All kinds of action over at the Wikipedia page on John Lott, with someone using the handle "Timewarp" starting an edit war that has led to the page being temporarily protected from changes to encourage Timewarp to discuss the changes he wants. Timewarp has denied being John Lott, but sure sounds a lot like him.
FBI crime report is out.
Violent crime down.
In 1987 there were 7 states with shall issure laws and the the murder and nonnegilent homicide rate was 8.3.
In 2004 38 states have shall issue laws and the murder and nonnegilent rate is 5.5.
One thing that could be concluded is that more guns do not equal more crime. Destroy's your thesis of more guns equals more crime.
Terry, crime also went down in the states that didn't introduce concealed carry.
This has got to be the most common gunloon logical failing.
"More Guns = Less Crime! An armed citizenry is the best crime prevention! Criminals think twice if they don't know who might be carrying a gun! Gun banners love criminals!"
"Well, actually, the data doesn't really support that."
"Well at least it doesn't show an enormous increase in crime associated with reduced gun restrictions! Therefore I was right! Ha!"
One thing you can say is that Lott has a degree of humour when choosing names for his sock puppets.
"Let's do the Timewarp again", indeed.
"Destroy's your thesis of more guns equals more crime."
I suppose when the crime rate was rising, you were telling people it destroyed their thesis of more guns less crime.
Z wrote, "I suppose when the crime rate was rising, you were telling people it destroyed their thesis of more guns less crime."
What are you talking about? Do you believe that all crimes are committed with a gun?
That criminals only committee a crime if and only if, they have a gun?
Where has the crime rate gone down when governments make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves?
Considering the number of countries that have banned or severely restricted private ownership of guns in the post WWII era, you should have no problem providing an example.
Tim wrote, "Terry, crime also went down in the states that didn't introduce concealed carry."
And? Did I write that crime went down only in states that have must issue CCW permit?
No.
Why do you imply I did Mr. Lambert?
Are you a professor of computer science? If you are, you have purposely mislead your readers on what I meant.
If your right in that less guns mean less crime, why do you need to lie?
"What are you talking about? Do you believe that all crimes are committed with a gun? That criminals only committee a crime if and only if, they have a gun?"
What are you talking about? You observed that the number of guns went up, and the crime rate went down. Therefore
"One thing that could be concluded is that more guns do not equal more crime. Destroy's your thesis of more guns equals more crime."
I note that in the 80s, the number of guns went up, and the crime rate went up. So I noted that that destroys the thesis of more guns less crime. If you can't see the symmetry between the two arguments, I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.
Terry,
I'm not sure Tim has ever said "less guns = less crime".
what he has doen, repeatedly, is demosntrate that Lott's claims of dramatic reductiosn in crime associated with concealed carry laws are questionable at best.
If Tim's agenda were pushing tighter US gun laws rather than exposing Lott's various lapses, he'd also go after other pro-gun academics such as Dr. kleck. In fact, Tim has repeatedly used Kleck as a source in his critiques of Lott.