gjohnston: something more scholarly would be nice perhaps a counter study of his more guns=less crime hypothesis, which has a fair amount of support among criminologists. Oh, a barely literate and intellectually lazy blogger doesn't count.
You advise your adversaries how to post counter studies to john lott's 'more guns less crime' study, yet you have difficulty containing yourself as to who is allowed in support of lott:
johnston: A Canadian researcher named Gary Mauser did a survey of studies that appeared in peer reviewed criminology journals from 2000-2014 about the more guns=? Lott's more guns=less crime hypothesis was supported by 35 percent of of the studies.
This is supposed to be fair & balanced review of lott by an unbiased mauser?
by John R. Lott Jr. & Gary Mauser February 20, 2012 Canada sank $2.7 billion into a pointless project. Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never re...
John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime (2010) and Gary Mauser is professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/291304/death-long-gun-registry-john-r-lott-jr-gary-mauser
johnston: Of course, it is always fun reading him debunk Hemenway
And which gunnut guru is that? lott? or his good biased buddy mauser?
johnston's link: Gary Mauser did a survey of studies that appeared in peer reviewed criminology journals from 2000-2014 about the more guns=? Lott's more guns=less crime hypothesis was supported by 35 percent of of the studies.. Those supporting the guns=more crime were 9 percent of the studies. The largest group, 51 percent, concluded the number of guns makes no difference either way
So, a review by mauser of studies that appeared in criminology journals, presumably including pro gun sources, and I assume including greatly differing sample sizes possibly involving states, regions, or cities (cherry picked?), revealed that the hypothesis 'more guns less crime' won out over 'more guns more crime' by 35% to 9%, about 4 to 1, and johnston thinks this somehow proves lott was correct. It does not. It proves mauser & lott know how to lie with statistics. And it proves johnston likes to promote them.
= new reply since forum marked as read