Which Republican presidential candidate has the highest probability of winning the general election?

My son Maxim and John Stossel have set up a website entitled "Election Betting Odds," where they show the probability that the candidates will win the Republican nomination and the presidency.  The problem with the current odds for winning the presidency is that what you really want are the odds of winning the presidency conditional on winning the nomination.  Looking at the odds for the candidates with at least a 10 percent chance of winning the Republican nomination, the conditional probabilities of winning the presidency are (8:30 AM EST February 6th, 2016):

Rubio 45% = 25.3%/56.7%
Trump 30% = 6.8%/23%
Cruz 28% = 3.5%/12.3%

Labels: , ,


UPDATE: Incredible winning rate of Hillary Clinton's coin flips to break caucus ties, a fifty-fifty split would have had Sanders ahead

As about 12:21 AM CST, there had been six out of six coin flips that Clinton had won to break ties.

The odds of winning six out of six coin flips with a fair coin is only 1.7%.  Using the latest number of delegates on Drudge shown above at 7:00 AM EST would still have Sanders ahead by one vote if the coin flips had gone 50-50.  Sanders would still be slightly ahead by 698 to 697.

Counting the votes might be a little more complicated in Iowa.  If each coin flip determines more than one of these 1,395 delegates, then Hillary would have had to win more than 50% of the coin flips to win the race.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reported that the Des Moines Register missed some cases.
The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect. . . .
There might have been a total of 13 coin flips with Hillary Clinton winning 7 of the six. 

Labels: ,


Is the media selectively using pictures to help Hillary Clinton by making her look much younger than she is? Hillary Clinton's stock pictures where she is pictured with other candidates look photoshopped to eliminate wrinkles

UPDATED: Here are some pictures from CNN and ABC of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders giving speeches. I then used a computer program to estimate the ages of the candidates.  The computer program provides fairly accurate estimates of their ages.  Both pictures is be fairly accurate in estimating their ages.

The weird thing occurs when you look at the stock pictures that the different networks use for the candidates.  Here are the pictures from CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News.  In virtually all of them it is clear that Hillary Clinton's picture has been photo shopped so that she has a plastic type look and she appears to be much younger than she is.  Some of these pictures of Hillary Clinton are clearly airbrushed, particularly CNN and MSNBC.  While Hillary Clinton's campaign might have provided some of the pictures, many are clearly taken from these news programs stock footage.  But all the pictures of Hillary Clinton show her decades younger than her true age.  By contrast, half of Bernie Sanders pictures indicate that he is older than 74.  For Martin O'Malley, 3/4ths of his pictures show that he is older than his true age of 53.

Across the news show pictures shown below, Hillary Clinton's average estimated age is 38, about 30 years younger than her actual age.  Even eliminating CNN's picture where she appears to be only 29 years old, the average for the other five news organizations puts her at 28 years younger than her actual age.  The pictures used for the other candidates create an impression that the candidates are much closer to their actual ages.  Bernie Sanders' average estimated age is 71.3, about 3 years younger than his actual age.  Martin O'Malley's average estimated age is 58, five years older than his actual age.

To put it differently, if you relied on the stock photos provided by news organizations, Hillary is by far the youngest Democrat in the race, 20 years younger than O'Malley and 33 years younger than Sanders.

Even if wants to restrict the analysis to the polling type line up that I have for four of the news organizations, the results would have implied that Hillary Clinton was now 37.8 years younger than Sanders (Hillary Clinton estimated age of 39 and Bernie Sanders 76.8) and 20 years younger than O'Malley.  So as to reduce arbitrariness and facilitate comparisons where pictures are picked for pure news shows, I have limited myself to still shots where at least two of the candidates are pictured next to each other.

Note that there are other oddities with these pictures.  For example, for CBS compare the smiling Clinton to open mouthed Sanders or O'Malley.  I have no idea whether this makes her look more sympathetic and friendly, but it is interesting just to note that almost all the other networks have pictures for these polling results of all the candidates smiling.

The point of the two pictures of Clinton at the top and the one at the bottom show that there are lots of stock pictures that the media could have picked that would have treated Clinton similar to her Democratic opponents.

Here are some additional pictures to help gauge the accuracy of the How-Old.net program as well provide additional information on how Hillary is treated.  Megyn Kelly is 45, but she looks like she is 47.  Lester Holt is 58, but he looks 55.  Amazingly, at least to me, Megyn Kelly looks older than Hillary Clinton's still pictures used with the polling numbers.

Labels: , , ,


Visit the Crime Prevention Research Center Website

If you are interested in research on crime and gun control, you will find a lot of original research at the CrimeResearch.org website.  Please visit.


Donald Trump's changing positions on many issues over the last year (It isn't just the massive changes over the last decade)

Everyone knows that Donald Trump has been a Democrat, Independent, flirted with Ross Perot's Reform Party (from the left), and finally running as a Republican.  But it isn't just on abortion, taxes, Obamacare, Obama's economic policies, and gun control that Trump has had radical changes in his political views.

While saying that he is a conservative, he has attacked Republicans as being "captives of their right wing."

 Take changes over the last year:

-- Medicare: 

On October 25, 2015 on ABC News:
on ABC News’ "This Week” where Trump said he agreed with Carson’s plan to replace the 50-year-old Medicare system with health savings accounts (HSA)."I’m OK with the savings accounts. I think it’s a good idea,” Trump said Sunday. “It’s a very down-the-middle idea. It works. It’s something that’s proven.”
On the question Sunday about whether he agreed with Carson’s idea that "Medicare probably won’t be necessary,” Trump said, "It’s possible. You’re going to have to look at that. But I’ll tell you what; the health savings accounts, I’ve been talking about it also. I think it’s a very good idea … it’s an idea whose probably time has come.”
On MSNBC (liberal audience) on October 27, 2015
"Ben [Carson] wants to knock out Medicare. I heard that over the weekend. He wants to abolish Medicare,” Trump said of Carson’s comments that Medicare “probably won’t be necessary” under his health care plan.
Trump added: “Abolishing Medicare, I don't think you'll get away with that one. It's actually a program that's worked. It’s a program that some people love, actually.”
The Washington Post has a long list of quotes from this year on Trump’s plan to defeat the Islamic State, Trump’s plan for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States,
 Trump’s plan for tax reform, Trump’s plan for the nuclear deal with Iran, and Trump’s plan for “Obamacare.

There is a good reason that a lot of conservatives and libertarians are very concerned about Trump's candidacy  (see this discussion at NR).


Now Donald Trump is openly moving towards being part of the establishment. What will happen after the election?

Trump is now saying that he is moving towards being with the establishment.  Can you imagine how much more Trump will change once he gets the Republican nomination?
"I think they're warming up. I want to be honest, I have received so many phone calls from people that you would call establishment, from people — generally speaking ... conservatives, Republicans — that want to come onto our team. . . . You know what? There's a point at which: Let's get to be a little establishment." 



The Republican "Establishment" views Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump as the Threat

UPDATE: After all the blow back that I got on Twitter about this post, it is amazing that Trump is now saying that he is moving towards being with the establishment:
"I think they're warming up. I want to be honest, I have received so many phone calls from people that you would call establishment, from people — generally speaking ... conservatives, Republicans — that want to come onto our team."
Original: Nate Silver at 538 explains that he thinks Trump is much more likely to be the Republican nominee because the Republican establishment seems to be fine with Trump winning.  From Nate's discussion:
But so far, the party isn’t doing much to stop Trump. Instead, it’s making such an effort against Cruz. Consider: 
  • The governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, said he wanted Cruz defeated.
  • Bob Dole warned of “cataclysmic” losses if Cruz was the nominee, and said Trump would fare better.
  • Mitch McConnell and other Republicans senators have been decidedly unhelpful to Cruz when discussing his constitutional eligibility to be president.
One doesn't have to look very far to see how Trump would protect vested interests.  While Ted Cruz will end the massive ethanol subsidies, a bold move for someone running in Iowa, Donald Trump did the opposite: he called for higher ethanol mandates.  This is the reason that Governor Terry Branstad is attacking Cruz. From The Hill Newspaper:
The event came hours after Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) told voters in the first state to choose presidential candidates that they shouldn’t vote for Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), one of Trump’s most potent challengers.
Branstad cited Cruz’s opposition to continuing the ethanol mandate after 2022, saying Cruz is “heavily financed by Big Oil.” 
Trump welcomed Branstad’s comment. 
Cruz has “been mixed in the subject, he goes wherever the votes are, so he all of the sudden went over here, and then all of the sudden, he got slapped,” Trump said. “So it’s very interesting to see.” 
Trump was generally very supportive of the ethanol law, saying he is “100 percent” behind the ethanol industry, a powerful force in Iowa. . . .
When Ben Carson did the economically responsible thing and challenged tax deductions in the current code, something that would challenge many vested interests, Trump attacked Carson.


Newest op-ed the New York Post: "What Bernie Sanders misses about the rise in campaign cash"

New York Post Banner
John Lott has a new piece in the New York Post:
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders thinks that millionaires and billionaries buy elections. 
He hammered away during Sunday’s Democratic debate, complaining about people “pouring unbelievable sums of money into the political process.” 
According to estimates made by the Center for Responsive Politics, $3.77 billion was spent on elections for federal office during the 2014 midterms. 
Sanders blames this on the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, prohibiting the government from restricting independent political spending by unions, corporations and advocacy groups. But the growth rate in campaign spending long predates that case, and has actually slowed down since that decision. 
There was only a 4 percent increase in spending from the 2010 to the 2014 midterm elections. So much for Sanders’ “explosion.” 
In fact, this rate of growth was unusually small — much smaller than the 31 percent average growth that usually took place between midterm congressional elections from 1998 to 2010. 
So what really causes political spending to increase over time? The answer won’t make Sanders very happy. 
The truth is that government expenditures and campaign expenditures have increased in tandem. Total campaign spending soared from $1.6 billion in 1998 to $3.77 billion in 2014. Federal government spending rose at virtually the same rate, going from $1.65 trillion to $3.9 trillion. 
With more at stake, it makes sense for there to be an even bigger fight over who controls the federal government. If federal spending still amounted to 2 percent to 3 percent of GDP — as it did a century ago — people likely wouldn’t care as passionately about the outcome of most elections. 
In the Journal of Law and Economics in 2000, I looked at the years 1976 to 1994 and studied spending on gubernatorial and state legislative campaigns. Almost 80 percent of the increase in campaign spending could be explained by the growth of state governments. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here



MIT develops new incandescent light bulb that is cheaper than LEDs

From the UK Telegraph:
Researchers at MIT have shown that by surrounding the filament [in the traditional incandescent bulb] with a special crystal structure in the glass they can bounce back the energy which is usually lost in heat, while still allowing the light through. . . . 
Usually traditional light bulbs are only about five per cent efficient, with 95 per cent of the energy being lost to the atmosphere. In comparison LED or florescent bulbs manage around 14 per cent efficiency. But the scientists believe that the new bulb could reach efficiency levels of 40 per cent. . . . 
But if the new bulbs live up to expectations they would cost under 50p a year to run and even improve health. . . .


My newest piece at the Daily Caller on Obama's false statements during his CNN Townhall

Daily Caller Header
John Lott's newest opinion piece at the Daily Caller starts this way:
I wish that I had been able to go to CNN’s town hall with President Obama. But Thursday night’s event was invitation-only. 
Still, Anderson Cooper, the moderator, challenged the president a few times. But the president just made one false claim after another. 
When rape survivor Kimberly Corban asked why she shouldn’t be able to carry a gun to protect herself, Obama said his current executive actions won’t make it harder for her to purchase a firearm. He claimed, he isn’t proposing anything that “prevents you or makes it harder for you to purchase a firearm if you need one.” 
Obama’s proposed expanded background checks will make guns more expensive, perhaps prohibitively so for poorer people. In DC, where Obama was speaking from, expanded background checks add about $125 to the cost of transferring a gun. 
After the event, CNN brought in conservative commentators such as SE Cupp. However, they failed to understand the issues here. It’s not just that the laws won’t do any good — they will also come with some real costs. These laws won’t stop mass public shootings, but they will hurt law-abiding citizens.  
Then came the issue of expanded background checks leading to a national gun registry. Anderson Cooper said that people are afraid of having their guns taken away and asked, “Is it fair to call it a conspiracy?” “Yes, it is fair to call it a conspiracy,” Obama said, seemingly intimidating Cooper into dropping the subject. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.



Very damning: Hillary Clinton clearly knew that she was sending secret information via insecure emails and that she knew it was wrong

From Fox News:
In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was "surprised" that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. . . .
These two paragraphs are very damning.  They show both that she knew she was telling people to send secret information in a way that wasn't secure, that her previous statements that the secret material wasn't labeled may have been because she thought she could hide that it was secret and protect her from liability (she is wrong legally even if she thought this excuse could confuse the issue), and finally that she called out others for doing what she was doing.

Labels: ,

Newest Fox News piece: "Obama and guns: Eleven false or misleading claims from the president's remarks this week"

Fox News Banner

My newest op-ed at Fox News discusses some of the errors in Obama's talk on Tuesday.
With tears in his eyes, President Obama pulled out all the stops in pushing his new executive orders on gun control this week.  A Washington Post headline exclaimed, "President Obama’s amazingly emotional speech on gun control.”  But the president also tried to appeal to people’s minds with a barrage of factual claims. 
Unfortunately, the president’s remarks had a large number of errors.  Here are 11 of the false or misleading claims that the president made. 
1. “But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close.” 
Last year, both France and the US had four mass public shootings.  France suffered more casualties (murders and injuries) from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (532 to 396).  And this occurred despite the US being five times more populous than France. 
But it isn’t just the horrific year that France had last year.  Far from being well below the frequency found in US, other European countries actually have a worse problem.  From 2009 through December 2015, eleven European countries experienced mass public shootings at a greater frequency than did the US, after adjusting for population.  These countries include Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, and the Czech Republic. 
President Obama’s statement is clearly false. 
2. Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. . . . with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more. . . .  Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions.” 
Obama claims that expanding background checks to include any private transfers of guns will reduce mass public shootings.  But he offers no evidence.  Not one mass public shooting during Obama’s administration would have prevented by these checks. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.



Expanded background checks discussed in the Sunday Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Pittsburg Tribune Review Banner
Colin McNickle has this piece in the Sunday Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
Oh, what an indictment, eh? Well, not exactly.
The Times, which on Dec. 5 ran a front-page editorial (the first since 1920 when it took Republicans to task for nominating Warren G. Harding for president) against guns, was citing a study by Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. But as gun scholar John Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, pointed out for me last week, “cherry picking” results tend to give you the results you're predisposed to seek.
As Mr. Lott found, in an exhaustive 2014 review of Mr. Webster's research, the results are more complicated than simply looking at what the average murder rates were before and after rescinding the Missouri law.
“While it is true that the murder rate in Missouri rose (about) 17 percent relative to the rest of the United States after the law was changed, it had actually increased by 32 percent during the five years prior to the change,” Lott then wrote.
Thus, the real question for researchers to consider, according to Lott, is why “the Missouri murder rate was increasing relative to the rest of the U.S. at a slower rate after the change in the law” — after the comprehensive background checks were scotched — “than it did prior to it.”
But the bottom line remains this: “Imposing the law raised murder and robbery rates,” Lott told me. “Removing the law lowered them.” . . .
The issue of cherry-picking is much broader than this.  The question is if you have 20 states that have had these expanded background checks, why pick only one state to look at?  If Missouri enacts this law in 1981 and rescinds it in 2007, why only look at when it is rescinded?  The proper way to examine this question is to look at it the way Lott did in the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime as it examined all the states that have adopted or rescinded these types of laws between 1977 and 2005.  Those estimate showed no benefit in expanded background checks reducing violent crime.


My newest piece at Fox News: "Open carry comes to Texas: Why the Lone Star state will be safer in 2016"

Open Carry Picture
John Lott's newest piece at Fox News starts this way:
With about 900,000 concealed handgun permit holders in Texas, there is a good chance that someone next you in a Lone Star State grocery store or restaurant is carrying a concealed handgun.  Starting Friday, Texas will join 44 other statesthat already allow people to openly carry handguns throughout the state.
Amidst today’s threats of terrorism and mass public shootings, it is a good thing when we enable people to legally carry guns and protect themselves.
Under the new law, a person will need a concealed handgun permit to be able to openly carry a gun.
If the experiences of other states are any guide, few people will actually openlycarry their handguns.  Moreover, businesses can still prohibit guns or request that they be concealed.  However, the Chief Financial Officer of Kroger (America’s largest supermarket chain), has just said that the company will allow open carry. He says that the company hasn’t encountered any problems with open carry.  Other supermarket companies such as Whole Foods, Randall’s, and H-E-B, will be posting signs banning open carry. They will still be allowing concealed carry.
These bans may be short lived.  When Texas originally passed concealed carry in 1996, many stores initially posted signs banning concealed carry. With a few years, those signs all but disappeared.
An odd nuance in Texas law has led to much national attention in the last couple of years.  Before Friday, people were allowed to openly carry rifles, just not handguns.   No problems ever occurred, but simply the additional handling required for carrying rifle as opposed to keeping a holstered handgun, certainly created concern that something might go wrong.
Some, such as Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown advocacy group, put pressure on companies to ban openly carried rifles.
Hillary Clinton also chimed in: “The idea that you could have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking down the isles of a Supermarket is just despicable.”
Starbucks, Jack in the Box, Chipotle, Wendy's, Applebee's, Chili’s and Sonic’s all “respectfully request” that customers not openly carry guns.  More importantly, however, they still allow people to carry a concealed gun. . . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.
Screen Shot 2015-12-31 at Thursday, December 31, 10.46 AM
Even before our piece was listed on Fox News' front page, it was the most read piece in the opinion section.
Screen Shot 2015-12-31 at Thursday, December 31, 8.25 AM
Here is an interesting video on discussing the practical differences in carrying open versus concealed.



What is ahead for Russia

As you read this, please keep in mind that the price of oil from the Urals was down to $34.58 at the end of 2015.  With price of oil down from the $50 per barrel that the Russia government was predicting when they drew up spending for 2016, the deficit will have grown from 3% to 4% of GDP, but that assumes a constant GDP.  Assuming that GDP falls by 10 percent (given that the current oil price is the best predictor of what it will be and the numbers given below), that implies that the deficit will rise to 4.4% of GDP.  A 10% further drop in GDP as well as the costs of the war in Syria and the large military expenditures by Russia, could greatly reduce per capita real income.  Interestingly, unlike US policies, the Russian government has dramatically cut back on government spending.  Otherwise, they would be even much worse shape.  Note this recent drop is on top of the 50% drop that had occurred in 2014.  From the WSJ:
After plunging from more than $100 a barrel to nearly $50 a barrel last year, U.S. oil prices fell 30% in 2015 to $37.04 a barrel. Brent, the global benchmark, fell 35% to $37.28 a barrel.
From the UK Guardian:
Vladimir Putin goes into 2016 with record approval ratings but the shakiest economic outlook since he took charge. In the 15 years he has been at the helm, 2015 was the first year that real wages registered a decline, something that did not happen even during the 2008-09 financial crisis. 
Oil and gas exports make up about half of the Russian budget, and the rouble ratehas been strongly linked to the price of oil. . . . 
The [Rubble] regained some of its value by spring, but falling oil prices in autumn have caused it to fall back to lows similar to those it experienced in late 2014. . . . 
Last October, Putin said that if the price of oil fell below $80 a barrel, the world economy would crash. A range of other top Russian officials made similar statements, in effect ruling out the possibility that oil could fall below $70. 
Some analysts say the rouble is still overvalued, and the current oil price should theoretically push the rouble down further. This is necessary to balance the budget: the fewer dollars Russia receives for the oil it sells, the higher the exchange rate needs to be for the budget to receive the requisite amount of roubles. For the budget to balance at 65 roubles, not far off the current rate, the price of oil should be $70, a recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch report found.  
For ordinary Russians, it could be a tough year ahead. Those who were used to travelling abroad have already had to scale back as the rouble made the cost of visiting foreign cities prohibitive; and rising food prices have made it harder to balance the books for many families. 
The 2016 budget, fixed in October, requires oil to be at $50 in order to run a 3% deficit within “acceptable” rouble rate limits, meaning if the price does not rise soon, cuts will need to be made or reserves spent. The war in Syria is an extra cost, and the announced increases in military spending are not likely to be reversed. . . .
Some other somewhat out of date data is here:
When oil prices drop, Russia suffers greatly. Oil and gas comprise over 60% of Russia's exports and make up over 30% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). The effect of the 2014 oil price collapse on Russia's economy was fast and devastating. Between June and December 2014, the Russian ruble declined in value by 59% relative to the U.S. dollar. At the beginning of 2015, Russia, along with neighboring Ukraine, had the lowest purchasing power parity (PPP) relative to the U.S. of any country in the world. A declining PPP lowers living standards, as goods purchased using the native currency become more expensive than they should be. Moreover, Russia does not receive much of an economic benefit from lower pump prices as the U.S. does, as Russians consume much less oil and gas than Americans. Less than 30% of the Russia's oil production is kept for domestic use; the rest is exported. . . . 
Some graphs here show how much the value of the Rubble has fallen relative to the US$ since the beginning of 2014 and 2008.
Here is the drop in the Rubble even compared to the EURO.



My continued debate with Gary Kleck over his attacks on "More Guns, Less Crime"

Ari Armstrong cropped-header-960x2501
In mid-November I got into an exchange with Gary Kleck about "More Guns, Less Crime."  This took place after other Kleck statements to the media about me.

In the new discussion, Gary continues to go out of his way to engage in personal attacks on me: "he instead invents a distorted straw man," "presents a fantasy version," "Lott’s version of economic theory is one that has been dead for decades," "One of Lott’s many errors is to blindly assume," "In his efforts to distort my positions . . . blatant falsehood," "This is pure invention," "Lott’s error was in simplistically assuming," "Lott tells another especially bizarre whopper," and "The rest of Lott’s comments are filled with misinformation that betrays an extraordinary ignorance of the research literature."
Here is part of the discussion:
Kleck: "Lott tells another especially bizarre whopper about me: 'Gary feels very strongly that gun ownership doesn’t make people safer.'  This one is especially weird because I am usually attacked by pro-control people for my research showing the defensive gun use is both frequent and effective. . . ." 
Lott: Take this quote from Gary’s initial interview with Ari: “across areas, there is no effect of gun ownership rates on crime rates, including homicide rates.” And in his last posting he makes the claim: “national gun ownership rates have no net effect on national homicide rates (the position I [Kleck] endorse).” But Gary has been making this claim even more broadly for some time. 
Similarly, this past summer, Gary told Mother Jones magazine: “Do I know of anybody who specifically believe with more guns there are less crimes and they’re a credible criminologist? No.” Gary is saying clearly the debate isn’t just about whether guns are increasing. He is claiming that even if gun ownership is increasing, there won’t be reduced crime. 
Everyone knows of Gary’s work on guns being used defensively, but there is a contradiction here. While Gary points to guns being used defensively and those defensive uses exceed the number of times guns are used in the commission of crime, he repeatedly says that increased gun ownership doesn’t reduce crime.
I don’t understand why Gary claims that more gun ownership doesn’t mean less crime, and I have asked him about this in multiple conversations, but whenever I have asked him to explain how these different claims could be reconciled he has declined to do so.
People can read the debate themselves available here.

UPDATE: There are two primary parts of my debate with Kleck: whether the number of concealed handguns being carried has increased and whether that increase has reduced violent crime.  Kleck claims that there has been no increase in concealed handguns (that the increase in legally carried guns has just offset the drop in the number being carried illegally) and that even if there was an increase it wouldn't effect the crime rate.  On the first point, I noted how more concealed handguns accidentally being checked in with baggage at the airport is closely correlated with more concealed handgun permits being issued.  Robert VerBruggen at Real Clear Policy looks at the issue more carefully and reports:

Real Clear Policy Banner
. . . For his part, Armstrong wrote that he personally knows people who carried guns after getting their permits but not before. I do as well — in fact, I'm one of them. And a closer look at the TSA data reveals a stark pattern: More guns are being found in states with permissive concealed-carry laws, but not in states where it's hard to get a license. . . . 
The places with strict laws are home to more than one-quarter of the U.S. population, but they accounted for just 8 percent of the guns TSA found, mostly in massive California. Of course, this isn't just carry laws at work — these states also have lower gun ownership and harsher penalties for people who run afoul of gun laws, even accidentally. (See New Jersey, especially, on that latter point.) 
The trends are much more convincing. The stricter states accounted for 157 guns in 2012, 141 in 2013, and 165 in 2014 — a pattern consistent with randomness, with a decrease between the first two years. The states that grant permits liberally, by contrast, saw their gun count climb steadily and dramatically, from 1,334 to 1,652 to 1,945. Many of these states saw substantial increases individually as well. Texas's number rose from 292 to 417. . . .