HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » When the Gun Lobby Tries ...

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 06:59 AM

 

When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns to This Guy

Yet as Lott's profile rose, his work came under scrutiny. The National Research Council, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, assembled a panel to look into the impact of concealed-carry laws; 15 of 16 panel members concluded that the existing research, including Lott's, provided "no credible evidence" that right-to-carry laws had any effect on violent crime. Economists Ian Ayres of Yale University and John Donohue of Stanford University argued that Lott had drawn inaccurate correlations: Cities had experienced a spike in crime in the 80's and 90's in part because of the crack epidemic, not because of strict gun laws. When they extended their survey by five years, they found that more guns were linked to more crime, with right-to-carry states showing an eight percent increase in aggravated assault.

Kleck reexamined Lott's work and found that he hadn't accounted for missing data. "It was garbage in and garbage out," he says. Even Kleck, who conducted a controversial, yet often-cited survey on defensive gun use, observes, "Do I know anybody who specifically believes with more guns there are less crimes and they're a credible criminologist? No." David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, has concluded that "virtually all of Lott's analyses are faulty; his findings are not 'facts' but are erroneous." Lott maintains that the missing data Kleck refers to had no impact on his final conclusions, and that the "vast majority" of economists and criminologists support his findings.

Researchers pressed Lott, then a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, to release the data behind his claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses in the United States involved a would-be victim merely brandishing a gun. Lott claimed that it was based on a data from a survey he had conducted—but that the data had been lost in a computer crash. Lott redid the survey in 2002; of more than 1,000 people surveyed, seven said they'd used a gun to defend themselves. Of those seven, six merely flashed a firearm in self-defense. Based on these responses, plus the lost data, Lott still asserts that more than 90 percent of defensive gun uses involve brandishing a gun.

As criticism of Lott mounted, an online commenter, who identified herself as a former student of Lott's at Penn named Mary Rosh, lavishly praised her former professor and attacked his critics. "He was the best professor that I ever had," she wrote. After it came out in 2003 that Rosh and Lott shared an internet address, Lott admitted to the sock puppetry, saying that he had been receiving obnoxious phone calls when using his real name, and some of Rosh's comments were possibly written by his family members on a shared email account. "In most circles, this goes down as fraud," wrote Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy in the magazine. And yet, he observed in a blistering op-ed, "Legislators in a number of states are still considering liberalizing concealed-weapon laws, and Lott's book plays a continuing role in the debate. That moves this story from high comedy to a troubling challenge in social policy that isn't funny at all."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/john-lott-guns-crime-data

14 replies, 2111 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns to This Guy (Original post)
SecularMotion Jul 2015 OP
ileus Jul 2015 #1
pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #2
pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #4
sarisataka Jul 2015 #5
SecularMotion Jul 2015 #6
sarisataka Jul 2015 #7
gejohnston Jul 2015 #11
ileus Jul 2015 #13
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #8
sarisataka Jul 2015 #9
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #10
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #12
jimmy the one Jul 2015 #14

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 07:01 AM

1. Just tell them I'll keep my rights....now that's progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:35 AM

2. "When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns to This Guy"


Let's make that.......

"When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns In Part to This Guy"

Alright. Now it's an honest statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 11:39 AM

3. And let the record show.........


that the only time Gary Kleck's name is invoked by The Controllers is on the rare occasions when he says something that vaguely supports their case --- otherwise he's a persona non grata.

Example of brazen hypocrisy #3,492.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:03 PM

4. It always tickles me that Mother Jones magazine is so anti-gun considering their namesake

was a central figure in the Paint Creek-Cabin Creek strike that was a running war between striking miners and a private army. If the magazine had its way the strikers would have been defenseless and gunned down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 01:58 PM

5. When gun control tries to justify

some bullshit idea they turn to this guy

I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun.-David Hemenway
http://www.rwjf.org/en/culture-of-health/2013/01/gun_violence_liveh.html

A bit of eugenic principle there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 02:04 PM

6. Here's the full quote

 

Another area we talk about where social norms have changed is smoking. What a magnificent change we’ve had in smoking in the United States. We need to see a social norm change on gun violence. Instead of it being the mark of a real man that you can shoot somebody at 50 feet and kill them with a gun, the mark of a real man is that you would never do anything like that. You’d show that you were stronger than they were and smarter and not just that you had some weapon. The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss. They aren’t anybody to be looked up to. They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 02:11 PM

7. Does it in any way change the point

of the section I quoted? The entire quote simply emphasizes his "might makes right" position.
To "Dr." Hemmingway- if you are not big, strong and smart you deserve to die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 05:54 PM

11. which doesn't change anything

what he is saying is an 62 year old heart patient can't take on a 22 year old meth head mano mano, that the former deserves to die. However if Hemenway were in that situation, there is no doubt in my mind that he would reach for a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:26 AM

13. In SMs example the methhead is the brave hero for attacking without a firearm.

How can "progressives" actually pull for criminals is beyond me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 02:46 PM

8. Not much here.nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 03:00 PM

9. Speaking of

controlling and bullshit- some of those flowers are extra delicate lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:29 PM

10. Peculiar, the homeowner who ends up crashing at someone else's pad.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 12:30 AM

12. More like the homeowner that won't leave the neighbors' house, actually...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 11:29 AM

14. more specifics, NRC & N-Acad-Sciences

National Academy of Sciences: The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

Fact Check, 2012: National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge.
While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

The committee reinforces recommendations made by past National Research Council committees and others to support the development and maintenance of the National Violent Death Reporting System and the National Incident-Based Reporting System.
The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center pilot data collection program and the recent seed money provided to implement a Violent Death Reporting System at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread