Inequitable Penalties? The Tales of Two Gun Researchers

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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???
Click to expand...
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.
 
Question for Tim Lambert

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.)
 
I'll gladly concur with these observations by GEM.....

"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.
 
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?
 
1) You say Lott refused to give you data.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 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 and here. The second one was described by Yale's John Donohue as The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis

Notice how I am able to provide names of scholars who support my position, unlike GEM.
 
Well, golly, Tim...how could I stay away after all that?

"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:
 
Last edited:
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?
 
"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
 
Impressions of TimLambert

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.â€
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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,

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.
 
I think I've managed to get my point across and save a lot of folks on this board headaches. Bye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
> Handgun-Free America Disavows Statement by NRA Spokesman John Lott
Replies
7
Views
999
Art Eatman
A
2
  • Locked
Final nail in Bellesiles coffin.................
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
Justin
Justin
2
  • Locked
Bellesiles' Arming America to be reissued (barf alert)
Replies
18
Views
923
Elmer Snerd
E
C
  • Locked
WashPost: "Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics"
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Bahadur
B
Justin
  • Locked
John Lott sues "Freakonomics" author Steven Levitt
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
9K
Carl N. Brown
Carl N. Brown
Back
Top