Gun Control

[Saunders]

Here is the finding of the study's author.

 

 

How many articles do you want links to showing that Levitt got it wrong?

How many your got?

 

Give me you best ones, please.

[knapplc]

Just a wikipedia search away:

 

Refuting Donohue/Levitt

 

Lead exposure to blame for crime, not abortion rates

 

Another study linking lead exposure

 

And straight out of wikipedia itself:

In 2001, John Lott and John Whitley argued that Donohue and Levitt assume that states which completely legalized abortion had higher abortion rates than states where abortion was only legal under certain conditions (many states allowed abortion only under certain conditions prior to Roe) and that CDC statistics do not substantiate this claim. In addition, if abortion rates cause crime rates to fall, crime rates should start to fall among the youngest people first and then gradually be seen lowering the crime rate for older and older people. In fact, they argue, the murder rates first start to fall among the oldest criminals and then the next oldest criminals and so on until it last falls among the youngest individuals. Lott and Whitley argue that if Donohue and Levitt are right that 80 percent of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s is due solely to the legalization of abortion, their results should be seen in these graphs without anything being controlled for, and that in fact the opposite is true. In addition, Lott and Whitley pointed out that using arrest rate data to proxy crime rates is flawed because arrests for murder can take place many months or even years after the crime occurred. Lott and Whitley show that using the Supplemental Homicide Report, which links murder data for when the crime occurred with later arrest rate data, reverses Donohue and Levitt's regression results.^[5]

 

Click the footnote links for great fun.

[Someone]

I sort of thought you would lead with Foote & Goetz.

 

We are indebted to Foote and Goetz (2005) for identifying a mistake in one of the tables in our original paper and pointing out the opportunity to more directly test the competing hypotheses regarding the explanation for why exposure to legalized abortion is associated with lower future crime. The inclusion of state-year interactions and controls for cohort size makes greater demands on the data by single year of age than the crude rule of thumb abortion proxy used in Donohue and Levitt (2001) could support. A more thoughtfully constructed proxy yields results that are in many cases stronger than those reported in our initial paper, even after addressing the issues raised by Foote and Goetz (2005). Thus, while criticism of us as authors for weaknesses in the initial paper are warranted, we do not believe that the Foote and Goetz analysis calls into question the conclusions reached in Donohue and Levitt (2001).

 

More later...

[knapplc]

Hold the phone. You mean to tell me that Donohue and Levitt disagree with Foote & Goetz' critique of their paper, and stand by their data (as amended)!???!?!?!?!1eleven!?!!?!

 

Who'da thunk it. Huh.

 

Bottom line is, the study you're citing is not widely accepted, has been debunked by several critiques, and even as amended (since they agree they originally botched the data), is still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop.

 

And that's not even to mention the fatal flaw in their analysis:

 

And straight out of wikipedia itself:

 

 

In 2001, John Lott and John Whitley argued that Donohue and Levitt assume that states which completely legalized abortion had higher abortion rates than states where abortion was only legal under certain conditions (many states allowed abortion only under certain conditions prior to Roe) and that CDC statistics do not substantiate this claim. In addition, if abortion rates cause crime rates to fall, crime rates should start to fall among the youngest people first and then gradually be seen lowering the crime rate for older and older people. In fact, they argue, the murder rates first start to fall among the oldest criminals and then the next oldest criminals and so on until it last falls among the youngest individuals. Lott and Whitley argue that if Donohue and Levitt are right that 80 percent of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s is due solely to the legalization of abortion, their results should be seen in these graphs without anything being controlled for, and that in fact the opposite is true. In addition, Lott and Whitley pointed out that using arrest rate data to proxy crime rates is flawed because arrests for murder can take place many months or even years after the crime occurred. Lott and Whitley show that using the Supplemental Homicide Report, which links murder data for when the crime occurred with later arrest rate data, reverses Donohue and Levitt's regression results.^[5]

[Someone]

Hold the phone. You mean to tell me that Donohue and Levitt disagree with Foote & Goetz' critique of their paper, and stand by their data (as amended)!???!?!?!?!1eleven!?!!?!

 

Who'da thunk it. Huh.

 

Bottom line is, the study you're citing is not widely accepted, has been debunked by several critiques, and even as amended (since they agree they originally botched the data), is still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop.

 

And that's not even to mention the fatal flaw in their analysis:

 

And straight out of wikipedia itself:

 

 

In 2001, John Lott and John Whitley argued that Donohue and Levitt assume that states which completely legalized abortion had higher abortion rates than states where abortion was only legal under certain conditions (many states allowed abortion only under certain conditions prior to Roe) and that CDC statistics do not substantiate this claim. In addition, if abortion rates cause crime rates to fall, crime rates should start to fall among the youngest people first and then gradually be seen lowering the crime rate for older and older people. In fact, they argue, the murder rates first start to fall among the oldest criminals and then the next oldest criminals and so on until it last falls among the youngest individuals. Lott and Whitley argue that if Donohue and Levitt are right that 80 percent of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s is due solely to the legalization of abortion, their results should be seen in these graphs without anything being controlled for, and that in fact the opposite is true. In addition, Lott and Whitley pointed out that using arrest rate data to proxy crime rates is flawed because arrests for murder can take place many months or even years after the crime occurred. Lott and Whitley show that using the Supplemental Homicide Report, which links murder data for when the crime occurred with later arrest rate data, reverses Donohue and Levitt's regression results.^[5]

Wrong. Watch the video.

 

Red: The study by DL was published in a peer-reviewed professional Journal.

Green: None of which have ever been published in peer-reviewed professional journals.

Orange: If by "botched the data" you mean failed to include the correct table for some data in the published version of their paper even though they didn't rely on the flawed data to estimate the magnitute of abortion's impact on crime.

Blue: Simply not true. From page 414 of the publication of their original study: "legalized abortion may account for as much as one-half of the overall crime reduction" Also, from footnote #37, same study: "This is not to say that other factors did not also contribute to the decline in crime." It is easy for someone like Lott to disprove a claim that DL never made.

 

So, let's review, the major flaw you see with their study (still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop) is based on a 100% erroneous assumption.

 

Next.

[Saunders]

Hold the phone. You mean to tell me that Donohue and Levitt disagree with Foote & Goetz' critique of their paper, and stand by their data (as amended)!???!?!?!?!1eleven!?!!?!

 

Who'da thunk it. Huh.

 

Bottom line is, the study you're citing is not widely accepted, has been debunked by several critiques, and even as amended (since they agree they originally botched the data), is still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop.

 

And that's not even to mention the fatal flaw in their analysis:

 

And straight out of wikipedia itself:

 

 

In 2001, John Lott and John Whitley argued that Donohue and Levitt assume that states which completely legalized abortion had higher abortion rates than states where abortion was only legal under certain conditions (many states allowed abortion only under certain conditions prior to Roe) and that CDC statistics do not substantiate this claim. In addition, if abortion rates cause crime rates to fall, crime rates should start to fall among the youngest people first and then gradually be seen lowering the crime rate for older and older people. In fact, they argue, the murder rates first start to fall among the oldest criminals and then the next oldest criminals and so on until it last falls among the youngest individuals. Lott and Whitley argue that if Donohue and Levitt are right that 80 percent of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s is due solely to the legalization of abortion, their results should be seen in these graphs without anything being controlled for, and that in fact the opposite is true. In addition, Lott and Whitley pointed out that using arrest rate data to proxy crime rates is flawed because arrests for murder can take place many months or even years after the crime occurred. Lott and Whitley show that using the Supplemental Homicide Report, which links murder data for when the crime occurred with later arrest rate data, reverses Donohue and Levitt's regression results.^[5]

Wrong. Watch the video.

 

Red: The study by DL was published in a peer-reviewed professional Journal.

Green: None of which have ever been published in peer-reviewed professional journals.

Orange: If by "botched the data" you mean failed to include the correct table for some data in the published version of their paper even though they didn't rely on the flawed data to estimate the magnitute of abortion's impact on crime.

Blue: Simply not true. From page 414 of the publication of their original study: "legalized abortion may account for as much as one-half of the overall crime reduction" Also, from footnote #37, same study: "This is not to say that other factors did not also contribute to the decline in crime." It is easy for someone like to to disprove a claim that DL never made.

 

So, let's review, the major flaw you see with their study (still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop) is based on a 100% erroneous assumption.

 

Next.

 

You've got to be kidding me. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

 

 

[Someone]

Hold the phone. You mean to tell me that Donohue and Levitt disagree with Foote & Goetz' critique of their paper, and stand by their data (as amended)!???!?!?!?!1eleven!?!!?!

 

Who'da thunk it. Huh.

 

Bottom line is, the study you're citing is not widely accepted, has been debunked by several critiques, and even as amended (since they agree they originally botched the data), is still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop.

 

And that's not even to mention the fatal flaw in their analysis:

 

And straight out of wikipedia itself:

 

 

In 2001, John Lott and John Whitley argued that Donohue and Levitt assume that states which completely legalized abortion had higher abortion rates than states where abortion was only legal under certain conditions (many states allowed abortion only under certain conditions prior to Roe) and that CDC statistics do not substantiate this claim. In addition, if abortion rates cause crime rates to fall, crime rates should start to fall among the youngest people first and then gradually be seen lowering the crime rate for older and older people. In fact, they argue, the murder rates first start to fall among the oldest criminals and then the next oldest criminals and so on until it last falls among the youngest individuals. Lott and Whitley argue that if Donohue and Levitt are right that 80 percent of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s is due solely to the legalization of abortion, their results should be seen in these graphs without anything being controlled for, and that in fact the opposite is true. In addition, Lott and Whitley pointed out that using arrest rate data to proxy crime rates is flawed because arrests for murder can take place many months or even years after the crime occurred. Lott and Whitley show that using the Supplemental Homicide Report, which links murder data for when the crime occurred with later arrest rate data, reverses Donohue and Levitt's regression results.^[5]

Wrong. Watch the video.

 

Red: The study by DL was published in a peer-reviewed professional Journal.

Green: None of which have ever been published in peer-reviewed professional journals.

Orange: If by "botched the data" you mean failed to include the correct table for some data in the published version of their paper even though they didn't rely on the flawed data to estimate the magnitute of abortion's impact on crime.

Blue: Simply not true. From page 414 of the publication of their original study: "legalized abortion may account for as much as one-half of the overall crime reduction" Also, from footnote #37, same study: "This is not to say that other factors did not also contribute to the decline in crime." It is easy for someone like to to disprove a claim that DL never made.

 

So, let's review, the major flaw you see with their study (still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop) is based on a 100% erroneous assumption.

 

Next.

 

You've got to be kidding me. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

I see you got nothing.

[Saunders]

Hold the phone. You mean to tell me that Donohue and Levitt disagree with Foote & Goetz' critique of their paper, and stand by their data (as amended)!???!?!?!?!1eleven!?!!?!

 

Who'da thunk it. Huh.

 

Bottom line is, the study you're citing is not widely accepted, has been debunked by several critiques, and even as amended (since they agree they originally botched the data), is still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop.

 

And that's not even to mention the fatal flaw in their analysis:

 

And straight out of wikipedia itself:

 

 

In 2001, John Lott and John Whitley argued that Donohue and Levitt assume that states which completely legalized abortion had higher abortion rates than states where abortion was only legal under certain conditions (many states allowed abortion only under certain conditions prior to Roe) and that CDC statistics do not substantiate this claim. In addition, if abortion rates cause crime rates to fall, crime rates should start to fall among the youngest people first and then gradually be seen lowering the crime rate for older and older people. In fact, they argue, the murder rates first start to fall among the oldest criminals and then the next oldest criminals and so on until it last falls among the youngest individuals. Lott and Whitley argue that if Donohue and Levitt are right that 80 percent of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s is due solely to the legalization of abortion, their results should be seen in these graphs without anything being controlled for, and that in fact the opposite is true. In addition, Lott and Whitley pointed out that using arrest rate data to proxy crime rates is flawed because arrests for murder can take place many months or even years after the crime occurred. Lott and Whitley show that using the Supplemental Homicide Report, which links murder data for when the crime occurred with later arrest rate data, reverses Donohue and Levitt's regression results.^[5]

Wrong. Watch the video.

 

Red: The study by DL was published in a peer-reviewed professional Journal.

Green: None of which have ever been published in peer-reviewed professional journals.

Orange: If by "botched the data" you mean failed to include the correct table for some data in the published version of their paper even though they didn't rely on the flawed data to estimate the magnitute of abortion's impact on crime.

Blue: Simply not true. From page 414 of the publication of their original study: "legalized abortion may account for as much as one-half of the overall crime reduction" Also, from footnote #37, same study: "This is not to say that other factors did not also contribute to the decline in crime." It is easy for someone like to to disprove a claim that DL never made.

 

So, let's review, the major flaw you see with their study (still majorly flawed as it exists today because they failed to take into account other sources for the drop) is based on a 100% erroneous assumption.

 

Next.

 

You've got to be kidding me. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

I see you got nothing.

Just like your "rebuttal." Nonsensical and wrong.

 

Your game is weak brah.

[tschu]

[knapplc]

This is boring.

[Ziggy]

Can we get some links to where that graph came from? Because, I would like to see the source of all the other countries information came from.

 

Also the graph is using gun related deaths, and not gun related homicides. In 2011, that number drops to 4 per 100,000 when you take out suicides. And I will admit that's a pretty high number, considering our country has almost as many guns as people, its not surprising that people die by guns more frequently.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

[strigori]

Seeing as many nations on there it is flat out illegal to own a gun, gun related deaths should be non-existent right?

 

Its also an apples and oranges comparison. The history of Europe and Asia is of monarchies and totalitarian governments, where weapons in general (guns now, swords or other military arms in centuries past) tended to be outlawed for private ownership. Which is something that has never been the case here.

[tschu]

But Europe is difffffeerrreennnnt than us!!!!

 

Yeah, in the respect that they have fewer gun deaths. Also, fewer guns will mean fewer gun-related deaths REGARDLESS of whether they are homicides or suicides or accidents or whatever. The goal isn't to reduce homicides, it's to reduce gun-related deaths in general.

[walksalone]

• Open and Affirming
  
• Pragmatic
  
• Factual
  
• Capitalist
  
• Small Business Owner
  
• Job Creator
  
• Independent

Somebody was working the hell out of their "Word A Day" calendar...

[Saunders]

But Europe is difffffeerrreennnnt than us!!!!

 

Yeah, in the respect that they have fewer gun deaths. Also, fewer guns will mean fewer gun-related deaths REGARDLESS of whether they are homicides or suicides or accidents or whatever. The goal isn't to reduce homicides, it's to reduce gun-related deaths in general.

So, suicides?