[clange]

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

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

What do you think? Sorry if its been posted before too. I've only read a little of it (theres tons). Pretty tired and not getting much out of it, figured i'd post it.

I've known some of the shady ???? he did before, but this is the first i've seen of anyone claiming his numbers were crap.

[dadman]

Here's a recent topic about the same, but doesn't have the additional links your link does:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=46546

[Wiley]

Lott, Mustard, Kleck, et.al are pro-gun. Donahough, Kellerman, et.al are anti. They're all using the same raw data and comming up with opposite results.

You can find errors in methodology and results in every study.

Believe who you want to.

[clange]

Well thats kind of why i was asking. From reading the page it seems clear there are some flaws with lotts work. How big of a deal they are..who knows. I'm wondering if these other guys have had any similar issues either?

[Desertdog]

Those that believe Lott's surveys are incorrect seem to ignore the most obvious.

When states pass "shall issue CCW" laws, more honest people carry guns, and there is no noticeable increase in crime, and usually there is a drop in crime.:smile:

They seem to not allow anything they disagree with to register with their thinking.:rolleyes:

Since Alaska has removed the need for a CCW permit, does the blood run in their streets? I haven't heard of any more than before the law was changed.

Since Vermont allows CCW by anyone, according to the anti-gun crownd, there should be blood all over the streets there. It's not happening though.

To the anti-gun crowd, Washington DC should be the safest place in the country and New York City should be the next to safest. They are not, though, in fact they are rated as the deadliest as far as firearms are concerned.

Firearms in the honest man's holster makes the world safer for all, except the crooks.:neener:

[pytron]

I tend to believe Lott more than the other guys. Actually, I think most of these studies have some pretty big problems, Lott's included. But he seems to be the most honest about it. If you look at the blog for defense of Kellermann's work (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Kellermann/) (look at last entry), it is terribly biased and filled with misleading statements.

I don't really care which way these studies point, it doesn't invalidate my right to self-defense. A right doesn't have to be beneficial to society to be right.

-Pytron

[gun-fucious]

Tim Lambert has an axe to grind

[mec]

Interestingly, nobody made much of an attempt to refute lot for several years after his first publication. In fact, several sociology types agreed with his methodology and findings. The refutations that did arise consisted mainly of yelling real loud.

This Australian individual has an anti-gun bias and is not a bit credible.

It is advisable to question any social research because most such projects deal in data that is hard to quantify or interpret. Much of it is written because of the need to maintain credentials through publication and a very great deal of it is intended to support preconceived notions such as the superiority of Socialism etc.

[Mute]

John Lott has answered his debunkers, including Tim Lambert, on more than one occasion:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Response_to_Lambert.htm

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID372361_code030121560.pdf?abstractid=372361

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html



So far, I've yet to see the debunkers answer their own critics.

[agricola]

and about the study that noone (aside from one pro-gun guy) remembers doing or being consulted about?

or mary rosh?

[fallingblock]

"This Australian individual has an anti-gun bias and is not a bit credible.

It is advisable to question any social research because most such projects deal in data that is hard to quantify or interpret. Much of it is written because of the need to maintain credentials through publication and a very great deal of it is intended to support preconceived notions such as the superiority of Socialism etc."
************************************************************
And he is using his bias to enhance his list of publications.;)


http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/

[clange]

John Lott has answered his debunkers, including Tim Lambert, on more than one occasion:
Thanks. Looks like i've got more reading to do. ;)

[TimLambert]

I'm puzzled why some here seem to think that accusing me of bias or claiming that I am not credible somehow refutes my criticism of Lott. If you think that something I have written is incorrect, why not say what it is and explain why you think it is wrong.

It is certainly untrue to say that I have not responded to Lott's replies. My comments on Lott's response linked above is here (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node22.html).

[agricola]

wow.

now bring on mary and let the games begin!

[FPrice]

"I'm puzzled why some here seem to think that accusing me of bias or claiming that I am not credible somehow refutes my criticism of Lott."

Mr. Lambert,

I for one have not heard of you before (which probably says more about me than you), so I come into this discussion with a fairly neutral position regarding your credibility.

I'd like to ask one simple question to begin my participation.

Before you got into this discussion were you pro- or anti-gun?

[agricola]

what does that have to do with anything?

[MicroBalrog]

what does that have to do with anything?

LOL!:D

[agricola]

micro,

so Lambert is wrong because he may be "anti-gun" and thus biased? Yet Lott, who at least one person on this page believes is pro-gun, is a paragon of virtue who can do no wrong and whose integrity is above reproach despite all the evidence to the contrary. :rolleyes:

publius and quartus said it right on the main thread about this, if you lot want to claim the moral high ground with your debate then you must demand that those who represent you have very high standards - which Lott has fallen some way from. you must also be vigilant against these people, which you clearly have not.

[MicroBalrog]

so Lambert is wrong because he may be "anti-gun" and thus biased?

NO! I have not said that being anti makes him wrong, however, I do believe that whether he was anti-gun on the beggining of his research or not is relevant . Do note that Lott was anti-gun at the start, too!:D

Also note that there's only two reasons to attack Lott's integrity:

1. The poll story.

2. The Mary Rosh story (which I believe is irrelevant).

[FPrice]

"what does that have to do with anything?"

I'm sorry. Does my attempt to get to know more about Mr. Lambert upset you?

If it does, I suggest that you begin buying massive quantities of Pepto Bismol.

[Iain]

All I believe Agricola was trying to establish was that (rather than him suffering from jealousy or heartburn) dismissing Lambert because he may have had preconceptions is not entirely fair. As Lambert himself says, the substance of his argument needs to be refuted. This is not national politics where saying 'you are a liberal babykiller and you smell' can win votes.

I would also add that just because one sides answers suit us does not mean we should uncritically accept them and stoop to personal attacks on the other side.

[FPrice]

"Also note that there's only two reasons to attack Lott's integrity:"

You forgot a third reason.

Because he was right and his being right is a sin to the anti-gun people and the only way to refute his research is to attack him personally.

Do you want proof this works in the US?

Tell me what is happening to judges nominated by President Bush for seats on high courts.

[FPrice]

"All I believe Agricola was trying to establish was that (rather than him suffering from jealousy or heartburn) dismissing Lambert because he may have had preconceptions is not entirely fair."

I cannot speak for others but as for myself I am neither dismissing nor accepting Mr. Lambert's position based on anything at the present time. However I do feel that it is a fair question to ask.

I would hope that various people involved in this thread would allow Mr. Lambert the courtesy of answering for himself.

[Iain]

It is a fair question really, and I would like to hear the answers to this and more, so we can only hope that Mr Lambert can talk freely here.

[FPrice]

"It is a fair question really,"

Thank you.

"so we can only hope that Mr Lambert can talk freely here."

I think that the integrity of THR in that aspect is well-established. That is not to say that people will not ask him hard questions, but he is free to voice his opinions here and either substantiate them or have them countered.

[agricola]

micro,

the poll story is the most relevant, but you can't just dismiss the Mary Rosh element because, as Lambert says, that was not a mere online persona - "she" stepped into the realms of "evidencing" some stuff.

fprice,

look - the two things micro mentioned deserve examination or acknowledgement - attacking Lambert because he was one of the people that discovered this is like attacking the guy who unearthed Bellisiles. It misses the point. More Guns Less Crime may well have been "right", but the elements of it that are suspected of being fabrications should be identified and dealt with. You can't claim the high ground on the debate if people like Lott are lying in books - it reduces you, and by implication the debate, to the level of the ex-Emory guy.

that goes for all things here as well - as someone more often than not going against the majority opinion here, i can tell you there is nothing sadder and more annoying than having posters telling outright fibs and then them not correcting them, and the community at large not challenging the lies.

are you, by attacking Lambert, going to find those students who conducted the study in their dorm rooms? find those two-thousand odd people who were consulted for the survey? recover his hard drive data?

no? thats the only honest answer to Lamberts' claims and the only way to clear Lott's academic good name. Slinging mud at someone in the hope it sticks, and covers up someone elses embarrasment, might work (as St. Johns has noted) in politics but it isnt going to work in the rareified atmosphere at THR.

[Mute]

Oh geez! Read all of the links inlcuding the ones from Mr. Lambert then make your decision. I believe Mr. Lambert's conclusions are wrong.

[agricola]

why?

thats what Lambert is (to me) asking - if you dont agree with him, evidence it, explain it, open it up to debate.

[mec]

The entire subject is as complicated and obtuse as the inside of a chicken riddled with metastatic lymphoma. Once you reach a certain level of data glut, it is open to all manner of interpretation.

Recently, the Center for Disease Control came out with a statement that there is no clear evidence that gun control has any effect on crime. This lead to two different conclusions:
1. The pro gun people said "See There!"
2. The anti-gun people said " We need more studies to affirm the value of gun control."

[Mute]

Because his primary conclusions are based on Black/Nagin and Ayers/Donahue, whose primary arguments are based on fiddling with the statistics until it fits their arguments. Like I said, read the information yourself.

[agricola]

mute,

Tim Lamberts views on another thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34150

His main issues with Lott:

John Lott is embroiled in several controversial affairs:

he almost certainly fabricated a mysterious survey and certainly behaved unethically in making claims for which he had no supporting data

your view on this?

he presented results purporting to show that "more guns" led to "less crime" when those results were the product of coding errors

Lott has admitted to several hundred errors.

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

he pretended to be a woman called "Mary Rosh" on the internet in order to praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.

Lott has admitted to this as well.

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

he probably was the person who anonymously accused Steve Levitt of being "rabidly antigun"

Lambert provides compelling evidence:

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

[clange]

The links posted above were addressed by Lambert, from what i could tell. Honestly, the reason i posted this is because there is simply 'too much' on Lamberts page for me to go through, or actually to understand. I'm just now taking my first (and only) regression class.

On another issue though, the pages i posted do seem quite biased, if nothing else against lott. I remember part where they claimed lott edited the 'last modified' date on a file to support his case. Their claim was based upon the simple fact that the day was the same. I dont believe Lott would be smart enough to do what work he's done, but then retarded enough to screw up switching a computer date.

[another okie]

Social science is inherently political and it is perfectly appropriate to ask what preconceptions someone takes into a study. That said, who cares if crime numbers went up 1 % or down 1 %? It is obvious from all the data that concealed carry laws and increased gun ownership in the United States have had little affect on crime one way or the other. For that matter, it's also obvious that crime may be high or low cross-culturally without regard to firearms, as indeed it was before the invention of firearms. Russia has very strict gun control and has for a hundred years, yet has a very high crime and murder rate. Switzerland has loose gun laws and has since firearms were invented, but has a little crime and a low murder rate. Britain has tough gun control laws, lots of crime, but much lower murder rates.

I recognize few foreigners understand the American attitude towards inherent rights and natural law, but constitutional rights should not be subject to arguments of utility. Perhaps we would all be happier if people were not allowed to criticize our political leaders, or if we all went to one church, or if police could just randomly search our homes whenever they wish, but that is not how we in this country are going to decide those issues.

[FPrice]

"are you, by attacking Lambert,"

You seem positively obsessed with trying to equate my asking a simple question of Mr. Lambert with an attack on the man.

I guess that means you don't really have any point for me.

BTW, I am still waiting for Mr. Lambert to provide an answer. I'm sure glad I am not holding my breath. :D

[agricola]

fprice,

Lambert asks a question, provides evidence to answer it and the question he gets in reply is "are you pro- or anti-gun?", which is up there among the least-relevant questions grouping.

[fallingblock]

then added this comment:

"And he is using his bias to enhance his list of publications."

followed by a live link to summons Tim over to discuss his theories.

I believe that Tim is indeed labouring under an anti-gun bias...it is an endemic bias in Australia's academic circles and Tim's writing does hint at this position.
There certainly is a lot of writing going on!
I am guessing that UNSW has a liberal 'informal publication' policy?

As those who have spent time doing statistical surveys will realise, it is very easy to represent a bias through selective application.;)

More to the point, though, another oakie states:

***********************************************************
"I recognize few foreigners understand the American attitude towards inherent rights and natural law, but constitutional rights should not be subject to arguments of utility."
************************************************************

Most Australians do not understand this concept. Some of the recently enacted Australian firearms laws reflect almost a desperate ignorance of the cause and effect of firearms crime. Read any current Australian daily paper and see the "gun crimes soar" headlines :eek:

The simplistic approach of compensated confiscation does not address the underlying social problems in Australia which are driving the violence. The guns owned by lawfully licenced shooters which Mr. Howard and his misguided minions have "bought back" are not, and have never been, significant in firearms homicides in Australia.:scrutiny:

[agricola]

fallingblock,

or, if you want, you can answer Lambert's questions by trying to move the debate to a whole different issue in an effort to avoid answering :rolleyes:

[fallingblock]

I guess I've been putting in too much time lately trying to bring some reason into the so-called 'debate' here in Oz:( .

Please proceed with the question, being mindful that statistical data are a very pliant medium for those harbouring bias....:)

[FPrice]

"the question he gets in reply is "are you pro- or anti-gun?", which is up there among the least-relevant questions grouping."

It is only least-relevant to those who are afraid to answer the question since it would expose an anti-gun bias which colors their position.

But don't worry, we had the same problem with people like Dr. Kellerman and our own CDC. They all started from an anti-gun position but were forced to retreat when their "data" did not end up supporting their anti-gun position(s). In fact the CDC recently had to admit that anti-gun laws did not seem to reduce the crime rate, or at least this could not be proven.

[longeyes]

The Second Amendment is not about statistics.