Current Features

Roman Polanski
Trends in Child "Care"
WaPo: Besides, Less Health Care is More!
Calibrating the Tolerance-O-Meter
Gateway Pundit: Obama Spoke to US Afghan Commander *Once*
An Obama Foreign Policy Rorschach Test
Obama and Freedom: Watch the Hips, not the Head
UK's War Against Christians
Woman gets pregnant -- while pregnant
Spanking Lowers IQ?
The Dog Ate My Global Warming
Indoctrinating Children

Read the Front Page

Topics

Blogging
Computers and Technology
Conspiracy Theories
Crime and Punishment
Dictatorships
Economics
Education
Election 2008
Entertainment
Europe
Faith and Philosophy
Faith and Politics
Features
France
Fun
General
Genocide
Happy Stuff
Health
History
Human Rights
Humor
International
Iraq
Left Versus Right
Libertarians
Life Skills
Media Bias
Personal Notes
Politics
Product Reviews
Quick Alerts
Quixtar
Racism
Reality-Based News
Ron Paul
Science
Science Fiction
Sexuality
Sick & Wrong Department
Society
The Arab Street
The Arts
The Church of Gaia
Travel
Words, Words, Words
Your Money

Archives

September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

Search


The Blogosphere

BitsBlog
Beyond the Rim
Common Sense and Wonder
Dissecting Leftism
Drive-Thru Musings
FunMurphys.com
Investor Blogger
Iowa Geek
La Shawn Barber
The Littlest Apologist
Mark D. Roberts
Muddling Towards Maturity
Quixtar/Amway Infiltrator
Quixtar Blog
Quixtar Sucks
Sinking in Quixand
Zappe Family Blog


Less Guns, More Crime

Those of you who knew me years ago know that when a concealed carry referendum came up in St. Louis, I opposed it, and encouraged others to do so. Some of you who owned weapons, I encouraged to get rid of them. My goal was to make society safer.

Later, I happened upon a debate on C-SPAN. It was kind of odd. I caught the part where an individual was taking the "con" position, but admitted he'd examined the work and that it seemed reasonable, and that he could only really argue for errors to the extent of the effect. What debatable position could be this strong? I wondered.

It was a debate between an opponent and economist John Lott, whose comprehensive statistical crime model provided strong empirical evidence that concealed carry laws saved lives by deterring criminals. Again, the reason for my dislike of guns was to save lives, so I purchased the book, read it, looked for responses and alternative evidence on the web, and ultimately changed my position.

Again, I wanted less people to die or be hurt, and the evidence indicated I was wrong, so I altered my position. That simple. Its called keeping an open mind.

The United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia also -- they said -- wanted less people to die. At least from guns. (Though I look at total deaths, not gun deaths. I figure more dead people is worse, even if fewer deaths involve guns. I don't think the dead people or their relatives feel better about it when it was a knife or baseball bat. Odd, I know.) But they took a different approach. They banned guns, to varying extents -- the UK to the greatest. And in doing so, offered to do a little experiment for all of us, using their people as guinea pigs.

So how's it working out? Many of you know. Today, the BBC's front page story is about England's soaring gun crime rate. The violent crime rate in England, even when firearms were legal, was always below ours -- now it soars. I have heard your chances of being robbed in London are now (gasp) six times that of New York City!

The theory is very simple: Criminals don't want to be hurt. Concealed weapons deter crime because crooks don't know who's packing heat, or abort the crime when they see a gun (and may not try it again). Increased policing is less effective because criminals see the police and simply decide to wait. Only a tiny percentage of population (like 1-2%) need carry concealed weapons to have a very big effect on crime -- and are usually those in the most danger, such as women being stalked. And criminals, people who by definition break laws, don't abide by gun laws, and thus are the last ones armed.

Score one more for predictive powers of John Lott's model.

But I feel sorry for all the unnecessary English crime victims who had to prove it for us. We're dealing with real people's lives here folks, not proving petty political points.

They've already done the big brother surveilence thing and limited civil liberties thing. According to the article, now they're going to try still more firearms laws, tougher sentences and banning gun-shaped toys. In the US, we've already shown tougher sentences aren't a significant deterrant, but, well whatever. The experiment continues...

Comments

speaking of losing data
I thought this might be of interest to you. I'd been opposing gun control using data from John Lott and decided to look into his background a bit. I came across the following.


The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer
Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting.

When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted." He has also incorrectly attributed the figure to newspaper polls and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.

Last fall, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren volunteered to investigate the claimed existence of Lott's 1997 telephone survey of 2,424 people. "I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish" that the research had been done, Lindgren wrote in his report.

It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.

Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper
proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument. After Lindgren's report was published, a Minnesota gun-rights activist named David Gross came forward, claiming he was surveyed in 1997. Some have said that Gross's account proves that the survey was done. I think skepticism is warranted.

...
But it wasn't an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.

Michelle Malkin 2003, WND

I posted all of this, and to his credit Lott confessed. "The MaRyRoSh pen name account," he explained, "was created years ago for an account for my children, using the first two letters of the names of my four sons."

... Bloggers unearthed old posts by "Rosh" and linked to them on their sites. Among the gems: "[Lott] was the best professor that I ever had....Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material."


source

Posted by: Ryan W. on September 28, 2009 07:03 PM

speaking of losing data, Tim,
I thought this might be of interest to you. I'd been opposing gun control using data from John Lott and decided to look into his background a bit. I came across the following;

The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting.

When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted." He has also incorrectly attributed the figure to newspaper polls and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.

Last fall, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren volunteered to investigate the claimed existence of Lott's 1997 telephone survey of 2,424 people. "I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish" that the research had been done, Lindgren wrote in his report.

It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.

Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument. After Lindgren's report was published, a Minnesota gun-rights activist named David Gross came forward, claiming he was surveyed in 1997. Some have said that Gross's account proves that the survey was done. I think skepticism is warranted.


...

But it wasn't an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.Michelle Malkin 2003, WND


I posted all of this, and to his credit Lott confessed. "The MaRyRoSh pen name account," he explained, "was created years ago for an account for my children, using the first two letters of the names of my four sons."


... Bloggers unearthed old posts by "Rosh" and linked to them on their sites. Among the gems: "[Lott] was the best professor that I ever had....Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material."source

He defends himself heresource

Posted by: Ryan W. on September 28, 2009 07:14 PM

Ryan! Was thinking about you, wondering how you were! Good to hear from you...

The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting.

Yeah, I heard about that and looked into it a while back. At the time, I thought he was probably guilty, and took this approach:

On one hand, most of Lott's work was available for anyone to download and double-check. This survey, while not unimportant, was arguably tangential to his case. And I don't know that anyone has blown holes in the rest of his data, so, as I understand it, whatever I might think of him and this incident, the argument still stands. (Also, I'd note that other studies have drawn the same conclusions, and my own direct observations (how's the crime rate over there in the UK?) certainly agree.) And it seemed odd that he would be so on-the-level about everything else, but fabricate this one small section.

On the other hand, I also decided I would look at anything new from him with a fairly suspicious eye.

Didn't know about the sock puppetry, though. That kind of "little fraud" is the sort of thing (as mentioned here) which sort of hints at the capacity to pull larger frauds. On the other hand, he readily admits it?!? This confuses me. Was he being tongue-in-cheek?

But I also didn't know about his defense you've linked to. The letters from Dan Kahan and Richard Manning, and Karpoff, and Mustard (if not also fraudulent in some way) certainly sounds like they thoroughly coorborate Lott's story. If that's true, then I'm glad you've cleared his name with me. I had no idea. Thank you!

So what's the parallel with the IPCC? Are you drawing any parallels or contrasts?

I see them as quite different: Lott's is a toss-off in a small section of his book. The IPCC's work was supposed to be massively peer reviewed. Lott has otherwise been seen and proven to be trustworthy. The IPCC's "hockey stick" was shown to be fraudulent long before this came to light. Lott readily admitted to the sock puppetry. The scientists in the other article won't even talk about it, and what little they say (they ran out of room???) are clearly lies. (I also was working with climate data in a university as early as 1984, and there was no problem with archiving it.) Lott could clearly describe (and corroborate, apparently!) the crash. These guys can't explain how they "lost" even *this years* data. Lott's critics included many who would prefer his conclusion (Malkin, others mentioned above), whereas it seems the pro-global-warming camp is a lot less willing to do the same.

Disagree?

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on September 28, 2009 10:11 PM

Thanks for the response. I've only had a short time to go over the matter so I'm still mulling the significance of what I've read. I'm also going to tred a lot more carefully with anything coming from Lott for the time being and base any opinions on other sources. (Incidentally, is there any data on the UK crime rate that controls for cultural changes, demographic shifts and increases in drug use, which are crucial though typically omitted? Please let me know if you're aware of any such studies.)

Tim:On the other hand, he readily admits it?!? This confuses me. Was he being tongue-in-cheek?



As well as I understand it (I've only spent a few hours researching the topic) someone showed his IP address to match Mary Rosh's. "Mary" was previously asked about "her" relationship with Lott by internet posters, since "Mary" seemed to be defending Lott so vehemently. He admitted the sock puppetry only when he was actually caught.

Sanchez discovered the deception when he compared the IP address of one email he received from Lott and that behind one of Mrs. Rosh's comments -- they were identical. The Washington Post (Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics) cites Lott: "I probably shouldn't have done it -- I know I shouldn't have done it -- but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously."
Kuro5hin source

(The advantage he got was high praise from a supposed former student for him, his book, his ideas and his impartial teaching methods.)

An interesting collection of Mary Rosh quotes


Lott's critics included many who would prefer his conclusion (Malkin, others mentioned above), whereas it seems the pro-global-warming camp is a lot less willing to do the same.

I agree, so far as I can tell. Gore's presentation of CO2 as a leading rather than a lagging indicator should have been counted as a larger blow against Gore's credibility as an information source. But AGW proponents don't seem to consider it particularly significant as a testament to Gore's character or veracity (or, perhaps, intelligence.) On the other hand, the fact that people like Malkin were distancing themselves from Lott led me to give a little more weight to the accusations for the time being.

Posted by: Ryan W. on September 29, 2009 12:23 AM

Add your two cents...

The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.

















« Vampire Ballets | Front Page | Page Two | The Speed of Gravity! »