Saturday, January 07, 2017

Facts, findings, and resources on reducing firearm homicide rates in the U.S.

Firearm laws work

"We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places"
Lee LK, Fleegler EW, Farrell C, Avakame E, Srinivasan S, Hemenway D, Monuteaux MC. Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides, A Systematic Review. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(1):106-119. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7051

The Australia, Japan, Norway, and U.K approaches that delivered results:

  • massive gun buyback programs
  • stricter laws, testing, mental and background checks
  • law enforcement and community partnerships
  • ban of certain types of firearms

Interesting account of how firearms regulation work in Australia, from a first-person perspective:

No guns, no gun-related homicides (d'uh!?)

"Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US
Handguns are banned outright. Only shotguns and air rifles are allowed
The law restricts the number of gun shops. In most of Japan's 40 or so prefectures there can be no more than three, and you can only buy fresh cartridges by returning the spent cartridges you bought on your last visit
The result is a very low level of gun ownership - 0.6 guns per 100 people in 2007, according to the Small Arms Survey, compared to 6.2 in England and Wales and 88.8 in the US"

Nobody has real guns (as opposed to Airsoft) in Hong Kong besides for the police, army, private security. As a result, there has been no gun homicides for over 10 years. Not one!

"In Hong Kong and Macau, gun ownership is tightly controlled and possession is mainly in the hands of law enforcement, military, and private security firms (providing protection for jewelers and banks). Under Section 13 of Cap 238 Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance of the Hong Kong law, a license is required for unrestricted firearms and ammunition.[36] A license may be issued after a rigorous process to check for criminal records or a history of mental illness. License holders may store other firearms at home in a locked box, but ammunition must be kept at a different premises."

Gun ownership level is a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates

"Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides"

Michael Siegel, MD, MPH,corresponding author Craig S. Ross, MBA, and Charles King, III, JD, PhDThe Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
Am J Public Health. 2013 November; 103(11): 2098–2105.
Published online 2013 November. doi:  10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide""We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.  We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.  These results often hold even when the United States is excluded"

"Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003.  We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.  This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty).  There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide"

"Differences in rates of homicides of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership.  In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states"

Self-defense use of firearms

Leads to increase in homicides:

"In 2005, Florida amended its self-defense laws to provide legal immunity to individuals using lethal force in self-defense. The enactment of “stand your ground” laws in the United States has been controversial and their effect on rates of homicide and homicide by firearm is uncertain
We found that the implementation of Florida’s stand your ground law was associated with a 24.4% increase in homicide and a 31.6% increase in firearm-related homicide.
Meaning  The removal of restrictions on when and where individuals can use lethal force was associated with a significant increase in homicide and homicide by firearm in Florida"
Humphreys DK, Gasparrini A, Wiebe DJ. Evaluating the Impact of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm. An Interrupted Time Series Study. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(1):44-50. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6811
Is a misnomer; firearms are mostly not used for self-defense:
"We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid"
"Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal"
"Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense"
"Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions"

Argument of the gun lobby: Honduras
The gun lobby sometimes bring up Honduras as an example of a country where gun ownership is banned, yet firearm murder very high.
However, this is simply not true:
  • Up until 1985, there was no official regulation of gun ownership and possession by private citizens
  • Currently, "It is recognized the right of ownership and possession of firearms to citizens and foreign residents". That includes up to 5 firearms, including handguns, long-guns, an semi-automatic shotguns
  • Assault and automatic weapons are banned
80% of Honduras gun crimes are committed with unregistered guns.

"Contributing to the amount of unregistered guns circulating through Honduras is the fact that corrupt elements of the police and military are believed to sell weapons to the black market."

Clearly, Honduras has social problems preventing firearms regulation and limitations from ever working; no amount of laws will work in a corrupt framework.
Honduras is an example of failed state, not a good example of whether or not gun possession and/or legislation works or not.

Argument of the gun lobby: Switzerland

Switzerland is more the exception than the rule. And it does control weapons acquisition, registration, and use more tightly than the U.S.

" Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region, known as a canton, though hunting rifles and some semiautomatic long arms are exempt from the permit requirement.

But cantonal police don't take their duty dolling out gun licenses lightly. They might consult a psychiatrist or talk with authorities in other cantons where a prospective gun buyer has lived before to vet the person."
Gun laws are much more restrictive than in the U.S. And the law does not, in any way, force gun ownership.

"Pro-gun types in America have long pointed to Switzerland as a country with supposedly lax rules, widespread ownership of arms, proud hunting and shooting cultures and few resulting criminal problems. As of late last century some 40% of Swiss households had a weapon, usually a military-issue rifle or pistol in a cupboard. Almost all men, having been conscripts, were familiar with small arms. They kept weapons at home because they had to refresh their shooting skills each year.
Yet Switzerland is not a gun-lover’s paradise. In fact, it is a model for the benefits of restricting gun use. Ownership rates have tumbled in this century, especially after the army cut the number of conscripts by four-fifths. It now puts recruits through psychological checks to weed out the violent, depressive or criminal. Soldiers may still store weapons at home, but no longer with ammunition. On leaving the army, ex-soldiers must be cleared by police before buying their military-issue weapons. As a result, fewer do so. Civilian buyers need police permits too, while juries screen applicants at shooting clubs. 'It is a bit state and a bit social responsibility. It works very well,' says Mr Vo-Thanh.
One spur to tighter rules was a mass shooting, in which 14 people died, in Zug in 2001. Public enthusiasm for guns has declined. Although voters rejected seven years ago a proposal to ban home-storage of weapons, fewer people do so. According to an estimate in 2016, only 24% of Swiss own guns. Increasingly it is the elderly who attend shooting clubs. Many store their weapons there.
The reduced availability of weapons has coincided with—and helps to explain—steadily falling rates of suicide and murder in which guns are used, as well as lower levels of all types of killings. The rate of gun homicides in 2015, 0.2 per 100,000 people, was roughly half the level of the late 1990s. In contrast, America’s figure was 4.0; and over the same period it has barely budged."
Gun-lobby myth debunking

Myth: The AR-15 is a hunting rifle, not a military weapon, nor an assault rifle. It just looks like a M-16


While it may no longer be used by the military, it certainly was designed for that purpose, and used in the Vietnam war.
“The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight assault rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow the infantrymen to carry more ammunition.
In July 1960, General Curtis LeMay, then Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, was impressed by a demonstration of the AR-15 and ordered 8500 rifles.[38] In the meantime, the Army would continue testing the AR-15, finding that the intermediate cartridge .223 (5.56mm) rifle is much easier to shoot than the standard 7.62mm NATO M14 rifle”

Myth: High-capacity magazines bans would be ineffective because stats show that mass-shootings are done with magazine of 10 rounds or less and that shooters instead use lots of magazines as they only take seconds to replace.
That has to be the silliest argument ever made! The argument for semi-automatic riffle control is that they let mass-shooters mass shoot! That would be next to impossible with a riffle that takes 20-30 seconds to recharge between each shot… like a hunting rifle for example. What needs to be controlled is any weapon that lets a criminal shoot at a rate greater than one shot every 10-20 seconds.

Myth: AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for most mass shooters, most mass shootings are done with hand-guns. Banning the AR-15 would not do anything
Reality: While true, that statement obfuscates two important facts;
1. Most mass-shootings are done using semi-automatic hand-guns, so the length of the gun is mostly a technicality. What matters is the magazine capacity (up to 17 in a Glock)
2. It is not on a whim that the AR-15 is targeted for ban; some of the deadliest shootings have indeed been done using the AR-15.

Las Vegas, Colo. : 59 dead, 851 injured
Sutherland Springs church shooting, Texas : 27 dead, 20 injured

Orlando nightclub shooting, Florida : 50 dead, 58 injured

Furthermore, the vast majority of the mass-shootings were done using semi-automatic weapons, whether riffles or handguns. What about a ban?
An assault-rifle ban was actually tested in the U.S. between 1994 and until its expiration in 2004. While imperfect since the existing guns were still left in circulation and the ban didn’t cover all semi-automatic weapons, there were nonetheless measurable positive results.
Had the ban been covering all semi-automatic weapons and covered retirement of existing gun-base, it is hard to deny the positive outcome it would have had on reducing gun-related crime.

Myth: There is no gun-problem in the U.S., compared with the rest of the world, the U.S. actually suffers a murder rate well below the global average
Reality: One of the most disingenuous statement that can be made. It is hard to see that statement as nothing but an attempt to derive the conclusion that the U.S. is pretty much middle-of-the-road when it comes to murder rate when, in fact, it is much higher than all of the first world nations. Do the proponents of these stats really want to be in the same rate-range as failed-states such as Somalia or Rwanda? (because it currently is).

A few selected data points from the rankings by UNODC:

In red are the top 5 most murderous countries. In gray, the U.S. with the next 5 more murderous, and next 5 less murderous. Then, in green, the rates for the rest of the first-world nations.

To crystalize the facts and using the same data, let’s just compare the U.S. to its G7 peers (and a few of Asia’s micro-states that I know very well… just because). The percentages represent the excess murder rate of the U.S over the listed country…

Furthermore, while the U.S. does have an abnormal murder-rate, the myth hides the fact that the gun-related rates are much, much worse; with the U.S. up to 25 times the rate of under developed nations.
On the bright side, with an aging population, it is likely that the lowering-homicide trend is going to continue in the U.S. and in the rest of the world.

Myth: Mass-shootings are only a small slice of the total gun-related deaths in the U.S
True. Now, what’s your point?

The following 10 are from James Alan Fox,
Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.

Reality: “Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Overall, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.”

Myth: Mass murderers snap and kill indiscriminately.

Reality: “Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path.”

Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.

Reality: “Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.”

Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.

Reality: “The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.”

JC’s note: as per prior Myth; issue is indeed semi-automatic weapons, including assault rifles. That’s what the ban should cover.

Myth: Greater attention and response to the tell-tale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.

Reality: “While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the tell-tale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.”

JC’s note: Early identification and prevention is, at best, wishful thinking. The root cause is the unrestricted availability of guns and ammunitions

Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.

Reality: “With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as ‘wackos’ or ‘sickos’ don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.”

Myth: Increasing security in schools and other places will deter mass murder.

Reality: “Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability.”

Myth: Students need to be prepared for the worst by participating in lockdown drills.

Reality: “Lockdown drills can be very traumatizing, especially for young children. Also, it is questionable whether they would recall those lessons amid the hysteria associated with an actual shooting. The faculty and staff need to be adequately trained, and the kids just advised to listen to instructions. Schools should take the same low-key approach to the unlikely event of a shooting as the airlines do to the unlikely event of a crash. Passengers aren’t drilled in evacuation procedures but can assume the crew is sufficiently trained.”

Myth: Expanding right to carry provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.

Reality: “Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.”

Myth: We just need to enforce existing gun laws as well as increase the threat of the death penalty.

Reality: “Mass killers typically expect to die, usually by their own hand or else by first responders. Nothing in the way of prosecution or punishment would divert them from their missions. They are ready to leave their miserable existence but want some payback first.”

Myth: Owning a gun makes you safer

“Numerous studies have found that gun ownership increases the risk of both gun-related homicides and suicides.

• Guns in the home are particularly dangerous for victims of domestic violence. The

presence of a gun in a home with a history of domestic violence increases the risk that a woman will be killed by 500 percent.

• Guns intended for self-defence are commonly involved in fatal accidents. Studies have shown that across states, higher levels of gun ownership are linked to higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths

• Guns are used far more often in criminal homicides than in justifiable acts of self-defence. In 2014, for every self-defence gun homicide in the United States, guns were used in 34 criminal homicides”

Myth: The only thing that stops a bad buy with a gun is a good guy with a gun

Reality: “Armed citizens rarely successfully intervene to stop an active shooter

• An FBI study of 160 active-shooting incidents from 2000 to 2013 found that only one was stopped by an individual with a valid firearms permit. In contrast, 21 incidents were stopped by unarmed citizens

• Armed citizens can worsen the outcome of a mass shooting. During the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, an armed bystander misidentified the perpetrator and almost shot the wrong person

• Expansive concealed carry permitting laws are linked to an increase in violent crime. A 2017 study by researchers at Stanford University found that, 10 years after enacting these laws, states experienced a 13 percent to 15 percent rise in violent crimes

• Using a gun for defence during a robbery has no significant benefits. A 2015 analysis by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health of the National Crime Victimization Survey found that the likelihood of sustaining an injury during a robbery was nearly identical between people who attempted to defend themselves with a gun and those who took no defensive action

• A gun is more likely to be stolen than used to stop a crime. According to a CAP analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey, guns are nearly twice as likely to be stolen than to be used for self-defence”

• “In an independent study commissioned by the National Gun Victims Action Council, researchers put 77 participants with varying levels of firearms training through three realistic self-defense scenarios. In the first, seven of the participants shot an innocent bystander. Almost all of the participants in the first and second scenarios who engaged the "bad guy" were killed. And in the final scenario, 23% of the participants fired at a suspect who didn't actually pose a threat”

Myth: Mass shooters specifically target gun-free zones
Reality: A small percentage of mass shootings occur in locations where guns are prohibited

Myth: Gun laws do not work because criminals do not follow the law
Reality: “Gun laws are effective at reducing gun violence

• A 2016 CAP study found that the 10 states with the weakest gun laws have an aggregate level of gun violence that is more than three times higher than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws

• Research by Everytown for Gun Safety found that states that require background checks for all handgun sales have significantly lower rates of intimate partner gun homicides of women; law enforcement officers killed with handguns; and gun-related suicides

• Two studies by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health demonstrated
the impact of permit-to-purchase laws that include a background check requirement.
When Connecticut implemented this law, gun homicides in the state fell 40 percent.
When Missouri repealed a similar law, gun homicides in that state rose 25 percent”

Myth: There are more guns now than ever in the U.S, yet there is less gun-crime, proving that less guns don’t mean less gun-crime

The argument for gun control is to restrict guns and ammunition accessibility and regulate who, where, and for what purpose they can be used so guns are not used to kill people. Switzerland and Canada have quite a lot of guns but their use is quite well regulated.

Furthermore, and more importantly, gun ownership has NOT been increasing, it actually has been stable to decreasing. What has been increasing is the number of guns per gun-owner:

The Gallup Organization has been tracking gun ownership in their surveys over this time period as well, but their trend suggests no consistent decline. A Gallup survey in May 1972 found 43% reporting having a gun in their home. The percentage subsequently fluctuated a great deal, reaching a high of 51% in 1993 and a low of 34% in 1999 – but the percentage saying they had a gun in their home last year was the same as it was 40 years earlier (43%).”

“The US population continues to contain at least one firearm for every adult, and ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated.
Almost half (48%) of all individual gun owners, corresponding to 13% of the US adult population, reported owning
4 firearms. Household ownership followed a similar pattern, with 41% of firearmowning households reporting ownership of 4 firearms (table 22).). The 20% of gun owners who owned the most guns possessed about 65% of the nation's guns

“Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide”
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David.  Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature.  Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal.  2004; 9:417-40

“We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.  We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.  These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.”
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew.  Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries.  Journal of Trauma.  2000; 49:985-88

“Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003.  We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.  This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty).  There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.”
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David.  State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.  Social Science and Medicine.  2007; 64:656-64

The bottom line is; limiting easy access to guns correlates strongly with reduced gun-related mortality in first-world nations.

Myth: "Largest mass-shootings are Islamism-related"
Reality: Islamism is a whole different problem with other solutions. This is akin to make the statement that because there are wars, trying to fight crime is irrelevant.
It is silly argument…

Myth: " Chicago is more violent than Houston, yet has stricter gun laws"
Reality: “In the US gun laws are not uniform between or even within states. Chicago has tight gun laws, but the rest of Illinois does not and neither does Indiana. It was found that many of Chicago’s guns come from surrounding areas in the state or Indiana. Firearms travel from areas with loose gun laws to those with tight laws. Weak national regulations undermine attempts at gun control everywhere. The number of illegal firearms in circulation is a testament to the inadequacy of national gun laws. Most gun violence occurs with such weapons. There are also other factors that determine gun violence, but the guns themselves cannot be excused”

Myth: "The second amendment is there to protect us from tyranny"
Reality: The amendment to the U.S. constitution were written at the U.S’ beginnings, with fragile institutions that the founding fathers believed needed protection by a “well regulated militia”. First, that militia needs to be “well-regulated”, which is all but the case today. Second, a militia in these days could reasonably defend the nation against a tyrannical leader due to more or less symmetrical powers; weapons were unsophisticated and the militia’s numbers could reasonably make-up for the difference. Today however, any U.S militia would be no match for the firepower of a tyrannical U.S government. Unless the proponents of the 2nd amendment want to claim that they need tanks, fighter-jets, rockets, etc… Do they?
Third and more importantly, what protects the U.S from tyranny is not guns, it is the strength of its democratic institutions that provide checks-and-balances. If the gun-lobby truly wanted to insure protection from their own government, they should vote to elect presidents that are adding more of these checks, instead of removing them…

The gun lobby's spinsters

John Lott
"John Lott is a right-wing author who has made claims about the benefits of guns using fabricated evidence. To support his points on the Internet, he adopts various pseudonyms (known as sock puppets) who write in supporting John Lott and giving his books good reviews.
Lott is Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, where he 'studies crime, antitrust, education, gun control, campaign finance, and voting and legislative behavior'."

"His book More Guns, Less Crime claims that on 98% of the occasions in which citizens use guns defensively, the mere production of a weapon causes the criminal to desist. These data were allegedly based on some 2000 interviews conducted by Lott himself. But when pushed for the survey data, Lott gave a hauntingly familiar explanation: His hard drive had been destroyed in a computer crash. Apparently the dogs in this controversy eat everyone's homework.
Wait. It gets even funnier. As the debate over gun laws spilled over from the scholarly journals to the Internet, Lott was defended passionately by a persistent ally named Mary Rosh. She attacked Lott's academic critics, including John Donohue of Stanford Law School, claiming in one posting that Lott had been the “best professor I ever had.” Alas for Lott and his case, Mary Rosh now turns out to be—John Lott!"

Even some of the right-wing pro-guns seems to believe that Lott is a fraud:
"Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can’t identify or produce.
Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey’s existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument."

Crime Prevention Research CenterThat is just a creation of John Lott. Refer to material above.