• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New NRA News Network

Rob Lister said:


Yea. But what happens on day two?
Click to expand...

Don't worry they have loads of tents and barbed wire to put all the prisoners in........ not sure if they have much in the way of coca-cola mind...... ;)

Ever heard of irn-bru? :D
 
Anyway back on topic.......

Come on dicky. I am making an appeal to you. Go on. Genuinely surprise me.....

Answer the questions put to you


(hint we're not looking for more spam......)
 
Rob Lister said:


Lott and Mustard in 1996 but more extensively by Bronars and Lott in 1998.
Click to expand...

Lott has been debunked by dozens of people. He moulds the data to support his case. The truth is, the effect of gun laws on crime either way is inconclusive. See the following links for more information:

EASING CONCEALED FIREARMS LAWS: EFFECTS ON HOMICIDE IN THREE STATES

RIGHT-TO-CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON LAWS
AND HOMICIDE IN LARGE U.S. COUNTIES: THE EFFECT ON WEAPON TYPES, VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS, AND VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS (PDF doc)

Guns and crime
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Lott has been debunked by dozens of people. He moulds the data to support his case. The truth is, the effect of gun laws on crime either way is inconclusive. See the following links for more information:

EASING CONCEALED FIREARMS LAWS: EFFECTS ON HOMICIDE IN THREE STATES

RIGHT-TO-CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON LAWS
AND HOMICIDE IN LARGE U.S. COUNTIES: THE EFFECT ON WEAPON TYPES, VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS, AND VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS (PDF doc)

Guns and crime
Click to expand...

Your first link was published (if you can call it that) before 1998 so I'm not sure you can claim it debunks it.

Your second link doesn't seem to debunk it at all. It seems to support the majority of it while disputing certain findings using alternate statistical models.

Your third link is a mystery. I don't know why you posted it.
 
Rob Lister said:


Your first link was published (if you can call it that) before 1998 so I'm not sure you can claim it debunks it.
Click to expand...
Didn't notice that. My bad.

Your second link doesn't seem to debunk it at all. It seems to support the majority of it while disputing certain findings using alternate statistical models.
Click to expand...
The preceding analyses, which sought to replicate Lott and Mustard’s original work using a different data source, produced a number of substantive findings. Importantly, the disaggregation of homicides by weapon type (firearm versus nonfirearm) produced dramatically different results than did Lott
and Mustard’s analyses. Although we also found that firearm homicides decreased, and to a greater extent than did Lott and Mustard, our results indicate that there was an increase in nonfirearm homicides. When combined, both our assessment and the original one performed by Lott and Mustard indicate that the law is associated with a decrease in total homicides, although the magnitude of the effects differed. It is likely that many of these differences between the two studies are due to the different sources of information used. We used SHR data exclusively, whereas Lott and Mustard used a combination of UCR and Mortality Detail Records data. Thus, while both analyses would tend to indicate that there is indeed some smoke, further examination needs to be performed to ensure that there is actually a fire. In addition, the finding that the disaggregation of homicides by weapon type produced different results may also indicate that the right-to-carry law would produce different results in firearm versus nonfirearm assaults, rapes, or robberies and possibly different outcomes of these offenses.
Click to expand...

In other words, more research is needed, by the admission of those who support Lott's research.

Your third link is a mystery. I don't know why you posted it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Robert Ehrlich, in his book Nine Crazy Ideas in Science (ISBN 0691094950), examines this issue in Chapter 2, "More Guns Means Less Crime". He revisits John Lott's original data and concludes that the data was somewhat manipulated to "prove" a point. For example, many graphs are fits to the data and do not show the data itself. The raw data does not support Lott's thesis the way the fitted graph did. Ehrlich's conclusion is that more guns does not mean less crime, though it does not necessarily mean more crime either.
Click to expand...

In other words a) Lott fits the facts to suit himself and b) there is no conclusive evidence that more guns lead to less crime.

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

Lets see. I referenced a peer reviewed study (two actually). You referenced a peer reviewed study which focused on only one aspect of the Lott study (homocide) but nevertheless largely supported Lott's conclusion.


You also offer non-peer-reviewed material from activist organizations. In the absence of peer-reviewed studies (from reputable sources), I'd take a look at those, but in the absense of that absence, I don't see how they are relevent. Let's stick to the peer-reviewed stuff, k?

How 'bout Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley, STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:1313] which also supports Lotts analysis. (I think I can provide a link if you need one)
 
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

Lott Co-Author Admits to Gaping Flaws in Study

Professor David Mustard, the co-author of Lott's study, has conceded that there were serious flaws in their study - flaws that seriously undermine the conclusions. Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that: 1) the study "omitted variables" which could explain that changes in the crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws, and 2) the study did not account for many of the major factors that Mustard believes affect crime including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs and alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing. These serious flaws completely undermine Lott's findings.

Lott Claims Computer Ate His Controversial CCW Survey

In his published research analysis, John Lott has claimed that a 1997 survey he conducted found that concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely few self-defense uses of handguns are ever reported. But when scholars began questioning his survey results, Lott began a series of evasions that culminated in the claim that his computer had crashed and he had "lost" all the data. The University of Chicago, where Lott claims he conducted the study, has no record of it being conducted so Lott began claiming that he funded it himself (and kept no records) and that he used students to make the survey calls (though no students have been identified who participated). Indeed, no records of the survey exist at all. Lott is now facing serious questions about whether he fabricated the entire survey - raising serious questions about his ethics and credibility.
 
The Fool said:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

Lott Co-Author Admits to Gaping Flaws in Study
Click to expand...


1) Please provide the actual transcript of the deposing rather than the paraphrasing and giving conclusions by an activist organization. (For example, all data sources are flawed. It's the nature of the beast.)

2) Please explain how Lott's work has been verified to varying degrees by no less than six peer-reviewed published papers (that I am aware of) if it was so flawed?

3) Please provide the peer-reviewed studies that refute Lott's findings. I can think of one (Donohue) but it really was completely debunked -- and, IIRC, by people trying to validate his findings. Still, there may be others of which I am not aware. I'd be happy to read them.
 
Any chance we could make another thread about Lott rather than de-rail this one? I'd quite like to concentrate on Dicky mounting any defence of what he's posted.........

ta
 
Richard G said:
[B
#2) All licensed firearms permited are to be kept locked up at a shooting club, or completely disassembled, and locked up, with ammunition in a seperate location.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Oooo I missed this one........

Not shotguns Dicky.............

Keep trying as I say

I look forward to your reply............
 
Rob Lister said:



1) Please provide the actual transcript of the deposing rather than the paraphrasing and giving conclusions by an activist organization. (For example, all data sources are flawed. It's the nature of the beast.)

2) Please explain how Lott's work has been verified to varying degrees by no less than six peer-reviewed published papers (that I am aware of) if it was so flawed?

3) Please provide the peer-reviewed studies that refute Lott's findings. I can think of one (Donohue) but it really was completely debunked -- and, IIRC, by people trying to validate his findings. Still, there may be others of which I am not aware. I'd be happy to read them.
Click to expand...
Maybe you would be happier posting somewhere that lott's anecdote collections are better recieved? The one and only problem I have with Lotts conclusions is this...where are all the dead bodies? If I am to believe the silly stories he collects and accepts about people saving thier lives by using a gun where are all the mounds of dead non gun carriers? Extrapolate his claimed figures of crime suppression by gun use to the non gun carrying population and you too will get a good giggle out of lotts. Where is all the crime that non gun carriers are supposed to be unable to defend themselves against? where are all the extra dead non gun carriers?

And Shaun...I take your point about derailing threads but do you really expect our designated NRA spammer to become involved in a debate?
 
The Fool said:


And Shaun...I take your point about derailing threads but do you really expect our designated NRA spammer to become involved in a debate?
Click to expand...

Fool, please accept my apologies for believing Dicky would try and defend his statements. It won't happen again, I'm sorry. It was stupid of me I know.......

Im actually beginning to believe Dicky is a pro-gun control plant. to make the NRA look bad. Nobody can be this genuinely inept...........
 
Shaun from Scotland said:


Fool, please accept my apologies for believing Dicky would try and defend his statements. It won't happen again, I'm sorry. It was stupid of me I know.......

Im actually beginning to believe Dicky is a pro-gun control plant. to make the NRA look bad. Nobody can be this genuinely inept...........
Click to expand...
I calculate I have spent a total of 17 minutes and 40 seconds attempting to start a 2 way discussion with dicky....one day, on my death bed, I am going to deeply resent that nearly 20 minutes of my life that I can never get back was totally wasted.....
 
The Fool said:

I calculate I have spent a total of 17 minutes and 40 seconds attempting to start a 2 way discussion with dicky....one day, on my death bed, I am going to deeply resent that nearly 20 minutes of my life that I can never get back was totally wasted.....
Click to expand...

No totally wasted. It gives you an insight into either

a/ Very clever propaganda

0r

b/ Being incabable of backing up your arguments

Both very useful exercises.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom