Talk:More Guns, Less Crime

Fair use rationale for Image:More guns less crime.jpg
Image:More guns less crime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

list of related articles
This list was deleted from the John Lott article with the explanation that it duplicated a list on Lott's website. For someone using Wikipedia to research the subject of More Guns Less Crime the links were a convenient resource to locate articles pro and con without having to leap across the blogosphere. I see that some of the links are repeated in the entry but have not had time to see if all are duplicated. Still I feel this list is a useful resource that should be retained somewhere, even if only in the Talk of this entry. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Studies based on Lott's gun research
These studies discuss, dispute, replicate or duplicate Lott's gun research Refereed articles in academic journals: Publications in student-edited journals: -
 * Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”
 * Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?
 * Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes?
 * Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws
 * David Olson/Michael Maltz, Homicide in Large U.S. Cities
 * The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis
 * Privately Produced general deterence
 * Michael Maltz/Joseph Targonski, A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data -
 * A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data: A Response
 * The Latest Misfires in Support of the “More Guns, Less Crime” Hypothesis
 * Confirming More Guns, Less Crime
 * Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis.

Goertzel's criticism was not directed solely at Lott
Ted Goertzel, Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression, The Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 26, No 1, January/February 2002, pp. 19-23, criticises the use of econometric regression as positive "proof" that (a) passage of right to carry reduces crime (Lott & Mustard 1997), (b) imprisonment reduces crime (Moody & Marvell 1997), (c) execution for homicide deters murder (Ehrlich 1975), (d) abortion reduces crime (Levitt & Dohohue 1999). Goertzel's message is that econometric modeling is not the proper tool for measuring real life effects or for making social policy decisions. Goertzel is equally hard on Lott and Lott's critics Levitt and Donohue. The criticisms of econometric modeling in Goertzel 2002 apply as equally to Ayres & Donohue 2003 as to Lott & Mustard 1997. Passage of right to carry, imprisonment of convicted offenders, execution for homicide and legalised abortion could affect crime, you just can't prove it to Goertzel with econometric regression, because econometric regression can be used as proof one way or the other. Goertzel's criticism is actually aimed at econometric modeling in general. (Forgot my tildes 12 Oct 2009 Naaman Brown (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I checked this out and I agree that Goertzel was attacking statistical tools rather than Lott's specific results. So basically, this is a Sociology professor stepping outside of his expertise in a popular magazine rather than a scholarly journal, and it is not primarily directed at Lott.  It is part of the controversy, but is it on a level with, say, Ludwig's attack on Lott in the International Review of Law and Economics? Should it really be listed under the current heading of "Studies Against?"


 * It looks to me like the entire "Controversy" section needs to be cleaned up. Right now it gives the impression that the debate is limited to scholarly journals, yet it does not discriminate between peer-reviewed Economics journals, peer-reviewed journals in other disciplines, and other sources. Non-scholarly sources are still listed under "Studies."  Perhaps we could separate the peer-reviewed Economics papers for & against Lott from the non-peer-reviewed papers, papers in other disciplines, and less scholarly pieces?  If no one objects, I will go through and do this.


 * Full Disclosure: I already removed an unpublished source which was in violation of WP:SOURCES. 0x539 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently a few mostly-IP editors have begun reducing the support and criticism sections on the "More Guns. Less Crime" hypothesis to empirical academic studies published under peer referee in reviewed journals.


 * National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (2004) contains this note on criticism of Lott:
 * "A second group of critics have argued that Lott's results lack credibility because they are inconsistent with various strongly held a priori beliefs or expectations. For example, Zimring and Hawkins (1997:59) argue that "large reductions in violence [due to right-to-carry laws] are quite unlikely because they would be out of proportion to the small scale of the change in carrying firearms that the legislation produced." The committee agrees that it is important for statistical evidence to be consistent with established facts, but there are no such [established] facts about whether right-to-carry laws can have effects of the magnitudes that Lott claims. The beliefs or expectations of Lott's second group of critics are, at best, hypotheses whose truth or falsehood can only be determined empirically. Moreover, Lott (2000) has argued that there are ways to reconcile his results with the beliefs and expectations of the critics. This does not necessarily imply that Lott is correct and his critics are wrong. The correctness of Lott's arguments is also an empirical question about which there is little evidence. Rather, it shows that little can be decided through argumentation over a priori beliefs and expectations."


 * Most criticism of Lott falls into thats group: Lott's results have to be wrong because they are contrary to the stongly held beliefs of the progressive community, that there can be nothing good from guns, and nothing bad from restrictive gun laws. If criticism of Lott is limited to empirical studies published in peer-refereed journals, that eliminates the majority of the criticism of his thesis. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense to trim down the lists of supporters and opponents in favor of adding more content detailing the support and opposition. A simple list doesn't really tell us much. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

“The issue of right-to-carry laws was the only law that drew a dissent…”
Seems ambiguous and even misleading, as the council dissented or a number of council members dissented, when it was just one guy abs it was published in the appendix. Note that the guy headed the right-wing, think tank that provides all the ‘support’ for Lott’s findings. In addition, this guy is part of the, now debunked, broken Windows crime policy.

Request that the clause be rewritten in a way that reflects this. 47.217.98.185 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)