Posted on 05/22/2013 8:20:59 AM PDT by marktwain
First, some background about me: I am a Ph.D.-holder and tenured professor whose immersion in the insular politics of academia had led me to harbor many negative perceptions about firearms. Though I was never staunchly "anti-gun," I was not a gun owner, did not understand the appeal of firearms, and generally believed that gun control legislation was only common sense. That changed four years ago when I (finally) decided to look into the data on guns, crime, and public safety for myself. I am a trained researcher, but I conducted my research for personal not professional reasons. My wife was pregnant and I wanted hard facts--not talking point from the political parties--so I could make an informed decision about what to teach my children about firearms, and whether it would be prudent or dangerous to have one in our house.
(snip)
Now that I have finally read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" (3rd edition, 2010), I am ashamed that I did not consult it earlier instead of accepting at face value the facile criticisms of his work. Lott's research and claims are astonishingly thorough--meticulously explained and documented. At every turn, he (accurately and clearly) explains the challenges, assumptions, and variables that inform his findings. Often, just to cover his bases, he runs the data with, and then without, certain questionable variables (arrest rates, county sizes, etc.). Again and again, he shows that with only slight variations in the magnitude of the results, more concealed carry permits equals less violent crime (murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robberies involving direct contact with the victim, such as muggings). He also observes that those permits may contribute to a smaller "substitution effect" that displaces criminal activity into less-confrontational forms, such as property theft.
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
This is a devastating review for John Lott's critics.
[devastating] == [ignored]
It needs to be pointed out that while his data is very correct right now, that much more research is needed for the simple reason that “gun liberty is *changing* society”.
The reviewer mentioned the “substitution effect”, of criminals committing different, less risky crimes, out of fear of being shot, but this needs to be deeply explored. Consider:
1) If anyone is wounded or killed in the commission of a crime, *all* the criminals involved are subject to prosecution for aggravated assault or even murder, even if it was entirely unrelated to their intended crime, no matter the victim, or who wounded or killed them.
Gun liberty strongly increases this potential, also the risk for a group of criminals, as opposed to just one.
2) Violent criminals who want to continue committing violent crimes, must now at least consider if their potential victim, or witnesses, are armed. This may mean an increase in “cheap shots” to disable a victim first; or even homicide, out of fear that their victim is armed. And the punishment for robbery is far less than it is for robbery-homicide.
3) Because of their instinct for survival, even mentally ill people (permanently or temporarily because of drugs and alcohol) may make an effort to “tone it down” in an armed society, actually keeping their inhibitions, though the rest of their self control is wanting.
4) Agitators and rioters are a *lot* more cautious in an armed society. Clear evidence was during the Rodney King riots, where the rioters attacked the then unarmed Korean community next to their own, causing much damage and looting. But the next day, when the Koreans were very well armed, no rioter dared to enter their neighborhood.
5) Police behavior must change in many ways as well, which means a different area of research entirely.
bkmk
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The way gun control is being proposed and succeeding in many states is based on emotional imagery. The laws being proposed will not accomplish what they are suppose to accomplish.
Connecticut had a so-called assault weapons ban, so to prevent Sandy Hook, we need a so call assault weapons ban. The killer at Sandy Hook acquired his firearms through murder and so we need universal background checks to prevent another Sandy Hook, even though the firearms were acquired via background checks of the murdered mother and a background check would have never prevented the Sandy Hook killings.
Gun control legislation is about emotion and feeling like we did something to control low information voters fears. It has nothing to do with actually accomplishing reductions in gun violence, which are dropping rapidly by themselves.
To bring logic and well reasoned arguments to a gun control debate is the honorable approach, but one that is not going to sway many liberals. Logic and facts will only work on people who respect you, are committed to improving this country, and are not focused on what the polls or media are saying.
My comments are based on extensive interactions with friends and elected officials, where I was arguing logically to their emotional arguments. I learned a lot this past year about the sad state of our legislative process.
TFP marktwain. Bump for later read.
Thank you for your reasonsed analysis. I think there is reason for hope because there are a great many people who are simply ignorant on this issue.
Those who consider the arguments are being converted to our side. That is why the numbers supporting “gun control” are gradually falling.
Over time this has made a great difference. We have actually come a long way since 1994.
There.
Fixed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.