Tuesday, March 4, 2014

John Lott Claims the Johns Hopkins Missouri Study is Flawed

John R. Lott Jr.
John R. Lott Jr.
The economist, who is the leading expert on gun violence statistics, refuted a Johns Hopkins study that claims the repeal of Missouri’s “universal background checks” law is the cause of an increase in murder rates, in an exclusive Guns & Patriots interview.
“There is a lot of arbitrary cherry-picking of the data,” said John R. Lott Jr., president of Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization that studies the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety.  “Other research that looked at all the states, not just one, comes to a different conclusion.”
Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health conducted a study that claimsMissouri’s murder rate increased by 16 percent after the state legislature in 2007 repealed its universal background checks law, which required all handgun purchasers to undergo a background check at the auspices of local law enforcement. 
Federal law already prohibits interstate firearm transfers, including handguns, except among licensed dealers who are required to conduct a federal background check of all purchasers through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, said Lott, who is a Fox News columnist.
Even though there are 19 states in the union with universal background checks or similar laws, researchers in the study chose only one state to look at, covering only one point-in-time, addressing murder rates alone, he said. “Simply looking at whether murder rates were higher after the law was rescinded than before misses much of what was going on.”
Does that even make sense? Yes, 19 other states have universal background checks, but the study was about Missouri because "the state legislature in 2007 repealed its universal background checks law." 
This is what we have to contend with. Double-talking nonsense from the guys who claim to have "right" on their side
By the way, please notice how even a radical pro-gun site like Guns and Patriots will abbreviate the name of the school to "Johns Hopkins." Yet, when we do it some folks accuse us of purposely leaving out the "Bloomberg" part for effect.

52 comments:

  1. Tennessee also repealed its universal background checks law in 1998. Please explain why it isn't included in the study. In addition, if eliminating the law raised murder rates, wouldn't introducing the law lower them?
    http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/02/what-does-missouri-show-about-the-benefits-from-universal-background-checks-the-forthcoming-journal-of-urban-health-study-by-the-bloomberg-school-of-public-health/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know, but I think it makes sense that Missouri showed the best results and was chosen for the study for that reason. So?

      Delete
    2. There you have just admitted bias to the study.

      Delete
    3. i.e. "cherry picked"

      Listen to you: it "makes sense" to only show data that supports the desired conclusion.

      Delete
    4. But aren't all studies biased? Isn't everyone? That doesn't mean the results are wrong.

      Delete
    5. Is every person biased? More or less.
      Is every study biased? They're not supposed to be. For the same reason you're supposed to take your biases, ego, etc. out of a scientific experiment to test a hypothesis you're supposed work to take them out of an attempt at a scientific study like this.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, are you aware of the scientific method?

      Delete
    7. He doesn't know shit about the scientific method but he still has opinions about which studies are valid.

      Or was I not supposed to adapt that comment of his...

      Delete
    8. I don't know, but I think it makes sense that Missouri showed the best results and was chosen for the study for that reason. So?

      Now wait a second, Mikeb. Remember when you said that when tracking the precipitous decline in violent crime in the U.S., that it was disingenuous, if not downright dishonest, to use 1993 as the starting point, because starting there yields the most dramatic results?

      "Compared to 1993" is what your entire false argument depends upon.

      Remember that you even admitted that a different starting point would still show a dramatic decline, but it would be less dramatic (and thus apparently "more honest")?

      The decline is still there regardless of which year we start with, I admit this.

      So which is it, Mikeb? Is it honest, and indeed good science, to selectively use data that best supports whatever agenda the "researcher" supports, or isn't it?

      Delete
    9. The reason picking 1993 as the starting point of those studies is dishonest is because that year the spike in violent crime was due to the crack epidemic and had less to do with gun laws. It was an anomaly, in other words. Showing the results for Missouri was done because Missouri changed its law allowing private sales without background checks in 2007. Are there other states that did that at around the same time?

      Delete
    10. That's a different justification for the cherry picking than you gave earlier. Again, your charges against us are shown to be projections--in this case, slipperiness.

      Delete
    11. Mikeb, our homicide rate took off in the 60s and remained high until the 90s. Crack was only one part of it. But the trend since 1993 has been consistently downward:

      http://www.ricknevin.com/uploads/USA_Murder_Rate_at_Historic_Record_Low.pdf

      Delete
    12. The reason for picking 1993 is because it was the peak. It's perfectly fine to show where we are today vs the high (or low).

      Delete
    13. Simon, earlier I said that all survey's are biased, and so what? That wasn't a justification for cherry picking. Now I'm saying the reason for choosing Missouri for a study showing the results of loosening the gun laws is simply and obviously because Missouri did that, they loosened their gun laws.

      Delete
    14. No, first you said that Missouri showed the best results for your side and was chosen for that reason. Now you're changing to the idea of them being an example of this type of policy change. Your "everything's biased" argument was backpedaling after your first "cherry picking is ok for my side" argument. Don't try to distort that.

      Delete
    15. Simon, I'm not the one trying to distort. When a study is about a strict gun control law being abolished and what happens afterwards, how in the fuck can other states, or as TS suggested, ALL other states be included? Can you tell me that? Wouldn't the study be limited to only those states that had that kind of change in the law?

      Delete
    16. But Missouri IS NOT the only state to repeal a background check law. Tennessee did, which was stated to kick off this thread. You said you "didn't know" why they didn't include Tennessee in the study, but suggested it was maybe because Missouri gave them the results they were looking for and Tennessee didn't. Which is true, TN does not give then results they want to show. They had a 17% drop the year after repeal, and a 30% drop to date. So they focus on the state with 0% increase because that's the best they could find, and further deceive their audience by only looking at the first year increase, and ignore the fact that it went back down the next year. If you're sticking to this "other factors" excuse, how do you make sense of TN not only not having Missouri's first year increase, but actually went the other way the year after repeal?

      Delete
    17. Mikeb, you're forgetting that Missouri's murder rate doesn't show the result you claim. The overall rate for the last seventeen years has been steady. Fluctuations from year to year prove nothing.

      Delete
    18. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm

      Link to Tennessee's murder rate.

      Delete
    19. TS has already done an excellent job. The only thing to add is that even if there wasn't the example from Tennessee, other states would be helpful for comparison as control groups.

      Keep twisting bro.

      Delete
  2. I can do even better:

    a Johns Hopkins study that claims the repeal of Missouri’s “universal background checks” law is the cause of an increase in murder rates...

    "Increase in murder rate"? What increase? It is the same now as it was in 2007. Yeah, I'd call that "study" flawed, and it wasn't too hard to refute.

    ...a study that claims Missouri’s murder rate increased by 16 percent after the state legislature in 2007 repealed its universal background checks law...

    ...and then decreased 16 percent the following year without being reinstated.

    God, you people suck at this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound like a five-year-old saying "did not," "did," "did not."

      Delete
    2. I presented a counter argument with data to support it. I did not simply say "did not". What are you bringing to the discussion? When I point out that the jump from 07 to 08 was wiped out in 09, do you have anything to say? Was I wrong when I pointed out that the latest murder rate (2012) is also the same as 2007?

      Delete
    3. One possibility is that the effect of changing the law will diminish more and more each subsequent year since there are always other factors involved. So, looking at the immediate period after the change is the most valid.

      Delete
    4. So, what you're saying is that gun laws can have a tiny affect, good or bad, for a short period of time, but they don't make any difference in the long run.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, are you that desperate to defend gun control that you sink to this level of foolishness? The validity of a policy is shown by its long-term effects, not by fluctuations that disappear in a year. Fluctuations can be from many different causes, while an overall trend shows something exercising a consistent influence.

      Delete
    6. Did this study say that? No, they never tried to explain why murder rates dropped back down- they tried to hide it. There is no mention that murder rate are the same as when the law was in effect. They certainly are trying to leave the reader with the impression there are more murders now because this law was repealed. Maybe you can say that everyone has some level of bias, but this is deliberately deceptive and not reputable.

      Take what I did with my correlation reports as an example. I looked at every state. I didn't look at only the states that would give me the conclusion I wanted. What it showed was no correlation. Heck, I would have much preferred a strong correlation that shows murder going up with oppressive gun laws, but I showed you honest results. I even showed you that there is a correlation with suicide rates. Honestly, that surprised me- I expected no correlation. But I'm honest and reputable, and won't hide or fudge results that I don't like.

      Delete
    7. MikeB paraphrased: gun control only works for a year, then criminals figure out how to get around it. That's why we have to come up with new and exciting ways to screw over you gun owners every single year.

      Delete
    8. One wonders if he thought his premise out that thoroughly or if he'd have the guts to come out and say it.

      Delete
    9. No, TS, that's not what I said. Why is it so difficult for you to argue straight up without misstating what I said?

      I didn't say "criminals figure out how to get around it." I said "there are always other factors involved."

      Delete
    10. Doesn't change the fact that you've stated that gun control laws only affect things for a year or so and then do nothing--not exactly something that inspires us to accept your proposals.

      Delete
    11. It's been Greg's job for a long time to be the site liar, but you're gaining on him.

      I DID NOT SAY, "gun control laws only affect things for a year or so and then do nothing."

      What I actually said was after a year or so the effect MAY DIMINISH due to the other factors involved.

      Does that sound familiar - please go look if you're not convinced and then apologize for misrepresenting what I said, that is if you have that much integrity.

      Delete
    12. Does that sound familiar - please go look if you're not convinced and then apologize for misrepresenting what I said, that is if you have that much integrity.

      You're really in no position to demand an apology over someone "misrepresenting what [you] said."

      In fact, calling what you did "misrepresenting what I said" would be overly generous, because I'm accusing you of not exaggerating or distorting what I said, and certainly not of taking something I said out of context. I'm accusing you of just straight-up lying, and claiming I've said something I've never even remotely implied.

      Delete
    13. Mike, you had just been shown that the rates in Missouri had a spike that one year, then went back to the previous level and have stayed at that level ever since then. You then said that there will be an immediate effect and that efficacy will diminish year by year. Here, you're advocating for a law that showed zero effect past the first year.

      Perhaps it would have been more precise to summarize your position as the laws approaching doing nothing--something like a limit equation, rather than doing nothing, past the first year or two. The difference between doing nothing and doing next to nothing is a pitiful nitpick, and yet you're demanding an apology? After refusing to do the same when you've been caught straight up lying about things I've said in the past? And lying about various other facts where you've been shown to be obviously wrong. This isn't even pot calling the kettle black--these two things are not alike.

      Delete
    14. Kurt is that the best example you have of my misrepresenting what you say? As I explained on that other thread, almost every time I assign racism to a situation, you call me on it. I really thought that added up to the unbelievable position that Simon has expressed, that even in the South and in Appalachia, racism is dying out with the older people. So, why don't you clarify your position on racism. Is it prevalent still, or not?

      Simon, you purposely exaggerated my position when you said, "gun control laws only affect things for a year or so and then do nothing." You did that because you think you're slick and can play loose with the truth. I call you a liar for that.

      Delete
    15. So, why don't you clarify your position on racism. Is it prevalent still, or not?

      The disease of racism still infects this society (and most others). It's expressed every day by race hustlers like Al Sharpton. It's less prevalent, though, than it was fifty years ago, or forty, or thirty, or twenty, or even, I would argue, ten.

      Delete
    16. And you keep whining about my not being 100% precise in my summation of your position. Poor poppet.

      Ever going to get around to explaining why we should accept the permanent "inconveniences" of your proposals when they'll, at most, have a measurable effect for a couple of years and then see that effect drop off on a curve that asymptotically approaches zero?

      Delete
    17. Also, since you're being such a stickler for exact summations, I didn't say that racism was completely dying out. I've said that it's Mostly found in the older generations (which means not completely). I've also acknowledged that one can still find people calling themselves the Klan, although they're mostly inbred, ineffectual shitheads who are generally misanthropic and whose hollers are avoided by everyone else.

      It's a more rounded picture than you're painting it. Again, we see you projecting your own character onto the behavior of others.

      Delete
    18. Mikeb, if you look at the homicide rate in Missouri over the last two decades, you'll see that there were years during the requirement for an additional background check where the rate was higher than the average. Explain to us how jumps in the rate during gun control don't count, while a one-year jump after gun control does.

      Delete
    19. Simple, Greg. Anything that points in his favor is because of guns. Anything that doesn't is because of "other factors".

      Delete
    20. Simon, at his mendacious, tricky best, said. "Ever going to get around to explaining why we should accept the permanent "inconveniences" of your proposals when they'll, at most, have a measurable effect for a couple of years and then see that effect drop off on a curve that asymptotically approaches zero?"

      In this amazing comment he aligns my "proposals" (plural), with the change in Missouri's law. He says this as if the two are equal, which is patently false since my "proposals" number about seven or ten points of which the Missouri situation was only one.

      Simon, you just can't help yourself can you? Is that because you have such a strong position? Is that why you have to continually misrepresent what I say and twist things around like you do?

      Delete
    21. Ah, you found another way to change the topic rather than answer the question. Congratulations on being too slippery to ever be nailed down.

      So, I take it you think that individual gun laws have diminishing returns but if you get the whole packaged at once it somehow creates a synergy that makes it last longer? Or maybe you have another explanation.

      Of course, we'll never know what your actual explanation is because you're having too much fun hinting at it and then calling people liars when they try to argue against what you seem to be hinting at.

      Delete
    22. That wasn't changing the topic at all. It was calling you on your usual bullshit. And whenever I do that you lash out in kind to me, accusing me of the very things you're guilty of.

      "I take it you think that individual gun laws have diminishing returns"

      You can't tell the fucking truth from one minute to the next. I said after a year or so the effect MAY DIMINISH due to the other factors involved. That was in response to the Missouri stats. It WAS NOT about "individual gun laws" in general.

      And yes, you can bet your ass if all my gun control ideas were put into effect you'd see tremendous improvement, but of course you poor persecuted gun owners would be inconvenienced a bit. We just can't have that, even if it does mean saving lives.

      Delete
    23. And yes, you can bet your ass if all my gun control ideas were put into effect you'd see tremendous improvemenr . . .

      Hahahaha! I wonder if you really believe that ridiculous shit.

      Well, we know one thing for sure--the scenario of "all [your] gun control laws [being] put into effect" will always be hypothetical. Damned good thing, too.

      Delete
    24. Ah, now we come to it. So when you talked about a change in the law only being able to be validly evaluated immediately after taking effect, your non-specific statement was intended to mean "This law in this state."

      So, apparently the principle here doesn't extend to other states or topics--just to this one in this state where the statistics are favorable.

      So we're back to simply cherry picking the data and NOT making statements applicable to other situations--hence, any inference I tried to make was going to be wrong.


      And as we've discussed about your "Inconvenienced a bit" lie before, it's not a small inconvenience to disarm half the gun owners in the country; take carry permits from 99% of people; force them to disable or turn in most of their weapons, not because they're dangerous, but because the arbitrary rules of too big, too small, too many rounds, too scary looking, etc. function to shrink the pool; prosecute victims of theft; disarm the disabled; etc.

      And yes, I know that your wish list doesn't include AWB's or Sniper rifle bans, etc. but you have supported these repeatedly, while admitting that a proper definition can't be made, because you want to reduce the pool of available guns for even lawful owners.

      Delete
    25. Kurt says "Damned good thing, too." Yeah man, let's keep that body count up there, let's keep the gun flow into the criminal world a-flowin'. As long as we don't inconvenience you guys any.

      Simon, you're twisting the thing again. When I say it would only inconvenience you a bit, I'm talking to the truly law-abiding and responsible guys, you know, the good half. It would be a helluva lot more than that for the others, but that's the whole point. They're unfit.

      Delete
  3. Mikeb, you're the one acting like a child, refusing to accept that the Johns Hopkins study is in error:

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

    There are fluctuations in the homicide rate from year to year, but the overall number in Missouri remains steady.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike, isn't there already a response to your reasoning on why we should only look at Missouri?

    "You can’t just pick one state. Let me give you an example. You flip a coin 20 times — ten heads and ten tails. If you specifically picked just five heads from the sample, could you conclude that the coin was biased? Presumably not. There is research on these universal background checks across all the states. Indeed, the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided one study on this, and, unlike the Webster study, it shows no benefit in terms of murder rates from these laws. The question the media should ask is: why pick one state when there are so many states with this law? Not only isn’t it the right way to do research, it is pretty obvious to anyone who has looked at the national data that Webster picked that one state to report because it was the one that gave him the result that he wanted. Do studies that collect data on every state take a little more time? Sure, but it isn’t that much more difficult and without it you can’t really determine anything."

    What is wrong with that point?

    http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/02/what-does-missouri-show-about-the-benefits-from-universal-background-checks-the-forthcoming-journal-of-urban-health-study-by-the-bloomberg-school-of-public-health/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's wrong with you? Are you not following along? Missouri changed its law. That's what the study was about. Did other states also change their laws around the same time and show different results?

      Delete
    2. Yes. Tennessee also repealed and showed different results.

      Delete
    3. TS, going back to that first comment, did TN really repeal universal background checks. I couldn't find anything on it. According to the anonymous commenter it happened in 1998, which was 10 years earlier than Missouri. Maybe there were other differences too which made a comparison problematic? You know, like maybe the before and after laws in the two states were not all that similar.

      Delete
    4. That isn’t the first time I heard of TN repealing their background check law. I don’t doubt it, but at the same time it is not easy to find a source talking about it and verifying the exact year. Google is currently flooded with this Missouri “study” even when you search for Tennessee. But Tennessee isn’t the only thing to look at. There are a dozen plus examples of state instituting universal background checks that refute this study- including Missouri itself, which saw no benefit when it came into place.

      Mike, you keep talking about “other factors”, but if these other factors are so much stronger than the gun factor that they can swing a change in murder statistic from 17% to negative 17%- what does that tell you about the relationship of gun laws to murder? Why is it not these other factors that cause the spikes that you glom onto?

      Delete