The network of Cronkite again shows its right wing bent by giving a puff piece on Cheney. I guess they have to rehab his reputation along with G W Bush lest people forget what these Rethugs did to this country.

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.

as in a counter study in a peer review criminology publication.

You know, like Michael Bellisles book was taken off shelves and all the copies were shipped back to the publisher.

Maybe I just missed where the "thorough debunking" of Lott's research and scholarship was peer reviewed and refuted and he was humiliated. I mean outside of the "fair minded" pages of "Media Matters" and Mother Jones, that pinnacle of fair minded scholarship.

Let me guess, the NRA conspired to protect him from any criticism?

"If economist John R. Lott didn't exist, pro-gun advocates would have had to invent him."

RKBA supporters hardly need to rely on Lott, when liberal criminologists James Wright, Peter Rossi and Gary Kleck do a perfectly fine job of destroying gun control mantras. All three started their careers assuming a relationship between the raw number of guns in the U.S. and gun violence ---- until their research caused them to do an about-face.

Go to Amazon and check out the book "Gun Control - The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out". Written quite a while back, but still full of good information from liberal scholars including Colin Greenwood from the UK who debunks the assertion that Great Britain became a violence-free paradise once that nation restricted gun rights.

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. The best known criminologist in this camp is John Q. Wilson. 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. The best known criminologist in this camp is Gary Kleck.
Five percent didn't know.


Of course, it is always fun reading him debunk Hemenway.

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.

I said discredited by whom. I actually lean towards the makes no difference.
as for the rest of your nonsense

johnston: I never said Lott and John Q Wilson were correct .. I said discredited by whom.

You came to lott's defense, then you posted mauser's 'review' which supported lott's 'more guns less crime' study.
Now you quibble that you didn't say lott was correct? well you sure gave the impression you thought he was, to most intelligent readers.

johnston: I actually lean towards the makes no difference.

From which direction are you leaning? pray tell, as if we didn't know.

like Brock to defend his claim of "discredited" is not the same as defending. It was a substance free personal attack, which is something fifth rate bloggers on the left and right do best.

Brock's point is nobody who disagrees with Brock should have a voice and uses personal attacks. I didn't like Brock when he smeared the Clintons, and I still don't like or trust him. That is not a liberal. Real liberals accept all comers and let all decide on the merits of the argument. I don't believe Brock was a right winger twenty years ago, and I don't think he is a lefty now. He is a mercenary who smears for pay.

It's been a big week for the handful of gun control folk on DU. They are all excited again ... for about 15 minutes.

They had a few new people actually posting in the "desert" that is the other group.

They got some posts in GD for a few days, but even now everybody is drifting away again.

One of my favorites in GD was somebody all lathered up and demanding the repeal of the 2nd and eventual confiscation of all handguns.

I asked her what she was doing in the real world to make that happen, petitions, meetings with legislators, town halls? ... twice ... crickets. In fact I've asked most of our gun control fans that question and it always seems to bring any conversation to an abrupt halt. Or a storm of insult and invective about my penis size. You may have a different experience, but mine has been pretty consistent for almost a decade now. All mouth, no action.

After the now bookmarked posts we all took notice of this week, they can ever get away with the; "Nobody wants to take your guns" meme. The short answer is; "Of course they do, they're just too chicken shit to say it out loud most of the time."

Now we also see, once more, that they would ban any speech they don't agree with too. And a few of them would be perfectly willing to allow the forced seizure of guns (by somebody else with a gun of course) in our homes too.

So it's obviously not just guns and gun owners they hate, it's the insecurity of not being able to defend yourself rhetorically as well and a willingness to throw any amendment or law under the bus that gets in the way of their moral superiority..

The irony is some of these hypocrites actually have Sig Lines that proudly espouse their belief in the 1st or 5th amendments. But based on their posts, it's pretty obvious they'd scrub them too if it meant being able to get back at all those evil gun owners.

David Hemenway or Michael Bellesiles? Both of whom's work was thoroughly discredited.

Bellesiles had the prestigious Bancroft Prize yanked in wake of his lying, the first time in the history of the Bancroft Prize.