@bschapiroMD As you are likely aware, John Lott's "research" has been thoroughly debunked time and time again. He's an academic fraud. https://t.co/4BH9nxvzVc
@bschapiroMD As you are likely aware, John Lott's "research" has been thoroughly debunked time and time again. He's an academic fraud. https://t.co/4BH9nxvzVc
@JacobCouvillon @BestyDeVos The number of crimes has not increased, only the lethality in the instance of crimes, ie the rate at which crimes are committed statistically has not changed however the consequences of said crime are more likely to end in death
@2AWisdom Not really, we are not in europe in the 12th century. This is much more applicable: https://t.co/4QwKwjSoiX
@JohnRLottJr @NRA @Everytown I won’t call you a troll or lazy, but I will call you a fraud: https://t.co/WzZeHjdpQO
@BradRob03550961 @FASTERColorado @TellSackett03 @RallyRights @MomsDemand @lauracarno @NRA As far as I know, I haven't "quoted" anyone on this thread, but here you go: https://t.co/nrOaaqcmkm https://t.co/NRT26AqELr https://t.co/AzbFcnjd2p https://t.co/3BVU
@cjgrisham Kleck and Lott's study methodologies have been widely debunked. Screenshots show basic synopsis of why Kleck's 2.5M DGU number is bad, but here are more studies: https://t.co/xlBPVBDuKi https://t.co/UcDfeR0kFD https://t.co/53o4pLyb8w https://t.c
RT @Docs4GunControl: - National Research Council 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Pre…
- National Research Council 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://t.co/BqDIOC5byc - Ranney M, Betz M, Dark C, #ThisIsOurLane – Firearm Safety as Health Care’s Highway, Perspective NEJM, Jan
@CJSmith7880 @shannonrwatts @ericswalwell @JohnRLottJr Among other sources: https://t.co/Q0TGkZBwNO
RT @Docs4GunControl: - National Research Council 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Pre…
- National Research Council 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://t.co/BqDIOC5byc - Ranney M, Betz M, Dark C, #ThisIsOurLane – Firearm Safety as Health Care’s Highway, Perspective NEJM, Jan 2
@kevin_vangelder @DrUnicornPhD @SwiftOnSecurity They don't have to be because they back up their opinion Read the links. we are talking about a guy who created a fan to silence critics. https://t.co/OUHut2EfwP and has been repudiated by safety orgs for his
@mileslunn 2)The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.” https://t.co/ToWObQVk7K
@JohnRLottJr @deserttentmaker @JohnStossel Thank you for your response. I see I was wrong about the Snopes article. I was wondering if you’ve published a response to this report that claims right-to-carry laws have no effect on violent crime. https://t.co/
@RCalh @thill373 @McAllisterDen @RepSwalwell @NRA @GabbyGiffords @SpeakerPelosi You say debunkers are not trained.. These researchers have FAR more credentials and perr review approval than Lott and Kleck combined. And AGAIN, L&K are NRA-funded https:
@realtrondump @GroverNorquist @AndrewPollackFL Economists & criminologists don't believe there is a relationship btwn guns & total suicides, ur cite looks at guns & gun suicides, ignoring the substitution btwn dif methods of suicide https://t.c
@PisseArtiste @sevenaces11 @davidhogg111 Not only is it true, it’s the subject of scientific and statistical analysis. I’ve provided citations below to make access just a bit easier for you. I believe this marks a moment when you should reconsider your sta
So the thing about gun violence and crime: For the most part guns don't significantly influence crime rates BUT they do increase the lethality of the crimes committed ESPECIALLY AGAINST WOMEN AND IN DOMESTIC DISPUTES https://t.co/YNVxB2OdfI https://t.co/lh
@TorbjrnSderstr1 @thecryptohippo @MillennialMaga @KyleKashuv @davidhogg111 They peer reviewed Lott’s research? Were the National National Research Council’s conclusion that Lott’s research isn’t able to conclude that more guns = less crime wrong? https:/
@alfpre @Garbochic 3. El US Academy of Sciences en 2004 hizo un review de la literatura científica y la data disponibles. Conclusión: no hay evidencia de que alguna medida de ‘gun control’ haya reducido crímenes, suicidios o accidentes con armas de fuego.
@GreggHurwitz Pick a topic. I'd be happy to oblige. The two most comprehensive analyses on the topic I'm aware of are from Rand and National Academy of sciences. 2 most important things are BC (at FFLs) and mental health https://t.co/CGhj2hEzvO https://
@BenFerber Not really. We were getting to the bottom of a commonly cited statistic, as we often do. Not many researchers are working on the question of defensive gun use-- Kleck is cited frequently. See the National Academies report: https://t.co/oHiF1W1Co
@t_thetoad @TheGraviter @edshullfrnd @Jamie_Foxworthy @AP He also attributed the drop to "assault rifles" which when looking at the numbers attributed to so few shootings both before and after that you can't graph them. The bulk of his counted shootings we
and more. https://t.co/zNmxC41wgp
@talionis_l There was no drop in violent crime, gun crime or overall crime during the Crime Prevention Act years. Again, another fallacy by the Left. Try reading any review of that law and crime. https://t.co/Ybn6pS5pGn
@limatss @medes_arqui @alexpira @robgordon_sp E John Lott não aquele que "perdeu" os dados originais de seus estudos e que, quando tentaram replicar e re-gerar os dados descobriram que as coisas eram "um pouco" diferentes do que ele alegava? https://t.co/7
@ttbirds41 @KFILE @JohnRLottJr @CNN Take the time to present arguments you’ll simply ignore out of hand? No thanks. Besides, the NAP devoted hundreds of pages to proving him wrong; if that doesn’t convince you, I certainly won’t. https://t.co/MwohOskIC8
@mparadis8711 @razz1513 @moorekb98 @charliekirk11 First the whole document. https://t.co/SKrxMYwL9q
RT @TYCapitalism: @jay_mulligan @theDonaldLong Don't fear the truth, Donald. Fear guns! https://t.co/FF8C11Z4WZ
@WheresSal Or perhaps you can explain how previous research got everything so wrong until Klarevas came by and changed the definition to fit his result. https://t.co/F3mIATRu9U
@LanchestersCube @zachjenn96 @rjv0231 @ChrisMurphyCT Lott’s original data set that was lost after his computer crashed or the one that extends the revised sample by 6 years and casts serious doubts on his findings? https://t.co/BHID9aYVgl https://t.co/qflW
#GunControl is yet again trending, while not much else happens action wise in the USA, and weak or downright idiotic arguments pour once more from both sides, I'll re-share this free ebook for those who want to consolidate their informed opinion. https://t
@JohnRLottJr @davidhogg111 National Research Council: "We conclude that...it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these [right-to-carry] laws" https://t.co/1ofHxq6IYd
@Kirbythump @GovMaryFallin - Had his 13-YEAR-OLD write review of his book on Amazon? Oh, & "paper" cited from HIS nonprofit, not peer-reviewed journal. Nice try though. NRC: https://t.co/X1s8I2cdTB Repudiation: https://t.co/1Li8YwlLlx Online Persona/Am
@DjDemerits @deathdragon007 @AskelBen @NRA @GovAbbott https://t.co/nS2qFmMTpb https://t.co/Vqo4x4SbgH For futhur reading to educate yourself check out crime rates in gun free areas (Schools, Big Cities such as Chicago, and countries like the U.K. which h
@Thirty_Banes @JimAndrews518 I have it too. The data they were looking at is in dispute and relies on flawed studies. The National Academy itself calls for more research (blocked by Congress at the behest of the NRA), and standardized counting of defensiv
RT @TYCapitalism: @jay_mulligan @theDonaldLong Don't fear the truth, Donald. Fear guns! https://t.co/FF8C11Z4WZ
@jay_mulligan @theDonaldLong Don't fear the truth, Donald. Fear guns! https://t.co/FF8C11Z4WZ
RT @JohnRLottJr: @causalinf @tlee_275 @AijaLeiponen @ATabarrok What abt other panel data studies by econ that find no effect when one also…
@Juliana4984 @Philippadavie12 @arizonageri @laureningram @CranquePoliHomo https://t.co/cIWHeb9M0a feel free to read through the source document. Much of the info can also be found on chapter 3. https://t.co/N6O17tWljI
Every good story begins with a dataset. How sexy is _that_? LOL Roll-up-the-sleeves time. In 2005, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences published a state-of-the-state. One of their blue-ribbon panels was on -wait for it- data sufficiency.
@tedlieu He's an actual report about the assault weapon ban. Don't believe Ted's cherry picked stats. Read for yourself. https://t.co/Wnbn5Efoup
RT @bbcrat: @nick_shits @AskelBen @RedNeckTexAsian @NRA Gun homicides were trending down before AWB (and continue to this day). Peer review…
@nick_shits @AskelBen @RedNeckTexAsian @NRA Gun homicides were trending down before AWB (and continue to this day). Peer reviewed studies showed AWB had little or no effect due to weapons(ar-15, etc) banned being rarely used in crime. https://t.co/AkG0qIK
Firearms and violence- a research summary https://t.co/ex4e9mrKze https://t.co/86UHK6polg
This @NASEM_DBASSE report on Firearms and Violence provides an assessment of existing research and data on #gunviolence, as well as identifying critical research gaps. Read the report: https://t.co/QhUtlJHUes https://t.co/1ua2mjdQQZ
RT @JohnRLottJr: @causalinf @tlee_275 @AijaLeiponen @ATabarrok What abt other panel data studies by econ that find no effect when one also…
@causalinf @tlee_275 @AijaLeiponen @ATabarrok What abt other panel data studies by econ that find no effect when one also accounts for changes in over all suicide rate? https://t.co/qMZ14NBZTe MGLC Other studies by economists that find no relationship. htt
@chargrille @TomMilner11 @shannonrwatts I’m well aware of the data. For example, the post you just flagged counts incidents differently in order to make it look like the assault weapons ban had an effect. https://t.co/2DeWuQWxHh
Front Matter | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review | The National Academies Press https://t.co/Ic7NhiQHPf
RT @Fitz_DC: @jonst0kes You can read the whole paper here and also download a free PDF. https://t.co/3fcxnUv9Bw
Prof. Gary Kleck PhD, FSU provides the most exhaustive studies in firearm use. If one is arguing for the... https://t.co/dIalmuy7xZ
@FadiIbrah @tmstreet @tribelaw Flawed study. Also from an era with higher crime rates. Also you claimed it was from the FBI, which is was not. https://t.co/ACeSik7t5r
@jdizzle161 @mstovik @ldfabre @united Actually your “perfect” numbers (2.5 million) are based on a 20 year old study that has been frequently criticized. https://t.co/QsRCyYdYDC and https://t.co/xtyMNBH3bD
RT @jenniferdoleac: National Academies critical review of the evidence on firearms & violence (2004) https://t.co/wGd8YUYZv9 https://t.co/u…
Jason decided to not hang with John Lott, the paid talker who works in cooperation with the NRA who’s “conclusions” have been discredited by real statistical analysis https://t.co/2kudRkfPFr https://t.co/l7MUKvZnxq
@MichaelEHuck Now let’s compare the deaths from those few incidents to all incidents, where the National Research Council found no effect: https://t.co/RH3OUBBXGP
@jonst0kes You can read the whole paper here and also download a free PDF. https://t.co/3fcxnUv9Bw
We should absolutely seek to understand and mitigate gun violence by accruing more evidence. Even with US research into gun control effectively restrained, there is plenty of evidence to lead us in the right direction. Here's a recent review from @theNASEM
@Head_Sanford @bethanyshondark Here's one of them. https://t.co/GFaufB4QuE
@brentthepianist @AdamatiumX74 @Cernovich @Nation__Under A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes".
@Jonatha80228293 @nathanialw33 @milanoIX @MarianneHofer @ScottPresler @garypack5 Want academic proof of John Lott being full of crap? Here you go: https://t.co/2tUnHG4YtR I tried to warn you that your nose was turning brown but you want so hard to believe
@TexianJoe @NancyNe46173831 @CNNSotu @jaketapper I’ll add, The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has shown there’s no relationship between Right to Carry laws and reductions in gun violence or crime: https://t.co/ideBcmi0pE
@pbreit @naval I'm under the impression that people want to change *laws* in order to reduce *homicides* - I think the findings of the 2004 NRC report on the topic still ring true: The evidence isn't clear cut either way. https://t.co/x2S7jBhLhs
@sciam Here's also some well researched data and then some. "No credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime". https://t.co/RkENI72fao #CherryPicking
RT @PsyCorner: Firearms And Violence: A Critical Review @theNASEM Discovered via @APA . Download book here: https://t.co/ArUhEjd4Sz #No…
Firearms And Violence: A Critical Review @theNASEM Discovered via @APA . Download book here: https://t.co/ArUhEjd4Sz #NotAPaidEndorsement #GunViolence #Science https://t.co/CfIZn0jTlq
A very nice piece of evidence-based information on firearms and violence I just found in the Gun Violence Prevention section of the https://t.co/sOSHIpcR2l website. Firearms And Violence: A Critical Review by @theNASEM You can download the book here: ht
@MarkRPellegrino @HendersNicks Independent research done after this book was published says his evidence does not support his findings: https://t.co/Tcp2CDxdDI Meanwhile, we have many examples of crime rates going down in other countries after guns are ban
@applecharlie5 @careolyne @beth_wellington @Bencjacobs "One theme that runs throughout our report is the relative absence of credible data central to addressing even the most basic questions about firearms and violence." @applecharlie5 https://t.co/BEBezlT
@Citizen_Kryptik @frankshyong @LOLGOP https://t.co/BrZ6dhD7he Between 100k and 2.5M defensive gun uses per year in US.
cês provavelmente não se importam mas eu tava vendo a ciência por trás do porte de armas e esse estudo aqui conclui q elas não afetam em NADA na criminalidade (MAS deixam os crimes mais violentos, com maior probabilidade de sair alguém ferido ou morto) htt
@banheirinha @hransolo @chanyeoIwz @accioteddy esse estudo aqui concluiu que armas não diminuem nem aumentam a criminalidade MAS deixam os crimes mais violentos com mais probabilidade de sair alguém ferido ou morto. https://t.co/3QAnc6jCcl
@JohnRLottJr @zac1bar Nice try, but I'm not buying your book. However, I checked the peer review results, and the book's conclusions have already been debunked here: https://t.co/AzdY95qdJI. And here: https://t.co/VZRh171UiC. And here: https://t.co/HB7Lb
@DavidAlanCoia @sciam With all due respect, you're citing the work of this man: https://t.co/lwlGPyotXS More precisely, you're citing work that's been not just casually, but formally refuted. https://t.co/myj19I6xK3 John Lott's thesis is nothing more th
@PeytonPenuel Here’s a study from 2004 cited within that paper that “debunks claims that RTC laws reduce violence” https://t.co/1VrAef9ATb
@polly @TaboriHK Was finally able to dig up two relatively good sources of research data... with contradicting conclusions, of course: https://t.co/LMcOqx6IkT https://t.co/NEQYIEJe5O
@NH92276 This is alittle dense.. but informative: https://t.co/Nnh4XVV82u https://t.co/pzLGeveMTZ
@40andlame @RightWingman820 Suggest you read any of the dozens of academic studies discrediting Lott’s research. https://t.co/7Ec8WkJlDq
@NRA Further reading: https://t.co/6DT9k5llnJ