[WAGCEVP]

From the LIES Of JTO :(



Inequitable Penalties? The Tales of Two Gun Researchers

Feature Story
by Dick Dahl

Early this year, it looked as though researcher John R. Lott, Jr.'s days
as an influential voice on domestic gun policy in the U.S. were over.
Lott, widely touted by pro-gun activists since the publication of his
book, "More Guns, Less Crime," in 1998, found himself under attack for
his
inability to provide evidence to support some of his claims about the
effectiveness of guns for self-defense.

Most significantly, when asked to provide details of a survey that
supposedly proved that 98 percent of gun defenses involved the mere
brandishing of the weapon, Lott said that his computer crashed. And
despite his claim that the survey was large and national, he could produce
neither any records of it nor names of anyone who knew anything about it.
Then, to top off Lott's apparent disgrace, a resourceful Weblogger named
Julian Sanchez conducted research to show that Lott had created a fake
persona named Mary Rosh for the purpose of providing rave reviews of John
Lott's work.

Much of the media response to these developments was predictable. Only one
year earlier, Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles had resigned
from his job under fierce pressure from pro-gun advocates over his own
inability to substantiate a claim in his book, "Arming America," published
in 2000. In it, Bellesiles wrote that levels of gun ownership in early
America were not as high as is generally believed. It was an argument that
calls into question the gun lobby's assertion that firearms have always
been an intrinsic part of American culture, but when he said that he could
not produce notes to prove a section about the paucity of guns in early
probate records because he'd lost the notes in an office flood, the
National Rifle Association went on the attack. The effort was successful
and Bellesiles resigned.

So when Lott's various credibility problems emerged earlier this year, the
press called him the pro-gunners' Bellesiles. Understandable though the
comparison may be, however, the media portrayal of the two men as equals
within the two opposing ideological camps is misleading. Where Bellesiles'
contribution to the overall gun-control argument was primarily interesting
on a historical level, Lott's work is critically important to the pro-gun
side. The pro-gun argument for minimal or no restrictions on gun ownership
essentially rests on two claims: (1) The Constitution ensures individual
rights to guns, as opposed to the militia-ensuring "collective rights"
interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court, and (2) Society is safer when
people can arm themselves without restriction for self-defense purposes.
No one is cited more often as an authority for the self-defense argument
than John Lott.

While the cases of John Lott and Michael Bellesiles appear to be similar,
their subsequent stories have played out quite differently, however. Where
Bellesiles was forced to resign, to relinquish the prestigious Bancroft
Prize that his book had won for him, and to move to Europe for a time,
Lott has continued to push his pro-gun agenda as a researcher at the
conservative American Enterprise Institute as though nothing has happened.
And judging by the frequency with which journalists use him as an "expert"
on gun policy and on the fact that mainstream newspapers are running his
opinion pieces, he's getting away with it.

Meanwhile, according to people who continue to monitor his work, Lott is
still playing fast and loose with the truth. On July 13, the Los Angeles
Times ran an opinion article by Lott, who claimed to have evidence that
arming teachers is a good idea. Lott has consistently argued that
concealed-carry gun laws deter crime, and in the Times piece he focused
his argument on schools. Acknowledging that the notion of armed teachers
may alarm many people, Lott said that, on the contrary, gun-toting
teachers are a very good idea. "My research ... shows that citizens with
guns helped stop about a third of the post-1997 public school shootings,
stepping in before uniformed police could arrive," he wrote.

The claim that about one third of shootings in public schools had been
averted by armed citizens over a five-year period does indeed sound
impressive. But according to people who have looked into the statistic,
there's just one small problem: It seems to be bogus.

Chris McGrath, executive director of the nonprofit organization
Handgun-Free America, calls the statistic "an outright lie." He said that
his organization contacted Lott for evidence of that claim and Lott
referred them to pages in "More Guns, Less Crime," and in his new book,
"The Bias Against Guns." McGrath said neither reference supports the
claim. One of them, he said, describes an incident last year at the
Appalachian School of Law in which he claimed a shooter was stopped by two
armed students. "What he doesn't say," McGrath said, "is that both
students were off-duty police officers and they were using their service
guns." (Another Lott critic, Weblogger Elton Beard, theorizes that's why
Lott uses the term, "uniformed police," in his LA Times sentence.) In
addition, a number of newspaper accounts about the incident report that
the shooter had finished firing and laid his gun down before the off-duty
police officers arrived.

McGrath said that he and people in his office have gone through Lott's new
book and found other unsubstantiated claims. For instance, the book
states, "And contrary to popular misconception, [concealed carry] permit
holders are virtually never involved in the commission of any crime, let
alone murder."

"It's simply false," McGrath said. "Of course permit holders commit
crimes, including murder."

McGrath said that Lott appeared to provide an answer for this amazing
claim because he footnoted it. Turning to the notes, McGrath found the
following explanation: "Unfortunately, no data are available on whether
handguns lawfully bought by permit holders are used in crimes by another
party at a later date."

In other words, said McGrath, there is little or no connection between the
footnoted sentence and the footnote.

Bellesiles: Seeking Vindication

It may have seemed like Michael Bellesiles disappeared from the face of
the earth in early 2002 after he resigned from Emory. In fact, he spent
much of the last year teaching in the United Kingdom. These days, he is
resuming his effort to recapitulate the notes, which he says were
destroyed in an office flood, upon which he made the challenged claim that
early-American probate records reveal a paucity of gun ownership. He told
Join Together Online that he's gotten through about a quarter of the
records so far, and that his findings are once again showing what he'd
claimed in the book.

He's also preparing for the re-publication of the book, set for this fall
by Soft Skull Press of New York City, with a lengthy new introduction and
the three-paragraph section on the probate records re-written. In
addition, he recently completed a long essay, to be distributed in
pamphlet form following Sept. 15, which will attempt to examine the
brouhaha he experienced in a broader way. According to publisher Richard
Nash, "This will be the place where he puts his experience in the context
of other academic witch hunts, in addition to going through the book page
by page, saying what he changed, what he didn't, and why." And with tongue
only slightly in cheek, Nash adds, "And it will kick start the opprobrium
that is certainly going to be visited upon us in some organized fashion."

Bellesiles says that in addition to reworking the probate data, he's
examined every accusation of error leveled against the book. He says the
accusations number about 60. The majority, he said, were baseless and some
were accurate criticisms that he says he's correcting. In addition, some
of the accusations led to a gray area of interpretation, "which is what
historians always deal in."

While criticism of Bellesiles' writing about the probate claim without
physical evidence to prove it is apparently valid, writer Jon Wiener wrote
in the Nov. 4, 2002 issue of The Nation that the NRA-led attack against
him claimed something more serious, that "Bellesiles has faked evidence to
support an otherwise untenable position. The charge, in other words, is
fraud."

While Bellesiles is assembling the evidence once again, there has been no
word that John Lott is doing anything to validate the "survey" showing
that mere brandishing of a gun deters crime 98 percent of the time. And if
Bellesiles acted fraudulently, many may assume that John Lott's "Mary
Rosh" creation could be considered an even more egregious act of fraud.

Furthermore, Bellesiles' assertion of low gun-ownership rates in pre-Civil
War America is not really a ground-breaking discovery to those who have
studied the issue. "The important thing about Bellesiles' work is that
it's almost irrelevant," said Ernest McGill, who heads the Potowmack
Institute, a small enterprise that studies the Second Amendment and
firearms history in the U.S. "They condemn him for fudging his data or
whatever, but there's plenty of evidence that there weren't that many guns
around in those days."

McGill claims that the Second Amendment's purpose was to ensure the
existence of state militias. He also says that the militia system never
worked well, in large part because "there just weren't that many weapons
around." (McGill says that the militia system was finally scrapped by
President Monroe and Secretary of War John C. Calhoun after the War of
1812.)

Even though Bellesiles apparently is standing on relatively safe ground
with his essential message that gun ownership wasn't always such an
intrinsic part of American life, the pro-gunners' withering attack over
the lost notes may have dissuaded Bellesiles' potential defenders,
including Emory, from defending him. "My biggest regret in all of this,
and I don't pretend to understand it, is that ordinarily, if a scholar has
lost material or notes, the scholar is allowed to go back into the
archive. But my university, Emory, chose not to support that effort on my
part, but rather to investigate me."

How has the incident affected him? "It destroyed my life," Bellesiles
said. "I had dedicated myself to teaching, not writing, and it's been
devastating to me not being able to teach. It shattered my family. It was
devastating in every way, shape, and form. I can barely give it words."

Bellesiles said that he is very aware of how his case parallels that of
John Lott. "I think of it all the time," he said. "He's still being
cited.
And I, of course, have ceased to exist."

John Lott's name, meanwhile, has been summoned in statehouses across the
land this year as still more legislatures have passed the concealed-carry
laws that Lott says are good for society -- despite the mounting evidence
that they are nothing of the sort. As Stanford Law School professor John
J. Donohue and Yale Law School professor Ian Ayres have shown in an
exhaustive analysis of concealed-carry laws, for instance, there is now
more evidence to suggest that these laws increase crime than to reduce it.

Donohue and Ayres, of course, have faced their own version of orchestrated
attack from the pro-gunners, including the following passage that appeared
on the Internet last September, when their work first appeared: "The Ayres
and Donohue piece is a joke."

The author? Mary Rosh.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Mark Tyson]

The "states militia" nonsense has been trashed so many times it's not worth rehashing.

Not that I think the RKBA depends on the number of robberies stopped by CCW holders, but wasn't there a similar study before Lott's by a guy named Kleck?

[vmi93]

Lott: A couple of out of context quotes that could be interpreted as being unequivocal false statements if one chooses to do so, and one small survey that was not thoroughly documented.

Bellesiles: Widespread misquotes from source material, citations to sources that do not exist, and a mysterious notepad destroying flood in his office that no one on maintenance staff remembers.

Yeah, they're exactly the same. :rolleyes:

[Standing Wolf]

Chris McGrath, executive director of the nonprofit organization Handgun-Free America, calls the statistic "an outright lie."

As if anyone with more than 75 I.Q. points would believe anything put out by a leftist extremist anti-Second Amendment bigotry organization!

[Don Gwinn]

Lott may not have documented his claims about permit holders committing crimes very well, but anyone can check the Texas and Florida DPS statistics and find that he's clearly right about those two states, at least.

And I love the part where he chides the NRA for making accusations of fraud against Bellesiles.
Bellesiles claimed that the support for his assertions was found in a set of records that DO NOT EXIST. He didn't accidentally cite the wrong source, and he wasn't "vague" about his documentation. He lied through his teeth. Fraud indeed.


All that said, I wish Lott hadn't done such stupid things.

[jimpeel]

"The important thing about Bellesiles' work is that
it's almost irrelevant," said Ernest McGill, who heads the Potowmack
Institute, a small enterprise that studies the Second Amendment and
firearms history in the U.S. "They condemn him for fudging his data or
whatever, but there's plenty of evidence that there weren't that many guns
around in those days."

McGill claims that the Second Amendment's purpose was to ensure the
existence of state militias. He also says that the militia system never
worked well, in large part because "there just weren't that many weapons
around." (McGill says that the militia system was finally scrapped by
President Monroe and Secretary of War John C. Calhoun after the War of
1812.)
Now there's a real authority for you GEErnst. This guy is so whacked out on the gun issue he can't see straight.

He claims that the term "bear" is a purely military term so a citizen can't "bear" arms because they aren't in the military.

He changed his site name to "Potowmack Institute" because it was confused with the real Potomac Institute.

Read his Amicus (animus) brief on the Emerson case and you will need know no more about this clown. http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerarg.html . The text starts about a fourth of the page down.

He has a posting board at his webpage but he will pull your posts if you deign to use his real name.

Brett Bellmore has publicly discredited him on numerous occasions and has shown that his "Institute" is nothing more than a server in an apartment with a post office address.

Also, read his rantings at http://www.potomac-inc.org/ . He proudly posts them down the left side of the page.

If this is the type of "expert" they use they are really desperate.

[El Tejon]

Pssst, jim, they really ARE that desperate. The collective view has long been discredited, excepting the media, of course.

[Justin]

I thought that Lott had redone the phone survey that showed 98% of all encounters where a would-be victim uses a gun to defend themselves without firing a shot, and now had documentation in hand?

[4v50 Gary]

Bellesiles wants to rehabilitate his image is kinda like Madonna trying to reinvent herself again. Will anybody care if either succeed? Bellesiles is so discredited that I doubt if Emory will want to associate itself with him. Fallen academians rarely make a comeback.

One thing about the Civil War, a lot of soldiers didn't know how to use guns and there's something Bellesiles didn't mention. They were immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc. and even as far away as China. Otis Howard's 11th Corps that got routed at Chancellorsville by that lemon sucking general, Stonewall Jackson, was predominantly composed of German immigrants. (However, the Union army units from the Midwest were generally on par with their Southern counterparts in terms of marksmanship.) Immigrant units and some units recruited from large cities had little firearms experience. Units recruited from rural areas (farmers) tended to have exposure as it was both practical (varmint control) and hunting (increase the larder).

Methinks Bellesiles makes a point about firearms accidents in the Civil War and while it is true that in reading a regimental history, many units (if not all) had negligent (and sometimes fatal) discharges. However, the 4 rules was not espoused by sages then as they are today and even the sharpshooter units had accidents (and these were guys who shot all the time).

[TimLambert]

I thought that Lott had redone the phone survey that showed 98% of all encounters where a would-be victim uses a gun to defend themselves without firing a shot, and now had documentation in hand?
No. He did another study, which got different results, so he lied about what his results were. Detail are here (http://timlambert.org/guns/Lott/survey)

[Quartus]

Lott's computer crash was indepently confirmed, IIRC. Still, there's no question about the phony Mary. He didn't commit the kind of fraud that Beliar did, but he DID do some sloppy stuff, he DID commit - what would you call it? promotional fraud? with the phony Mary thing, and I don't think we need to rally around a liar, even it the majority of his work has held up under scrutiny.

Not to mention that others have done essentially the same research and come to the same conclusions.


But Beliar's fraud is of an entirely different character. He did NOT resign because of "pressure from the gun lobby", but because his own university investigated him and found that his entire book was fraud from one end to the other.


One thing that's often missed in this discussion, though, it that even IF his data had existed, his entire premise for interpreting that data is ABSURD.

[Wildalaska]

Unfortunately for both...falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Neither Liarott nor Smellybile is worth a hoot and reasonable and responsible gun onwers should reject both. To fail to do so reeks of left wing hypocrisy.

WildnewresearchneededAlaska

[Quartus]

Agreed, Wild!


Well, except that for Beliar, the only part that applies is falsus in omnibus.


And it was a pretty big bus, too! :D

[tyme]

Wild, you are wrong in one respect. Lott's data are not falsified. Some of Bellesailles's data are. Whether you agree with the reasoning of each person in arriving at their conclusions is up to you. Lott clearly has some bias. So does Belles. Lott reached his conclusions without falsifying data, but it's unlikely Belles could have done so.

The people may not be worthy of respect, but Lott's book is at least not fiction as Belles's is.

[Langenator]

Just so I can write to the publication that author works for, what is JTO?

It's ironic that in writing an article detailing Lott's miscues of fact checking, promotion, and survey methodology, the author neglects to do some basic fact checking of his own, namely this bit:

(1) The Constitution ensures individual rights to guns, as opposed to the militia-ensuring "collective rights" interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court

The numbers, for the record: of the 34 cases cited in Kopel's "Supreme Court Gun Cases," 28 support the 2A as an individual right. I'd call that overwhelming evidence that SCOTUS calls it and individual right. Oh, and the last two were writeen by noted gun rights advocates Stevens and Ginsburg.

[ninenot]

Ironically, Lott could have and SHOULD have made the case for armed teachers based on the experience of Israel, where a random drawing determines which school teachers will carry the pistols on any given day.

You RARELY hear about schools being attacked by terrorists in Israel, now do you???

Schoolyard shooters are really terrorists--they pick on hundreds of unarmed innocents to make a larger population feel unsafe.

What's the difference in terrorism if it's Israel or the USA?

[WAGCEVP]

Just so I can write to the publication that author works for, what is JTO?



JTO = Join Together Online - a part of the brady bunch BS:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[Ryder]

What I've read of Lott's statements are not glaringly at odds with what I see in government statsics or my own personal observances.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett Bellmore has publicly discredited him on numerous occasions and has shown that his "Institute" is nothing more than a server in an apartment with a post office address."

Technically, Jim, all I did was repost something somebody else had found, and pointed out in earlier posts McGill had deleted. Knowing how to cut and paste doesn't make you a private eye. :)

[beerslurpy]

Holy misrepresentation of the facts batman. Lott's stuff has been subjected to frequent peer review for decades now. His assertions that guns prevent crime was seen as patently insane at the time, which is why it was subjected to so much scrutiny. And it has survived that scrutiny.

To slam Lott for one potentially missing survey and for not being able to draw a conclusion about what happens to concealed carry guns after they are sold to third parties is kind of extreme. One or two potential mistakes amongst years of published and scrutinized work is not bad.

[Kingcreek]

<re-publication of the book, set for this fall
by Soft Skull Press of New York City>
SOFT SKULL PRESS
now that part seems appropriate!

[agricola]

This thread comes around every time Lott's work is cited. As Tim Lambert has shown, there are serious problems around Lott's work which are detailed on Lambert's blog.

Lott's computer crash was indepently confirmed, IIRC.

read here, section three (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html)

[agricola]

I thought that Lott had redone the phone survey that showed 98% of all encounters where a would-be victim uses a gun to defend themselves without firing a shot, and now had documentation in hand?

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/survey/1107.html

[Henry Bowman]

"Where Bellesiles' contribution to the overall gun-control argument was primarily interesting on a historical level, Lott's work is critically important to the pro-gun side. "

False. Lott's work is only to show that gun control is ineffective at its stated purpose. That has nothing to do with rights. Even if gun control =crime reduction, that does not allow a Constitutionally enumerated right to be infringed.

Lott's work is interesting and useful to dispell the hysteria of antis. It is not, however, critical as a basis for maintaining a basic human right.

[Art Eatman]

Lott is just one among many. Mostly, he's active in current writings, which brings public attention.

Kleck's work preceded Lott's; both were preceded by Wright, Rossi & Daly. The latters' "Under The Gun" (U of Fla Press; Amazon.com) is as seminal as is needed...

Art

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, the piece is horribly slanted to the extent it exaggerates Lott's errors (which to my mind do discredit large portions of his work) and soft-peddle Bellesiles errors (which involved numerous cases of outright fraud).

Anybody who needs a refresher on the myriad ways that Bellesiles sought to mislead people can go here for a handy summary:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles.html

Compare that to a critical evaluation of Lott from both sides on the same cite:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

[agricola]

Bart,

I hardly think guncite qualifies as a "a critical evaluation of Lott from both sides", in much the same way as HFA doesnt.

[Gunstar1]

After glancing over a couple of posts it is quite clear "Deltoid" is as anti gun as gun cite is pro gun.

He is arguing that Lott is wrong about violent crimes actually going up in the UK.

However his entire post misses the point. Tim posts graphs that show the total number went down. The number of crimes may be down, but the RATE per 100,000 has indeed gone up and that is what Lott was talking about in an article that Tim Lambert tries to discount.

Tim says Lott is wrong, that the total number has gone down, not up. Lott did not say the total, he said the RATE went up, which it did.

Then, in other posts he makes smart ass comments or updates then cuts off the ability to respond to it.
:cuss:

If you allow postings, you should not comment on what someone posted then turn off further posts. That is unfair and in many places very biased.

[Gunstar1]

If he wanted to be unbiased he would also need to discredit the anti-gun movement for all the lies they tell.

Though I do not totally trust Lott, I can say from 20 minutes of reading Tim's blog, he is equally un-trustworthy.

A huge section of reasons why what pro-gun authors say is incorrect, yet not a response or anything about how antigun authors are worse, biased much? In fact he gripes that Lott is citing numbers that no one has used, yet it is easy to find quotes from anti-gun groups that Lott is obviously refuting.

Lott also has responded to press releases from anti-gun groups and then Tim gripes that Lott missed the point of the report. If newspapers are commenting on the press release and Lott is commenting on the press release, I think it is a bit stupid for Tim to then say Lott never read the report (as Tim says"the report never claimed that"). If the release is different than the report (as happens often) then Tim is way off base and shows his bias even clearer.

I may not be able to refute regressions or other things outside of my experience, but I find it funny that he tries to discredit Lott on most of what he does, and mirroring what he says of Lott even the most miniscule reason is enough to claim Lott is wrong, and in fact misses the point entirely of some of Lotts papers. Something he claims Lott does all the time.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bart,

I hardly think guncite qualifies as a "a critical evaluation of Lott from both sides", in much the same way as HFA doesnt.

Then obviously you didn't bother to actually read the content. I count over 20 links critical of Lott from that webpage; including all of those listed by both you and Tim Lambert.

So why exactly did you think that does not qualfy as a critical evaluation? Not enough pro-Lott links for your taste or did your knee jerk and hit the keyboard?

[Gunstar1]

Well, gun cite posts pro and con Lott info. Which as someone posted is actually biased. :rolleyes:

However, Tim Lambert's posts only bad responses about Lott, and responses from Lott that are disected in the comments area.
Of coarse Tim posts the last word critical of Lott before shutting down the comments section. Which is unbiased. :confused:

You see now? :p

[Waitone]

Lott's odessy demonstrates the absolute need for any pro-second amendment advocate to do it neater and cleaner than the opposition. A lot of good academic work was compromised by flat out dumb actions.

[fallingblock]

is a very interesting conflict.

Some time back, in an effort to shed some light on this recurring theme, I contacted both Dr. Lott and Dr. Lambert.

In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the R.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

While Dr. Lott prefers not to debate with Lambert in fora such as these, he was very helpful and forthcoming with any information which I requested. I suspect that anyone who approaches John Lott politely would receive the same response.

I believe that there is certainly a clash of personalities involved, and there can be little doubt that Lambert is anti-gun-defensive-use in his outlook.

[TimLambert]

After glancing over a couple of posts it is quite clear "Deltoid" is as anti gun as gun cite is pro gun.

He is arguing that Lott is wrong about violent crimes actually going up in the UK.

However his entire post misses the point. Tim posts graphs that show the total number went down. The number of crimes may be down, but the RATE per 100,000 has indeed gone up and that is what Lott was talking about in an article that Tim Lambert tries to discount.
The rate has not gone up. I explained where Lott's numbers were coming from
and linked to the official crime figures. here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/07#cherrypicking5)

If you allow postings, you should not comment on what someone posted then turn off further posts. That is unfair and in many places very biased.I allow people to post comments and that makes me biased? There is no pleasing some people.

I have disabled comments on posts more than 60 days old to reduce the amount of comment spam I get.

[TimLambert]

IThough I do not totally trust Lott, I can say from 20 minutes of reading Tim's blog, he is equally un-trustworthy.
If you want to try smearing me you'll have to do better than that. Here's a challenge for you, if I back up your claim that I am "untrustworthy". Tell us one thing that I have posted on my blog that is wrong. Be specific: quote my exact words and explain why you think what I wrote is wrong. And support your claim with facts and figures instead of just your feelings.

[TimLambert]

In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the T.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

This is a disgraceful misrepresentation of what happened.

In this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=83219) fallingblock said:I contacted John Lott a while back and asked him for the details of his discussions with Tim Lambert.

According to Lott, he has offered several times to provide data for Tim and Lambert does not reply.
Now Lott's story about offering me data and being ignored is untrue. He has not sent me any emails or replied to my emails since 1999. fallingblock knows this because I pointed it out at the time.

Lott's research assistant did send me the data from Lott's 2002 survey when I requested from the research assistant. Contrary to fallingblock's claim, I have never said this specific information had not been provided.

If fallingblock believes that Lott provides information when requested, I suggest he ask Lott for the details of the calculations Lott made to come up with the 95% of DGUs involve just brandishing that he says comes from his 2002 survey.

[Gunstar1]

The rate has not gone up. I explained where Lott's numbers were coming from
and linked to the official crime figures. here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/07#cherrypicking5)
I allow people to post comments and that makes me biased? There is no pleasing some people.

I have disabled comments on posts more than 60 days old to reduce the amount of comment spam I get.

Well you could try having people log in so a spam bot cannot do damage. As I said it is not the fact you close threads, it is the fact that you add sarcastic comments then lock them down. There are several places where a comment is posted and you start another thread and comment on them in there. Whether you mean to or not, it makes you look like an ass. Try either commenting in the same comments area or put a link to where the new comments are in the old thread that has been closed.

Straight from the Britsh Crime Survey:
"The BCS excludes so-called victimless crimes (e.g. drug dealing), crimes such as murder, where the victim is no longer available for interview, and fraud. BCS estimates also exclude sexual offences (due to the small number reported to the survey and concerns about willingness of respondents to disclose such offences)."

So your BCS link does not show murders, drug dealers, fraud, and rape/sexual offences. So if the drug trade or murder rate increases in the UK the BCS will not show it.

Lott talks about "serious violent crime rate" and you respond with a survey that does not count murders, rapes, and drug dealing?

For all I know Lott could be making up the 64% and 118% figures but I do know referencing a survey that does not cover serious violent crime is incorrect to justify why Lott is wrong in his serious violent crime numbers.

Specific enough for you?

[Gunstar1]

If you want to try smearing me you'll have to do better than that. Here's a challenge for you, if I back up your claim that I am "untrustworthy". Tell us one thing that I have posted on my blog that is wrong. Be specific: quote my exact words and explain why you think what I wrote is wrong. And support your claim with facts and figures instead of just your feelings.

I am waiting for a response from you Tim. You called me out and I responded, took me 15 minutes to find the flaw in your post. It has been over a day since I posted my proof, I would love to hear your reply.

[fallingblock]

"Now Lott's story about offering me data and being ignored is untrue. He has not sent me any emails or replied to my emails since 1999. fallingblock knows this because I pointed it out at the time."
*********************************************************

You are making an error in assumption, I'm afraid.

I know that you claim that Lott has been unwilling to provide data to you.

I believe John and his RA's assertion that in fact data has been provided to you as requested.

*********************************************************
"Lott's research assistant did send me the data from Lott's 2002 survey when I requested from the research assistant. Contrary to fallingblock's claim, I have never said this specific information had not been provided."
*********************************************************

So, in fact, data has been provided in response to your request?

*********************************************************
"If fallingblock believes that Lott provides information when requested, I suggest he ask Lott for the details of the calculations Lott made to come up with the 95% of DGUs involve just brandishing that he says comes from his 2002 survey."
*********************************************************

Well, Tim, the last time I got in the crossfire between you two, things got very intense very quickly, but I am interested in this issue, and to your credit you do seem willing to look at what Dr. Lott has to offer.

I'll be back if I have anything to report...... :)

[TimLambert]

Well you could try having people log in so a spam bot cannot do damage. As I said it is not the fact you close threads, it is the fact that you add sarcastic comments then lock them down.

This is untrue. I already explained that comments are automatically closed on old posts. You could have easily checked to see that this was true. Instead you repeat your falsehood.


Lott talks about "serious violent crime rate" and you respond with a survey that does not count murders, rapes, and drug dealing?

For all I know Lott could be making up the 64% and 118% figures but I do know referencing a survey that does not cover serious violent crime is incorrect to justify why Lott is wrong in his serious violent crime numbers.
This sort of thing is why I asked you to quote my exact words. Let's
look at what I actually wrote (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/07#cherrypicking5) [Lott and Lehrer] claim that “overall violent crime” in England increased by 118%. The first graph at left (from Chapter 5 of Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003) shows how utterly false their claim is. Since 1997, violent crime has declined significantly. Where did their 118% increase come from? Well, the second graph shows the number of violent crimes recorded by the police. To get the increase that Lott and Lehrer claim, all you have to do is use the police numbers and ignore the footnote on the graph, which says (my emphasis):
“There is a discontinuity in the police recorded trend for violence in 1998 when new offence categories were added to police recorded violence, notably common assault, and new crime counting rules were introduced. The numbers of recorded violent crimes before and after this change should not be compared, as they are not on the same basis.” http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/img/engcrime52.png http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/img/engcrime53.png And just to be perfectly clear, here are their exact words:
The government just reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%. You must have read this, since you reported their 64% number. But somehow you failed to notice that they said that overall violent crime (not serious violent crime) increased by 118%.

You also failed to notice that Lott claimed that his increase came from the government report. I pointed out the part of the report that he got it from, but if you want to claim that it same from somewhere else, you had better point it out.

And yes, the BCS does not count fraud and drug-dealing. But those are not violent crimes, so make no difference to the overall violent crime rate.

As for murder and sexual assaults, it misses out on them. But the police figures miss out all the violent crimes that are not reported and all the violent crimes that are not recorded. Which set of figures is closer to the true total nmber of violent crimes? Look at the graphs. In 2002/3 the BCS has 2.5 million, while the police have 1 million. So if both numbers undercount, the BCS number is much more accurate.

None of this stuff is new. Criminologists have known for decades that victim surveys give a more accurate estimate. But Lott uses the police figures because they suit his agenda.

[TimLambert]

fallingblock misrepresents things again. Here's the claim that he won't support:

I contacted John Lott a while back and asked him for the details of his discussions with Tim Lambert.

According to Lott, he has offered several times to provide data for Tim and Lambert does not reply.
Either support this or admit that Lott told you an untruth.


I know that you claim that Lott has been unwilling to provide data to you.

Oh, cute. You earlier tried smearing me with this:

In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the T.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

This one is false, so you try substituting a new version. Yes Lott has been unwilling to provide data to me. But the only time I said that he hadn't provided the data from his 2002 survey was before he released it. (This was when he was saying that the 2002 survey confirmed his alleged 1997 survey while keeping the 2002 survey data secret.)

I am disgusted by your conduct, fallingblock.

[Gunstar1]

Have people log in to post and you wont need a 60 day cut off, and if someone just found your site they can post questions. That is my point.

You assume he used the BCS, you have no proof that is where the info came from since he never mentioned it. It is possible he got the raw data from the government. If so the raw data could be combined in a different way then how the government did in the BCS.

From Lott's article:
The government just reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%.

So the data was released and he could not use the SVC rate of 64% from the BCS because it was not included, but he did use the BCS for the 118%? You are assuming that is where the data came from. I see you want to prove the total has not gone up by using the BCS, but if he did not get the 64% data from the BCS, what makes you think the 118% did?

Your gripe about him using extended data past 1998-1999, he said the data to arrive at 118% was from 1998-1999 to 2002-2003 data so your little gap complaint is not proof in and of itself. You think it might be, but that is not proof.

Did you contact Lott and ask him where he got the data? No I bet you assumed he is using BCS and that was it. Lott does not mention the BCS, he says recent data released showed SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME rate had gone up. Now if he had the raw data and to arrive at a total for violent crimes Lott added the serious violent crime total (murder/sexual assault not in BCS) with violent crime total (assault/robberies, a select group also listed in the BCS) it would show a different number than just the BCS.

Look at the graphs. In 2002/3 the BCS has 2.5 million, while the police have 1 million. So if both numbers undercount, the BCS number is much more accurate

I dont know what catigories Lott used that were also in the BCS, but personally I dont think harrasment is a violent crime. It is possible Lott does not either and removed that data from the computation.
In that case your charts mean nothing. Frankly a report on violent crime that does not include murders and sexual assault is incomplete. If Lott did not rely on the BCS data straight off the page, then using the BCS to disprove him still wrong.

Prove he used only the BCS to get 118% and I am with you all the way. Until you can, you are assuming that is where he got ALL of the information he wrote about in the article. Assumption is not proof.

[fallingblock]

"fallingblock misrepresents things again."

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

Uh, how's that, Tim? :confused:

**********************************************************
Here's the claim that he won't support:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallingblock
I contacted John Lott a while back and asked him for the details of his discussions with Tim Lambert.

According to Lott, he has offered several times to provide data for Tim and Lambert does not reply.

Either support this or admit that Lott told you an untruth.
*********************************************************


I received that assurance from John Lott in a personal email, Tim.

I believe Lott, and you confirmed above that you did indeed request and receive data on the 2002 survey from his RA.

Your assertion that Dr. Lott refused to supply data seems to be contradicted by the fact that he instructed his RA to release the data on the 2002 survey which you requested.


*********************************************************
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallingblock
I know that you claim that Lott has been unwilling to provide data to you.

Oh, cute. You earlier tried smearing me with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallingblock
In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the R.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

This one is false, so you try substituting a new version.
*********************************************************

Tim, how is "this one false"?

You agreed above that Lott's assistant sent you the research which you had requested.

*********************************************************
"Yes Lott has been unwilling to provide data to me. But the only time I said that he hadn't provided the data from his 2002 survey was before he released it. (This was when he was saying that the 2002 survey confirmed his alleged 1997 survey while keeping the 2002 survey data secret.)

I am disgusted by your conduct, fallingblock."
*********************************************************


Well, you see Tim, I think that you may be to easily excited by the obvious animosity which you exhibit for not just John Lott's work, but John Lott himself.

Research is, as you know, sifted and sorted, pushed and pulled, validated and vindicated by peer review.

Personal animosity and/or resentment just get in the way of the process. :(

I've found Dr. Lott to be quite approachable on the details of his research.

And you Tim are quite personable until the subject of John Lott comes up.

What I'd like to see, if possible, is a more amicable process of review between the two of you.

That, it seems, may be too much to hope for. :(

[fallingblock]

With regards to providing data which you requested:

*********************************************************
"I guess that I don't understand what Lambert is getting at here.
I did not deal with him personally because he was abusive, but I directed my RA to provide him what he wanted.
So I directed my RA to provide him with the data and indeed I believe that he was the first person to receive this particular data. Any other data had he asked for it would have been provided and the RA (James Knowles,
james.knowles@rogersmith.com) would have answered any questions he
had and I believe that James did answer whatever questions were directed
towards him. The bottom line is that Lambert was given whatever he
asked for."
*********************************************************


On the subject of the 2002 survey:


*********************************************************
Tim Lambert wrote:

""If fallingblock believes that Lott provides information when
requested, I suggest he ask Lott for the details of the calculations
Lott made to come up with the 95% of DGUs involve just brandishing that
he says comes from his 2002 survey."
*********************************************************

John Lott's reply:

*********************************************************
"The actual data has been available on one of my websites at
www.johnlott.org since February 2003. The Appendix
of my book, The Bias Against Guns, goes through and discusses the data in depth. I talk about how the survey was done, the questions used in the survey, who did the survey, how it was weighted, etc. there. The www.johnlott.org website also has some downloads discussing the survey debate in general.

On this last point, Lambert has been extremely dishonest.
For example, he has a long list of surveys but he lists the date for
them as the mid 1990s when that was just when a particular paper cites
them as opposed to when virtually all of them were done primarily in
the early 1980s or earlier. Anyway, if you tell me exactly what you
want, I can point to the discussions that I have written up. The
book's appendix isn't very long and the paper on the surveys at
the above website won't take very long to read (though no one seems to
have read it)."
*********************************************************


And finally, on the 2002 survey:

John Lott wrote:

*********************************************************
".....actually read what I wrote on the brandishing issue. Here is the quote from my book:

Even though the survey I conducted during the fall 2002 indicates that
simply brandishing a gun successfully stops crimes 95 percent of the
time that guns are used defensively and other surveys have also found
high rates, it is very rare to see such a story. No conspiracy
explanation is really needed to explain why an editor finds a dead body
on the ground very newsworthy (particularly if it is a sympathetic
person like a victim). Take a story in which a woman brandishes a gun
and a criminal flees, no shots are fired, no crime is committed, and no
one is even sure what crime would have been committed had a weapon not
been drawn. Nothing bad actually happened. It is not emotionally
gripping enough to make the story “newsworthy.”
____________
The point here is a simple one.
I want to show that the media is biased. Therefore a lower percent of brandishing would make my case stronger. Instead with the 95 percent figure I was providing an explanation for why the media doesn't cover a lot of cases. If he believes that the 95 percent number is too high, the results are BIASED against my claim."
*********************************************************

Tim, this is obviously NOT a guy who is unresponsive to polite requests for any of his data.

Is that old saying -
"getting more flies with honey than vinegar"?
used here in Australia? :)

[TimLambert]

Have people log in to post and you wont need a 60 day cut off, and if someone just found your site they can post questions. That is my point.

I want to make it easy for people to post. Logging in is a hassle. The only comments I was getting on old posts were spam.

You assume he used the BCS,

No, my point is that he didn't use the BCS and he should have.

[TimLambert]

"According to Lott, he has offered several times to provide data for Tim and Lambert does not reply.

I believe Lott, and you confirmed above that you did indeed request and receive data on the 2002 survey from his RA.

Which contradicts his earlier statement. If I didn't reply to this offer, how did I request the data?

In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the R.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

Tim, how is "this one false"?

It's false because I did not claim that Lott had not provided the results of the 2002 survey.

[TimLambert]

I did not deal with him personally because he was abusive,

I was not abusive. You can see my email to him at the start of the affair here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2002/09#0914). Nor is true that he chose not deal with me personally. The AEI posted Knowles' email as the contact to request the data. I contacted him directly.

I directed my RA to provide him with the data and indeed I believe that he was the first person to receive this particular data.

Not so. Others had it before me.

On this last point, Lambert has been extremely dishonest.
For example, he has a long list of surveys but he lists the date for
them as the mid 1990s when that was just when a particular paper cites
them as opposed to when virtually all of them were done primarily in
the early 1980s or earlier.

Untrue. Look here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/files/lottduncancomments.html). I cite the source of the information in the standard way as Author/Year of publication, but no-one could possibly believe that was the year the survey was conducted, since I also give that for some of the surveys. Nor is true that "virtually all" were done in the early 80s or earlier, unless you think that four out of nine is "virtually all".

Tim, this is obviously NOT a guy who is unresponsive to polite requests for any of his data.

He hasn't provided the data I asked for, which was the details of the calculations Lott made to come up with the 95% of DGUs involve just brandishing that he says comes from his 2002 survey. And yes, I've read what is on his book and on his website. There is little detail there. If you want to see the sort of details I am asking for, look here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/04#0425)

[Gunstar1]

I want to make it easy for people to post. Logging in is a hassle. The only comments I was getting on old posts were spam.

It is one thing to have to login to read a website like newpapers do and I would agree is a hassle, however logging in to make a comment is not. Packing.org is a good example of what I am talking about.

No, my point is that he didn't use the BCS and he should have.

Why should he use the BCS when it does not count murder and sexual assault? Are they not violent crimes?
Serious violent crimes are a subset of violent crimes. If serious violent crimes are not counted in the BCS then the TRUE VIOLENT CRIME TOTAL is not complete, and cannot be unless you don't believe rapes and murders are violent crimes.

What the USA considers Violent Crime as:
murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault

The BCS considers violent crime as:
robbery, aggravated assualt, harrasment, and assualt where slight or no injury occured.

Now please tell me how the BCS is more accurate in telling violent crimes when it does not include murder and rapes, yet does include harrasment and assault where nothing violent actually happened? Remeber, these are people remebering past situations that may or may not legally be an assault, and may be having recall bias.

The BCS can show a nice downward trend even if the murder rate was going through the roof.

So my questions to you, do you believe that murder and rape are or are not violent crimes? If you think they are violent crimes, then the BCS is inaccurate for true violent crime data.

Is harrasment and assualt where no injury occured a violent crime? If you say no, then the BCS is inaccurate for true violent crime data.

If you remove harrasment and simple assault from the BCS and add in murders and rapes, you come to a different violent crime total. The BCS is misleading at best since it includes non-violent data like harrasment and does not include violent crimes like murder and rape.

Now if you still don't agree, please tell me how the BCS is more accurate when it includes non-violent data like harrasment and does not include violent crimes like murder and rape. If you can answer that logically, I will gladly go away.

[fallingblock]

"I was not abusive."
*********************************************************

Obviously Dr. Lott feels that you were at some point.


*********************************************************
"Not so. Others had it before me."
*********************************************************

Perhaps you were the second? Third? :confused:


*********************************************************
"I cite the source of the information in the standard way as Author/Year of publication, but no-one could possibly believe that was the year the survey was conducted, since I also give that for some of the surveys. Nor is true that "virtually all" were done in the early 80s or earlier, unless you think that four out of nine is "virtually all".
*********************************************************


I hope this attempt at promoting more direct and perhaps civil communication is of some benefit to the research review process.... :)


*********************************************************
"He hasn't provided the data I asked for..."
*********************************************************


So, we're down to requesting what, precisely?

If I am to be of use in this debate,

I need to be able to relay accurately the request for
data which I have not the training to utilize. :eek:


*********************************************************
"If I didn't reply to this offer, how did I request the data?"
*********************************************************


Perhaps this is not one of the instances which Dr. Lott referred to?


*********************************************************
Originally Posted by fallingblock
In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the R.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

Tim, how is "this one false"?


It's false because I did not claim that Lott had not provided the results of the 2002 survey.
*********************************************************

No, it is true because Lott was (and is) willing to respond to polite requests for his data.

Your original claim was that Lott had refused to provide data as requested.
Did you specify the data which he refused to supply in your original complaint?

General semantics 101 all over again! :)

[GEM]

Yesterday, I was in a seminar with John Lott, Gary Kleck and a set of critics of his work.

There are technical debates about the validity of his claims. However, Lott was there and quite professional. He stated again to the assembled professional critics that he would be happy to supply his data. He looked his critics in the eye and they seem to have respect for him, even if they disagree. I heard the author of a new piece criticizing his work saying that Lott was a good researcher and the debates are scientific in nature.

A couple of years ago, I also was in one with Clayton Cramer, Lindquist and the other critics of Bellesiles. Cramer is obviously RKBA but Lindquist explicity says that he isn't a big gun fan. Bellesiles didn't get taken down, lose his prizes, his job, etc. because he was correct. The Chronicle of Higher Ed. had two cover stories on him, first that he was the author of a wonderful book on gun myths! Then they reported honestly on his fall and problems.

There are professional journals that would happily critique Lott and conventions where such presentations would be appropriate. That's a bigger venue than blogs.

[AZRickD]

Lott's "98%" figure was an improper citation of Kleck's earlier work which had the figure somewhere around 90%. In other words, big whoop.

As for "Mary Rosh" so what? Although I don't, many have multiple internet screen names. Far better than to come out on a bunch of hack boards as the real John Lott and be spammed by a bunch of anti-gunners. "Ma Ry Ro Sh" refers to the names of his family members and was composed an e-mail address.

The use of the militia in 1812:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_52/ai_65805917

Disarming Errors. - Review - book review
National Review, Oct 9, 2000 by Clayton E. Cramer, Dave Kopel
Perhaps least controversial, though still contentious, is Bellesiles's negative portrayal of the American militia. Historians have long recognized that the militia was not as effective as rose-colored odes to the American Revolution have claimed, but Bellesiles regards it as little more than a gaggle of nitwits. "One could go on and on with examples of inept, poorly armed, and horribly disciplined militia almost losing the War of 1812 for the United States," he writes. "Mostly the militia just did not show up." A more balanced and realistic account can be found in Mark Kwasny's excellent book, Washington's Partisan War. Detailing the use of the militia in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, Kwasny shows that while militiamen could not, by themselves, defeat the British in a pitched battle, they were essential to American success: They responded quickly to attacks, harassed the Redcoats, and guarded regions where George Washington could not send the Continentals. Though exasperated by their penchant for coming and going as they wished, Washington never questioned the militiamen's bravery or loyalty.More http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw22.htm

C. Edward Skeen. Citizen Soldiers in the War of 1812. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1999.
When properly led, American militia more than held its own against Indians, Canadians, and British regulars. As evidence, Skeen cites Peter B. Porter’s efforts on the Niagara Frontier and Andrew Jackson’s victory at New Orleans. The latter engagement, the final battle of the war and an American victory, somewhat rehabilitated the militia’s perception among the general public, but not among most national leaders. The Army Reduction Act of 1815 relegated "the militia to a secondary role in national defense" and this trend continued (p. 178).

[GEM]

Talking today to major gun scholars - not bloggers. The issue is when a well done study will confirm or discomfirm Lott's work. It has to be submitted to a quality referred journal and withstand peer review.

If he replicates or not, will decide the issue. That will take care of the debate. Such replications are underway. That's more useful than internet raving.

A presentation at the American Society for Criminology and then publication is what is important or at a similar venue.

Time will tell as compared to what I see in this thread.

[chaim]

I have no desire to participate in the free for all that this thread has desintigrated into, however I will comment on one idea posted early in the thread.

You RARELY hear about schools being attacked by terrorists in Israel, now do you??? Well, actually, until the early '70s it wasn't totally uncommon for terrorists to slip over the borders into Israel and attack schools (and towns, synagogues, houses, etc). Then, in 1974 a school in Ma'alot, where kids on a field trip from another city were spending the night, was attacked and the children were taken prisoner. The terrorists had certain demands and threatened to start killing children if they weren't met. They weren't met on time, the military stormed the school when the terrorists wouldn't allow Israel more time to meet the demands, and before it was over 26 people, including 21 children, were murdered by the terrorists. After that teachers were armed in Israeli schools and there hasn't been a terrorist or criminal shooting in an Israeli school since.

[cuchulainn]

1) You say Lott refused to give you data.

2) You ackowledge that Lott gave you 2002 data.

3) Therefore, I must conclude that you are referring to data other than the 2002 data.

What data would that be?

(And if the answer is somewhere in your blog, do me a favor and simply tell me here. I don't feel like sifting through your blog.)

[fallingblock]

"Lott was there and quite professional. He stated again to the assembled professional critics that he would be happy to supply his data. He looked his critics in the eye and they seem to have respect for him, even if they disagree. I heard the author of a new piece criticizing his work saying that Lott was a good researcher and the debates are scientific in nature."
*********************************************************

Tim has obviously invested a great deal of time and effort in his effort to discredit John Lott, and somewhere along the way the concept of "scientific debate" became submerged in increasing vitriol towards Lott.
Tim's blog seems more of an attack venue than one of scholarly discussion.


*********************************************************
"Talking today to major gun scholars - not bloggers. The issue is when a well done study will confirm or discomfirm Lott's work. It has to be submitted to a quality referred journal and withstand peer review.

If he replicates or not, will decide the issue. That will take care of the debate. Such replications are underway. That's more useful than internet raving.

A presentation at the American Society for Criminology and then publication is what is important or at a similar venue.

Time will tell as compared to what I see in this thread."
*********************************************************


Certainly the case, GEM....

And I eagerly await publication of such a study.

Based on the work of many others beside John Lott,
I anticipate that the vast majority of Lott's premises will be supported.

Blogging, especially without willingness to review the data in a civil fashion is just a flurry of emotion. :(

I'll bow out of the discussion now.
Many thanks to both John Lott and Tim Lambert for their input.

[TimLambert]

fallingblock, I don't know why you feel compelled to misrepresent me over and over and over again, but I really wish you wouldn't do it. You claimed that Lott offered to provide data to me and that I did not respond. That isn't true. You claimed that I said Lott had not provided me with the data from the 2002 survey. That isn't true. In this discussion Lott has abused me, falsely accused me of abusing him, and failed to provide the data
(the detailed calculations of the 95% number) I requested. And yet you accuse me of not being willing to review the data in a civil fashion. Lott brushed off your request for the calculations, but you somehow concluded that he had provided the information requested.

It gets worse. Gem gives you some vague assurances based on some unnamed gun scholars that the issue is whether some new study confirms his work and you conclude that he will be vindicated. Trouble is, Ayres and Donohue published a study last year that pretty much killed Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" theory and Lott has not been able to make any holes in their study. So how come the "gun scholars" that Gem talked were unaware of this?

[TimLambert]

1) You say Lott refused to give you data.
No I didn't say that. Lott claimed that he had offered to provide me data and that I had refused to look at it. I said that Lott's claim was false, as it is. Fallingblock somehow thinks that means I said that Lott refused to give me data. It doesn't seem to matter what I say, he just ignores it and repeats his story.

2) You ackowledge that Lott gave you 2002 data.

3) Therefore, I must conclude that you are referring to data other than the 2002 data.

What data would that be?
What I would like to see from Lott are the detailed calculations to produce the 95% brandishing number from the 2002 survey. He hasn't actually refused to provide these -- he just brushes off requests with vague references to his book and website.

The calculations are not complicated and anyone should be able to follow them. If his survey found that 95% of defensive gun uses involved brandishing only, then if B=number of defensive brandishings and D=number of defensive gun uses, we must have B/D=95%. So what is the value of B? And what is the value of D? Why won't Lott tell us?

[GEM]

Anyone who is an academic scholar knows quite well that it is inappropriate for me to discuss someone else's study now in progress or in editorial review.

If that is tin foil hat for Tim, fine and dandy. I suggest that Tim send an abstract or organize a scholarly session at the next American Society for Criminology session and present his analysis. There are other venues also.

Also, Tim - go to the www.asc41.com page for this year and you can find the discussants of Lott's new book. It's not hidden or unknown.

The 'gun scholars' - tin foil hat quotes, amusing - know the literature quite well but they are not nuts. Consensus is that replication is the way to go and/or we need more data with new states coming on board as shall issue, etc.

Thus, I'm waiting for the science to resolve the issue and I'm being an empiricist. Being emotional and crazy isn't good science.

[TimLambert]

Anyone who is an academic scholar knows quite well that it is inappropriate for me to discuss someone else's study now in progress or in editorial review.
I am an academic scholar and this is untrue. We want people to comment on works in progress -- that's why we post working papers.

I don't find an anonymous poster giving assurances from anonymous sources claimed to be authorities even slightly persuasive and neither should anybody else.

If I look at the asc page (http://www.asc41.com/www/2004/cmsindx.htm) on Lott's book, the only name with expertise on Lott's CCW work is Kovandzic and he has published two papers that give contrary results to Lott. See here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/05#0509) and here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2003/08#0818). The second one was described by Yale's John Donohue as The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=431220)

Notice how I am able to provide names of scholars who support my position, unlike GEM.

[fallingblock]

"fallingblock, I don't know why you feel compelled to misrepresent me over and over and over again, but I really wish you wouldn't do it."
*********************************************************

But I'm not misrepresenting you, Tim...you are:

*********************************************************
"Lott has abused me, falsely accused me of abusing him, and failed to provide the data..."

"He hasn't actually refused to provide these -- he just brushes off requests with vague references to his book and website."
*********************************************************

We're slipping on that one, are we? :)


*********************************************************
"Gem gives you some vague assurances based on some unnamed gun scholars that the issue is whether some new study confirms his work and you conclude that he will be vindicated. Trouble is, Ayres and Donohue published a study last year that pretty much killed Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" theory and Lott has not been able to make any holes in their study. So how come the "gun scholars" that Gem talked were unaware of this?"
*********************************************************


"gun scholars"?

Tim, are you here admitting that you are, indeed, one of those tireless, agenda-driven academics....an "anti-gun scholar"? :what:

Since you are not in effective communication with Dr. Lott, isn't it just a wee bit premature and presumptious of you to announce that Ayres and Donohue have "pretty much killed" anything? Perhaps they are indeed dedicated "anti-gun scholars" with the same aganda as yourself, but all that demonstrates is that there are a number of academics who cannot, will not, accept that arming ordinary citizens reduces crime.

I'd wait a bit before declaring the idea "pretty much killed", no matter how much you'd wish it to be so. :scrutiny:


As GEM suggests:
*********************************************************
"I suggest that Tim send an abstract or organize a scholarly session at the next American Society for Criminology session and present his analysis. There are other venues also."
*********************************************************

Go for it, Tim! The more the merrier...that's how the system works. ;)

Or, just blog away and wait and see. :cool:


GEM notes:
*********************************************************
"I'm waiting for the science to resolve the issue and I'm being an empiricist. Being emotional and crazy isn't good science."
*********************************************************

But, as Tim has demonstrated, the latter makes for some fun blogging time down at U. of NSW-Kensington. :D

I imagine, Tim, that there wouldn't be many of your Sydney colleagues, or for that matter, Australian academics generally, who would disagree with your anti-gun position. That is simply an urban Australian cultural aberration.

At least some of them, however, must look askance at your abusive treatment of John Lott? :rolleyes:

[TimLambert]

Ayers and Donohue's work has been out for over two years now. Lott has had more than enough time to come out with a response. His main attempt was a spectacular failure. He came out with a new analysis that purported to show More guns, less crime but Donohue showed that it containing coding errors that, when corrected, made Lott's results go away. All this is covered, in detail, with links to all the original sources on my blog. But you're not interested in discussing Lott's work, you just are here to make personal attacks on me.

Now, the MGLC stuff is pretty technical, so I could understand if folks didn't want to try to follow it. But the survey isn't. You don't have to do anything more complicated than division. Lott says that his 2002 survey found that 95% of defensive gun uses involved just brandishing. You know, you can check this yourself. Download his data, count how many defensive uses there were (I get 13), and count how many were brandishings (I get 12) and then try division to see what the percentage is. (What is 12/13 as a percent?) But you would rather call me names.

Oh, and I'm not at the U of Sydney and I've consistently opposed more restrictive gun laws here, including Unsworth's laws in 1988 and Howard's efforts in 1996 and 2002. How does opposing gun control make me anti-gun?

[Art Eatman]

"Lott says that his 2002 survey found that 95% of defensive gun uses involved just brandishing. You know, you can check this yourself. Download his data, count how many defensive uses there were (I get 13), and count how many were brandishings (I get 12) and then try division to see what the percentage is. (What is 12/13 as a percent?)

92%?

I don't really want to interject myself into all this, but 92% seems pretty close to 95%, particularly in the world of "round numbers".

Kleck sez that somewhere between 800,000 and 2.4 million defensive uses of guns occurs in the US each year. The feds tell us there are around 600,000 gun crimes in the US each year. The CDC sez there are around 15,000 homicides each year where guns are used.

Including some experiences of my own, plus cop-tales and hearsay over the last 40 or so years, and I gotta go along with Lott's claim about brandishing. It fits with others' numbers and the decadal consistencies of my life's experiences.

Sure, I'm not saying anything here about scholarliness or technical accuracy in number-crunching. But when the thrust of someone's claims is supported by what I already know from experience, arguments to the contrary cause MEGO.

:), Art

[TDPerk]

Lacking special expertise in statistics, I can only comment on my impressions of this thread.

Fallingblock quoting John Lott:
“I guess that I don't understand what Lambert is getting at here.
I did not deal with him personally because he was abusive, but I directed my RA to provide him what he wanted.
So I directed my RA to provide him with the data and indeed I believe that he was the first person to receive this particular data.”

So far, TimLambert’s responses on this thread have convinced me he is too emotionally involved to objectively interpret Lott’s work, and that few if any of his assertions and conclusions can be trusted to be what a disinterested third party would find if observing as if they were a “fly on the wall.” From what I have seen in this thread, in referring to Mr. Lambert as abusive, Mr. Lott is actually being quite charitable.

Mr. Lambert, on the presumption you want to effectively present your case, I have to tell you that in the free market of ideas, in a world where all humans are fallible, you are failing to a far greater than Mr. Lott. You are only reaching the choir you are singing to.

If the study(ies) referred to by GEM confirm Lott's work in whole or in part, I hope you acknowledge that--and then get on with your life.

Yours, TDP

[F4GIB]

Mr. Lambert is on a Crucade. Nothing will deter him.

He is obsessed with destroying Lott. If Dr. Lott wears a chartruse tie, Lambert would comment on it. Lambert lives 1000's of miles away, in another country, and he seems to have no life outside this Crucade. If Lott writes "there" instead of "their," Lambert will come up with a dark conspiracy theory about Mary Rosh, or something.

At this point, Tim is running into the law of diminishing returns and it just makes him more amd more angry and petty. And less and less influential. And that makes him even more angry and petty.

[GEM]

My identity is not a secret on this list. I'm using my initials and have posted my name. I think I made my point. Tim can rant a touch about the people who were there but I presented how scholars in the area are taking a hard look at Lott and he was there to discuss the issues with them.

And Tim, I assure you that the people there were quite aware of the literature. How do you conclude that they are not? Did you hear their talks? Do you think that folks saying that more data are needed in a contentious area, because you are having a tantrum, is bad science?

I also love your misinterpretation of data not published yet. If I chose to discuss my data that is not published yet, that is my choice. However, if scholars tell me over coffee that they are working on replications and they do or do not support Lott, it is not my place to report on their preliminary findings without their explicit permission. That is not hard to understand, is it?
You can tinfoil hat me but I don't leak others' findings. I don't leak papers under editorial review when I hear authors talking to reviewers.

Good ol' Gary Kleck was in the audience. I guess he knows nothing about the issue. IIRC, Wintemute was in the audience also, I guess he doesn't understand the issues either. For your info, Lindquist , one of the panel members, was quite critical of Lott as was Gest.

The ASC is a good venue for a panel. They had one on Bellesiles as he was going down. The major scholars who analyzed his work were there. Organize one on Lott - certainly there are enough challenges to his work that if he did go down on the validity of his science, there would be quite a crowd. The meeting is in Toronto next year.

[io333]

Long ago, maybe 10=12 years ago, there was a certain "Tim" (I can't remember the exact name other than it contained "Tim"), there was a certain poster on a news group (talk.politics.guns) that was vehemently anti-gun. That poster probably put up thousands of posts. Is this the same "Tim?"

[io333]

Nevermind, it is. :rolleyes:



Unreal. (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3km5t7%24p48%40network.ucsd.edu&output=gplain)

[io333]

I note also that Tim is Australian. Forgive me if everyone already knows this.


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&th=23d0b39a0f192070&rnum=2

[io333]

OK, I see he posts his location. Look, I guess I do mean for this to be an ad hominum attack; I just want everyone in this thread to know that Tim Lambert has been doing this in various pro-gun venues for well over a decade. He obviously loves the grand troll, and you are all beating your head against a wall. You are *truly* wasting your time arguing against him. Perhaps the best thing to do is just ignore him, and he'll go troll somewhere else.

[Ieyasu]

Hmmm... so when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger?

As Tim mentioned, this paper (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/ayres%20donohue%20on%20guns%20-%203-021.pdf) shoots down Lott's more guns, less crime hypothesis.

So, where's a substantive refutation?

[io333]

I am attacking the messenger, because the message itself has been attacked for more than 10 years. If you want to see substantive refutations of Mr. Lambert's trolling, you can find TENS OF THOUSANDS of carefully worded, airtight arguments against his trolling via Google Groups, or Google web search.


It DOES NOT MATTER what you say to refute Mr. Lambert, in the exact same way that it does not matter what you say to refute Sen. Feinstein. Neither cares about truth -- they are both on a mission of higher purpose.

I just want everyone to know what they are getting into. Probably many people viewing these forums have no idea what has been going on elsewhere and it is *pointless* for them to expend their energies against such silliness.

[Ieyasu]

A troll (at least my definition of one) refuses to address points made, makes up facts, or repeats already refuted material.

I challenge anyone calling Tim a troll, to post one example of such. That is not the same as claiming Tim (or anyone else) never makes a mistake. If he's made hundreds or thousands of troll posts, then it should be easy to find one.

[io333]

I challenge anyone calling Tim a troll, to post one example of such.


example (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=m365vk7ppz.fsf%40cycloid.localdomain)

[Ieyasu]

io333,

Sorry, but I disagree. Continuing further down the thread, explains the source of Lamberts frustration. He writes:

"I have pointed you to the official government stats several times
now. You seem to have admitted that they show a decrease. You have
failed to offer any evidence that the figures are incorrect.

"If anyone came in late, see:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/malcolm.html"

In other words, it appears Tim was merely upset at having to repeat himself to the other poster, who appeared to be ignoring Lambert's arguments.

[io333]

I think I've managed to get my point across and save a lot of folks on this board headaches. Bye.

[Gunstar1]

How could the BCS prove Lott is incorrect about violent crime rate, or for that matter serious violent crime, when the BCS does not include murders, rapes, and domestic assualt but does include non-violent harrasment and assualt where no injury occured?

The BCS does not include the data to refute what Lott said. If you are to prove the violent crime rate is actually going down, you need to include murders, rapes, and domestic assaults. Also you would need to remove the non-violent crimes from the violent crime total.

Tim as yet to respond as to why the BCS is better for showing violent crime rate than the actual police data. As well as the mention that the gap in the graph Tim keeps posting are the inclusion of common assaults(harrasment). He is assuming that Lott did the same, but in no way does he prove Lott's number incorrect in the slightest.

It is compairing apples and oranges.

First thing an unbiased researcher should do to debunk Lott in this article would be to find out what crimes does Lott consider to be "serious violent crimes" and what are just "violent crimes" (I would guess this info is in his book).
Then get the totals of those crimes in the UK for the range of years he talks about, then total them up.

Saying Lott "should have" used the BCS (with it's incorrectly missing violent crime data, and incorrectly included non-violent data) is a troll response, not a professional researcher's response.

Now if the total murders in a year were to double, the BCS would not notice this and could still show a downward fall of violent crimes. For that matter, if everyone in the UK were murdered the BCS could show nearly zero violent crimes for that year.

[TDPerk]

...and Tim wants us to look at cherry picked "BCS" data which supports his argument, instead of the more meaningful data of "serious violent crime," such as rape and murder, which the BCS does not show.

In the thread, Tim wrote:

Newspaper articles are not the most accurate source of information.
If you look at the official statistics, the violent crime rate has
declined significantly since 1995.
See: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/malcolm.html

The newspaper articles Tim refers to are being pointed to by "Mary Rosh"/John Lott.

Sophie Goodchild, "Britain is now the crime capital of the West,"
Independent Digital (UK), July 14, 2002
(http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=314832)

"London Gun Crime Up 90%," Sky News, Wednesday December 19, 2001.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1038794,00.html

Tim discounts the possibility the BCS would cook its books to make Britain look better. He discounts the fact he is using the BCS because it supports his arguments just as much as Lott uses the other data because it supports his arguments. And he insisted(s) his data is "better" even when he admits it doesn't even measure the crimes of rape and murder.

Lambert's frustration is founded in people not agreeing with his poorly supported claims.

Still, he's not a troll, at least not if true-believers are excluded from the category of trolls.

Yours, TDP

[GEM]

The appropriate technical venues exist at conferences and in print. I assure you that quite a few folk are looking at the controversy and in time, appropriate analyses, independent of Lott's will come to a reasonable conclusion about his thesis.

All these craziness about who said what, who wouldn't talk to me and who is a troll is just irrelevant. Bellesiles was taken down by the normal processes of scholarship. If Lott is wrong, that will come out with independent attempts at replication.

It's fun to rant but that's just plain silly.

[TDPerk]

Begging your pardon, GEM, but when do you expect these reports to be available?

Yours, TDP

[GEM]

Obviously, I have no control over people's research agendas and the time of reviewing cycles which are quite slow. This might not make any one happy but one might expect 1 to 3 years but don't bet money on it.

In fact, if people are waiting to analyze the new wave of shall issue states, then it will be quite awhile to get a longer time line from them.

Bummer. Not being mysterious here, that's just the way social science works. I'm doing a paper that took 4 years to collect the data.

[TDPerk]

...that does seem like a long time.

Thank you.

I have to take issue with the idea that Bellisle was "taken down" in the course of normal scholarship. It took extraordinary effort and persistence on the part of Clayton Cramer, et al, for Bellisle's lies to be accepted by historias as proven to be lies to even a slight degree.

It might have taken decades the "old fashioned" way.

Yours, TDP

[agricola]

I have to take issue with the idea that Bellisle was "taken down" in the course of normal scholarship. It took extraordinary effort and persistence on the part of Clayton Cramer, et al, for Bellisle's lies to be accepted by historias as proven to be lies to even a slight degree.

It might have taken decades the "old fashioned" way.

Which makes it all the more strange that several persons - IO333 and F4GIB to name but two - are attacking Lambert for doing what Clayton Cramer did with Lott as a (deserving) target. As Tim notes, you go to his website and all his arguments are linked, all of them are checkable - unlike his opponents here (when they arent ad hominem-ing)

For heavens sake how many articles of his have appeared here and been debunked as they contain basic errors? Thats not even to get into his whole belief that the 1997-8 gun bans in the UK caused a rise in crime....

[TDPerk]

...that's just it. Nothing in Tim Lambert's posts here, so far, nor in the usenet threads I've looked at, show that Lott deserves to be "taken down" as Bellisle was.

No one as yet credibly disputes that the survey which Lott states he undertook, the data for which was lost, was not undertaken and the data then lost. There is no smoking gun there, as there was with Bellisle quoting nonexistent "archival" sources, ostensibly publicly available probate records that in fact never existed.

Lambert is trying to make hay with discrepancies, as an example from a post above, where the absolute difference between what Lott claims and what evidently uncontested scholars have found was 8%, 90% in a study by Kleck and 98% in a claim attributed to Lott. Now while 2% has a fivefold difference compared to 10%, 90% is also 92% of 98% (rounded to two digits).

Lambert in this case seems to claim Lott is a liar/intellectually dishonest because, "He's off by a factor of five!" It is just as true in that case to say "Lott's findings are very close, within 8%, to the findings of less controversial scholars."

unlike his opponents here (when they arent ad hominem-ing)
From what I've seen just on this thread, I think Lambert's got a screw loose concerning John Lott. Call that impression an ad hominen attack if you must.

For heavens sake how many articles of his have appeared here and been debunked as they contain basic errors?
It would take more than your assertion this is so before I credited it to be true that this has happened even once, let alone that it has happened frequently enough to consign Lott to the "unreliables" bin.
Thats not even to get into his whole belief that the 1997-8 gun bans in the UK caused a rise in crime....
Do you dispute there has been any rise in crime since that legislation or that a rise seen since that legislation has nothing to do with the gun ban? Related to that, do you think the revisions made to the law in the UK which act to criminalize any physically coercive act of self defense have made criminals more or less likely to physically confront their targets? Do you think these changes to British law are wise or unwise, just or unjust?

Yours, TDP

[TimLambert]

GEM, your name is not on your profile. If you are not trying to keep it secret, why not post it in this thread? Then we can see if you actually attended the conference. I notice that once again you failed to provide the names of the scholars that supposedly told you that they were working on replicating Lott's work. And there is absolutely no reason why should you conceal this. Do you have any substantive objection to Ayres and Donohue's work? Or is that a secret too?

[GEM]

TD, Cramer contributed mightly to pointing out problems with Bellesiles. However, the thing that killed him in the academic community was people like Lindquist who got into it because they were experts on his methodology and thus didn't believe him.

Bellesile got great press - the NY Times, front page of the Chronicle of Higher Ed, etc. That, of course, drew the attention of the progun folks like Cramer but I don't think that would have carried the day. That's unfortunate but reality. It was when the cause was taken up by the scholarly community that Bellesiles was doomed. I saw a panel with Cramer, Lindquist and others organized by Don Kates (a 'gun scholar' of reknown) and that was their take on it. In fact, Lindquist isn't a gun fan but was outraged by what seemed baloney methodology in an area he knew.

Given the biases of the times, pure gun positive scholarship does get downplayed. That's one claim of Lott's new book. Ted Gest argued that it wasn't malacious but just because the reporters are ignorant and lazy. That is certainly the case as in many other cases, they don't know squat. Some reporters do their research. Lott makes a compelling case for bias.

Anecdotely - I was once interviewed by the Hearst health editor for an article on the personality attributes of gun owners. The piece was reasoned and printed in quite a few papers. Most had titles like: Why do people own guns? The New Orleans paper had a title like: Maniacs Own Instrument of Death. I'm too lazy to find the exact title but you get my point.

I'm sure that if Kleck and Lott's work came out negative for gun folk, even if the methodology were sound, they would be roundly denounced and insulted by gun internet fans everywhere.

It's unfortunate that progun stuff is not reported on. Bellesiles was so out there that he got nailed by the professions in general. To their credit, he lost his prize. The Chronicle of Higher Ed. had a second front page on his downfall.

[TimLambert]

I note that the rules of conduct (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html) for this forum state "personal attacks are prohibited". In this thread I have been personally attacked by fallingblock, GEM, io333, TDPerk and F4GIB, who have called me "crazy", "petty", "angry", a "troll", having "a screw loose' etc etc. I suggest that those posters go and create a new forum called "The Low Road" and post there instead.

[TimLambert]

I summarize, with links to all the sources, the survey issue here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/survey/). Of particular interest might be this table (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/files/lottduncancomments.html#surveys) which Lott claims is "extremely dishonest", and Lindgren's (not Lindquist, GEM gets his name wrong) report (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html) on his efforts to find some evidence that Lott conducted a survey.

You might like to compare what I actually say about the survey with TDPerk's grossly inaccurate account upthread.

[fallingblock]

"I have been personally attacked by fallingblock..."
*********************************************************

In what way. please? :confused:


*********************************************************
"Ayers and Donohue's work has been out for over two years now. Lott has had more than enough time to come out with a response. His main attempt was a spectacular failure. He came out with a new analysis that purported to show More guns, less crime but Donohue showed that it containing coding errors that, when corrected, made Lott's results go away."
*********************************************************


Ayers and Donohue have their work in the system, subject to peer review, which does not happen suddenly. I remain confident, as I stated above, that the majority of Lott's premises will be sustained eventually. In short, I predict that Ayres and Donohue's work will not prove to be sustainable.


*********************************************************
"All this is covered, in detail, with links to all the original sources on my blog. But you're not interested in discussing Lott's work, you just are here to make personal attacks on me."
*********************************************************


Your blog, Tim, is so chokka with your self-agrandising "Lott-bashing" and venom toward the man in general that it is difficult for me to cruise there.
I am interested in seeing a more rational discussion of Lott's work from you.
Without the emotion and anger. Why not present the data without the diatribe?

As for my personally attacking you, I don't believe that I have done so.
Please furnish an example of my personal attack upon you. :confused:

I do have a theory about your perhaps having an "anti self-defense bias" which could explain your vehement opposition to the very idea that law-abiding citizens can and should use personal firearms to defend themselves from criminals, lowering the incidence of crime into the bargain.
As Art mentioned, the concept correlates well with life experience for a surprising number of folks.

If you reread what I posted you'll see that I asked if you were admitting to being an "anti-gun scholar" by your labelling of Lott supporters as "gun scholars".
I was/am just trying to get an idea of a possible derivation of your bias.


*********************************************************
"(What is 12/13 as a percent?) But you would rather call me names."
*********************************************************

Lott's right in the ballpark there, don't you think? ;)

Where have I called you "names"? :confused:


*********************************************************
"Oh, and I'm not at the U of Sydney..."
*********************************************************

I am in error and I do apologise.

That paragon of anti-gun vitriol Simon Chapman is at U. of Sydney.
We had a mutual colleague, Simon and I. Eberhard Wenzel at Griffith U. in Brisbane. Unfortunately Eberhard passed away in 2001.

You are at UNSW's Kensington campus, east across town from U. of Sydney.
You are spared that horrid traffic on Parramatta Rd. :eek:
I flew very near to Kensington on my return from N.Z. earlier this month. :)

Again,my apologies for that error. Those of us out here in the rest of Australia do tend to compress Sydney into a disproportionately tiny area. :D


*********************************************************
"and I've consistently opposed more restrictive gun laws here, including Unsworth's laws in 1988 and Howard's efforts in 1996 and 2002. How does opposing gun control make me anti-gun?"
*********************************************************

This is where things get a bit confusing for me.

Somehow along the way, likely from reading your attacks on Lott,
I've arrived at the conclusion that you are opposed to the private ownership of firearms here in Australia.

Your post electioneering for Latham a while back did mention that you felt that Howard's gun laws were unjust (although, as I posted in reply, Latham's views on gun ownership are not significantly different to Howard's). I must admit to writing off that statement by you as a political gesture.

If you have indeed consistently opposed the legislation mentioned above, do you have a link to an example of your opposition?

What exactly is your personal view on the defensive use of firearms by law-abiding citizens, Tim?

[GEM]

Hmmm! First, I apologize for my brain fart - since there was a Lindquist at the latest panel - duh, I slipped. Typical retroactive interference. Kill me.

Also, the Internet is a tough place. Calling on Mommy to chastize folks is getting a touch silly. Also, if you want to go into tin foil hat land about who I am, go ahead. It's amusing to watch. Tim, you give as good as you get. If you are in a fight or debate, no whining.

Last, like I said - I'm not sharing the names of folks who aren't in this debate. What I was told was confidential for the moment. Come to the conference and have a cup of coffee with folks.

In my discipline, it is explictly forbidden to discuss papers under review unless given permission. Is that clear enough?Also, if someone tells me that they have a data set and preliminary analyses say XYZ, give a preprint to read , ask me for comments but don't spread it around, I'm going to do that. Is that clear enough?

Last, let's be clear here, again. I am not a supporter of Lott. I've read the critiques and his responses. I've heard others discuss them. I said that, while some folks may think the issue is decided - I'm going to wait to see what new findings find out. Other 'gun scholars' that I know say the same thing. Since they are not here, I'm not putting words in their mouth.

If the moderators want to close this because we are out of control, I can live with that and my posts up to this point.

Bah - I have to go to Miami for business and will miss a GSSF match - that makes my blood boil. I also will miss a good hunting weekend for scholarship - bah! These are really important to me and not this peepee match, here. I'll think I'll just read the gun and tactical forums for awhile. I find the 1911 vs. Glock debate to be more polite. :)

[fallingblock]

" I am not a supporter of Lott. I've read the critiques and his responses. I've heard others discuss them. I said that, while some folks may think the issue is decided - I'm going to wait to see what new findings find out. Other 'gun scholars' that I know say the same thing."
*********************************************************

The most prudent course by far, although I believe that the majority of Lott's work is solid and will stand review.

Who coined the phrase "gun scholars" by the way?


*********************************************************
"Bah - I have to go to Miami for business and will miss a GSSF match - that makes my blood boil. I also will miss a good hunting weekend for scholarship - bah! These are really important to me and not this peepee match, here."
*********************************************************


You're going to miss a match AND a hunting weekend for business!? :eek:

It's 42 degrees Celsius here in Central Australia....too durn hot even to go shoot at the range over the hill. :(
As for hunting, there is a feral cat that needs attention nearby.
It's so bold it was grabbing geckos off the outside windowsills last night. :uhoh:

[agricola]

Do you dispute there has been any rise in crime since that legislation or that a rise seen since that legislation has nothing to do with the gun ban? Related to that, do you think the revisions made to the law in the UK which act to criminalize any physically coercive act of self defense have made criminals more or less likely to physically confront their targets? Do you think these changes to British law are wise or unwise, just or unjust?

there has been a rise in some crimes, and a fall in others, since the ban. however, since pre-1997 the UK already had an incredibly stringent firearms control system in place and no issue of firearms licences for self defence, nor were arms allowed to be carried ready-for-use.

all of which damages Lott's claims.

[TimLambert]

GEM, yes the Internet is a big place, and it includes place where personal attacks are not against the rules, so why not go to one of those places and post there instead of disrupting things here?

Contrary to the impression you tried to create, last year alone there were three independent studies published (Ayres and Donohue, Helland and Tabarrok, Kovandzic and Marvell) that got results contrary to Lott. I have links to all the studies, pro and con here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/more_guns_less_crime/0728.html).

Again I ask you: do you have any substantive objections to any of this work?

[TimLambert]

So, fallingblock, you agree that 12/13 is not 95%. Why do you think Lott claimed that his survey got 95%?

[GEM]

Fallingblock says:

You're going to miss a match AND a hunting weekend for business!?

It's 42 degrees Celsius here in Central Australia....too durn hot even to go shoot at the range over the hill.
As for hunting, there is a feral cat that needs attention nearby.
It's so bold it was grabbing geckos off the outside windowsills last night.

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

Fallingblock: If I go do business, I can buy more guns. There is 1911 that is calling me. Maybe it would be a new carry gun and I can use it to prove that More Guns, Less Crime is valid - :) . I still have time in the season to get a turkey or deer. Hogs are always in season.

Tim - I know you are fixated on Lott, good for you. I'm not going to do a point by point on the current literature, that wasn't my post - nor is discussing it with you frankly worth my time. There are problems with Lott but the game is still afoot on his thesis that guns reduce crime. If you read carefully, I said that folks want to see some of the new stuff that is in the pipe. That's my plan and it should be yours. If the old stuff and new stuff independent of reanalyzing his data set nail him, I'm just fine with that as data are data. Or would you feel that new analysis from independent researchers are apriori not valid?

Given there are waves of shall issue states - we have some experiments running as we speak.

If you hope that the data don't support the thesis as you have some agenda - that's your problem.

Do you want the thesis of civilian guns reducing crime or not causing an increase not to be true?

However, I'm not overly concerned with continuing a fixated thread about Lott. I'm going to see what happens. You can continue this thread if you want and continue to fixated on Lott - that's all you ever posted on this board.

How about your shooting experiences? What's your favorite gun? Are you a Glock fan or 1911 fan? AR or M-14? What's your FOF experience?

Leaving on a jet plane. :D

[fallingblock]

"If I go do business, I can buy more guns. There is 1911 that is calling me. Maybe it would be a new carry gun and I can use it to prove that More Guns, Less Crime is valid -"
*********************************************************

Yes...independent research, so to speak. :)



Tim, I tthink GEM is offering some sound advice here:
*********************************************************
"....folks want to see some of the new stuff that is in the pipe. That's my plan and it should be yours. If the old stuff and new stuff independent of reanalyzing his data set nail him, I'm just fine with that as data are data. Or would you feel that new analysis from independent researchers are apriori not valid?

Given there are waves of shall issue states - we have some experiments running as we speak.

If you hope that the data don't support the thesis as you have some agenda - that's your problem."
*********************************************************



Perhaps, Tim, if you could address this query for us:
*********************************************************
"Do you want the thesis of civilian guns reducing crime or not causing an increase not to be true?"
*********************************************************

I'm wondering the same. :)

[TimLambert]

So, fallingblock, you agree that 12/13 is not 95%. Why do you think Lott claimed that his survey got 95%?

[Gunstar1]

First, 12/13 = 0.923076923076923076923076923076923
So to you, 95% is WAY OFF the correct 92%, and proves Lott is lying?
I hate to tell you that 3% is still well within most statistical accuracy ranges.
How could he have possibly got an extra 3%? It could simply be that someone misread the number. I live with dislexia every day of my life, and I still have a problem with transposing 6-9, 2-5, S-Z, p-g-q. Somedays its fine, other days for the life of me I cant remember if a S starts right to left or left to right.


Now TIM:
How could the BCS prove Lott is incorrect about violent crime rate, or for that matter serious violent crime, when the BCS does not include murders, rapes, and domestic assualt but does include non-violent harrasment and assualt where no injury occured?

The Violent Crime rate in the US has gone down. There are a specific set of laws in the the US that are considered "Violent Crimes". Those are "Cherrypicked" from all the crimes in the US. Now if Lott, or anyone for that matter, wanted to compair Violent Crime Rate between the US and the UK, you need to use the same crimes in one country as you do in another. In otherwords you would need to "Cherry pick" the same crime totals out of the UK crimes and the US crimes.

Please, either show Lott "cherry picked" only the crimes that have gone up, and left out violent crimes that might have fallen, in which Lott would be wrong.
Or post why the BCS is more correct at showing Violent Crime totals when the BCS does not include all Violent crimes, in which Lott would be wrong for not using the BCS.

You have done neither, so you have proven nothing.
You asked me to prove how your site was untrustworthy, and I have done so.

[fallingblock]

I agreed with Art earlier, that it's in the ballpark for the data..within 3%.

You'll remember Lott's answer that he was trying to demonstrate media bias.

I don't think the 3% in any way threatens the validity of the premise that the vast majority of firearms presentations by potential crime victims end without a shooting taking place.

Do you disagree with the concept of armed law-abiding citizens, Tim?

[agricola]

How could the BCS prove Lott is incorrect about violent crime rate, or for that matter serious violent crime, when the BCS does not include murders, rapes, and domestic assualt but does include non-violent harrasment and assualt where no injury occured?

er... domestic assaults are included in the BCS

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp

[TDPerk]

Agricola, do you contend the inclusion of domestic violence but not rape or murder makes the BCS a valid study for gauging the growth of crime generally and crimes committed with guns specifically?

And how do you, and Tim, feel about this little piece:

One gun crime per hour in the UK. (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3833860)

But the perception is more of a problem than the reality...
[places pinky in mouth a la Dr. Evil]
...right.

Was one gun crime an hour occurring in Britain before there was essentially a ban on gun ownership? What was the rate before this?

While "post hoc" does not neccessarily mean "propter hoc," it is a requirement of causality and is present in this case. Not neccesarily Lott vindicated, but certainly Lott supported.

And TimLambert, I've been following gun crime in Britain in such sites as the BBC for a long time, don't try to sell to me that crime generally and gunrelated crimes haven't skyrocketed since the Brits generally banned them.

Not if you want a shred of dignity or crediblity to remain attached to your name. If any remains.

Dwell on this, you have not been successfull at discrediting Lott as Cramer was in discrediting Belleisle because you have a weak argument.

Please improve it or go away.

Yours, TDP

[GEM]

I have a break, in a sense - this debate of fractions shows how far off the mark the discussion is. To me, the point is whether law abiding citizens can prevent crimes with firearms. The confirmation of such a thesis from Lott or Kleck is a good thing for debate. However, the principal that law abiding citizens can protect themselves is indisputable.

Let's see - where I live, there was a rapist who had served time. He had horribly assaulted a woman many years before. Now being out, he started to harass a women at the health club - one night he crawled through her window and was promptly shot with a Glock 21. Did she care what 12/13 was? Thus, that gun prevented a crime. Perhaps she would have been better off mutilated?

Looking at Tim's blog, it is clear that he is fixated on the evil that guns do. He is particularly fixated on Lott. But I don't see on his web page where he has published in the scholarly journals on the subject. If I missed it, sorry.

I pose the question again, Tim - do you have anything to offer besides being fixated on Lott?

What is your opinion of law abiding citizens owning firearms as a basic right, for self-defense and defense against tyranny?

Otherwise, your fixation is interesting and I propose again that you join the scholarly debate as compared to a web log.

I would also like your response as to what you would have done if the gentleman above came in your window. I will assure you that his physical capacities probably far exceeded your own.

The data are clear that CCW laws don't massively increase crime rate and it is clear that people do defend themselves. So what do you think about this or are you just fixated on no one having guns? Let the next few years deal with Lott specifically. What do you think about the overall issue?

[agricola]

tdperk,

Murders arent recorded in the BCS because they are always going to be recorded in the Police Statistics and are not going to be recorded via the BCS.

Rapes are recorded in the BCS, so he could have used them as the link below demonstrates:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page60.asp

For a start, there has not been "a ban on gun ownership" that would allow a comparison - since 1967 there has been successive pieces of legislation that has narrowed what can be held. This is one of the things that Lott falls down on - between 1988 and 1997 the UK already had a very stringent firearms control system in place, and (as has been repeated ad infinitum here and with only very few exceptions) no firearms held for self defence; the contention that Lott, Malcolm and others have held that the 1997 ban caused a rise in crime is therefore spurious, having no basis in fact.

You can see criminal statistics detailing the number of firearms offences between 1989 and 1999/2000 here (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-3.htm) . That is the last year the HMSO published the details on the web, the more recent data is all .pdf and can be reached from my first link.

I would also point out that Lambert's website details the charges against Lott, provides links to all of the evidence for independent verification and in general he produces a very compelling case - the UK parts especially. However I fear that the reluctance from the pro-gun lobby to give Lott the boot he so clearly deserves (its funny that
this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=81258&highlight=lott) isnt mentioned more) just gives the man credibility, up until the time he finally is exposed and causes more damage.

[Gunstar1]

er... domestic assaults are included in the BCS
Not nearly all of them: From the BCS page 81.
"The issue of willingness to disclose incidents is very important for domestic violence. The 1996 BCS included a self-completion module on domestic violence that is viewed as providing a more complete measure of domestic violence (Mirrlees-Black, 1999). Prevalence rates for domestic assault in 1995 derived from the self-completion module were around three times higher for women and 10 times higher for men. The 2001 BCS contained a special selfcompletion module on inter-personal violence (domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking) and a report on results from this module is in preparation."

So they know that face to face questions will result in lower results. If you are looking for accuracy, why not just use the self-completion modules?
It does not have a breakdown for men and women in the BCS but the total for Domestic Violence is 550,000 or so. If there were only 20,000 domestic Assaults on men, then the real total could be 180,000 more crimes. The BCS is low-balling the number here.

Murders arent recorded in the BCS because they are always going to be recorded in the Police Statistics and are not going to be recorded via the BCS.
So the BCS yearly total should be another 1,048 higher.


Rapes are recorded in the BCS, so he could have used them as the link below demonstrates:
From the page you linked to:
"While the BCS does not measure sexual offences as a specific category, it does periodically include a self-completion section within the survey, which provides the best available measure of sexual offences in England & Wales.

According to the BCS self-completion survey in 2000:
0.9% of women aged 16 to 59 were subject to some form of sexual victimisation (including rape) during the last year."

The last year they did this was 2000. This is not a part of the 2002-2003 data. So rape is NOT included in the Violent Crime total.
In fact the census for england says of the 50,000,000+ people in England and Wales that roughly half are females, so +-25,000,000 females in England and Wales.
Then 63% are aged 16-59 so that is +-15,750,000.
Then .9% were victimized during that period so that is +-141,750 females subjected to violent crime if you use the data from today with the population percent from 2000.
So benefit of the doubt that is another 100,000 violent crimes that are not reported in the BCS.

So that is a low ball 200,000 - 300,000 violent crimes the report admits it does not count.

You can see criminal statistics detailing the number of firearms offences between 1989 and 1999/2000 here . That is the last year the HMSO published the details on the web, the more recent data is all .pdf and can be reached from my first link.
Again from the BCS but quoting police data for 2003/2004:
"In 2003/04 there were a provisional 10,340 firearm offences in England and Wales. This was an increase of less than one per cent since 2002/03 (Figure 5.6). The number of offences has risen each year since 1997/98, but the 2003/04 rise is the smallest. (my emphasis)" page 79

And on page 80 is "Figure 5.6 Recorded crimes involving firearms other than air weapons, 2003/04"
Which shows a graph at 1997/98 at about 5,000 and for 2003/04 at about 10,340 with a continual rise in between.

Does this prove Lott correct? No. But it does show a casual relationship. Which at least hints that Lott is on the right track.

For a start, there has not been "a ban on gun ownership" that would allow a comparison - since 1967 there has been successive pieces of legislation that has narrowed what can be held. This is one of the things that Lott falls down on - between 1988 and 1997 the UK already had a very stringent firearms control system in place, and (as has been repeated ad infinitum here and with only very few exceptions) no firearms held for self defence; the contention that Lott, Malcolm and others have held that the 1997 ban caused a rise in crime is therefore spurious, having no basis in fact.

Well, from what we here in America, banning all guns will reduce gun violence. The UK has pretty much banned all working firearms, yet the gun crimes continue to rise. Even if nobody registered a gun for self defense before 97, there are still people today using guns in the UK for self defense, illegally. In fact, the ban should work better since it was gradual and there have been many years to comply with the law.

Gun crimes rise in a country surrounded by water (so no fair saying it is a neighbor state or country bringing them across the boarder) and dispite banning more and more guns, the total gun crimes continues to rise.

It could be the new laws are simply making criminals out of previous law abiding citizens and that is causing the rise. If so Lott would be wrong.

Tim just points to the BCS and says Lott is wrong. Dispite the various places the BCS says it does not include data, and yet includes harrasment data that is non-violent.

I wonder if Tim can even admin Lott could be right about anything. So far his response to all my postings is that Lott "should have" used the BCS instead of the actual data.

As I have said previously, as soon as Tim admits the BCS is flawed for compairing to Lott's number or can tell me why all these flaws in the BCS as written are better than calculating with the actual data, I will shut up.

And I would really like to shut up. ;)

[agricola]

Gunstar1,

Please read the most recent BCS and Criminal Statistics before making these remarks.

So they know that face to face questions will result in lower results. If you are looking for accuracy, why not just use the self-completion modules?

The self-completion modules are periodic - 1996 and 2000 - and I believe targetted at specific areas of crime.

It does not have a breakdown for men and women in the BCS but the total for Domestic Violence is 550,000 or so. If there were only 20,000 domestic Assaults on men, then the real total could be 180,000 more crimes. The BCS is low-balling the number here.

No, because the most recent BCS does have a breakdown for men and women as this .pdf demonstrates (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf) (page 81, remarkably enough). Given that the most recent count of domestic violence is 446,000 incidents split male female at 33-67, where did the figure of "20,000 domestic assaults on men" come from?

So the BCS yearly total should be another 1,048 higher.

No, because the BCS is a survey and throwing criminal statistics, from another source, would distort the results. Secondly the BCS seeks to interview victims, which in cases of homicide clearly cannot be done.

The last year they did this was 2000. This is not a part of the 2002-2003 data. So rape is NOT included in the Violent Crime total.
In fact the census for england says of the 50,000,000+ people in England and Wales that roughly half are females, so +-25,000,000 females in England and Wales.
Then 63% are aged 16-59 so that is +-15,750,000.
Then .9% were victimized during that period so that is +-141,750 females subjected to violent crime if you use the data from today with the population percent from 2000.
So benefit of the doubt that is another 100,000 violent crimes that are not reported in the BCS.

So that is a low ball 200,000 - 300,000 violent crimes the report admits it does not count.

Firstly the percentage of rapes in the self-completion survey was .4, not .9 (which referred to overall instances of "sexual victimization"). Secondly the data is provided via this .pdf (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors237.pdf), which could be extrapolated out from that.

Again from the BCS but quoting police data for 2003/2004:

"In 2003/04 there were a provisional 10,340 firearm offences in England and Wales. This was an increase of less than one per cent since 2002/03 (Figure 5.6). The number of offences has risen each year since 1997/98, but the 2003/04 rise is the smallest. (my emphasis)" page 79


And on page 80 is "Figure 5.6 Recorded crimes involving firearms other than air weapons, 2003/04"
Which shows a graph at 1997/98 at about 5,000 and for 2003/04 at about 10,340 with a continual rise in between.

Does this prove Lott correct? No. But it does show a casual relationship. Which at least hints that Lott is on the right track.

It shows nothing of the kind. Everton Football Club last faced a relegation battle on the last day of the 1997-98 season. Since they beat the drop, gun crime has risen. Accordingly, Everton's continued presence in the top flight of English football is responsible for gun crime.

Well, from what we here in America, banning all guns will reduce gun violence. The UK has pretty much banned all working firearms, yet the gun crimes continue to rise. Even if nobody registered a gun for self defense before 97, there are still people today using guns in the UK for self defense, illegally. In fact, the ban should work better since it was gradual and there have been many years to comply with the law.

How can that possibly be evidenced?

Also the UK has not "pretty much banned all working firearms".

Gun crimes rise in a country surrounded by water (so no fair saying it is a neighbor state or country bringing them across the boarder) and dispite banning more and more guns, the total gun crimes continues to rise.


You ban cats, and the result would be an increase in cat crime. You hit the nail on the head when you say:

It could be the new laws are simply making criminals out of previous law abiding citizens and that is causing the rise. If so Lott would be wrong.

I would add "increasing the amount of behaviours that have been criminalized" - the more things you can get arrested for, usually the more people will get arrested.

Tim just points to the BCS and says Lott is wrong. Dispite the various places the BCS says it does not include data, and yet includes harrasment data that is non-violent.

And yet harrassment and no-injury assaults are included in the "violent crime" category in Police statistics - facts which dont seem to trouble Lott when he claims "violent crime rises in England".

[fallingblock]

And since it seems relevant to the discussion.....

What's your take on Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens announcement that the laws on self defense need to be clarified in favour of the defender?

I realise that Sir John is retiring, thus his statement is more of a "parting shot" than a declaration of policy.

Any chance that the police bureaucracy supports the idea?

[agricola]

Probably more of a parting shot, but he made good points, though I would disagree that the law isnt clear on the issue - the law and caselaw are very clear (genuine self defence always being identified pre-trial or at trial and upheld); where the confusion arises is because elements of the media have seen fit to throw lies, fabrications and bias into the mix.

Incidentally, this can be seen in the way that certain media outlets have reported the Commissioners' comments - check the language used in the headlines, and what two of the most pro-Martin papers (the Evening Standard and Sun) decided what wasnt worth passing on:

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWPOLICEForceSat7Policeatta?source=&ct=5
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004561645,00.html

here is the original:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/04/nmet04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/04/ixportal.html

and the BBC report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4067681.stm

I would add that the problem I have is not with the issue of self-defence, because we already have a system that robustly defends homeowners and anyone else who uses force, including deadly force, to protect themselves. What I take issue with is the way in which the media - in exactly (if less successfully) the same way as they did after Dunblane and Hungerford - have sought to force political opinion down one path.

[fallingblock]

"Incidentally, this can be seen in the way that certain media outlets have reported the Commissioners' comments - check the language used in the headlines, and what two of the most pro-Martin papers (the Evening Standard and Sun) decided what wasnt worth passing on:"
*********************************************************


Yes. I read the "Telegraph" article initially.

Many of the print media certainly are earning the sobriquet "presstitutes". :(


*********************************************************
"I would add that the problem I have is not with the issue of self-defence, because we already have a system that robustly defends homeowners and anyone else who uses force, including deadly force, to protect themselves."
*********************************************************

My problem with current British law is the "proportional force" emphasis.

It would be more just, IMHO, if the defender was given more tolerance under the law, even if force used is 'disproportionate'.


*********************************************************
"What I take issue with is the way in which the media - in exactly (if less successfully) the same way as they did after Dunblane and Hungerford - have sought to force political opinion down one path."
*********************************************************


Yes. We in Australia witnessed such a media circus following the shootings at Port Arthur than even those with no interest in firearms were aghast at the feeding frenzy of the anti-gun press.

I suppose there is advantage to media promoting misunderstanding...
controversy sells papers. :rolleyes:

[agricola]

fallingblock,

My problem with current British law is the "proportional force" emphasis.

It would be more just, IMHO, if the defender was given more tolerance under the law, even if force used is 'disproportionate'.


Thats the thing - they (the defendants) already are, and the "proportional force" element is massively overemphasised by the press, the "scholars" like Lott and (especially, as Tim demonstrated) Malcolm - indeed its doubtful if (when one looks at caselaw) it remains in existance:

All putative self-defence, it seems, falls into the category of “necessary self-defence.” In this part of the judgment, the idea that the defendant’s belief is merely evidence of reasonableness has suddenly vanished; indeed, the very word “reasonable” is dropped. It seems, therefore, that the decision makes a radical change in the law. At least where the defender fears death or serious injury, there is no proportionality rule any longer; and a good thing too—in view of the jury’s verdict in Shannon. German law, it seems, gets on without a proportionality rule, and so could we, where the facts are similar to those in Shannon. The reasoning in the decision is fudged, but that is the price one pays for a beneficial change in the law.

from here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/UK/gullible4.html)

Again, this is yet more evidence of Tim identifying clearly fraudulent behaviour. Can anyone be found to condemn Malcolm on this?

edited to add "defendants" - in the sense of "those that defend themselves", not in the judicial sense of the word.

[Gunstar1]

I did read some of the 2003/2004 data, but since Tim was using 2002/2003 data, that is the report I used.

Except for the gun crimes.
So any notes to the BCS are using the link Tim provided, which was the 2002/2003 survey. I know the 2003/2004 survey has a better breakdown, but that is not what Tim used to prove Lott was "wrong"

If the data did not exist in the 2002/2003 survey, that is what I reported. Don't gripe at me for not using 2003/2004 survey, when I am intentionally using 2002/2003 data just as Tim used.

The self-completion modules are periodic - 1996 and 2000 - and I believe targetted at specific areas of crime.

did you ignore what I quoted? The domestic assaults are grossly under represented on the BCS, just as the BCS says. 3 times higher for females and 10 times for males.

No, because the most recent BCS does have a breakdown for men and women as this .pdf demonstrates (page 81, remarkably enough). Given that the most recent count of domestic violence is 446,000 incidents split male female at 33-67, where did the figure of "20,000 domestic assaults on men" come from?
The male - female breakdown is not in the 2002-2003 BCS that Tim used. Since the data was not included, I wanted to show how grossly off it was, but without the actual data I used a low made up number that was far lower than the actual total would be and demonstrated. But now that you have provided the correct info, let me update it, for the 2003/2004 survey.
From BCS 2003/2004:
Prevalence rates for domestic violence derived from the 2001 self-completion module were around five times higher for all adults than those obtained from the face-to-face interviews.
446,000 x 5 = 2,230,000
2004 BCS is roughly 1,784,000 crimes shy of totals they would probably get with modules.
Do you think 1.8 MILLION extra violent crimes might throw that graph showing total violent crimes off a little?
Why not just make the module yearly and not ask the face to face domestic violence questions?
The self-completion modules are periodic - 1996 and 2000 - and I believe targetted at specific areas of crime.
Yes I quoted this in my last post, and my point was make it yearly for the most accuate info. If you know a module shows the most accuate data, why not use it yearly?

Firstly the percentage of rapes in the self-completion survey was .4, not .9 (which referred to overall instances of "sexual victimization"). Secondly the data is provided via this .pdf, which could be extrapolated out from that.
Not in 2002/2003 it is not included. So if you take my +-141,750 minus what the BCS reported sexual victimization in the 2003/04 total of 52,070 is drum roll... 89,680 more unreported crimes.


Again tell me how a few million violent crimes the BCS did not report shows that the BCS' downward violent crime trend is accurate as Tim insists?

[agricola]

Gunstar,

So in essence what you are saying is the BCS is inaccurate because it doesnt cover every single crime that might exist? Why then does Lott get a pass for using numbers that include even less? The BCS is only of use if it remains the same over a period of years and rises, and falls, in crimes can be demonstrated.

The reason the face-to-face interviews are used rather than self-completion forms is probably because the interviewer is going to have a better idea of what constitutes a "domestic incident" than the person filling in the form will have.

I also dont know which BCS you are using, but the 2002/3 data has the breakdown of BCS domestic violence by sex, its on page 97 onwards.

[Gunstar1]

So in essence what you are saying is the BCS is inaccurate because it doesnt cover every single crime that might exist? Why then does Lott get a pass for using numbers that include even less? The BCS is only of use if it remains the same over a period of years and rises, and falls, in crimes can be demonstrated.

Close, what I am saying is that the BCS should not be used as the end all proof that total violent crimes in the UK have gone down since it does not include all types of violent crimes, or if it does include certain violent crimes the BCS admits that the numbers may be higher than what is printed.

On Tim's website he imply's that Lott is incorrectly using the police recorded crimes. To prove that violent crimes have not risen he posts the BCS violent crime trend. How does Tim know where Lott chose to pull his data from. He apparently guesses that Lott is using police data and claims Lott is using it incorrectly.

Maybe Lott did use the BCS, and did exactly as I did in figuring out what the actual numbers for different violent crimes might really be, as suggested in the BCS.

Do I know Lott did it this way? Nope
Does Tim know Lott got his information soley from the police recorded crimes? Nope

To say the police data is wrong while the BCS is correct, is grossly misleading. Neither are completly wrong or right. They both contain different information from different sources that mean different things.

The BCS is only the crimes people told the interviewers. The police record is only of those crimes reported to the police. Both are flawed in the same way, so neither can be proof that violent crimes have gone up or down.

Lott does not say what data he used, whether police or BCS in the report. Tim says Lott used the police, I have no idea how Tim knows this since Lott did not say.

Why does Lott get away with this stuff? Frankly, this kind of stuff happens in all fields. Such as the VPC's report that said 1 in 5 police officers were killed with an assault weapon. Big news unless you know that guns that were exempted by name (such as the mini-14) in the federal assault weapons ban were counted as assault weapons by the VPC.

I will say this again, I am not for or against Lott.
I do not think the BCS is a junk report. It simply reports what was learned.
However I do think that Tim is using the BCS data improperly to try to prove Lott is wrong.

Tim would have done better trying to find out where the data came from and what crimes Lott considers are violent crimes and what are serious violent crimes. Then recreating Lott's research using those sources.

Police recorded crimes show an increase in violent crimes.
BCS recorded crimes show a decrease in violent crimes.
Both under report the true number of violent crimes. So neither one can represent true violent crime totals for all violent crimes. Tim is misleading readers by saying that the BCS does show this total. When it does not.

[agricola]

To say the police data is wrong while the BCS is correct, is grossly misleading. Neither are completly wrong or right. They both contain different information from different sources that mean different things.

That isnt what he has been saying. From his website:

To summarize: the increase in the police recorded violent crime was caused by changes in the crimes counted and increased recording. The underlying violent crime rate, as measured by the BCS in fact declined significantly.

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/UK/malcolm.html

The Police stats have been affected by at least two major changes since 1997. The BCS has been unaffected by such changes, so long-term trends in it are more likely to be correct in terms of that survey.

Of course, if Lott and Malcolm and the rest had pointed out that these changes had taken place and that may be one of the reasons why violent crime has apparently risen, there would not be an issue - but they continue to insist that the reason for the post-1997 rise is because of a handgun ban. Such fraudulent behaviour is not unique - I have spent the past two years pointing it out - and it really is time that some of you started to question exactly who is speaking on your behalf.

[Gunstar1]

So how come Malcolm reported that the violent crime rate more than doubled from 1997 to 2001? The answer lies in the difference between two different ways crime can be measured. The BCS is a victimization survey. It is conducted by asking a sample of the population questions about any crimes they might have experienced. The other way crime is measured is being collating crimes reported to the police. Because most crime is not reported to the police, surveys like BCS give a much more accurate estimate of the total number of crimes than police reports.

1 million violent crime reports to the police, inaccurate because of the changes in recording requirments (what Tim says Lott used)
2.8 million violent cime reports to the BCS, which makes it a better indicator than police reports. (what Tim says Lott should have used)
4.6 million estimated real world violent crimes, that is the BCS total plus the 1.8 million under reported or not reported violent crimes, which would make this the best indicator of them all (what I think Lott probably used and keep saying Tim should have considered instead of assuming Lott incorrectly used the police records)

As I keep saying, since the BCS does not report some crimes and under reports others, adding the missing violent crime information(murder total) and correcting the under reporting (as I did in several posts) into the BCS total you will have a better indicator of true violent crimes in England and Wales.

If Lott did use this method, he would be using a better indicator than the BCS.
And I keep suggesting that Tim should figure the real world data out instead of assuming Lott used the police data(which I have not seen Lott say anywhere that the info came from the police data)

[agricola]

Gunstar,

As I keep saying, since the BCS does not report some crimes and under reports others, adding the missing violent crime information(murder total) and correcting the under reporting (as I did in several posts) into the BCS total you will have a better indicator of true violent crimes in England and Wales.


Not really, because there is no scientific method there, and you have ignored the great problems in that theory of yours.

The BCS is useful because it can identify more crimes than are reported to the Police and provide a better idea of what might be going on. The reasons why rapes and murders are not in it is because firstly, rapes formed a very small element in the BCS return, and secondly the BCS interviews victims - so murder victims by definition cannot be part of the survey.

You also havent addressed Lamberts main problem with the original Lott article - is it ethical to claim that "violent crime has risen in England" as a result of the 1997 gun ban, when the change is so clearly down to a change in recording practices, and a separate, unchanged survey shows that it has in fact fallen?

Dont you think he should have at least pointed that out to his readers?

You also said:

4.6 million estimated real world violent crimes, that is the BCS total plus the 1.8 million under reported or not reported violent crimes, which would make this the best indicator of them all (what I think Lott probably used and keep saying Tim should have considered instead of assuming Lott incorrectly used the police records)

i) where did "1.8 million under-reported or not reported violent crimes" come from;

ii) where is the evidence that Lott used that.

[Gunstar1]

i. 3 posts ago, summary of what was said

Agricola: "Given that the most recent count of domestic violence is 446,000 incidents split male female at 33-67, where did the figure of "20,000 domestic assaults on men" come from?

Gunstar1: I used a low made up number that was far lower than the actual total would be and demonstrated. But now that you have provided the correct info, let me update it, for the 2003/2004 survey.

From BCS 2003/2004:
Prevalence rates for domestic violence derived from the 2001 self-completion module were around five times higher for all adults than those obtained from the face-to-face interviews.
446,000 x 5 = 2,230,000
2004 BCS is roughly 1,784,000 crimes shy of totals they would probably get with modules.
(2,230,000 - 446,000 included in BCS already = 1,784,000 or 1.8 million)


ii. Lott is talking about real world total of ALL violent crimes, the BCS does not include all violent crimes, it has reported violent crimes(some of which are under reported). To come closer to the total of all violent crimes you need to add that information to the info in the BCS. Add the data that the BCS does not include, plus the ajustments to the under-reported BCS crimes, with the the general BCS data equals a closer number to a total of all violent crimes than the BCS or police data does.

The police data and the BCS only show what crimes people are willing to report. Neither are truly representative of what is really going on with real world actual violent crimes.

[agricola]

gunstar,

In that case (and this is not to say I agree with you - Lott clearly used the Police statistics) Lott's use of such statistics is doubly fraudulent, since he cited rises in statistics that it is an impossibility to collect and which he had no way of collecting.

The only published statistics are the BCS and the Police recorded crime, both represent a means to identify rises and falls in different types of crime, but only one of which has not been changed in the recent past. Accordingly, the BCS should be a more reliable indicator over this period, at least until the Police statistics calm down in terms of changes, which they should now NCRS is in.

To sum up, Lott and others should therefore have (at the very least):

i) pointed out that the Police statistics have been subject to changes in the way they are collated, and that these changes are very likely to be responsible for a good part, if not the whole of, rises in crime;

ii) pointed out that the other means of identifying crime levels - the BCS - did not match that in the Police statistics, indeed it showed the exact opposite.

Also, as was noted above, the reason self-completion modules are not used is probably because the person filling it in is unlikely to define "an incident" in the same way as the next person. I would imagine 100% of people have "domestic incidents" with their partners or family members of one sort or another. Isnt that why most statistical surveys are done by means of interviews?

Not to mention the fact that, if you expand the England and Wales statistics like that, you must also expand the comparative statistics - in this case the US - by a like amount.

[TimLambert]

Gunstar, Lott could have got an 118% increase in violent crime by using the police recorded numbers. If you want to argue that he used some other numbers, you need to show that those numbers show a 118% increase. If you still have doubts, why not email him and ask him how he got the 118% number?

[TimLambert]

The responses by the pro-gun posters here have proven the point of the article that started this thread. Bellesiles published numbers for gun ownership that were too low. In fact, they could not even be derived from the data that he did published. He gets condemned for fraud. Lott publishes number for brandishing in defensive gun use that are too high. In fact, they cannot even be derived from the data he has published. The reaction? "In the ballpark", "within the margin of error", "who cares anyway".

GEM praises Clayton Cramer for contributing "mightly to pointing out problems with Bellesiles" and Lindgren for using his expertise to nail Bellesiles. OTOH, GEM claims that i am "crazy" and "fixated" for daring to criticizing Lott, and studiously ignores Lindgren's nailing of Lott for the missing survey and all the contradictory stories Lott told about it.

I pretty sure I know what the reaction here would be if some anonymous poster came and claimed to have attended the most recent OAH meeting and talked to historians who were doing research into guns in early America that could well vindicate Bellesiles and it was just too early to condemn him. And he couldn't tell you who these historians were because he has been sworn to secrecy.

[Gunstar1]

Gunstar, Lott could have got an 118% increase in violent crime by using the police recorded numbers. If you want to argue that he used some other numbers, you need to show that those numbers show a 118% increase. If you still have doubts, why not email him and ask him how he got the 118% number?

No Tim, if you are trying to prove Lott is wrong, you have to investigate all the possible ways he could have come to that number.

YOU need to show that Lott did not use those numbers. YOU need to ask Lott if he really did use the police data.

I am a fence sitter on what Lott has done. Some of the things he says makes sense, other things make him sound crazy. However I am not trying to prove him right or wrong, I am critizing you for failing to properly prove Lott wrong.

I count at least 4 different places Lott might have got the total from:

Police Data
BCS data
Error corrected BCS data for each year
Out of thin air


So of those 4:
Looking at the police data, well that is pretty close, so Lott might have used 1.
Looking at the BCS only, it does not show 118%, so Lott did not use 2.
Did not bother to check 3.
If nothing can be found, it must be 4.

I am not trying to prove Lott is right, I am trying to show you that you are falling short of proving Lott wrong. If you don't ask him what he used then you need to prove that the numbers came from no other source but 1 or 4.

Just because #1 looks like the number does not mean you can ignore #3. I am a vistor to your website, it is your job to convince me Lott could have only used the data from #1 and why it is wrong for Lott to use that data. Unfortunatly you did not. Your argument is built on an assumption that you have failed to prove.

YOU should prove Lott did not use #3, YOU should make sure that 118% could come from no other place but #1 or #4.

You are the one that is trying to prove him wrong so you email him and ask him where the data came from. Post the email you sent to Lott, and anyone else that might know where that data came from.

Your website is trying to convince ME that Lott is incorrect. However you fail to eleminate all the possible ways Lott could have arrived at 118%, nor did you even bother to ask if that is where he got the data.

In that case (and this is not to say I agree with you - Lott clearly used the Police statistics) Lott's use of such statistics is doubly fraudulent, since he cited rises in statistics that it is an impossibility to collect and which he had no way of collecting.

Clearly to you maybe. However, without eliminating all the possibilities Tim has not clearly proved it to me.

The BCS gives what the possible data might be. The latest BCS calculates more info for you than the older ones. But the data can still be calculated.

And if their is some data that cannot be calculated then show why it cannot, and thus Lott could not have used it. If you have not tried to collect the data then you do not know if a data set is not collectable. You cannot tell me what that data is and why it cannot be collected. Only then could you say Lott could not have used #3.

Assumption is not proof.


Back to the topic of the thread:
Bellesiles published numbers for gun ownership that were too low. In fact, they could not even be derived from the data that he did published. He gets condemned for fraud. Lott publishes number for brandishing in defensive gun use that are too high. In fact, they cannot even be derived from the data he has published. The reaction? "In the ballpark", "within the margin of error", "who cares anyway".
No, Bellesiles published numbers for gun ownership that was the opposite of what historians have been saying for years. He said that guns were expensive, only the more wealthy had them, and the poor common people could not afford them. Which is not true.

Lott is publishing numbers for brandishing that is higher than previous studies, but not drastically so.

People are more willing to forgive slight overstatements than out and out lies.

The real problem lies with people trying to prove Lott is wrong but not doing it correctly. By you saying Lott is wrong but not backing it up, leaves people like me to discredit your claim.

Think of it like a criminal court case. You want to prove Lott is guilty of using false and misleading information beyond a resonable doubt. If someone in Lott's defense pokes holes in your case, the jury could have resonable doubt.

To the jury Lott would not be guilty. He could have done exactly as you said, however failure to eliminate all the possible ways Lott could have got the data leads to doubt. If you fail to prove him wrong, some people believe by default that Lott was right. Even if Lott really was wrong and it was simply your failure to successfully prove it.

Some people reading this tread might think "Gunstar proved Tim wrong, therfore Lott is correct". Which is incorrect.
What I am saying is that Tim did not finish proving Lott wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

You have to try harder to prove Lott is wrong than people had to do with Bellesiles. Simply because Bellesiles was posting the opposite of what was known and it was not very hard to prove otherwise. It is much harder to prove exaggerations in which people are more willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt, than someone saying the opposite of what you have been taught is true.

[agricola]

Gunstar,

Its very clear Lott is using the Police statistics, because he is at pains to point this out in his articles on the subject, of which below is one example:

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

http://www.tsra.com/Lott112.htm

As an aside, that article further demonstrates his reckless use of statistics without giving any explanation of their significance.

He contends in one part that the response time has slowed in London so that 29% of the time Police do not arrive within 12 minutes of the call being made, and that this is due to increased workload. What he neglects to mention is that, thanks to increased recruitment, 1/3 of London's Police are "probationary" officers - which means that they cannot drive Police cars "in response mode" - that is with the blue lights and two-tones going, thus slowing the time it takes for them to get to calls.

Since that is contained within the very
source (http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/ppr/2004/040212/15.htm)
he would have got the statistics from, this is a serious omission.

Later he contends that imitation weapons form "only 6% of firearm crime" - except that (as he well knows) the only way that the Police can determine if an imitation weapon has been used for the purposes of the statistics is if they have arrested the person concerned. Therefore those crimes where persons arent caught (and the status of the "firearm" cannot be identified) will include an amount (probably a very large amount) of imitation weapons. That would of course mean that Lott's theory that the UK is now awash with illegally handguns is damaged (since he relies on the statistics), so it doesnt go in.

To me, this forms a pattern of behaviour that is clear; Lott habitually uses only those statistics that support his "case" (that the 1997 ban caused crime to rise), and that these statistics are almost always taken out of context in order to prove a case that is so patently, demonstrably false that it is apparent to anyone that has even a slightest idea of what firearms controls were like in the UK between Hungerford and Dunblane.

[GEM]

Still wearing your tin foil hat, Tim?

Also, are you really so dense as to miss my point? I'll make it simple for you. The resolution of the issue and not your fixation on Lott will be in the future with new studies. It's the same with Bellesiles, if someone explores his conjecture with better methodology, that's interesting.

I also told you and gave you the rationale for not discussing other folks' works in progress. What part of that can't you understand?

I didn't say they are going to prove or disprove Lott. That's your added nuance - never said that. It's quite possible that when it shakes out, Lott will be shown to be a crappy researcher. I said there are new studies afoot. Sorry that you aren't in the scholarly circle. Like I said, show up at the ASC meeting.

How about answering my question about your views on the overall issue of gun usage? What's your view on folks having guns? If you give a reasoned opinion, I'll tell you my name - even though you could find it in 5 minutes, if you tried. It's not Rumplestiltskin, though.

[Gunstar1]

So in 2003 Lott says:
"the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police "

Lott is waiting for the 2004 survey to come out.

In 2004 Tim ASSUMES Lott is using the police data when what you just posted said he was waiting for survey data!!!

Thank you for proving my point. There IS another place the data could come from.

(however I will agree the compairson of the reported crimes to the police in the US and England should not have been made)

[agricola]

Gunstar,

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You edited that quote to entirely alter its meaning:

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

He clearly used the Police data, because there is nowhere in the ICVS where he could have got the rest.

[fallingblock]

"How about answering my question about your views on the overall issue of gun usage? What's your view on folks having guns? Please do tell us your personal views on defensive use of firearms by citizens."
*********************************************************

And Tim, haven't you any link pointing to evidence of your opposition to Howard's anti-gun legislation? :scrutiny:


Agricola:
*********************************************************
"Thats the thing - they (the defendants) already are, and the "proportional force" element is massively overemphasised by the press, the "scholars" like Lott and (especially, as Tim demonstrated) Malcolm - indeed its doubtful if (when one looks at caselaw) it remains in existance..."
*********************************************************

Tim hasn't convinced me that he has demonstrated much beyond his own anti-Lott bias yet.

As GEM writes:
"Sorry that you aren't in the scholarly circle. Like I said, show up at the ASC meeting. "

It is a pity that Tim resorts to a blog rather than properly engaging in the discussion at an academic level. :confused:

Caselaw or not, it seems the Tories are going to run with this idea...and good on em'. ;)

I have my doubts that the 'proportional force' issue is overstated in Britain.

It would seem that too many questions remain on the definition of such force and upon which magistrate is doing the defining.

[TimLambert]

GEM, if you really were interested in my views on guns in general, you could have found out what they were in a few minutes. I don't keep them a secret -- they are posted on my blog and Usenet under my real name. Lott has already been shown to be a crappy researcher -- that's one of the reasons why he can't get a job in academia. Conceivably, future research could show that he was accidently right about concealed carry, but he would still be a crappy researcher.

Fallingblock, I don't need to provide a link to show what my views are. They are my views, I know what they are. I'm not particularly concerned that I can't sway you about Lott. Lott said that 12/13 was 95% and you don't think that is wrong. Obviously your belief in Lott is stronger than your belief in arithmetic.

[Art Eatman]

And so Tim has the last word, and I still don't know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

Art

[cuchulainn]

Tim Lambert: Conceivably, future research could show that he was accidently right about concealed carryGary Kleck's work (which preceded Lott's by the way) shows similar results and is not open to the same attacks as Lott's.

So apparently Lott was "accidentally" correct.