Sam A. Kersh writes:

No, it up to you to show that an 88% reduction in rapes, 35%
reduction in commercial robbery and an 84% reduction in
residential burglaries is insignificant. Proof, not an inane
assertion by Lambert as a citation.

Sam, you seem to lack the most basic understanding of the way
statistics is done. Changes are not assumed to be statistically
significant until proved otherwise. The burden of proof is on you:
present a statistical test for significance. I’ve asked you for this
several times now. You keep trying to avoid the issue. (Hint for
Sam: posting extracts from Kleck which contain no such test is not
presenting a test for statistical significance. Clue for Sam: Kleck
knows how to tests for statistical significance. Why doesn’t he
present one for this case?).

Tim, you made an unsupported statement that a change of 88% in
number of rapes was not statistically significant.

Unsupported? I have provided plenty of support for my claim. See:
here. I have also
pointed out that McDowall et al (Criminology 29:4 p541-559) did an
interrupted time series analysis. They did find a reduction by 11
rapes in 67, but this was NOT statistically significant.

I’m still waiting for you to provide any sort of support at all for
your claim that the reduction in Orlando was statistically significant

Heck, you can’t even support your claim about robberies in KC. Why
don’t you tell us how many robberies there were before and how many
there were after?

Funny thing, neither of you developed data supporting your assertions.

Totally false. We have provided plenty of support for pour
assertions. When your bogus claims are taken apart in detail you
merely repeat them and pretend the refutation does not exist.

Yes, I’ve repeatedly pointed you to Kleck and Green (1987, p75)

Oh, Green. Let’s see what he says:

“Regarding the authors’ [Kleck and Bordua] first contention (that the
reduction is too great to be considered random), the City of Orlando
seems to have experienced a rather jagged yearly rate history for
recorded forcible rape (including attempts) in the years prior to the
firearms campaign. For example, one infers from any recorded
rape/attempted rape of 0.0 (in 1963) for a city as large as Orlando
that the recording procedures there are questionable. The recorded
decrease in the City of Orlando from 1959-1960 was 58%, the decrease
from 1961 to 1962 was 88%, and of course, the decrease from 1962-1963
was 100%. Recorded fluctuations in rape in Orlando from 1964-1966 are
similarly extreme. Hence, the authors’ assertion (1983: 287) — that
Orlando had not experienced a similarly large decrease prior to 1967
than in 1967 — is misleading, given the changes in the rate recorded
in, say, 1962-1964.” (Criminology 25 p 74)

Gee Sam, did you really think you could get away with attempting to
pass off Green as supporting Kleck?

but you two keep going back to Mcdowall’s flawed studies that have
no clear relevance to Kleck’s 1988 study.

McDowall tested the statistical significance of the
change and found that it wasn’t statistically significant. I hope
that makes the relevance clear to you now.

Yes, I know McDowall as late as 1991 was trying to disprove
relevance for changes in Orlando rapes and Kennesaw burglaries but
he, like Kellermann, keeps getting caught using incorrect data to
foster his predetermined assumptions.

McDowall used UCR data for Orlando, just like Kleck. The UCR
data may indeed be incorrect as Green argues. But then your whole
case, which is based on that UCR data, falls apart. As for Kennesaw,
I have already demonstrated the falsity of your claims. See
[here](http://timlambert.org/category/guns/kennesaw/

But what can I expect from someone who falsely tries to attribute a
“200,000 killed or wounded” in DGUs computation to Kleck.

I did no such thing. What I said was that if all of Kleck’s
respondents told the truth then there were 200,000 DGU woundings.