![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why aren't any positive reviews of this work quoted in this article? The block quotes are:
And then comes the issues of questionable importance (an entire section over misrepresentation?) and implying that filing suit for defamation injures his credibility. If this isn't POV, I don't know what is. -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous poster. This article seems wildly unbalanced, and consists largely of string quotes of criticisms. Even Hitler has a more balanced entry. - -- ozoneliar - 12 March 2007
Do any authors still maintain a positive reception of his work after Lott's exposure as a sock puppeteer? Neutral point of view does not require equl numbers of comments pro and con. A comporable article would be David Brock, even though many on the left support his Media Matters campaign he is a self-confessed liar and has little credibility. --66.31.39.76 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
of Lott's hypothesis listed five articles supportive of Lott's thesis and five opposed. The five supportive were:
Bruce L. Benson & Brent Mast, Privately Produced General Deterrence, 44 J.L. & ECON. 1 (2001);
Stephen G. Bronars & John R. Lott, Jr., Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and the Right to Carry Concealed Handgun, 88 AM. ECON. REV. 475 (1998);
Carlisle E. Moody, Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness, 44 J.L. & ECON. 799 (2001);
David B. Mustard, The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths, 44 J.L. & ECON. 635 (2001);
John R. Lott, Jr. & William M. Landes, Multiple Victim Public Shootings, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929 (last modified June 10, 2001).
For anonymous IP number 24.118.111.125 to imply that Bruce L. Benson, Brent Mast, Stephen G. Bronars, Carlisle E. Moody, David B. Mustard, and William M. Landes engaged in "false, invalid, or fallacious analysis ... propaganda ... no integrity ... phony opinions that are not based on facts" just shows how low the discussion of this issue has been dragged by partisans in gun politics. Benson, Mast, Bronars, Moody, Mustard and Landes are established academics published in peer-refereed journals; you do not pass peer review for an academic journal if what you write is false invalid fallacious propaganda with no integrity expressing phony opinions not based on facts. John Lott has published empirical research that contradicts strongly held a-priori assumptions about the relationship of civilian gun ownership to the crime rate; the correct answer to that is calm, respectful and respectable empirical research, not character assassination.
In interest of full disclosure, I believe that gun control laws like the USA and UK Gun Control Acts of 1968 impact the behavior of the law abiding, not the criminal. To me, saying you can affect criminal behavior through gun control laws is as rational as saying you can stop prostitution by piling ever-increasing restrictions on marriage licenses. By the law of unintended consequences, the actual effect is opposite the intended effect. As Hans Toch who once supported banning handguns asked, why is it that the parts of the USA that have more guns per capita have less crime per capita than the jurisdictions that have virtual bans on legal gun ownership?-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
per 100,000 violent crime murder northeast 416.5 -2.80% 4.1 -3.70% midwest 424.9 -1.40% 5.1 -3.50% west 508.2 -2.10% 5.8 +4.10% south 571.0 -2.00% 6.8 +0.70%
100 Largest Metro Areas (Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) Nassau-Suffolk NY Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon NJ Ventura CA Monmouth-Ocean NJ Bergen-Passaic NJ Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton PA Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PA San Jose CA Pittsburgh PA Orange County CA Ann Arbor MI Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY Boston MA-NH-ME New York NY Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton PA Syracuse NY Philadelphia PA-NJ Hartford CT Rochester NY Newark NJ Buffalo-Niagara Falls NY San Diego CA Providence-Fall River-Warwick RI-MA Jersey City NJ Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland MI Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria OH San Francisco CA New Haven-Meriden CT ... St. Louis MO-IL Salt Lake City-Ogden UT Wichita KS Mobile AL Houston TX Nashville TN Orlando FL Fresno CA McAllen-Edinburg-Mission TX Fort Worth-Arlington TX Charleston-North Charleston SC Jacksonville FL Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC Dallas TX Omaha NE-IA Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL Columbia SC Toledo OH Albuquerque NM Tacoma WA Columbus OH Kansas City MO-KS West Palm Beach-Boca Raton FL Honolulu HI Oklahoma City OK Stockton-Lodi CA Baton Rouge LA San Antonio TX Little Rock-North Little Rock AR Phoenix-Mesa AZ Miami FL Memphis TN-AR-MS Tucson AZ
The cities listed here are the 114 Mid-sized Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ranging in population from approximately 500,000 to 200,000. 114 Mid-size Areas (Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) Danbury CT Stamford-Norwalk CT Johnstown PA Dutchess County NY Portsmouth-Rochester NH-ME Lowell MA-NH Lawrence MA-NH Newburgh NY-PA Lynchburg VA Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah WI Manchester NH York PA Erie PA Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc CA Binghamton NY Worcester MA-CT New London-Norwich CT-RI Lancaster PA Green Bay WI San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles CA Utica-Rome NY Brazoria TX Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers AR Portland ME Reading PA Brockton MA Roanoke VA Santa Rosa CA ... Anchorage AK Lakeland-Winter Haven FL Longview-Marshall TX Kalamazoo-Battle Creek MI Beaumont-Port Arthur TX Chattanooga TN-GA South Bend IN Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula MS Gainesville FL Spokane WA Tallahassee FL Jackson MS Savannah GA Modesto CA Galveston-Texas City TX Shreveport-Bossier City LA Macon GA Fayetteville NC Yakima WA Lincoln NE Lubbock TX Salem OR Corpus Christi TX Amarillo TX Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito TX Wilmington NC Waco TX Laredo TX Montgomery AL Myrtle Beach SC
The cities listed here are the 117 Smallest Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ranging in population from approximately 200,000 to 55,000. 114 Smallest Areas (Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) State College PA Steubenville-Weirton OH-WV Wheeling WV-OH Pittsfield MA Wausau WI Nashua NH Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH Glens Falls NY Williamsport PA Jacksonville NC Danville VA Jamestown NY Sharon PA Bismarck ND Hagerstown MD La Crosse WI-MN Dubuque IA Rochester MN Barnstable-Yarmouth MA Cumberland MD-WV Kenosha WI Altoona PA Fitchburg-Leominster MA-NH Sioux Falls SD Elmira NY ... Albany GA Athens GA Bryan-College Station TX Enid OK Sioux City IA-NE Jackson TN Rocky Mount NC Tuscaloosa AL San Angelo TX Auburn-Opelika AL Anniston AL Flagstaff AZ Greenville NC Sumter SC Great Falls MT Panama City FL Lake Charles LA Wichita Falls TX Florence SC Alexandria LA Monroe LA Pine Bluff AR Topeka KS
Rate per 100k Crime Violent Property Murder rape Robbery assault Houston 7,313.9 1,223.1 6,090.9 12.5 43.7 549.5 617.4 New York 3,100.1 789.6 2,310.4 7.3 20.9 336.8 424.7 Houston metro 5,505.4 814.2 4,691.2 8.4 36.3 322.1 447.5 New York metro 2,973.4 717.2 2,256.2 6.6 19.2 303.5 387.9
State Brady Campaign Ratings and Crime and Homicide Rates Northeastern US STATE GRADE CRIME HOMICIDE Connecticut A- 308.2 3 Maine D- 108.9 1.2 Massachusetts A- 469.4 2.2 New Hampshire D- 148.8 1.4 Rhode Island B- 285.6 2.3 Vermont D- 110.2 2.3
The Crime Rates and Homicide Rates are per 100,000 population per year from the FBI UCR Crime Reports. The Brady Grade is from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 2003 Report Card. The D- grades reflect the fact that the gun policies of those states (with exception of one city in Maine) are laxer and more libertarian than many "gun-loving" Southeastern states. Even though Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island got A- and B- (the higher the grade, the more restrictive the gun law) they do not totally ban firearms either. On the right-to-carry issue (last time I checked) CT issues more CCW licenses per 100,000 population than TX issues TCHL licenses per 100,000 population. The Brady grade on CT represents the perception that CT is "discretionary" rather than "shall issue"--the irony being that "shall issue" often has higher standards for issuance than "discretionary"--not all discretionary issue jurisdictions have the near-prohibition approach of the NY Sullivan Act 1911, the Brady Campaign ideal nationwide.
Of the six Northeastern states, three are gun-libertarian and three are gun-restricting. For decades Vermont has been the only US state where a citizen can carry concealed weapons for self defense with no restriction, long before the right-to-carry movement started, and has consistently had a low homicide rate.
While comparing stats between states proves little, a survey of felons appears to support the self-defense side: The NIJ Felon Survey (James D. Wright, Peter Rossi, Armed and Dangerous (Aldine 1986)) involve 1874 convicts, 18 prisons, 10 states: one third had been shot at or chased-off by armed victims, two thirds knew a felon who had been shot at or chased-off by an armed victim, one third had canceled planned crimes based on the perception the intended victim was armed. Most felons agreed they feared an armed victim more than being arrested by police or imprisoned. Naaman Brown ( talk) 23:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
State Brady Campaign Ratings v FBI UCR Crime and Homicide Rates Northeastern US 2003 2006 STATE GRADE CRIME HOMICIDE CRIME HOMICIDE Connecticut A- 308.2 3 280.8 3.1 Maine D- 108.9 1.2 115.5 1.7 Massachusetts A- 469.4 2.2 447.0 2.9 New Hampshire D- 148.8 1.4 138,7 1,0 Rhode Island B- 285.6 2.3 227.5 2.6 Vermont D- 110.2 2.3 136.6 1.9
Violent Crime includes Homicide (Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter), Rape, Armed Robbery and Aggravated Assault. The 2003 stats are not a fluke: the Northeastern States with tough gun laws (high Brady grades A-B) have higher rates of violent crime than the Northeastern States rated as having lax gun laws (low Brady grades D) year after year.
I have read the NAS2004 chapter on R-T-C, which basicly claimed that econometric regression methods prove nothing for or against R-T-C effects on reported crime rates; and NAS2004 stated that the true test of effect of R-T-C on criminal behaviour would be a survey of felons (essentially a repeat of the NIJ Felon Survey). Given the Wright-Rossi study supra cite, I doubt Lott's thesis would fall. In Florida, car jackers who targeted rental cars told police they did so because native Floridians could get permits to carry guns and out-of-state tourists could not. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So, places where people are indoors more of the year has a lower homicide rate than places where the climate is warmer much more of the time? Whod have thunk it?!? Gee, that lack of gun control has pushed North Dakota's homicide rate up to 1.3 per 100k in 2006! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.235.152 ( talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There's only a higher crime rate in the gun loving south if you don't control for race. If you control for race it appears that southern cities actually have lower rates of crime. Gastrointestinal Cancer Simulation ( talk) 16:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
SprDg ( talk) 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Someone brought this more recent and updated study (15, May 2019) to my attention and I noticed the protected John Lott page doesn’t cite more recent studies that readers could benefit from. Other gun-topic pages might benefit as well which I’ll leave to someone else. Lott replies to the study in a media article I’ll link.
Title: Right‐to‐Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State‐Level Synthetic Control Analysis
Abstract - “This article uses more complete state panel data (through 2014) and new statistical techniques to estimate the impact on violent crime when states adopt right‐to‐carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws. Our preferred panel data regression specification, unlike the statistical model of Lott and Mustard that had previously been offered as evidence of crime‐reducing RTC laws, both satisfies the parallel trends assumption and generates statistically significant estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime. Our synthetic control approach also finds that RTC laws are associated with 13–15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates 10 years after adoption ...”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219
Media article -
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/more-guns-more-crime
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SprDg ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The bulk of this article isn't about John Lott, the bulk is a wiki-editors-constructed debate on/against the ideas put forward by Lott, and thus rather than being about Lott, it's about and a soapbox & wp:coatrack for the opinions of opponents who are politically opposed to the views espoused by Lott. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Lott's participation in Trump's phone call to pressure election officials in Georgia to overturn the 2020 election results clearly belongs in the article. It's reported in RS [5] and gives readers clear indication of his role in the White House. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that his service in the Trump Administration should be in the lead. As to the call, unless sources describe the significance of it, I would leave it out. It's asking the reader to make an inference about his role. I suspect that by that point, Trump was scraping the bottom of the barrel and that anyone and everyone still left in the White House might find themselves drafted for surprising roles. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The editor Springee has edit-warred newly added content sourced to the white supremacist Peter Brimelow who claims that Milton Friedman praised Lott: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” This content should be removed. I find nothing to substantiate that Friedman ever praised Lott in this manner. Content like this needs to be reliably sourced. It should not be sourced to a Brimelow interview with Lott. Lott has a history of making up praise for himself, which creates additional reasons to be wary of poorly sourced praise. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
If someone can fix it. There are too many decade-old discussions on this page. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I became aware of this due to the COIN listing for this article, but taking a look at the edit history and the overall content of this article, WOW, it has become a mess. I know that there are some VERY WELL MEANING individuals trying to improve it, but over the past several years it has been edited to death -- in what seems to be a tit-for-tat edit war with several COI and POV accounts, as well as several AGF editors. Far more editing and reverting going on compared to the amount of discussion taking place. Going back 5+ years ago and the article seemed like it was in a far better place than it is today. I'm not talking about the specific nuances of "disputed accuracy" (which is also important), but rather the overarching goal of conveying information about a person, important topics, notable issues, etc. It was a far better read and carried better weight in the topics. I think somehow in the process of working towards more technical accuracy we've copy-pasted this article too much and we're reaching closer to becoming accurately meaningless.
May I be so bold as to suggest the following -- the current involved editors take a one week pause -- during the interim, I will work on a sandbox version that works towards a NPOV and BALANCED article. No I don't proclaim myself to be better or smarter or anything special aside from being someone who has zero bias or vested interest in this specific article, but have experience helping rewrite contentious material that all sides can be happy with, and hopefully be more encyclopedic. Admittedly I've been on wikibreak for a while, but I'd be happy to work on this project. But it will certainly take time, and if this article is undergoing edit warring while I'm trying to rework it, it will be counter productive.
The sandbox version will be available before I move it into the mainspace-- so we can call this a BOLD sandbox, instead of a straight up BOLD edit - because, respectfully, WP:BRD isn't working all that well here.
Feelings/thoughts/agreement? TiggerJay (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Lott's history of inventing praise for himself does not belong in the 'Disputed survey' section, but rather its own section. The "Mary Rosh" persona did not solely defend Lott's disputed survey, which makes the placement of this content under that section bizarre. To me, it seems like an attempt to make the "Mary Rosh" incident less prominent by lumping it in at the bottom of a tangential section. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, can you explain why you feel that an academic's intuitions are not lead worthy? I understand that SPECIFICO wanted to reduce the length of the lead but once North8000 and I restored the material I think we need consensus to remove it. Please make the case for removal. Springee ( talk) 18:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
From what I see the item, of that large bundle of removals one which is now completely missing from the article is the assessment on the economics side by Milton Friedman. A a prominent economist and Nobel prize winner, and this was a removal from the body of the article. What is going on here? North8000 ( talk) 20:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
[7] I agree with SPECIFICO this is not enough for it's own section. This could be easily remedied by moving it to the beginning of the Voter Fraud Claims subsection, which would actually help improve that bit IMO, and does seem to bare some weight. DN ( talk) 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Why aren't any positive reviews of this work quoted in this article? The block quotes are:
And then comes the issues of questionable importance (an entire section over misrepresentation?) and implying that filing suit for defamation injures his credibility. If this isn't POV, I don't know what is. -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous poster. This article seems wildly unbalanced, and consists largely of string quotes of criticisms. Even Hitler has a more balanced entry. - -- ozoneliar - 12 March 2007
Do any authors still maintain a positive reception of his work after Lott's exposure as a sock puppeteer? Neutral point of view does not require equl numbers of comments pro and con. A comporable article would be David Brock, even though many on the left support his Media Matters campaign he is a self-confessed liar and has little credibility. --66.31.39.76 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
of Lott's hypothesis listed five articles supportive of Lott's thesis and five opposed. The five supportive were:
Bruce L. Benson & Brent Mast, Privately Produced General Deterrence, 44 J.L. & ECON. 1 (2001);
Stephen G. Bronars & John R. Lott, Jr., Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and the Right to Carry Concealed Handgun, 88 AM. ECON. REV. 475 (1998);
Carlisle E. Moody, Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness, 44 J.L. & ECON. 799 (2001);
David B. Mustard, The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths, 44 J.L. & ECON. 635 (2001);
John R. Lott, Jr. & William M. Landes, Multiple Victim Public Shootings, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929 (last modified June 10, 2001).
For anonymous IP number 24.118.111.125 to imply that Bruce L. Benson, Brent Mast, Stephen G. Bronars, Carlisle E. Moody, David B. Mustard, and William M. Landes engaged in "false, invalid, or fallacious analysis ... propaganda ... no integrity ... phony opinions that are not based on facts" just shows how low the discussion of this issue has been dragged by partisans in gun politics. Benson, Mast, Bronars, Moody, Mustard and Landes are established academics published in peer-refereed journals; you do not pass peer review for an academic journal if what you write is false invalid fallacious propaganda with no integrity expressing phony opinions not based on facts. John Lott has published empirical research that contradicts strongly held a-priori assumptions about the relationship of civilian gun ownership to the crime rate; the correct answer to that is calm, respectful and respectable empirical research, not character assassination.
In interest of full disclosure, I believe that gun control laws like the USA and UK Gun Control Acts of 1968 impact the behavior of the law abiding, not the criminal. To me, saying you can affect criminal behavior through gun control laws is as rational as saying you can stop prostitution by piling ever-increasing restrictions on marriage licenses. By the law of unintended consequences, the actual effect is opposite the intended effect. As Hans Toch who once supported banning handguns asked, why is it that the parts of the USA that have more guns per capita have less crime per capita than the jurisdictions that have virtual bans on legal gun ownership?-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
per 100,000 violent crime murder northeast 416.5 -2.80% 4.1 -3.70% midwest 424.9 -1.40% 5.1 -3.50% west 508.2 -2.10% 5.8 +4.10% south 571.0 -2.00% 6.8 +0.70%
100 Largest Metro Areas (Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) Nassau-Suffolk NY Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon NJ Ventura CA Monmouth-Ocean NJ Bergen-Passaic NJ Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton PA Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PA San Jose CA Pittsburgh PA Orange County CA Ann Arbor MI Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY Boston MA-NH-ME New York NY Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton PA Syracuse NY Philadelphia PA-NJ Hartford CT Rochester NY Newark NJ Buffalo-Niagara Falls NY San Diego CA Providence-Fall River-Warwick RI-MA Jersey City NJ Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland MI Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria OH San Francisco CA New Haven-Meriden CT ... St. Louis MO-IL Salt Lake City-Ogden UT Wichita KS Mobile AL Houston TX Nashville TN Orlando FL Fresno CA McAllen-Edinburg-Mission TX Fort Worth-Arlington TX Charleston-North Charleston SC Jacksonville FL Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC Dallas TX Omaha NE-IA Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL Columbia SC Toledo OH Albuquerque NM Tacoma WA Columbus OH Kansas City MO-KS West Palm Beach-Boca Raton FL Honolulu HI Oklahoma City OK Stockton-Lodi CA Baton Rouge LA San Antonio TX Little Rock-North Little Rock AR Phoenix-Mesa AZ Miami FL Memphis TN-AR-MS Tucson AZ
The cities listed here are the 114 Mid-sized Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ranging in population from approximately 500,000 to 200,000. 114 Mid-size Areas (Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) Danbury CT Stamford-Norwalk CT Johnstown PA Dutchess County NY Portsmouth-Rochester NH-ME Lowell MA-NH Lawrence MA-NH Newburgh NY-PA Lynchburg VA Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah WI Manchester NH York PA Erie PA Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc CA Binghamton NY Worcester MA-CT New London-Norwich CT-RI Lancaster PA Green Bay WI San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles CA Utica-Rome NY Brazoria TX Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers AR Portland ME Reading PA Brockton MA Roanoke VA Santa Rosa CA ... Anchorage AK Lakeland-Winter Haven FL Longview-Marshall TX Kalamazoo-Battle Creek MI Beaumont-Port Arthur TX Chattanooga TN-GA South Bend IN Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula MS Gainesville FL Spokane WA Tallahassee FL Jackson MS Savannah GA Modesto CA Galveston-Texas City TX Shreveport-Bossier City LA Macon GA Fayetteville NC Yakima WA Lincoln NE Lubbock TX Salem OR Corpus Christi TX Amarillo TX Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito TX Wilmington NC Waco TX Laredo TX Montgomery AL Myrtle Beach SC
The cities listed here are the 117 Smallest Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ranging in population from approximately 200,000 to 55,000. 114 Smallest Areas (Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) State College PA Steubenville-Weirton OH-WV Wheeling WV-OH Pittsfield MA Wausau WI Nashua NH Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH Glens Falls NY Williamsport PA Jacksonville NC Danville VA Jamestown NY Sharon PA Bismarck ND Hagerstown MD La Crosse WI-MN Dubuque IA Rochester MN Barnstable-Yarmouth MA Cumberland MD-WV Kenosha WI Altoona PA Fitchburg-Leominster MA-NH Sioux Falls SD Elmira NY ... Albany GA Athens GA Bryan-College Station TX Enid OK Sioux City IA-NE Jackson TN Rocky Mount NC Tuscaloosa AL San Angelo TX Auburn-Opelika AL Anniston AL Flagstaff AZ Greenville NC Sumter SC Great Falls MT Panama City FL Lake Charles LA Wichita Falls TX Florence SC Alexandria LA Monroe LA Pine Bluff AR Topeka KS
Rate per 100k Crime Violent Property Murder rape Robbery assault Houston 7,313.9 1,223.1 6,090.9 12.5 43.7 549.5 617.4 New York 3,100.1 789.6 2,310.4 7.3 20.9 336.8 424.7 Houston metro 5,505.4 814.2 4,691.2 8.4 36.3 322.1 447.5 New York metro 2,973.4 717.2 2,256.2 6.6 19.2 303.5 387.9
State Brady Campaign Ratings and Crime and Homicide Rates Northeastern US STATE GRADE CRIME HOMICIDE Connecticut A- 308.2 3 Maine D- 108.9 1.2 Massachusetts A- 469.4 2.2 New Hampshire D- 148.8 1.4 Rhode Island B- 285.6 2.3 Vermont D- 110.2 2.3
The Crime Rates and Homicide Rates are per 100,000 population per year from the FBI UCR Crime Reports. The Brady Grade is from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 2003 Report Card. The D- grades reflect the fact that the gun policies of those states (with exception of one city in Maine) are laxer and more libertarian than many "gun-loving" Southeastern states. Even though Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island got A- and B- (the higher the grade, the more restrictive the gun law) they do not totally ban firearms either. On the right-to-carry issue (last time I checked) CT issues more CCW licenses per 100,000 population than TX issues TCHL licenses per 100,000 population. The Brady grade on CT represents the perception that CT is "discretionary" rather than "shall issue"--the irony being that "shall issue" often has higher standards for issuance than "discretionary"--not all discretionary issue jurisdictions have the near-prohibition approach of the NY Sullivan Act 1911, the Brady Campaign ideal nationwide.
Of the six Northeastern states, three are gun-libertarian and three are gun-restricting. For decades Vermont has been the only US state where a citizen can carry concealed weapons for self defense with no restriction, long before the right-to-carry movement started, and has consistently had a low homicide rate.
While comparing stats between states proves little, a survey of felons appears to support the self-defense side: The NIJ Felon Survey (James D. Wright, Peter Rossi, Armed and Dangerous (Aldine 1986)) involve 1874 convicts, 18 prisons, 10 states: one third had been shot at or chased-off by armed victims, two thirds knew a felon who had been shot at or chased-off by an armed victim, one third had canceled planned crimes based on the perception the intended victim was armed. Most felons agreed they feared an armed victim more than being arrested by police or imprisoned. Naaman Brown ( talk) 23:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
State Brady Campaign Ratings v FBI UCR Crime and Homicide Rates Northeastern US 2003 2006 STATE GRADE CRIME HOMICIDE CRIME HOMICIDE Connecticut A- 308.2 3 280.8 3.1 Maine D- 108.9 1.2 115.5 1.7 Massachusetts A- 469.4 2.2 447.0 2.9 New Hampshire D- 148.8 1.4 138,7 1,0 Rhode Island B- 285.6 2.3 227.5 2.6 Vermont D- 110.2 2.3 136.6 1.9
Violent Crime includes Homicide (Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter), Rape, Armed Robbery and Aggravated Assault. The 2003 stats are not a fluke: the Northeastern States with tough gun laws (high Brady grades A-B) have higher rates of violent crime than the Northeastern States rated as having lax gun laws (low Brady grades D) year after year.
I have read the NAS2004 chapter on R-T-C, which basicly claimed that econometric regression methods prove nothing for or against R-T-C effects on reported crime rates; and NAS2004 stated that the true test of effect of R-T-C on criminal behaviour would be a survey of felons (essentially a repeat of the NIJ Felon Survey). Given the Wright-Rossi study supra cite, I doubt Lott's thesis would fall. In Florida, car jackers who targeted rental cars told police they did so because native Floridians could get permits to carry guns and out-of-state tourists could not. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So, places where people are indoors more of the year has a lower homicide rate than places where the climate is warmer much more of the time? Whod have thunk it?!? Gee, that lack of gun control has pushed North Dakota's homicide rate up to 1.3 per 100k in 2006! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.235.152 ( talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There's only a higher crime rate in the gun loving south if you don't control for race. If you control for race it appears that southern cities actually have lower rates of crime. Gastrointestinal Cancer Simulation ( talk) 16:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
SprDg ( talk) 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Someone brought this more recent and updated study (15, May 2019) to my attention and I noticed the protected John Lott page doesn’t cite more recent studies that readers could benefit from. Other gun-topic pages might benefit as well which I’ll leave to someone else. Lott replies to the study in a media article I’ll link.
Title: Right‐to‐Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State‐Level Synthetic Control Analysis
Abstract - “This article uses more complete state panel data (through 2014) and new statistical techniques to estimate the impact on violent crime when states adopt right‐to‐carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws. Our preferred panel data regression specification, unlike the statistical model of Lott and Mustard that had previously been offered as evidence of crime‐reducing RTC laws, both satisfies the parallel trends assumption and generates statistically significant estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime. Our synthetic control approach also finds that RTC laws are associated with 13–15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates 10 years after adoption ...”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219
Media article -
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/more-guns-more-crime
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SprDg ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The bulk of this article isn't about John Lott, the bulk is a wiki-editors-constructed debate on/against the ideas put forward by Lott, and thus rather than being about Lott, it's about and a soapbox & wp:coatrack for the opinions of opponents who are politically opposed to the views espoused by Lott. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Lott's participation in Trump's phone call to pressure election officials in Georgia to overturn the 2020 election results clearly belongs in the article. It's reported in RS [5] and gives readers clear indication of his role in the White House. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that his service in the Trump Administration should be in the lead. As to the call, unless sources describe the significance of it, I would leave it out. It's asking the reader to make an inference about his role. I suspect that by that point, Trump was scraping the bottom of the barrel and that anyone and everyone still left in the White House might find themselves drafted for surprising roles. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The editor Springee has edit-warred newly added content sourced to the white supremacist Peter Brimelow who claims that Milton Friedman praised Lott: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” This content should be removed. I find nothing to substantiate that Friedman ever praised Lott in this manner. Content like this needs to be reliably sourced. It should not be sourced to a Brimelow interview with Lott. Lott has a history of making up praise for himself, which creates additional reasons to be wary of poorly sourced praise. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
If someone can fix it. There are too many decade-old discussions on this page. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I became aware of this due to the COIN listing for this article, but taking a look at the edit history and the overall content of this article, WOW, it has become a mess. I know that there are some VERY WELL MEANING individuals trying to improve it, but over the past several years it has been edited to death -- in what seems to be a tit-for-tat edit war with several COI and POV accounts, as well as several AGF editors. Far more editing and reverting going on compared to the amount of discussion taking place. Going back 5+ years ago and the article seemed like it was in a far better place than it is today. I'm not talking about the specific nuances of "disputed accuracy" (which is also important), but rather the overarching goal of conveying information about a person, important topics, notable issues, etc. It was a far better read and carried better weight in the topics. I think somehow in the process of working towards more technical accuracy we've copy-pasted this article too much and we're reaching closer to becoming accurately meaningless.
May I be so bold as to suggest the following -- the current involved editors take a one week pause -- during the interim, I will work on a sandbox version that works towards a NPOV and BALANCED article. No I don't proclaim myself to be better or smarter or anything special aside from being someone who has zero bias or vested interest in this specific article, but have experience helping rewrite contentious material that all sides can be happy with, and hopefully be more encyclopedic. Admittedly I've been on wikibreak for a while, but I'd be happy to work on this project. But it will certainly take time, and if this article is undergoing edit warring while I'm trying to rework it, it will be counter productive.
The sandbox version will be available before I move it into the mainspace-- so we can call this a BOLD sandbox, instead of a straight up BOLD edit - because, respectfully, WP:BRD isn't working all that well here.
Feelings/thoughts/agreement? TiggerJay (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Lott's history of inventing praise for himself does not belong in the 'Disputed survey' section, but rather its own section. The "Mary Rosh" persona did not solely defend Lott's disputed survey, which makes the placement of this content under that section bizarre. To me, it seems like an attempt to make the "Mary Rosh" incident less prominent by lumping it in at the bottom of a tangential section. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, can you explain why you feel that an academic's intuitions are not lead worthy? I understand that SPECIFICO wanted to reduce the length of the lead but once North8000 and I restored the material I think we need consensus to remove it. Please make the case for removal. Springee ( talk) 18:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
From what I see the item, of that large bundle of removals one which is now completely missing from the article is the assessment on the economics side by Milton Friedman. A a prominent economist and Nobel prize winner, and this was a removal from the body of the article. What is going on here? North8000 ( talk) 20:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
[7] I agree with SPECIFICO this is not enough for it's own section. This could be easily remedied by moving it to the beginning of the Voter Fraud Claims subsection, which would actually help improve that bit IMO, and does seem to bare some weight. DN ( talk) 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)