Bob Costas is Wrong: Gun Ownership Deters Crime

blog.heartland.org ^ | 5 December, 2012 | Maureen Martin

[marktwain]

Sports broadcaster Bob Costas used his platform at NBC’s Sunday Night Football to blame guns for Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher’s murder of his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins and Belcher’s subsequent suicide. Costas quoted extensively from a column written by Fox News sportswriter Jason Whitlock, in which Whitlock concludes, without equivocation:

What I believe is, if he [Belcher] didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

Never mind the fact that their relationship was so troubled that the KC Chiefs team management was providing counseling to them. And never mind the fact that Belcher had a history of violence against women dating back to his college years at the University of Maine, where police were summoned three times due to his behavior. And never mind the fact that, while he earned a degree there, ironically enough, in child development and family relationships, he also joined a group called Male Athletes Against Violence (“MAAV”). USA Today reports:

As part of MAAV, Belcher would have signed a pledge card, vowing never to commit violence against women and to stand up against those who did. The pledge, among other things, required him to “look honestly at my actions in regards to violence and make changes, if necessary.”

And also never mind the fact that Belcher had been drinking heavily the night before the shooting and spent part of that night with another woman.

What these accounts make plain is that Belcher’s personal history was troubled and complicated. He was kind and gentle, by the many accounts linked above, but he also had a violent side that emerged from time to time.

But no, let’s ignore all that and instead just blame guns.

Economist and author John Lott, Jr., was a guest on Mark Levin’s radio show Monday night, discussing his book, “More Guns, Less Crime.” Lott’s research and analysis on crime rates in states with and without stringent gun controls is epic. It demonstrates indisputably that crime decreases as gun possession – or the legal rights to it – increase. Heartland is a friend of Lott and interviewed him two years ago for this video.

In 1983, Chicago enacted an ordinance banning gun possession in the city. The constitutionality of this ordinance was challenged in court. In 2008, the Supreme Court invalidated that ordinance.

Heartland submitted an amicus brief in that case. We were motivated by the fact that for many years prior to the litigation, it was widely trumpeted that gun murder rates in Chicago declined after Chicago banned gun possession. But this is true if only raw numbers are considered. What matters is the number of such crimes as a percentage of the city’s population. Analyzed with U.S. Census data and handgun murder data from the Chicago Police Department, Heartland submitted research in its amicus brief showing that:

the percentage of murders committed with handguns has skyrocketed since 1982 and handgun murder rates per 100,000 population more than doubled in the 1990s over 1982 levels. In 2008, these rates were up more than 60% over 1983.

This research was important, because no one before had ever done it. The Supreme Court quoted and cited Heartland’s research in its opinion invalidating the Chicago ordinance: “Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted.”

Let’s put into perspective the reason why gun possession deters crime.

Many years ago, I rented a cottage on a lake in Wisconsin as a getaway from Chicago. The cottage was about 10 miles from the nearest town and five miles away from the nearest highway and didn’t really have an address.

My lease began on November 1. I arrived that day to spend a week relaxing, I thought. I began unloading the trunk of my car on the road above the cottage. The area was entirely deserted because my neighbors were summer people. But a lone tall and strong man approached me, walking down the road. “So you’re the lady lawyer from Chicago,” he said. “Up here all alone, are you?” He kept repeating the last part: “Up here all alone, are you?” “Up here all alone, are you?”

I was, of course, totally freaking out. As it turned out, he had dementia and was harmless. But at that moment, I didn’t know that. Then, two things dawned on me. First, if I called 911 because someone was breaking into my house, the police would never be able to find me in time. Second, I was indeed alone and I needed a gun, just in case.

And so I got one. So should we all.

Tagged as: Bob Costas, Chiefs, crime, gun control, guns, Heartland Institute, Jason Whitlock, John Lott, Jovan Belcher, Kasandra Perkins, Mark Levin, McDonald vs. Chicago, second amendment, Supreme Court

[ConservativeStatement]

I saw him last night on O’Reilly. While I usually don't watch Costas, he came across as a poster child of “My Poop Smells Like Roses.” Without motorized vehicles, there would be virtually no instances of drunk drivers killing people. Costas’ logic would ban the auto because we live in an auto culture.

[MPJackal]

It sounds like he had several domestic violence incidents. My question........was he protected from prosecution by the sports establishment at the university? If yes, they are also responsible. People with domestic violence convictions can’t own guns. Just wondering.

[wordsofearnest]

he needs to change his distinction from “gun culture” to “thug culture”

[xzins]

In my state of Ohio gun registration is required at time of purchase. I was denied purchase when I visited home from the military and did not have a current Ohio picture driver’s license with a current Ohio address. (Ohio did not require an updated driver license for residents on active duty.)

I went back after updating the license and still had to go through their records check. It doesn’t take long, but it’s annoying.

I do think that it is not their prerogative to require me to register to exercise what is a right. Driving on their roads is a privilege. I get that. But, being able to defend myself is a right.

[xzins]

I agree with you about “thug culture”, but so long as they are non-convicted criminal, citizens of the USA, I don’t think there should be power on the part of the US/State government to determine if I’m allowed to exercise what is a right.

I don’t need to register a speech with the government (1st amendment)

I should have to register my weapon (2nd amendment.)

[MercedesB]

Bang!

[FlyingEagle]

Who the hell is Bob Costas, I never heard of him, and what makes him an expert on gun ownership? The Constitution is clear on the matter.