

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

Lots of studies agree with this one.

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

 

[2aguy]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

You should e-mail him....you can...and he responds. Just be polite...and I am sure he will explain everything you want to know about his study....but if you get the courage to do it...please share what he says.....

 

[2aguy]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

As you have been shown, the top 10 states......have majority of gun deaths from suicides..that is how they lie in these anti gun articles.....And please....with each allegation against Lott, you need to show a link to the study that actually points it out......otherwise you are just pulling it out of your ass, or the ass of an anti gun researcher who is lying about his research....which happens all the time....

 

[2aguy]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

See...Lott changed everything and they hate him for it....and they smear him and lie about him all the time...and fail to acknowlege when they use the wrong data and attack him with it...for example....


zhou, donahue used the wrong numbers when they attempted to criticize lott...and then refused to admit their error....

Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC

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
Download this article

• PDF format
• EPUB format
• Kindle format

Downloads
2,726 article downloads
2,878 complete issue downloads
Total: 5,604

• Browse by Issue
• Browse by Date
• Browse by Section
• Sounds of Silence

Abstract


In an article titled “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy” published in the American Law and Economics Review in 2011, Abhay Aneja, John Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang report on their inability to replicate regression estimates appearing in the 2005 National Research Council (NRC) report Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.

They suggest that there are flaws in the data that John Lott had supplied to the NRC.

This suggestion could sow seeds of doubt with respect to the many studies that have used that data.

The source of the replication problem, however, was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang did not estimate the correct model specification—a problem that they have acknowledged in subsequent communications.

However, in these later communications they do not make clear that the basis for their doubts about the Lott-originated data has disappeared.


Carlisle E. Moody is Professor of Economics at the College of William and Mary where he teaches mathematical economics, econometrics, and ti…

So...before you make allegations against Lott...make sure the anti gunners lying about him are actually using his research and what he says he found.....helps a lot.......
http://econjwatch.org/authors/carlisle-e-moody

 

[2aguy]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And here is John Lott dealing with other smears by anti gunners.......so before you think your anti gunners are right...you might want to actually look at how they got their info. wrong....

Response to Malkin's Op-ed

people who say he gave them his info. easily

John Lott's website

David Friedman defends lott against various critics...

My_Comments_on_the_Lott_Controversy.html

zhou, donahue used the wrong numbers when they attempted to criticize lott...and then refused to admit their error....

Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC


Mother jones attack against Lottt…

John Lott's Website: Mother Jones joins the list of left wingers trying to discredit me and the Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[2aguy]

Yes dipshit....the Mary Rosh incident has been dealt with before....and for you, here it is again....so again..before you make claims against Lott, you had better check your sources....they are lying to you....

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Lott now admits he used a fake persona, "Mary Rosh," to post voluminous defenses of his work over the Internet.


* When Julian Sanchez asked about the similarities between my writings and those posted under this Internet chat room pseudonym during this past January I did admit it immediately. (Sanchez had put up a post on his blog site asking for help in identifying someone who was cutting and pasting many of my responses from other places in chat room discussions. Because a dynamic IP address was being used, Sanchez could only identify the posting as coming from someone in southeastern Pennsylvania. When I found that he was asking for help in identifying the poster I admitted that I was using the pseudonym.) I had originally used my own name in chat rooms but switched after receiving threatening and obnoxious telephone calls from other Internet posters. Ninety some percent of the posters in the chatroom were pretty clearly using pseudonyms. The fictitious name was from a family e-mail account we had set up for our children based on their names (see latter discussion), on a couple of occasions I used the female persona implied by the name in the chat rooms to try to get people to think about how people who are smaller and weaker physically can defend themselves. Virtually all the posting were on factual issues involving guns and the empirical debates surrounding them. All that information was completely accurate.

"Rosh" gushed that Lott was "the best professor that I ever had."


*This was a family email account and I was not the only person who posted using this account.
She/he also penned an effusive review of "More Guns, Less Crime" on Amazon.com: "It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well." (Lott claims that one of his sons posted the review in "Rosh's" name.)


*The e-mail account was set up by my wife for my four sons (Maxim, Ryan, Roger, and Sherwin in birth order) and involves the first two letters of each of their names in order of their birth. Maxim wrote several reviews on Amazon.com using that e-mail account and signed in using [email protected], not “Mary Rosh.” His posting included not only a review of my book, but also reviews of computer games such as Caesars III.

 

[Brain357]

Tell that to those who have defended themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.
The very fact that this happens daily makes his conclusion false right out of the gate.

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

Lots of studies agree with this one.

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

 

[2aguy]

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Please link to this.....so we can actually see what Lott may have said, and where you and your source got the information.....otherwise you are making it up out of your ass....

 

[Brain357]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And here is John Lott dealing with other smears by anti gunners.......so before you think your anti gunners are right...you might want to actually look at how they got their info. wrong....

Response to Malkin's Op-ed

people who say he gave them his info. easily

John Lott's website

David Friedman defends lott against various critics...

My_Comments_on_the_Lott_Controversy.html

zhou, donahue used the wrong numbers when they attempted to criticize lott...and then refused to admit their error....

Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC


Mother jones attack against Lottt…

John Lott's Website: Mother Jones joins the list of left wingers trying to discredit me and the Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes you have lott to defend lott. What a joke.

 

[2aguy]

Tell that to those who have defended themselves or their loved ones with a firearm.
The very fact that this happens daily makes his conclusion false right out of the gate.

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

Lots of studies agree with this one.

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

6 of 18 studies is not almost all asshole......nice try though....

 

[2aguy]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And here is John Lott dealing with other smears by anti gunners.......so before you think your anti gunners are right...you might want to actually look at how they got their info. wrong....

Response to Malkin's Op-ed

people who say he gave them his info. easily

John Lott's website

David Friedman defends lott against various critics...

My_Comments_on_the_Lott_Controversy.html

zhou, donahue used the wrong numbers when they attempted to criticize lott...and then refused to admit their error....

Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Guns, crime, shall-issue, right-to-carry, NRC


Mother jones attack against Lottt…

John Lott's Website: Mother Jones joins the list of left wingers trying to discredit me and the Crime Prevention Research Center

Yes you have lott to defend lott. What a joke.

yes....actually asking the man you are smearing is beyond you lefty cowards....you would much rather lie about him and his research and then claim that he is the only one who has done research in this area, while a vast number of others confirm what he found......

You lefties are pretty vile....

 

[Brain357]

Numbers don't lie. Fact is defenses do not happen very often, and many that do aren't lawful. Also with more concealed carry comes more armed criminals. At best more concealed carry and more armed criminals balance each other out. But many studies show it does not lower crime.

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

Lots of studies agree with this one.

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

6 of 18 studies is not almost all asshole......nice try though....

Looks like more than that to me. Provide the 12 you claim exist that he isn't involved in.

 

[2aguy]

And here is Dr. John Lott on this study….
Problems with a new study from Journal of Criminology claiming that permitted concealed handguns have no effect on violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

As past surveys of the literature have shown, there have been other studies that have found that right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violent crime, though they have been in the distinct minority. Yet, the worst that they can say is that these laws don’t produce a bad effect.

No explanation is offered for why these authors pick the states or years that they examine? This is important because the test that they are preforming compares these states relative to one another during the period that they all have right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. When authors throw out data there had better be a good explanation for why they are doing it, but no explanation is offered here.

These guys seem completely unfamiliar with my findings in the 2nd and 3rd edition of MGLC. That is important because those editions spent significant time going through and talking about what determined the number of permits issued and the impact of the number of permits on the crime rate.

Permit issuance rate depends crucially on the cost of getting a permit (fees, training period, how long the laws have been in effect, also where you can use the permit). This is important in differentiating the supply and demand issues for number of permits issued. For example, during the period studied the cost of a Texas permit was $140 and a training period of 10 hours while in Pennsylvania was $19 and no training.

No explanation is offered for why these costs of getting permits, which differ significantly across these states, are completely ignored.

Despite these problems, it would have been interesting to see the results without including the number of Federally Licensed Firearm dealers, a number that is likely very correlated with the number of permits.

They also have no or virtually no data on permit issuance prior to right-to-carry law being adopted. Strangely permit issuance is as a percent of the total population, not the percent of the adult population, thus adding randomness into the relationship.

No explanation was ever offered by Lott why his study concluded that murder, assault and car theft rates were more closely tied to the population of black women over 65.....than teen aged black males.

A conclusion which is clearly nonsense. What, was granny jacking cars and popping caps off in people's asses? If you're a Lott supporter....apparently.

Nor could Lott explain why 7 of 10 of the most violent states in the country had higher than average gun ownership rates, while only 2 of 10 had lower than average gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain why ALL of the top 10 states for gun deaths were among the top 20 for gun ownership rates.

Nor could Lott explain how his process produced the utter nonsense results that the more rural and less populated an area...the higher the crime rates. A conclusion refuted by the FBI every year.

Nor could you explain why Lott created the fake online personality 'Mary Roch' to support his theories, praise his books, and laud his genius.

Remember, when you cite Lott.....you've gotta take all the batshit that comes with it.

And of course there is this concept...

My_Comments_on_the_Lott_Controversy.html

Time B: An economist (Ehrlich, Lott) does a study an order of magnitude more sophisticated, using both time series and longitudinal data, controlling for relevant factors insofar as data is available, using techniques such as second stage least squares to try to control for problems with unobservable variables, etc. It produces a result that the people in the field don't like.

Time C: People in the field publish furious attacks on the economist and on his study; the latter, insofar as they are legitimate, are arguments showing that there are possible explanations for his results other than the one he gave--which is almost always true, to some degree, of statistical results. These attacks apply a standard of proof enormously higher than that applied to the Time A studies--which the same people happily accepted.

 

[2aguy]

Wait let me get this right.... all the studies done by others that show firearm usage to defend people are all lies but this ONE study is the proof you believe? Retard.

Lots of studies agree with this one.

Provide links to at least 18 studies. You know the same number you have been given proving defensive use of firearms.

The 18 are almost all by the same guy. Even Kleck knows lott is a joke.

6 of 18 studies is not almost all asshole......nice try though....

Looks like more than that to me. Provide the 12 you claim exist that he isn't involved in.

I listed them asshole...look for yourself...or email him.....he is more than helpful and you can actually get the truth from the man who researched it.....