Except of course that they managed to get it published again.
Funny that you should say so. Correlation is the ENTIRE basis of Lott’s claims. Nevertheless, he DOES claim causation.
And that from the person whose arguments restrict themselves to ‘blah blah’.
I would suggest once you actually know what constitutes evidence, as opposed to wishful thinking, you could actually manage to make some serious contributions to a discussion. As long as you try to counter cites from academic journals with ‘blah blah’ and ‘wrong and wrong’, you merely manage to raise questions as to when you graduate from kindergarten.
Wrong and wrong. The ninety pound woman will not be able to defend herself against the rapist when he comes from behind and puts a knife to her throat. Cause she won’t be able to use her gun. In any case, as studies have shown, her having a gun will actually make her more likely to be killed -not by a rapist, but by her wifebeater husband who knows very much when and where she has a gun and is very willing to use it against her.
I guess you were not aware that the vast majority of homicides is not committed by a stranger?
Note: I realize that ‘blah blah’ was NOT from js_africanus, but the level of sophistication of the arguments presented was equivalent: Sheer belief that what must not be cannot be.
“beer sales and handgun sales generally are associated positively one year later with homicide”
and
“**regulating the number of handguns sold may reduce the number of homicides. **”
Is it so hard to read it when you even quote it?
“where guns are more available, there are more ** homicides. **”
It helps your credibility if you don’t try to switch the issue.
No. The study suggest that them having less weapons may be beneficial to both their and their fellow youths health and lifespan.
And Lott’s book does WHAT?
Sorry, man, but such arguments are only suitable to underscore that you are measuring pro-gun people by different standards. Academic books are often published upon invitation, with heavy editing by other experts in the field to ensure that the contents is well accepted in the field. It is the precise INTENT of publishing books like Lotts to avoid review by other academics. Given the reaction to his published study, he knew he would be trashed. It is the precise INTENT of the regular academic publishing system in journals to allow dissenters to publish their critique in the VERY SAME format the original point was published. Lott’s book undermines the system and is a pretty blatant attempt to be ‘right by public acclamation’’. The fact that even fellow pro-gun researchers like Kleck and other academicians, like Ehrlich, dismiss Lott’s conclusions should tell what to make of them. Nevertheless, they are too nice to ignore for gun advocates.
Sorry, man, but your argument is a bit frivolous in the light that it was I who dismissed websites as a credible source. I merely pointed at Lambert’s as an equivalent counterpoint to Friedman’s. Not the least, your claim that he would not address his critics is wrong in the case of Friedman.
It really doesn’t matter how impressed one is with his website. The academic record on the issue is overwhelmingly against Lott.
Umm, devotes no less than two chapters to answering criticism? At least, my second-edition copy does. How much of his book needs to be dedicated to responding to critics before you’re satisfied?
You keep saying this. I’m puzzled by how you can know Lott’s motives, unless you are in fact Lott himself. Do you have a source? How do you know he wasn’t just offered a really sweet deal by his publisher that he simply couldn’t turn down? If his goal was to avoid criticism, he’s failed miserably, don’t you think?
ooo, he answered one whole critic! Hang on, let me make a note to change my entire opinion of him…
It’s nice that you feel that way.
The point is that you don’t publish stuff like this in a book when a lot of criticism is to be expected. And Lott could fully expect it given the response to his paper. That a second edition contains some of the criticism is irrelevant. To read it, people have to buy the book, which translates to Lott making cash with the criticism.
Oh, really? How many of the readers of his book have seen the academic criticism of it? More than one in a thousand? Gasp. You impress me. Fact is that the vast majority of people who continuously cite his book don’t even have the background knowledge necessary to assess his data, his conclusions, and the criticism.
It is irrelevant how much money his publisher (coincidentally associated with his employer at the time) offered him. Or rather, you don’t do him a favor at all by suggesting so. Because being willing to sell out his academic integrity doesn’t make the man any more respectable.
I am sorry that you are either unaware of academic conventions or consider them irrelevant. They were conceived for very good reasons, and deliberately skirting them is in and of itself a reason for suspicion.
It’s nice that you continue to deny what I have already shown to be the case in this thread. It is telling that you believe Lott everything EXCEPT for the one passage where he states that he did, in fact, not control for many factors which can affect crime rate. That alone reduces the value of the whole book to plain material value. It is his own admission that he cannot back up his claims.
Yikes! I had a total brain fart there. Sorry.:smack:
And you consider this kind of fringe correlation argument is better than Lott’s study? Why not cigarette purchases with handguns, or candy bars? :rolleyes:
The problem is that humans & civilizations don’t really fit very well into a double-blind study. Some studies can show some sort of vague correlation between “more guns= more crime”. However, in mnay areas, that isn’t true (Note that every man in Switzerland has a real live assualt rifle at his home or place of business, and the crime rate there is real low- and that NYC & Wash DC have very strict gun contorl laws- and very high crime rates). OTOH, there really is no proof to the opposite argument that “more guns= less crime”, as some areas & years show an opposite correlation.
Maybe there might be some small correlation either way- but certainly there is nothing obvious, glaring & significant.
Of course, there is something to the theory that without a gun available at that point in time- there certainly would be a few less murders of passion. No doubt- but is it a significant number? Would not the person in the homicidal rage often simply turn to some other method? Seems so.
OTOH- there is logic to the idea that if criminals know their victim might be armed- they will not choose that form of crime. However, of course, even if true- crime isn’t a “option” for most of this sort of criminal- they’ll likely just move to the next state, or change their form of crime.
Both sides have been guilty of “lying by statisitics”. BOTH.
Well, then I give this argument. If we concede that the less laws the better (generally held, but not unarguable), and since there is no strong evidence either way- guns laws do not do what they are supposed to do. Thus, let us get rid of them.
However, if you could prove to me that my safety would be greatly enhanced by strong gun controls, I’d agree to them. So far, however, nothing of the sort has been shown.