This woman disproves gun control beliefs.....

[Skylar]

That study doesn't claim causation. It says it 'suggests' a connection.

You're wildly overstating the results of your studies claiming causation. When the studies don't claim causation. Even John Lott doesn't claim causation.

Why do you feel the need to embellish the claims of the studies you're citing?

Here you go...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

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

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

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

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

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

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



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

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

And here is another list....18 studies show concealed carry reduced the crime rate.....10 that it did nothing...and 1 that it increased the crime rate...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...-Maryland-Law-Review-Lott-Concealed-Carry.pdf

They suggest a connection. With dozens of studies finding NO connection.

YOU say that there is causation. When we check the actual study, they claim that their study merely SUGGESTS a connection. Either you've never read the studies...in which case your insistences about them are mere ignorance. Or you have read them and are intentionally misrepresenting them.

And of course, you ignore ANY study that doesn't suggest such a connection. You ignore any that doesn't ape exactly what you want to believe.

Have you ever heard of Confirmation Bias?

I have listed all of the studies twit....those that show it lowers the crime rate, those that show no change and the one that shows an increase......

Are you stamping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears....like a 12 year old.......I provide evidence...research, actual research...and you just deny it exists....

Ah, 'twit'. Your tell. I can always tell when youv'e reached the limit of your ability to debate when you start name calling. Its your little white flag.

You've certainly spammed the same page from professional gun advocate John Lott's website over and over. You do it in virtually every thread on this topic. Mechancially, robotically and obediently.

BUT....

When we look at the actual studies and not merely the name of the study.....again and again we see that the they *suggest* a possible connection between CCWs and lower crime. Not claim that causation between CCWs and lower crime actually exist. With dozens of studies showing NO such connection.

Yet you keep misrepresenting your sources, insisting they prove causation. When even professional gun advocate John Lott himself admits that he can't prove causation.

Why misrepresent your sources?

 

[Skylar]

Page after page of actual research and you sit there and deny it.........like a 12 year old........

Page after page of the names of studies.....but when we actually look at them, they claim no causation between CCWs and crime rates. They merely *suggest* a possible connection.

You are making claims that even professional gun advocate John Lott isn't making. And intentionally misrepresenting your sources, insisting causation is proven when your sources make no such claim.

Since you enjoy links so much...here are some results.....

And of those papers....

Regarding the eighteen recent studies finding a benefit from right-to-carry laws [see Table 2 above], here are some of the comments.

• Florenz Plassmann and Nicolaus Tideman find that “right-tocarry laws do help on average to reduce the number of these crimes.”41

• Carl Moody explains that his findings “confirm and reinforce the basic findings of the original Lott and Mustard study.” 4


• In another paper that studies county crime rates from 1977 until 2000, co-authored by Moody and Thomas Marvell, the authors write 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.”43 •

Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrok studied county crime rates from 1977 to 2000 to conclude that “shall-issue laws cause a large and significant drop in the murder trend rate” and that “there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shallissue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.” 44

• David Olsen and Michael Maltz found “a decrease in total homicides,” however the different set of data they use shows that the decrease was driven by a drop in gun killings.45

• Bruce Benson and Brent Mast found that their results “are virtually identical to those in [Lott and Mustard]. Therefore, the hypothesis that the [Lott and Mustard estimates] suffer from missing-variable bias owing to the lack of control for the private security industry is rejected . . . .” 46

• David Mustard supplies evidence that “[a]fter enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having felonious police deaths . . . .”47

• The late James Q. Wilson, often described as the preeminent criminologist in the United States, reviewed a report on Firearms and Violence published by the National Academy of Sciences and found that while there might be disagreement over some types of violent crime, “I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”4

"Seems to support''. "Suggests" "Possible connection".

You claim that it *proves* causation. When even John Lott himself doesn't claim to prove causation.

Oh, and if you're just going to spam John Lott, at least have the balls to admit it.

More Guns, Less Crime

 

[2aguy]

Page after page of actual research and you sit there and deny it.........like a 12 year old........

Page after page of the names of studies.....but when we actually look at them, they claim no causation between CCWs and crime rates. They merely *suggest* a possible connection.

You are making claims that even professional gun advocate John Lott isn't making. And intentionally misrepresenting your sources, insisting causation is proven when your sources make no such claim.

Since you enjoy links so much...here are some results.....

And of those papers....

Regarding the eighteen recent studies finding a benefit from right-to-carry laws [see Table 2 above], here are some of the comments.

• Florenz Plassmann and Nicolaus Tideman find that “right-tocarry laws do help on average to reduce the number of these crimes.”41

• Carl Moody explains that his findings “confirm and reinforce the basic findings of the original Lott and Mustard study.” 4


• In another paper that studies county crime rates from 1977 until 2000, co-authored by Moody and Thomas Marvell, the authors write 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.”43 •

Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrok studied county crime rates from 1977 to 2000 to conclude that “shall-issue laws cause a large and significant drop in the murder trend rate” and that “there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shallissue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.” 44

• David Olsen and Michael Maltz found “a decrease in total homicides,” however the different set of data they use shows that the decrease was driven by a drop in gun killings.45

• Bruce Benson and Brent Mast found that their results “are virtually identical to those in [Lott and Mustard]. Therefore, the hypothesis that the [Lott and Mustard estimates] suffer from missing-variable bias owing to the lack of control for the private security industry is rejected . . . .” 46

• David Mustard supplies evidence that “[a]fter enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having felonious police deaths . . . .”47

• The late James Q. Wilson, often described as the preeminent criminologist in the United States, reviewed a report on Firearms and Violence published by the National Academy of Sciences and found that while there might be disagreement over some types of violent crime, “I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”4

"Seems to support''. "Suggests" "Possible connection".

You claim that it *proves* causation. When even John Lott himself doesn't claim to prove causation.

Oh, and if you're just going to spam John Lott, at least have the balls to admit it.

More Guns, Less Crime

Yes....and when presented with all of the research....you ignore it......and say it has no truth to it........you are an anti gun twit....who refuses to accept the truth, the facts and reality.....

And again...you still refuse to answer......

Is it true that allowing Americans to carry guns does not increase the gun murder rate or the gun crime rate?

 

[Skylar]

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to quote the 'anti-gun nuts' saying what you do in your OP.

I won't hold my breath on that either.

 

[2aguy]

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to quote the 'anti-gun nuts' saying what you do in your OP.

I won't hold my breath on that either.

Here you go twit..........

When joe and brain do it again I will let you know....

State Sen. tells rape victim gun wouldn’t have prevented attack, later apologizes

But the tension between state Sen. Evie Hudak (D-Westminster) and gun control advocate Amanda Collins made the horn-blaring drivers circling Civic Center Park seem like angry third graders whining about recess getting cancelled.

Collins was attending the Capitol to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about her rape at the University of Nevada-Reno in 2007. While walking to her car after an evening class, Collins was grabbed from behind by an armed man and raped in a university parking garage less than 300 yards from a campus police office.

Collins had a concealed carry permit, but was not permitted to have her 9-mm Glock on campus, per Nevada law.

“I’m weighted with this question,” Collins told the Colorado committee Monday, “What would have been different if I had been carrying the weapon I was licensed to carry that night?”

After calling the details of the rape “unsettling,” Hudak moved to answer Collins’ question quickly. Citing statistics and bits of Collins’ own testimony, Hudak said she isn’t sure anything would have been different if Collins had a gun.

“You said that you were a martial arts student — I mean person — experienced in taekwondo,” Hudak said. “And yet because this individual was so large, was able to overcome you even with your skills, chances are that if you had had a gun, he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

 

[Skylar]

Page after page of actual research and you sit there and deny it.........like a 12 year old........

Page after page of the names of studies.....but when we actually look at them, they claim no causation between CCWs and crime rates. They merely *suggest* a possible connection.

You are making claims that even professional gun advocate John Lott isn't making. And intentionally misrepresenting your sources, insisting causation is proven when your sources make no such claim.

Since you enjoy links so much...here are some results.....

And of those papers....

Regarding the eighteen recent studies finding a benefit from right-to-carry laws [see Table 2 above], here are some of the comments.

• Florenz Plassmann and Nicolaus Tideman find that “right-tocarry laws do help on average to reduce the number of these crimes.”41

• Carl Moody explains that his findings “confirm and reinforce the basic findings of the original Lott and Mustard study.” 4


• In another paper that studies county crime rates from 1977 until 2000, co-authored by Moody and Thomas Marvell, the authors write 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.”43 •

Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrok studied county crime rates from 1977 to 2000 to conclude that “shall-issue laws cause a large and significant drop in the murder trend rate” and that “there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shallissue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.” 44

• David Olsen and Michael Maltz found “a decrease in total homicides,” however the different set of data they use shows that the decrease was driven by a drop in gun killings.45

• Bruce Benson and Brent Mast found that their results “are virtually identical to those in [Lott and Mustard]. Therefore, the hypothesis that the [Lott and Mustard estimates] suffer from missing-variable bias owing to the lack of control for the private security industry is rejected . . . .” 46

• David Mustard supplies evidence that “[a]fter enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having felonious police deaths . . . .”47

• The late James Q. Wilson, often described as the preeminent criminologist in the United States, reviewed a report on Firearms and Violence published by the National Academy of Sciences and found that while there might be disagreement over some types of violent crime, “I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”4

"Seems to support''. "Suggests" "Possible connection".

You claim that it *proves* causation. When even John Lott himself doesn't claim to prove causation.

Oh, and if you're just going to spam John Lott, at least have the balls to admit it.

More Guns, Less Crime

Yes....and when presented with all of the research....you ignore it......and say it has no truth to it........you are an anti gun twit....who refuses to accept the truth, the facts and reality.....

And again...you still refuse to answer......

Is it true that allowing Americans to carry guns does not increase the gun murder rate or the gun crime rate?

You've certainly demonstrated your ability to spam pages from professional gun advocate John Lott's website. But you apparently didn't take the time to read the studies you obediently cut and paste the names of.

As they don't claim causation. They suggest a possible connection.

Even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation. Smiling.......is he 'ignoring all the research'? Or did you just embellish the shit out of the claims of the studies you claimed to be citing.

Thank you for demonstrating the difference between cutting/pasting.......and comprehending. As you clearly don't understand the difference between a suggested connection and proven causation.

Oh, and there are dozens of studies that found NO connection between CCWs and crime rates. But you ignored them all, pretended none existed.

Have you ever heard of 'Confirmation Bias'.

 

[2aguy]

Page after page of actual research and you sit there and deny it.........like a 12 year old........

Page after page of the names of studies.....but when we actually look at them, they claim no causation between CCWs and crime rates. They merely *suggest* a possible connection.

You are making claims that even professional gun advocate John Lott isn't making. And intentionally misrepresenting your sources, insisting causation is proven when your sources make no such claim.

Since you enjoy links so much...here are some results.....

And of those papers....

Regarding the eighteen recent studies finding a benefit from right-to-carry laws [see Table 2 above], here are some of the comments.

• Florenz Plassmann and Nicolaus Tideman find that “right-tocarry laws do help on average to reduce the number of these crimes.”41

• Carl Moody explains that his findings “confirm and reinforce the basic findings of the original Lott and Mustard study.” 4


• In another paper that studies county crime rates from 1977 until 2000, co-authored by Moody and Thomas Marvell, the authors write 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.”43 •

Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrok studied county crime rates from 1977 to 2000 to conclude that “shall-issue laws cause a large and significant drop in the murder trend rate” and that “there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shallissue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.” 44

• David Olsen and Michael Maltz found “a decrease in total homicides,” however the different set of data they use shows that the decrease was driven by a drop in gun killings.45

• Bruce Benson and Brent Mast found that their results “are virtually identical to those in [Lott and Mustard]. Therefore, the hypothesis that the [Lott and Mustard estimates] suffer from missing-variable bias owing to the lack of control for the private security industry is rejected . . . .” 46

• David Mustard supplies evidence that “[a]fter enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having felonious police deaths . . . .”47

• The late James Q. Wilson, often described as the preeminent criminologist in the United States, reviewed a report on Firearms and Violence published by the National Academy of Sciences and found that while there might be disagreement over some types of violent crime, “I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate.”4

"Seems to support''. "Suggests" "Possible connection".

You claim that it *proves* causation. When even John Lott himself doesn't claim to prove causation.

Oh, and if you're just going to spam John Lott, at least have the balls to admit it.

More Guns, Less Crime

Yes....and when presented with all of the research....you ignore it......and say it has no truth to it........you are an anti gun twit....who refuses to accept the truth, the facts and reality.....

And again...you still refuse to answer......

Is it true that allowing Americans to carry guns does not increase the gun murder rate or the gun crime rate?

You've certainly demonstrated your ability to spam pages from professional gun advocate John Lott's website. But you apparently didn't take the time to read the studies you obediently cut and paste the names of.

As they don't claim causation. They suggest a possible connection.

Even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation. Smiling.......is he 'ignoring all the research'? Or did you just embellish the shit out of the claims of the studies you claimed to be citing.

Thank you for demonstrating the difference between cutting/pasting.......and comprehending. As you clearly don't understand the difference between a suggested connection and proven causation.

Oh, and there are dozens of studies that found NO connection between CCWs and crime rates. But you ignored them all, pretended none existed.

Have you ever heard of 'Confirmation Bias'.

Wrong...please link to them......

Dozens implies more than one set of 12 .......and since Lott is the expert in the field and has listed the studies by name......please...link to the dozens of studies.......

 

[2aguy]

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to quote the 'anti-gun nuts' saying what you do in your OP.

I won't hold my breath on that either.

Hmmmm...does President obama count?

Obama to Rape Victim: You Probably Won't Be Able To Use a Gun To Stop Your Own Rape Anyway

There are always questions as to whether or not having a firearm in the home protects you from that kind of violence…What is true is that you have to be pretty well-trained in order to fire a weapon against someone who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise. What is also true is always that possibility that firearm in the home leads to a tragic accident.

 

[Brain357]

That's because they don't exist or the defender is involved in criminal activity.

According to this between 100,000 and 300,000 per year is a likely number. How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

One researcher at FSU says 2 million per year.

Is probably like 100k.

Yeah...no......all of those studies and you pull a number out of your ass....

Ncvs study, only one of any significant size.

 

[Brain357]

That's because they don't exist or the defender is involved in criminal activity.

According to this between 100,000 and 300,000 per year is a likely number. How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

One researcher at FSU says 2 million per year.

Here are the actual gun studies....

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

An actual study you say? Please share some details of the la times study.

 

[Brain357]

Shall we have a contest then? I'll post any accidents for the week and you post any dgu. Let's see who has more.

Your surveys are from fantasy land.

Guns used in defense stories don't seem to make the national news, but gun accident ones do.

Hmmmmm.....

That's because they don't exist or the defender is involved in criminal activity.

You are a liar......

You accept my challenge then? You have quite the advantage if the numbers are as you say.

I just listed the actual research.....you always pull a number out of your ass...throw your poop...giggle like a little girl and say you won.......

Scared of the challenge then?

 

[Brain357]

There are no numbers to represent the amount of crimes prevented by a perp knowing a homeowner is armed or a potential mugging victim is armed. Crime statistics around the country show a decrease in violent crimes as CCW permits and gun ownership increases. The only place that violent crimes are on the rise is on places with strict gun control.

Actually, they show a decrease as gun ownership rates go DOWN. And violent crime went down across the US. Including States that didn't have CCWs increases.

If the decrease in crime occurs if CCWs are expanded...or if they're not......then clearly CCWs aren't the cause.

And more Americans carrying guns did not increase the gun crime rate, did it?

Violent crime went up in wi when they got concealed carry.

 

[Brain357]

Mighty strange coincidence that crime just 'happened' to drop sharply in States without an increase in CCW permits, isn't it?

And even John Lott...professional pro-gun advocate ....has admitted that he can't establish *causation* between CCWs and crime rates.

Yet you're insisting you can?

And here you go...another study....

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

That study doesn't claim causation. It says it 'suggests' a connection.

You're wildly overstating the results of your studies claiming causation. When the studies don't claim causation. Even John Lott doesn't claim causation.

Why do you feel the need to embellish the claims of the studies you're citing?

Here you go...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

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

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

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

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

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

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



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

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

Read the studies........you know...the ones by Dr. John Lott...the actual expert in the field....and by all the other economists and criminologists who also study the field.....

You mean the disgraced ecomomics professor?

 

[Skylar]

And here you go...another study....

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

That study doesn't claim causation. It says it 'suggests' a connection.

You're wildly overstating the results of your studies claiming causation. When the studies don't claim causation. Even John Lott doesn't claim causation.

Why do you feel the need to embellish the claims of the studies you're citing?

Here you go...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

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

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

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

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

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

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



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

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

Read the studies........you know...the ones by Dr. John Lott...the actual expert in the field....and by all the other economists and criminologists who also study the field.....

You mean the disgraced ecomomics professor?

The guy who created fake names and accounts so he could post fake positive reviews of his own books......lied about it and then got caught?

Yeah, that John Lott.

 

[Brain357]

That study doesn't claim causation. It says it 'suggests' a connection.

You're wildly overstating the results of your studies claiming causation. When the studies don't claim causation. Even John Lott doesn't claim causation.

Why do you feel the need to embellish the claims of the studies you're citing?

Here you go...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

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

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

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

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

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

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



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

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

Read the studies........you know...the ones by Dr. John Lott...the actual expert in the field....and by all the other economists and criminologists who also study the field.....

You mean the disgraced ecomomics professor?

The guy who created fake names and accounts so he could post fake positive reviews of his own books......lied about it and then got caught?

Yeah, that John Lott.

Yes the guy who made up survey results. The same guy who even kleck says is wrong.

 

[2aguy]

That study doesn't claim causation. It says it 'suggests' a connection.

You're wildly overstating the results of your studies claiming causation. When the studies don't claim causation. Even John Lott doesn't claim causation.

Why do you feel the need to embellish the claims of the studies you're citing?

Here you go...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

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

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

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

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

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

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



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

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

Read the studies........you know...the ones by Dr. John Lott...the actual expert in the field....and by all the other economists and criminologists who also study the field.....

You mean the disgraced ecomomics professor?

The guy who created fake names and accounts so he could post fake positive reviews of his own books......lied about it and then got caught?

Yeah, that John Lott.

O.K.....I showed you the anti gun nuts who actually stated what I posted about in the first post...so now you go after Dr. John Lott as a distraction..got it....

Of course.....he isn't the only researcher I cited...

And here are all the links addressing the anti gun nut attacks against him...

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

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

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center

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

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



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



------



Lott defends against accusations he works for gun lobby



What gun control advocates bring up when they have nothing else to say, More attacks against the CPRC by gun control advocates - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[2aguy]

Here you go...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

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

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

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

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

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

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



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

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

Read the studies........you know...the ones by Dr. John Lott...the actual expert in the field....and by all the other economists and criminologists who also study the field.....

You mean the disgraced ecomomics professor?

The guy who created fake names and accounts so he could post fake positive reviews of his own books......lied about it and then got caught?

Yeah, that John Lott.

Yes the guy who made up survey results. The same guy who even kleck says is wrong.

Brain....you know better but you lie.....you are a vile human being......

 

[Skylar]

Here you go...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

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

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

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

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

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

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



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

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

Read the studies........you know...the ones by Dr. John Lott...the actual expert in the field....and by all the other economists and criminologists who also study the field.....

You mean the disgraced ecomomics professor?

The guy who created fake names and accounts so he could post fake positive reviews of his own books......lied about it and then got caught?

Yeah, that John Lott.

O.K.....I showed you the anti gun nuts who actually stated what I posted about in the first post...so now you go after Dr. John Lott as a distraction..got it....

Of course.....he isn't the only researcher I cited...

And here are all the links addressing the anti gun nut attacks against him...

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

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

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center

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

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



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



------



Lott defends against accusations he works for gun lobby



What gun control advocates bring up when they have nothing else to say, More attacks against the CPRC by gun control advocates - Crime Prevention Research Center

And where did the anti-gun nuts say this:

"the anti gun nuts tell us that women can't use a gun against a man. They tell is the gun will be easily taken away from her. They tell us that any attack will be an ambush and no woman will be able to use a gun to stop that kind of attack......"

Surely professional gun advocate John Lott has something you can cut and paste for us.

 

[Brain357]

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

Read the studies........you know...the ones by Dr. John Lott...the actual expert in the field....and by all the other economists and criminologists who also study the field.....

You mean the disgraced ecomomics professor?

The guy who created fake names and accounts so he could post fake positive reviews of his own books......lied about it and then got caught?

Yeah, that John Lott.

Yes the guy who made up survey results. The same guy who even kleck says is wrong.

Brain....you know better but you lie.....you are a vile human being......

Kleck is a vile liar too? Cause says the same about lott.

 

[2aguy]

That study doesn't claim causation. It says it 'suggests' a connection.

You're wildly overstating the results of your studies claiming causation. When the studies don't claim causation. Even John Lott doesn't claim causation.

Why do you feel the need to embellish the claims of the studies you're citing?

Here you go...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center



A 2012 survey of the literature is available here. Some of the research showing that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime is listed here.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

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

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

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

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

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

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

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

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



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

Yes, yes. This is the part of our discussion where you spam the EXACT SAME PAGE from professional gun advocate John Lott's website that you always do.

And yet even professional gun advocate John Lott doesn't claim causation between CCWs and drops in crime rates.

Show me causation.

Read the studies........you know...the ones by Dr. John Lott...the actual expert in the field....and by all the other economists and criminologists who also study the field.....

You mean the disgraced ecomomics professor?

The guy who created fake names and accounts so he could post fake positive reviews of his own books......lied about it and then got caught?

Yeah, that John Lott.

Here...so you don't have to click your mouse...

The general evidence for the survey is available here. The beginning of that document provides a brief abstract of the primary points.

An overview of the evidence is this: A) The survey was redone and the redone somewhat smaller survey produced similar results. In fact that survey data was already available at www.johnlott.org when Malkin wrote her piece.
B) The survey results in the single paragraphs in the two books where I have referenced this survey data was biased against the claim that I was making. I argued that the simple defensive brandishing or warning shots are not news worthy. The higher the rate of defensive brandishing or warning shots, the easier it is to explain why the media is not biased when it doesn't cover most defensive gun uses. If I wanted to show that the media was more biased, I should have used the surveys with lower defensive brandishing rates. I have also explained why the length of the time people are asked to recall events over can explain the difference in the four surveys on brandishing that have been done over the last twenty years (two designed by me and two by Gary Kleck).
C) Two people who took the survey have said that they took it. One person, James Hamilton, was interviewed by Professor Jeff Parker at GMU. As to the second person who took the survey, James Lindgren claims that David Gross took a different 1996 survey, but Gross's statements as well as the survey data from the 1996 survey indicate that Gross took my 1997 survey. The data from the 1996 survey is available from me or from the ICPSR under Hemenway's name. Other people were able to confirm various other aspects, such as the timing of when the survey was done and that I talked to people at the time of the survey. I have also supplied my tax records from 1997 to Joe Olson a tax law professor and other professors that show large payments for research assistants. Many others have confirmed many other aspects of what happened.
Bottom line: Science involves replication and I have always made my data available to others. In this case, I redid the survey and made that data available to anyone who wants access to it.

The other Lott controversy
Michelle Malkin
February 5, 2003

For those few of us in the mainstream media who openly support Second Amendment rights, research scholar John Lott has been -- or rather, had been -- an absolute godsend.

Armed with top-notch credentials (including stints at Stanford, Rice, UCLA, Wharton, Cornell, the University of Chicago and Yale), Lott took on the entrenched anti-gun bias of the ivory tower with seemingly meticulous scholarship. His best-selling 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime," provided analysis of FBI crime data that showed a groundbreaking correlation between concealed-weapons laws and reduced violent crime rates.

I met Lott briefly after a seminar at the University of Washington in Seattle several years ago and was deeply impressed by his intellectual rigor. Lott responded directly and extensively to critics' arguments. He made his data accessible to many other researchers.

But as he prepares to release a new book, "Bias Against Guns," next month, Lott must grapple with an emerging controversy -- brought to the public eye by the blogosphere -- that goes to the heart of his academic integrity.

The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting.

When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted." He has also incorrectly attributed the figure to newspaper polls and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.


1) The reference to the survey involves one number in one sentence in my book. Compared to the 98 percent number there was an earlier survey by Kleck that found 92 percent of defensive gun uses involved brandishing and warning shots and because the survey was asking people about events that occurred over a long period of time it is likely that it over emphasized more dramatic responses. (My number that is directly comparable to the 92 percent estimate is about 99 percent.) My point in the book was that defensive gun use rarely involves more “newsworthy” events where the attacker is killed and either survey would have made the general point. A general discussion of the different methodologies is provided here.


I never attributed my survey results to Kleck. What happened was that Dave Kopel from the Independence Institute took an op-ed that I had in the Rocky Mountain News and edited it for his web site. In the editing he added the incorrect reference to Kleck. (Statements from Kopel and others are provided in the supporting documents ). The two pieces are identical except for the reference to Kleck. As to the claim that I attributed the number to newspaper polls, that claim involves a misreading of two different sentences in an op-ed (see the material addressed in the second half of the link to point (1)). As to using the plural, that was an error. Given the years that have passed since I wrote the sentence, I cannot remember exactly what I had in my mind but the most plausible explanation is that I was describing what findings had been generated by the polls, in other words I was thinking of them as a collective body of research. I had been planning on including more of a discussion on the survey in the book, just as I have in my book that came out early this year, but I had a hard disk crash (see response (2)) and I lost part of the book along with the data.

More importantly, the survey results that I used were biased against the claim that I was making. The relevant discussions in both of my books focus on media bias and the point was that the lack of coverage of defense gun uses is understandable if most uses simply involve brandishing where no one is harmed, no shots fired, no dead bodies on the ground, no crime actually committed. If others believe that the actual rate of brandishing is lower and I had used the results of Kleck, it becomes MORE difficult to explain the lack of news coverage of defensive gun uses. The two short discussions that I have on this issue in my two books thus choose results that are BIASED AGAINST the overall point that I am making, that the media is biased against guns.

Some issues involving the source for Malkin's claims can be found here, here, and here.


Last fall, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren volunteered to investigate the claimed existence of Lott's 1997 telephone survey of 2,424 people. "I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish" that the research had been done, Lindgren wrote in his report.

Unfortunately, Malkin fails to mention that Lindgren is not an unbiased observer since I had written a journal article in Journal of Law & Politics critiquing some of his work months before he "volunteered to investigate" these claims.
It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash.


2) As to the “claim” that I lost my data in a computer crash on July 3, 1997, I have offered Malkin the statements from nine academics (statements attached), four of whom I was co-authoring papers with at the time and who remember quite vividly also losing the data that we had on various projects. David Mustard at the University of Georgia spent considerable time during 1997 helping me replace gun crime data. Other academics worked with me to replace data on our other projects. Just so it is clear, this computer crash basically cost me all my data on all my projects up to that point in time, including all the data and word files for my book, More Guns, Less Crime, and numerous papers that were under review at journals. The next couple of years were hell trying to replace things and the data for this survey which ended up being one sentence in the book, was not of particular importance. However, all the data was replaced, including not only the large county level data, the state level data, as well as the survey data, when the survey was redone.
He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records.


* Unlike many academics, I have never asked for government support for my research. Nothing different or unusual was done in this case. While we still have the tax forms that we filed that show we made large expenditures on research assistants that year, my wife keeps our financial documents for the three years required by the IRS. I have provided my tax records from that year to several professors. Among them is a tax expert, Professor Joe Olson, at Hamline University in Minnesota, and he can verify this information. I have checked with the bank that we had an account with, but they only keep records five years back. Since wild claims have been made about the costs of the survey, some notion of its scope would be useful. The survey was structured so that over 90 percent of those questioned would only have to answer three short questions and those were usually completed in under 30 seconds. Less than one percent of those surveyed would actually answer as many as seven questions and even in that case the survey only took about two minutes. The appendix in The Bias Against Guns provides a description of the survey when it was replicated.
He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.


* I have hired lots of student RAs over the years. Since I have been at AEI in the last couple of years I have had around 25 people work for me on various projects. The students in question worked for me during the very beginning of 1997. While I can usually reconstruct who has worked for me, it requires that I have that material written down. The information on these students was lost in the hard disk crash and given that I had lost data for other projects such as three revise-and-resubmits that I had at the Journal of Political Economy it was not a particularly high priority.


I don’t have the original CD with telephone numbers from across the country that was used to obtain telephone numbers, but I have kept one that I obtained later in 1997 when I was considering redoing the survey and I still have that available.
Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.


3) I have statements from two people who took the survey and other confirmatory evidence. As to the written material, being asked for written material six years after the survey is a long time. After the survey was done, the material was kept on my computer. In addition, I have moved three times (Chicago to Yale to Pennsylvania to AEI) as well as changed offices at Chicago and Yale since the summer of 1997. Yet, besides the statements from the academics who can verify the hard disk crash as well as the statement of those who participated in the survey, I do have statements David Mustard, who I had talked to numerous times about doing the survey with me during 1996 and who remembers after that us talking about the survey after it was completed. He is “fairly confident” that those conversations took place during 1997. John Whitley and Geoff Huck also have some recollections. Russell Roberts, now a professor at George Mason, was someone else that I talked to about the survey, but he simply can’t remember one way of the other. I didn’t talk to people other than co-authors about the survey and the research that I was doing on guns generally. This is because of the often great hostility to my gun work and also because I didn’t want to give those who disliked me a heads-up on what I was doing. I did have the questions from the survey and they were reused in the replicated survey in 2002.
After Lindgren's report was published, a Minnesota gun rights activist named David Gross came forward, claiming he was surveyed in 1997. Some have said that Gross's account proves that the survey was done. I think skepticism is warranted.


4) David Gross is the only person who Malkin mentions and she doubts his statements. Gross, a former city prosecutor, does have strong feelings on guns, but that is one reason why he remembers talking to me about the survey when I gave a talk in Minnesota a couple of years after the survey. There was no other gun survey on the questions that I asked during 1997. And another survey that was given close in time, during the beginning of 1996, was dramatically different from mine (e.g., the 1996 survey was done by a polling firm (not by students), was very long with at least 32 open ended questions (not something that could be done in a few minutes), involved Harvard (not Chicago), did not ask about brandishing, etc.). What Gross remembers indicates that it could only have been my survey.


Malkin also selectively quotes Lindgren. Lindgren told the Washington Times that, “I interviewed [Mr. Gross] at length and found him credible.” Mr. Gross has also responded to later statements made by Lindgren.

I have also had a second person who participated interviewed by Jeff Parker, the former associate dean at the George Mason University Law School. Parker interviewed both James Hamilton as well as Hamilton's sister, who claims that James told her about the interview when it occurred, and he can verify this information.


Lindgren claimed that Gross had instead answered a quite different survey done by Hemenway at Harvard, but when Hemenway finally released the data from both his 1996 and 1999 surveys and the age and other information about Gross and Hamilton do not match any subject interviewed in either survey.


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.


For whatever it is worth, a recent glich at Amazon.com revealed that it is quite common practice for authors to actually write positive anonymous reviews of their own books. The New York Times story on this revelation was actually quite sympathetic, which contrasts with the attack that the New York Times had on me when it also incorrectly claimed that I had written the review of my book.
Just last week, "Rosh" complained on a blog comment board: "Critics such as Lambert and Lindgren ought to slink away and hide."

By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott's invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.


*It would have been helpful if Malkin had actually read the text of what I wrote.
Some Second Amendment activists believe there is an anti-gun conspiracy to discredit Lott as "payback" for the fall of Michael Bellesiles, the disgraced former Emory University professor who engaged in rampant research fraud to bolster his anti-gun book, "Arming America." But it wasn't an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.


*The January 23rd story in the Washington Times could not accurately be described as a negative story. Professor Dan Polsby is quoted as saying that I was “vindicated.” Even Lindgren, a critic whose academic work I have criticized in the past (Journal of Law and Politics, Winter 2001), is characterized by the Times as believing that “ the question appears to have been at least partially resolved . . . “ and he did say that David Gross was a credible witness.
In an interview Monday, Lott stressed that his new defensive gun use survey (whose results will be published in the new book) will show similar results to the lost survey. But the existence of the new survey does not lay to rest the still lingering doubts about the old survey's existence.


*She never asked me any questions about whether the old survey was done.
The media coverage of the 1997 survey data dispute, Lott told me, is "a bunch to do about nothing."


*This quote is totally taken out of context. Some people had accused me of violating federal regulations regarding federal approval for human experiments while I was at Chicago. Malkin’s telephone call focused on that claim, and that is what my quote referred to.