Peer Reviewed Journals About Lowering Gun Crime With More Guns
ane. Professor Debunks All Criticism of Dr. Lott's Study
The trained reviewer spent two years conducting his own enquiry and comprehensively refutes any and all claims that Dr. John Lott'due south seminal crime study: More Guns, Less Criminal offence is biased in any way.
"I at present believe wholeheartedly in the right to carry, the wisdom of the 2d Amendment, the specially important benefits of concealed carry for women, and the notion that more firearms in law-abiding hands does make society demonstrably safer ."
"If you're anti-gun and Lott'south book does not ... forcefulness you to reconsider the ... benefits of an armed society, you either did not read the book with an open listen, or you do not know how to distinguish a precisely-reasoned argument from a only political 1."
ii. Review by Ph.D. holder and Trained Researcher
"First, some background about me: I am a Ph.D.-holder and tenured professor whose immersion in the insular politics of academia had led me to harbor many negative perceptions about firearms. Though I was never staunchly "anti-gun," I was not a gun owner, did not understand the appeal of firearms, and generally believed that gun control legislation was only common sense. That changed 4 years ago when I (finally) decided to expect into the data on guns, crime, and public safe for myself.
"I am a trained researcher, but I conducted my research for personal not professional reasons. My married woman was pregnant and I wanted hard facts--not talking point from the political parties--and then I could make an informed conclusion about what to teach my children about firearms, and whether it would be prudent or unsafe to have i in our house.
3. "Fact After Fact Starkly Disproved Critical Claims"
"I was drawn into that research almost immediately by the sheer strength of my own disbelief. I discovered fact after fact that starkly disproved the claims and "facts" then many teachers and colleagues had expressed about firearms and their relationship to violence, and which, during my long trip through academia, had led me to believe stricter gun control was just plain common sense.
"For two years, I read thousands of pages of information, starting with raw data from the FBI and CDC so that I would exist amend able to assess the claims I subsequently read in books, peer-reviewed journals, news publications, blogs, and then forth.
"In the course of that inquiry, I came across numerous references to John Lott'due south studies, simply and then many of them suggested there were "fatal flaws" in his methodology (and questions virtually his motives) that I never bothered to read him. I simply assumed based on the sheer number of such comments that his work was indeed more propaganda than serious study.
"Nonetheless, I turned up enough information over the course of ii years to completely alter my view nearly guns. I now believe wholeheartedly in the correct to bear, the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment, the particularly important benefits of concealed carry for women, and the notion that more firearms in constabulary-abiding hands does make society demonstrably safer."
4. "I Regret Not Reading information technology Earlier"
"Now that I have finally read John Lott'south "More Guns, Less Crime" (3rd edition, 2010), I am ashamed that I did not consult information technology earlier instead of accepting at face value the facile criticisms of his piece of work. Lott's enquiry and claims are astonishingly thorough--meticulously explained and documented. At every turn, he (accurately and conspicuously) explains the challenges, assumptions, and variables that inform his findings. Often, just to encompass his bases, he runs the data with, and then without, certain questionable variables (arrest rates, county sizes, etc.).
"Once again and again, he shows that with just slight variations in the magnitude of the results, more concealed deport permits equals less vehement crime (murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robberies involving direct contact with the victim, such as muggings). He too observes that those permits may contribute to a smaller "substitution effect" that displaces criminal activity into less-confrontational forms, such every bit property theft.
"On all counts, this constitutes powerful evidence that the likely presence of a defensive firearm has a statistically significant deterrence effect on criminal behavior. More concealed carry permits pb to a net decline in assaults and deaths, and a net reject in the financial costs to society. Moreover, these benefits utilise to all citizens--not but those who are armed--and they increment over time, as the number of carry permits rises. They also have the greatest positive impact on African Americans and women."
v. "The Near Comprehensive Study of Firearms E'er Conducted"
"Why should you lot take Lott's study seriously? Because information technology is the most comprehensive study of crime - allow lonely firearms - e'er conducted. In retrospect, I am stunned that whatsoever commentator has dared to mistake the quality of his information.
"If anything tin can be said for Lott, it is that he is meticulous in recognizing and accounting for the variables at stake. Indeed, like a responsible analyst testing a hypothesis with appropriate rigor, he tends to control in ways that actually minimize (i.e., underestimate, and perchance even artificially suppress) the benefits of non-discretionary ("shall consequence") curtained carry laws. His is the just gun control study I've seen that takes all counties into consideration (not some selective sample) so meticulously controls for population density, arrest rates, rising/falling trends in crime prior to the passing of the carry laws, demographic factors, the number of permits issued, then forth.
"Although his expansive, county-level approach is clearly the most precise mode to analyze the impact of carry laws, he as well consistently re-runs the regressions using state-level (aggregate) data to prove that, while the precise results vary, the trends remain the aforementioned: more guns, less law-breaking. Indeed, the telescopic and depth of his report is so far across whatever other peer-reviewed study of guns I've ever encountered that whatever coating dismissal either of his findings or his methodology is plain disingenuous."
6. "Lott Capably Defends his Integrity every bit a Scholar"
"Of course, given the amount of criticism his work has received, Lott is (rightly) concerned to defend his integrity as a scholar. His seventh affiliate thus quotes a series of 23 direct criticisms past other academics--each of which he capably rebuts. Whenever possible, Lott first politely plays devil's advocate: re-running his regressions in the alternative way, some critics have suggested, only to show that the results consistently yield the same conclusion: more guns, less crime. "
"He also exposes some critics' blatant ignorance of certain statistical categories (such as what information technology means for victims to "know" their shooters) and then lays blank salient points or critical factors those critics ignore. 1 devastating event of these clear, well-reasoned rebuttals is to betrayal the patently un-scientific anti-gun bias that drives most disquisitional "concerns" near Lott's study.
"Still Lott never dispenses with civility or stoops to base of operations political jabs. A few times, he briefly speculates on the kinds of credible concerns that could exist raised well-nigh his work--politely leaving it for the reader to note, in unflattering contrast, that the criticisms that have actually been leveled at him fall very short of that standard. Ever the responsible scholar, he chiefly defends his integrity by clarifying his robust methodology and letting the data speak for itself."
seven. "I Can't Say Enough most This Book's Importance"
"I can't say plenty well-nigh the importance of this book. Do not trust the merits that Lott's piece of work has been "discredited", "fatally flawed," or "funded past the gun entrance hall." Lott explicitly refutes those attacks in this book, and I accept verified to my ain satisfaction that those are indeed false claims designed to deflect attention away from his compelling pro-gun findings.
"Read this book for yourself. It matches the findings of my own personal two-year report into these issues, though I might accept saved myself a lot of time and work by consulting Lott'south book sooner.
"He explains the variables and diverse analytical concepts very conspicuously (the exchange issue, the endogeneity problem, the perils of looking only at raw measures instead of slopes/trends over fourth dimension, etc.). This diligent effort to empower (non-expert) readers past allowing them to understand what is at stake in the measures before delving into the data is one articulate sign that his intention is to inform readers truthfully, non dispense their political views.
"His habit of checking, re-checking, and checking his regressions again--verifying how the results change as sure variables are included or excluded--is another good sign. And yet another is the modest and precise way he reports his results: never engaging in bombastic or exaggerated claims, but e'er frankly acknowledging the limits of what can be reasonably ended from the data.
"Past the terminate of the book, you will empathise many of the flawed assumptions and misunderstandings which underlie the oft-cited "testify" that stricter gun control enhances public safe."
eight. Conclusion
"If you're anti-gun and Lott's book does not requite yous intermission and
force yous to reconsider the potential benefits of an armed society,
yous either did not read the book with an open heed,
or you practice non know how to distinguish a
precisely-reasoned argument from a but political ane."
"Well done Mr. Lott. I cannot fathom the amount of energy and intellectual rigor you must take invested in this massive project, merely I am grateful to you for this impressive and substantial contribution to noesis."
Review by Aboveboard Reviewer. May 12, 2013.
Source: http://www.discouragecriminals.net/stop-school-shootings/review-of-More-Guns-Less-Crime/
0 Response to "Peer Reviewed Journals About Lowering Gun Crime With More Guns"
Post a Comment