Fri 12 Sep 2003
A reader has pointed out that you can find out the real creation date of the latest version of Lott’s “corrected” Table 3a by looking at the File/Document Properties/Summary with Acrobat Reader. The document was created on Sep 2 2003 and not Jan 18 2004. A similar exercise with the earlier “corrected” version of Table 3a shows that that version was last modified on May 6 2003.
Glenn Reynolds calls this the “seemingly interminable John Lott coding error question”. I’m afraid the interminable nature of the question is entirely Lott’s fault. It took a brief exchange of emails with Florenz Plassmann to settle the issue to our satisfaction. If you correct Lott’s coding errors and rerun the regressions his results go away. There is absolutely no way that a reasonable person could dispute this. But Lott does. And he hasn’t stopped trying to get concealed-carry laws passed by advancing results that even he has conceded are based on miscoded data. In a letter published in the The Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal on September 8 he refers to a
study by Professors Plassmann and Whitley that examines three additional years’ worth of data and finds “annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right- to-carry law is in effect.”That is what the study found, but you only get those numbers if you use the miscoded data. He just won’t stop lying.
Chris Lawrence writes
Tim Lambert does a pretty good job demolishing John Lott’s latest evasionsI think that part of his post is right, but this isn’t:
However—accepting that Ayers and Donahue do it right—there’s still the issue of null results. More guns may not mean less crime, but the results clearly show that more guns don’t mean more crime either, and the signs indicate that concluding “more” has less support than concluding “less,” although you’d have to be an idiot to come to either conclusion based on the Ayers and Donahue results (that’s why we call them “not statistically significant”).These should not be called the “Ayres and Donohue results”—they are Lott’s results after correcting his coding errors. Ayres and Donohue offer persuasive evidence that the model Lott used is not adequate and they use a more general model that shows that carry laws are associated with crime increases in most states.
Tom Spencer wonders Just how dishonest is John Lott? and says that’s it time for Glenn Reynolds and Clayton Cramer to admit that Lott is a fraud.
Eric Scheie argues that statistics about guns and crime “have no bearing on basic constitutional rights”. I’m afraid that all the pro-gun folks who have based arguments on Lott’s statistics would seem to disagree with him.
June 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Eric Scheie
Eric Scheie apparently thinks distorting the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is a classical value.
June 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I don’t mind having the (apparently monolithic) “pro-gun folks” disagree with me — although of course I admit that these statistics can be and are used for political ends. That’s what you’re doing, after all. My point is simply that the Second Amendment does not need the help of statistics any more than does the First Amendment — nor are either undermined by statistics. (These debates are silly window-dressing anyway, because the truth is that you guys want to take away my guns, and I want to keep them.)
As to “distorting the meaning of the Second Amendment” as a classical value, well, I can’t cite the ancients on firearms, so the founders are the best I can do. Here then, are some “classical distortions” for your consideration:
Sam Adams: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
–Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts�Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” –Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386
Jefferson: “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
— Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Madison: “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
—James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
Rick’s concern may be grounded in the notion that the militia language allows only the federal National Guard to be armed. Nice distortion, but hardly classical:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.”
–Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).
Nor is such a construction of the Militia clause correct gramatically. (See link for an interesting discussion.)
Thank you for the link, and for visiting my blog!
June 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I’ll stick with the Court’s ruling and analysis from Miller, I suspect that’s still the governing interpretation (although the current Court does have a practive of smacking around lower courts for not correctly interpeting the direction the current Court would like to go in.)
Miller
June 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Miller?
I’m not sure why anybody, on either side of the issue, would want to stick with Miller. For one thing, it was decided absent an appearance by anybody representing Miller. Kind of hard to have a full and open exploration of the issues without one side present.
Which is how you get a fairly bizarre result.
Which gets worse for the antis, if you look at it closely.
The essence of Miller is that, since a short-barreled shotgun is not a useful military weapon, its possession by citizens is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, and may be taxed by the Federal government.
Well, first of all, google for “trench gun.” A trench gun was a short-barreled shotgun, used in both World Wars by US soldiers. While it would be hard to expect the 1939 USSC to have known about the latter, had there been actual arguments on the other side, you’d expect that they’d have mentioned the former.
The clear implication of Miller is that civilian possession of weapons suitable for the military are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Which would mean, I suppose, that civilians may not be entitled to possess an AR-15 “assault weapon,” (not a military weapon, although it looks like one) but would be entitled to possess a select-fire M16.
Hmmm… maybe Miller isn’t that bad an idea, at that.
June 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am
More statistics, less truth!
June 9th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Joel Rosenberg writes
“The essence of Miller is that, since a short-barreled shotgun is not a useful military weapon, its possession by citizens is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, and may be taxed by the Federal government.”
This is incorrect. The text of Miller is at link
Miller essentially has two parts. In addition to a part relating to the 2d amendment’s relationship with “militia,” it has a part relating to the utility of a short-barreled shotgun (which Miller had been indicted for transporting in interstate commerce) to a militia. The text of the latter is
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
Readers will note that, contrary to what Rosenberg wrote, the USSupCt did NOT hold that a short-barreled shotgun is not a useful military weapon. It did hold that it would not take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun is a useful military weapon. In other words, that would be an issue in a trial, if one were to be held. Of course, none was ever held in the Miller case.