Brett Bellmore
Member
No, having read his response, his argument is that we should discount the panel's findings because of problems he lists, and the anti-gun bias merely explains why they did such a bad job.
If that were, indeed, the extent of Lott's response, then he would be off base. However, after raising the bias specter (which, yes, is a distraction), he gives about 20 paragraphs (eight listed items) dealing with substantive points of the panel's work. Now whether he's correct or not is, of course, open to scrutiny, so feel free to scrutinize it.Sorry, but Lott's argument is that we should discount the panel's finding because of their alleged anti-gun bias.
Why don't you start with the eight substantive points that Lott lists?Are their any errors in the panel's analysis that you can point to?
How is this compatible with his new claim that the panel was set up to "deal with" his research?The project scope set out by the Clinton administration was carefully planned to examine only the negative side of guns. Rather than comparing how firearms facilitates both harm and self-defence, the panel was only asked to examine "firearm violence"
For example, do you know what a RESET test is?
So, no, it wasn't "deal with" by ignoring it, but by examining his data and models and finding them inadequate.I originally overheard Phil Cook and Dan Nagin discussing the need for a panel to “deal with†me in the same way that an earlier panel had “dealt with Isaac†Ehrlich’s work showing that the death penalty deterred murder. They agreed and Nagin said that he would talk to Al Blumstein about setting up such a panel. Needless to say, that is what ended up happening.
Complete quote from Wilson:Wilson said that that panel's conclusion raises concerns given that "virtually every reanalysis done by the committee" confirmed right-to-carry laws reduced crime.
And the results Wilson is referring to are those for murder, not for other crimes.But my reading of this chapter suggests that some of his results survive virtually every reanalysis done by the committee.
The panel doesn't mention that because Plassmann and Whitley don't say that. I searched their paper for "major" and "problems" just to be sure.For Plassmann and Whitley, the panel doesn't mention that Plassmann and Whitley say that there are "major problems" with the particular regressions that the panel decides to report and more importantly that the effects in those regressions are biased towards zero
My favourite bit from Lott's response:
I originally overheard Phil Cook and Dan Nagin discussing the need for a panel to “deal with†me in the same way that an earlier panel had “dealt with Isaac†Ehrlich’s work showing that the death penalty deterred murder. They agreed and Nagin said that he would talk to Al Blumstein about setting up such a panel. Needless to say, that is what ended up happening.
So I checked with Dan Nagin. He wrote:I assure you that I had no such conversation with Phil or Al. I played absolutely no role is setting up this panel or defining its agenda. As a member of the Committee on Law and Justice I was aware of its formation but played no active role its organization.
Lott does seem to exagerate Wilson's dissent on the point of crime in general versus murder. Wilson's summary: "In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous."1. Lott misrepresents Wilson's dissent.
A 7 percent change versus 5 pecent change can be a significant mistake, IMHO. Also note that Lott points to other mistakes that he says are "statistically significant." His concern about mistakes goes beyond figure 6.1.If the mistake in figure 6.1 is the biggest mistake that Lott can find in the report then it is in very good shape
I’m a little confused here. So do you actually disagree with the committee here, thinking they got it wrong by supporting Lott’s original position? Do you think Lott was correct in changing his position about clustering (did he actually do that?), and now you're upset with him flip-flopping? It would be interesting if you are focusing on the personal (that bad old Lott flip-flopped!) rather than the substantive -- the committee seems to support part of Lott's original work. But I need you to clarify your thinking here.Yes, the committee's comment agrees with the statements in the original paper. However, Lott had abandoned that postion and conducted tests that show that you do need to use clustering.
Both words appear in their paper many times --http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf -- so I have to question whether you actually did the search. Indeed, the phrase "major problem" occurs though not clearly about the regression issue. The phrase "major problems" does not appear.The panel doesn't mention that because Plassmann and Whitley don't say that. I searched their paper for "major" and "problems" just to be sure.
OK, so here you have a disagreement on whether a method is valid. Fair enough, but that hardly merits the rancor you've shown towards Lott.This is missing the point. The hybrid model generalizes the dummy and trend model and Ayres and Donohue show that this more general model is incorrect (and hence so are the dummy and spline models).
Why doesn't Lott get it? (And don't just point me to Hoowitz, please.)6. Lott doesn't understand what the RESET tests mean. This is explained by Hoowitz. Lott doesn't get it.
Why?7. Not relevant. This does not show that the no-control variable results are incorrect.
1) You misrepresent Lott's complaint. He doesn't complain about not getting a chance to ask a single question (loaded or not). Rather, he complains about none of his questions being asked.8. So they wouldn't let Lott ask his loaded question. Whoopee. Lott has way more opportunities to present his view than the committee.
I don't see any reason to assume that Dr. Lott's lost civilian self-defense survey work was a lie. I don't see any reason to assume that Dr. Lott's research is manipulated or dishonest. The fact of the matter is that the complex statistical analyses that are at the heart of much sociological work are easy areas for honest mistakes, honest disagreements, and honest questioning of assumptions.
As an aside, its worth pointing out that - admittedly in a UK context - Colin Greenwood was demonstrating a long while ago that varying firearms legislation tends to have no positive or negative affect on the rate of crime.
â€The Tory Shadow Home Secretary was interviewed on BBC Radio Five yesterday about this measure. He went on about how homeowners keep getting imprisoned for defending themselves, and how this was a disgrace, and how this proposal (which was originally buried as a PMB until the Commissioners comments over the weekend showed it might have legs) would change all that. The interviewer then asked if he could name these homeowners, and of course he could not, because noone has been imprisoned for defending themselves (the various cause celebre that have - Martin, Hastings etc - would be guilty under the new law as well), because the law as it stands already protects people who use force to defend themselves, as has been demonstrated on this forum and elsewhere numerous times.â€
“p35,
I draw your attention to the above:
Quote:
Folks, this is nothing more than a piece of rabble-rousing blather from the Tory Party eager to seize on what elements of the media have been stirring up since the first R v Martin that would have precisely no effect.
this can be illustrated by the following from that Scotsman article:
Quote:
From a police perspective, the advice to potential victims of burglaries is unequivocal and clear-cut and you should never "have a go", so to speak, but for the victims of crime this is a very difficult thing to put into practice, especially when your natural instincts are to defend yourself, your family and your own property - the very pillars of your life that are being violated and potentially destroyed by criminals.
Utterly wrong, Police will always tell people that they have the right to defend themselves.
Quote:
As a law-abiding individual confronted by an intruder in your home you face a catch-22. If you attack the burglar, or react in an "over the top" manner, as was recently illustrated in the case of Tony Martin who shot intruders in his Norfolk farmhouse, you will inevitably end up on the receiving end of a prison sentence that will far outstrip that imposed on the intruder in your own home. This situation has resulted in a lack of belief in the law among the public or rather a belief that the law isn’t exactly on your side when your home is broken into....
Utterly and demonstrably wrong. The reason why the public think "you will inevitably end up on the receiving end of a prison sentence" is because of irresponsible journalism such as this piece. Please note that aside from Martin (who has been discussed at length on these boards), the author cannot point to anyone who has been convicted for defending themselves. That is because noone has been
That article was also posted here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...=dr+ian+stephenâ€