States from Michigan to Nebraska to California, as well as the federal government, are considering new rules on letting law-abiding citizens carry guns. Does allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns deter violent crimes? Or does this cause otherwise law-abiding citizens to harm each other? Thirty-one states now have guaranteed their citizens the right to carry concealed handguns if applicants do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness. So what have the results been? Using the FBI’s crime-rate data for all 3,054 U.S. counties by year from 1977 to 1992, I co-authored a study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies. We found that concealed handguns deter violent crimes and produce no significant increase in accidental handgun deaths. The accompanying figures show how dramatic this drop is by illustrating how different violent crime rates change before and after the adoption of these laws. The size and timing of the decline coincide closely with the number of concealed-handgun permits issued. Counties issuing the most new permits had the greatest drops in crimes. The study considered arrest and conviction rates, prison-sentence lengths and changes in many other handgun laws such as waiting periods, as well as income, poverty, unemployment and changing demographics.
Thousands of observations made it possible to control for a whole range of other factors never included in any previous crime study. The estimated benefits indicate that if those states without right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions had adopted them in 1992, at least 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, rapes would have declined by more than 4,000, robbery by more than 11,000 and aggravated assault by more than 60,000. Surprisingly, the largest drops in violent crimes occurred in the most urban counties with the highest crime rates. Further, the benefits of concealed handguns were not limited to those who carry the weapons. By the nature of these guns being concealed, criminals cannot tell whether a potential victim is armed, thus making crime less attractive when it involves direct contact with people. Citizens who have no intention of carrying a concealed handgun benefit from the crime-fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. While allowing either men or women to carry concealed handguns deters murder, the impact is particularly dramatic for women. The findings imply that for each additional woman carrying a concealed handgun the murder rate for women falls by three to four times more having an additional man carrying a concealed handgun lowers the murder rate for men.
The Essay on Concealed Weapons Weapon States Rate
... Handgun Violence/ demonstrates that liberalizing Concealed Weapon Laws have had an adverse effect on the states crime rate. Between 1992 and 1997, / the violent crime rate ... not let any private citizens carry these weapons. Most people who have permits to carry concealed weapons in their proper ... their right to carry permit for criminal behavior/... and even the most law abiding citizen out there/ is ...
With women typically being weaker physically, providing a woman with a gun has a much bigger effect on her ability to defend herself. People willing to go through the permitting process also tend to be law abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for using a firearm in a felony. Most cases appear to have involved accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas like airports or schools. During Texas’ first two years of issuing permits in 1996 and 1997, permit holders were arrested for violent crimes at less than one-sixth the rate of other adult Texans, and these arrests rarely involved guns. Likewise, in Virginia, not a single permit holder has been involved in a violent crime. Similar results have been observed in states such as Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. While most police have supported concealed-handgun laws, many opponents have changed their minds after adoption. For example, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, recently summarized his change of heart: “I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict.
The Term Paper on Bear Arms Gun Guns People
... Many states are taking gun control on themselves and making gun laws that deprive citizens of there right to bear arms. In the town of ... the United States today, gun control has become a very big issue in the lives of its citizens. People arguing with each other ... there hands on the guns. Preventing them from having these weapons will make it easier on the police and the nation as ...
That hasn’t happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen. No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.” Permit holders are unusually law-abiding citizens who fear for their personal safety. The police are simply not able to protect everyone all the time. As a former opponent of concealed handgun laws, Campbell County, Ky. Sheriff John Dunn says: “I have changed my opinion … These are all just everyday citizens who feel they need some protection.” The evidence clearly indicates that we are all better off when law-abiding citizens are given a chance to defend themselves. This article is too stupid to comment on. As already stated, America has a disgusting homicide rate, the result of the gun mentality. Back to the Third World again, eh??!! Inner-city Detroit looks like some two-bit dictatorship that Americans here about on TV and pity. Pity indeed : ( Funny, David, that Detroit got to be in such sad shape with some of the toughest gun laws in the Nation. Clearly Mr. Lott is right on the money with his article. No matter where you are in the world, if you want to move large quantities of gold or cash, you arm your guards.
This holds true even in countries with TOTAL bans on guns. Driving gold through Ireland or Japan will find the same armed guards. Why do they need to arm their guards? Because criminals will ALWAYS obtain weapons and resort to violence. This brings up the question: If gold is valuable enough to protect, aren’t the lives of individuals worth that or more? If most people value life more than gold, then it would stand to reason that they should have the right to protect themselves with the very finest means available. Certainly the 500,000 slaughtered in Rwanda would have been better off had they been armed…instead, their attackers found only unarmed, defenseless people. The results were too predictable. In the LA Riots, again it was the defenseless, unarmed citizens who suffered the most cruelly. Such extremes are mere examples, by the way. Violence against law-abiding citizens is to be condemned even when it is conducted by a lone unarmed criminal…and it too is worthy of being armed to defend against. Seems like those in power forget 2 things. A law, any law is a limitation on our freedom. Although many laws are nessesary, many are not. A law is only good for LAWABIDING people.
The Essay on Concealed Weapon Laws Gun Society
"Matilda Crabtree, 14, was shot and killed by her father when she jumped from the closet and yelled 'BOO' to scare her parents; her last words were, 'I love you, daddy." (Rottenberg 87) Laws that regulate carrying concealed weapons (CCW) have been wildly debated in the California and the US. There have mainly been two different types of laws. One is a type of legislation known as "may need" laws, ...
No amount of law will prevent sensless acts. Criminals respect armed people.Why is it that our lawmakers do not? Why are you blaming “guns” for violence ? Seems to me that it’s a morality problem.For those that do not obey the law, and for those like yourself that don’t have the spine to stand up for what is right. Excellent article. I only take issue with one statement: “The police are simply not able to protect everyone all the time.” This furthers the myth that the function of the police is to protect individuals. In reality, their job is much different. They are charged with investigating violations of the law, writing reports, and arresting suspects. There is a good deal of case law backing this up. Your local police department has *no obligation* to protect you from those who would harm you. For those who doubt this, or just want more info, read “The Value of Civilian Arms Possession As Deterrent To Crime Or Defense Against Crime” By Don B. Kates Jr. (Originaly published in AMERICAN J. OF CRIM. LAW (1991)).
A quick search of the title at Yahoo should bring this right up. 3/26/98 Muad’Dib [email protected]_nospam Mr. Lenan’s probing commentary notwithstanding, guns are curative, not causal as regards violence. The Justice Dept just finished a study, but haven’t released it publicly. It seems that, despite operational assumptions specifically designed to minimize the positive effect of guns on crime rates, they still found over 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms a year – which is in line with similar studies (i.e., Gary Kleck).
Our “disgusting” homicide rate has been dropping steadily since 1980, in lockstep with a decline in the population’s percentage of 14-24 y.o. males – but coincident with a marked _increase_ in the passage of concealed-carry laws and permits issued, and an increase of over 40% in the number of guns in private hands. Were guns the cause of crime, the rate would be increasing. Ipso facto, the passage ” too stupid to comment on” is not the article…. Has anyone done a study of the effects of open carry? Why weren’t any fo the teachers involved in the Jonesboro incident armed? Or even some of the children? Jonesboro and similar tragedies will naturally continue as Public Schools mimic their government sibling known as Public Housing. Both prove that government should be quite limited in what it is permitted to operate, unless you want the violence associated with public housing and public schools to continue unabated. 3/26/98 Ron Lewenberg [email protected] Whether right-to-carry laws promote or detter violence is irrellevant to the law. The true debate is about the fundamental right of citizens to protect themselves from criminals and against the state.
The Essay on The Myth of Gun Control in Crime Prevention
America has a long tradition of gun ownership and for many Americans it is a fundamental part of life. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. However, in recent years, there were many controversial discussions about the Second Amendment because there were a high number of gun-related deaths, wounding, accidents, and suicides in the US. School ...
There is a reason why the loudest pro-confiscator here is from France. That reason is the relationship of the individual to the state. In Europe power is found in the state and lent to the people as a privelege. In America our rights are UNALIENABLE and we lend power to the state. The government has no morall or legal authority to disarm citizens. To do so is to through out our reason d’etre. For the people to promote such an action is an admission that freedom has failed. Gun control advocates don’t want to control guns, they want the government to controll us. re:Ron Lewenberg Amen to that brother ! Best thing I”ve heard yet. So Mr. Lewenburg, don’t you think that Palestinians also should have the right to carry guns and defend themselves as human beings , just like Israelis? I take your comments to be universally applicable principles, not just for Americans, but also for Jewish settlers in Israel (and Arabs in the occupied territories) where religious fanatics and economically motivated families already have the right to carry guns and shoot Arabs whose families have always been there and get away with it. Right now the Palestinians, a decent percentage of whom are Christian, only can use stones to try to throw off the cruel oppressor who breaks its Oslo treaty commitments and scorns the world community.
If Israel could not control the Palestinians before allowing Arafat to return (and turning over a few small pieces of land), then how can the Palestinians do it? Is gun control doomed to fail? Which is it? Was anybody else just a little suspicious of the statistics presented in this article? Were the graphs shown for just one state each, presented as an example, or are they somehow a composite of all available data? Were there any states that did not show a dramatic plunge after the legalization of concealed weapons? Also, I’d like to see a side-by-side comparison of, say, a state that adopted the measure and a nearby state that didn’t, for the same time period. The author makes some good points, but I’d like to know a little more about the data. Maybe I’m just a skeptic… Muad’Dib: My original comment was as probing as was needed given the intelligence of the article. America’s homicide rate is disgusting, to most people at least, mabe not to someone with your character. Guns ARE the cause of these horrible crimes, the decrease in the homicide rates is almost entirely due to the fact that the baby boomers are at a point in their aging where their getting too “old” to commit crimes.
The Term Paper on Critical analysis of Good Country People by Flannery O’ Connor
Good Country People is one of the most sought after works of Flannery O’ Connor. It is said to be the biography of O’Connor but she never claimed it to be such. The novel Good Country People seems to reflect the current situation and emotional status of O’ Connor while she was writing the novel, and if it is not in fact her biography, her emotion at that time has influenced the novel greatly. ...
Again, no one will look at the international evidence. Your post was JUST not too stupid to comment on. Seems like John Lott is on to something. We should do some serious studies on this matter. However David Lenan and others of his ilk would probably not believe those results either. Why is it that some refuse to seek the truth? They are so sure of their convictions that they reject truth and scoff at attempts to reach the truth. Give us a break David! We have to find out what will work. Or shouldn’t we? Ill grant you there is no panacea but nothings working now as you point out. What would you have us do? Wring our hands and admit there is no solution? To David Lenan: Get a clue. If you took every gun in this country and destroyed it, are you silly enough to believe that that would be the end of violence ? As for “international” results, I could really care less. This is still the greatest country in the world and your article smacks of socialism. Do you own a gun ? Have you ever had to protect youself, or are you living in Utopia? Are you jealous of common men that own guns ? Where do you live ?Are you “allowed” by the authorities to even own guns , or is that just for the ruling elite ? Tell me please.
I’m trying to figure out how someone can even think like this. David Lenan: “Guns ARE the cause of these crimes”? Don’t know if you actually meant this, but if you did, you’re are excusing the people (criminals) who commit these crimes. A criminal is not responsible because they are victims of society, right? It’s these criminal-tolerant views, adopted so much by our legal system, that have been a significant contributor to higher violent crime rates. Does your view also extend to butcher knives, baseball bats, arsenic, automobiles, rocks, rope, bare hands, and other tools of intentional murders? Crime is an act of a person, and the rights of law-abiding people need not be stripped in a misguided attempt to exonerate the criminal and place blame on inanimate objects. Bob: Your post is so full of self-righteouss I don’t even know what you think of reality. Taking the guns away wouldn’t end violence, but it would temper it down a great deal. I KNOW YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT “INTERNATIONAL” RESULTS, THAT’S PART OF THE GODDAMN PROBLEM WITH AMERICANS, SO CONCEITED!!!!! If you are an America Bob, YOU are the one being ruled by the elites.
The Essay on Good Country People 2
This essay will delve into the life of Flannery O’Connor not only as it is told biographically but as her life relates and is reiterated in the stories she writes. By using O’Connor’s fiction as a backdrop to her life, the essay will focus on the bizarre characterization of the protagonists of O’Connor’s stories as much as O’Connor herself was a very unique person. Thus, O’Connor will be ...
Your post smacks of ignorance, check out an atlas, discover there are other countries, discover that the smart ones banned guns, discover everyone isn’t killing everyone in these countries. John Anderson: I don’t believe criminals are the victims of society. I would like to see those two boys be executed, they took the lives of innocent children before they could live, therefore the boys should lose thier lives. All the examples you give me are objects, but guns are the only ones that are there just to KILL!! Taking the guns away would make that a lot harder, which would be a good start in attempting to get things in order. David Lenan: Why are so terrified of freedom and self determination. When are you going to realize that your disgust in personal freedom will eventually lead to a police state. Having spent the majority of my childhood under the “care” of the state.(foster care) Ihave seen first hand what it is like to live in a nanny state. I wouldn’t wish that even on you even though it seems to be what you want. Allen VanCleve: Banning guns doesn’t take away freedom. LOOK AT CANADA!! Canada is MORE free. While Americans were enslaving “niggers” Canadians were risking war with America to sneak blacks into Canada and FREEDOM. Canadians can walk down an inner-city street without being killed, Toronto and Vancouver are a hundred times safer than L.A. and New York. Canadians are warned when travelling to American that it’s a whole different ball game, stay alert or violence will consume you alive. The freedom argument is justification to keep the weapons, explain the examples of the other nations, other countries like Canada (a country without guns which NO other country has ANY right to criticize about freedom).
David: Your passion is appreciated, and certainly the struggle for freedom is the most noble of all battles. You are incorrect, however, to allude to Canada as having no guns. It has millions. It has handguns, rifles, and even automatic weapons. Eskimo children take rifles with them on school field trips to protect themselves from bears. Gun safety classes proliferate. These are good things. It also has a low crime rate. That’s all very nice. Canada does not have my brand of freedom, however. Banks are *Required* to get the government’s permission to purchase other banks (you don’t have much freedom without that permission).
Motorists are prohibited from using radar detectors. Doctors are assigned low pay-levels (which is why so many great Canadian doctors immigrate to the US to help give us the best healthcare on the planet).
These are anectdotal, of course, but they help illustrate that freedom is not the same as tranquility. Sure, a diehard Socialist can always claim that it is reasonable for governments to “limit” what doctors make (or lawyers or businessmen), but in no way is that FREEDOM! Freedom is found where people are willing to fight for their rights. This means that things can get quite violent, in fact wars are often fought over freedom. Freedom requires that you stand up to every bully and never back down. Whether you choose to do this with a particular weapon or not is immaterial (so long as you have the choice).
Allen. It is a people problem not a gun problem. Switzerland households are REQUIRED to keep assult rifles and ammunition available. You can walk down Swiss streets even more securely that Canadian streets. IT IS A PEOPLE PROBLEM, NOT A GUN PROBLEM. 3/26/98 Muad’Dib [email protected]_nospam I see a trend emerging: Any comments whicb do not conform perfectly to Mr. Lenan’s views are “too stupid to comment on” (yet the urge to say so overwhelms, I guess).
An easy, predictable debating technique, but hardly convincing, I’m afraid. What exactly was “too stupid” about my post, Mr. Lenan? Was there something wrong with my data? Was my analysis of that data flawed in some way? These are certainly a legitimate points of contention, a fact I have in no way disregarded. A debate would entail your pointing out my errors and providing alternative data and/or analysis. I, at least, have provided these – you have not. Anecdotes, repetition, allusion to “international data” you don’t provide, and SHOUTING do not make your point more acute, nor your lack of supporting evidence less apparent. Calling those who disagree with you “stupid” enhances neither your position nor your status as a person whose views should be given any weight. Quite the contrary. Guns are an emotional issue, but not immune to reasonable, methodical debate. I challenge you to step up a level from polemics to actual intellectual discourse. I, and others here, have presented our viewpoints with supporting evidence. If you disagree with me, _support_ your position rather than belittling yourself (not me, I assure you) by namecalling.
3/27/98 Fremling [email protected] See John Lott’s op-ed piece on page A14 in the Friday, March 27th, Wall Street Journal. He has an excellent analysis of the Arkansas school shooting. Dear Lenin (uh, I mean, Lenan… David Lenan): If guns are the reason for the relatively high homicide rates in the U.S., please explain why two other countries, that have less gun control than the U.S., have violent crime rates as low as any other European countries? These countries are Switzerland and Israel. If guns cause crime and gun control reduces it, why is it that there was much less crime in the good old days (you know, before you socialists came to power in the 60s), when guns were commonplace and gun control was nonexistent? Hmmmmm?? Speaking of violent crime, do you know how many millions of innocent people were slaughtered by Hitler and Stalin after they disarmed the people, comrade? B. Muad’Dib: You don’t agree that having a nation full of guns is probably the real cause of a culture that is obsessed with death? You don’t agree that getting rid of the guns would make people think twice about killing because the actual act would be harder (e.g. stabbing with a knife).
Often pointless argument arises because it seems some people answer arguments about EVERY issue with the Consitution, the Declaration of Independence, Mom and apple pie. You think that’s educated argument, an issue comes up and half (not all) the people post messages that sound like something William Wallace would say in Braveheart?? Some have said everything on the “gun” debate except “the NRA fought like warrior poets, and won their freedom, forever…” I totally agree with Professor Lott on the merits of concealed weapons. Just the perception that an individual is armed would make a violent person think twice about committing an act of violence against another person. Considering this, crime would typically go down if you weren’t sure if you were going to be shot and killed for your troubles. To the previous Steve – One thing that criminals consider is the risk involved in doing their business – crime. If that risk is too great (ie to their own cowardly lives), they will not do it. My father (a liberal BTW) has a sign on his rural property warning would-be criminals that they will be shot at. He hasn’t had a single problem while his neighbors are getting items stolen from their garages.
In my town, an older man got fed up and did the same thing. Both my father and this other man raised the price to these criminals, and that’s a price they don’t want to pay. Dave Lenan: the post immediately preceeding your last conclusively answers your first two questions in the negative. The historical and statistical data devastate the gun grabber position. And, gee, sorry Dave if we hick Americans keep referring to that pesky constitution. As long as the 2nd Amendment remains, this IS a constitutional issue. TO all that respond: As an American I am proud of my country. Sure, we’ve got our faults and some dark history, but the fact of the matter remains that this country has done more for individual rights and freedoms than any country in the world. How can anyone argue with Foreigners, that are totally alien to our ways and thought processes? David, I tend to think of americans as the “William Wallace “types. People that would draw the line and stand for what we believe.Paris France, we are unlike the french, that would be speaking German now, if it wasn’t for Americans. You guys have no idea,no concept of our ideas of freedom. So before you argue, make sure you understand the concepts.
I love David’s response. Don’t confuse me with facts, I already know what the right answer should be. Lenan: The US has always been a country awash in guns, yet this culture of death is a very recent phenomena. As usual, you would rather use emotion, and insult everyone who has the audacity to disagree with your ignorant opinions than even try to deal with the facts. David Lenan, I love the reference to William Wallace. Did you even understand what the character was talking about? Criminals and governments (often the same thing) respect only one thing – an armed populace. They do not respect your right to free speech, they do not respect your right to secure papers, they do not respect your right to a fair and impartial trial of your peers. Sixty million Americans understand this and will become very angry if you try to foist your commie crap upon them. Sleep well. Guns do not cause crimes people do. We have to take responsibility at some time for our society and culture and look at ourselves. Not at the drugs, guns, cars, booze etc. Are we going to ban driving because of the car accidents? The decline of our morals and ethics is to blame. In the 50s with fewer gun control laws we had fewer crimes.
Parents have to take responsibility for their children, teachers for their students, bosses for their employees. You can not fire anyone anymore because you may get shot. You can not discipline any student at school because you will get sued, you cannot discipline your child because it will be taken away from you. We respect opinions and freedom of speech for criminals and restrict religious expressions. We glorify and make excuses for the criminals and forget about the victims and the people who do good. As long as you are successful and have money it is ok to be amoral and to be a crook? We have to look at ourselves and our values and make the changes. Do not mess with the Constitution that got us this far. We do not want to lose our freedoms, we should want to protect them. The 2nd amendment will guarantee the 1st and we can be around for another 200 yrs at least. Lenan..Are you seriouly contending the government should confiscate or otherwise make illegl the ownership of the over 200 million guns in this country? If so you are living in a dream world. The gun crime problem will not be solved by any such sweeping destruction of the Constitutional rights of US citizens. Nor will it be solved by one sweepin solution.
More likely a series of solutions such as tougher sentencing, allowing citizens easier concealed carry permits, attempts to shore up the Juvenile Justice System to allow jailing offenders and later putting them in adult facilities when the come of age etc. Your comparisons of the US with other countries won’t fetch! Compare NY City and Wash. DC who have handgun control laws to other US cities which don’t. After that say something realistic please! Mr Lott shows a trend I want to see more of in journalism: actually including references. I get frustrated when I read that “studies show…” or “a bill recently passed into law requires…” (My only complaint about the data is I would like to have seen a measure of the statistical significance of the results.) When contrasted with the opposing editorial, this one really shines. TO Paris France; I have to admit that you are right about me, or Americans in general being “superior” to any other country. I rekon that ANY armed male is SUPERIOR to one that is not. I suppose that I could make you a slave and you would have to like it because you sure could’nt do anything about it.
I’ll bet that there are a lot more people immigrating here than anywhere else, in the quest to become “superior”. Any way, I”m glad you’ve finnaly realized that yes, it’s true, we are superior. As long as we retain the right to bear arms, we will stay superior. {Where is the MODERATOR of this “discussion”? If personal attacks and lewd remarks are considered appropriate in a debate, then just drop the claim to a “moderated” debate.} One would hope that no one is so tunnel-visioned as to think that to have or not to have guns are the only variables in the equation. To compare today (with many gun laws) to the 1950s (with fewer gun laws) ignore the vast differences in the societies of past and present that inspired the increase in laws. The article ASSUMES a lot more than seems reasonable in a scientific study. Everybody relax! The U.S. has more guns due to our frontier heritage. Also, we chose to allow gun ownership as a foil to government tyranny. Gun ownership as defined by the Second Amendment is not for personal protection from crime, but a more important element of freedom, protection from our government should it cease to be an agent of the people. It is but one of the unique things that has made the United States the greatest country in the history of Earth. Justly deserved conceit, thank you. I DO have an atlas, by the way, and I am aware of other countries which have elitist ideas about human nature (unwashed masses, etc.) and the effects of a populace free to take responsibility for their own personal safety(The peasants have guns! Save the Queen!).
Alas, the tolerant ideas that have created this prosperity also create a class of people who prey on those who follow the law. That is why I have a permit. Now if my state would follow Louisiana’s lead with car-jackers. 3/27/98 Julie Cochrane [email protected] 200 or so years ago, we fought a war. At the beginning of it, we wrote down why we fought it. At the end of it we wrote down what we expected to be respected by our new government or we would throw it back out on its ear. The world may have changed a lot since then, but we have not. Fundamentally, Americans still just want to be left alone. We’re out in the world as a “Superpower” because our economic system works well, we need good trade routes to buy critical resources (like titanium) from abroad, and we learned from WWI and WWII that the rest of the world will not leave us alone to run our own country the way we like, mind our own business, and trade in peace. The only real argument against isolationism over here is that we have to enforce Pax Americana on you buggers to keep world economies and trade routes stable for what few critical resources we don’t have internally. And, of course, we’re glad to buy and sell nonessentials with you at the same time.
We refer back to 200 year old documents because we meant the sentiments in them enough to fight wars over them when we said them, and we still mean them strongly enough to fight wars over them now. We refer back just to show we’re being consistent. I’m from Detroit. We are getting casinos soon. We’ll probably have an increase in crime too. I pray that the state gov. passes the CCW reform soon. Criminals dont care what the laws are. http://www.jpfo.org D. Lenan, I think that you have an unspoken emotional context that overrides any logic you could bring to this subject. People are the problem, not the implement they use to act out. Or are we going to ban frying pans and ball point pens next? On 3/26/98, David Lenan wrote: # America’s homicide rate is disgusting, to most # people at least, mabe not to someone with your character. # Guns ARE the cause of these horrible crimes, One article on this site mentioned that violent crime rates in other western countries are 10-20 times lower than ours. David, something like 50-60% of the murders are commited with firearms. Even if guns disappeared and ALL of the people that killed with guns turned into good people and did not kill with other means, we’d still have a violent crime rate five to ten times higher than other countries! Of course, it would be worse than this, since most of the people that murdered with guns would STILL be amoral sociopaths… they’d find a different weapon.
Guns are used in a lot of murders not because guns cause crime, but because they are convenient to use for that purpose. They would remain convenient even if guns were banned. If you could cast a magic spell that caused all guns to cease to exist, these crooks would use something else. We have a culture of violence in America. This, unlike widespread gun ownership, is a recent development. We, as a group, have decided to forsake morality. Life has little meaning now! The only surprise is that there is not MORE violence. Combined with loose, “revolving door” justice, we’ve set ourselves up for what we’ve got. I’m glad that I now live in a state that allows me my Constitutional right to bear arms. Frank Mr. Lenan: of course I don’t think that a “nation full of guns is the cause of a culture of death.” Even if we were a culture of death, guns would be a symptom. Smoking is not an effect of cancer. But that analogy is ir-releavent because I don’t live in a culture of death. I live in a life-affirming culture that affords and respects the sacrosanct rights (and responsibilities) of free individual human beings. One of those rights is the absolute right to defense of my person, my loved ones, and my freedom. Largely because my ancestors – and quite a few millions of others along the way – agreed that this was a sacrosanct right and acted accordingly, I live in the freest country on Earth. I know there are other cultures and other countries; I have even a visited a few (Canada included, which I liked very much).
I prefer to be where I am. Proliferation of violence is not an effect of the availability of guns – has the clear cut example of Switzerland (since you adore international examples so much) really failed to penetrate your prejudices? violence is and has been steadily decreasing since 1980. AK was tragic but it was newsworthy precisely because it was a rare event. Paris (France) — “The article is too technical. As everybody knows in politics a good politicians can give every sense he wish to polls and numbers and statistics.” But this is _not_ a political article, nor meant to be one. It is a rather high level discussion of logical findings from an analysis of available data. My word, if the article itself is too technical, what would have to say about the Lott-Mustard study that has been published? There are some things in the world (most?) that are not amenable to understanding through emotion or introspection but require a level of conscious cognition to understand. 3/28/98 Dave Workman [email protected] Bravo for John Lott’s revealing research on the impact that concealed carry laws are having on crime. That such laws have been passed in 31 states, coinciding with passage of “Three Strikes” and “Hard Time for Armed Crime” legislation, is the real reason we are seeing a decline in reported violent crime.
Those who have advocated restrictive gun control over the years, and other intrusions on the rights of individual citizens, are now being shown as the liars they’ve always been. In the wake of the Arkansas tragedy, I remain more firmly convinced than ever that gun control advocates are glad such shooting rampages to occur, simply in order to further their own agenda. The veneer is wearing thin, however, as from your own USA Today polling, the majority of respondents support gun ownership, and are now rejecting arguments that restrictions on our Constitutional rights will control crime. Thank God we do NOT have a world government! Those of you, not American – I do not care what your opinion is! This is America – and our rights and our laws are OUR business. If you want to be without guns and at the mercy of tyrants, that is fine – you can have whatever laws you want – in your country. The Lott article is a valid study of the situation in the U.S. David Lenan – whoever and wherever you are – stay there and keep your nose out of our business. 3/28/98 Ken Barnes [email protected] While the “con” article’s discussion thread appears to be moderated, this one really debases the term “intellectual capital.” To the point, Dr.
Lott’s paper, which I read and commented upon in the talk.politics.guns pro-gun FAQ (see text at http://www.rkba.org/research/ ) is far and away the most methodical and comprehensive study of its kind in the professional criminology literature. If there has been any serious criticism of Lott’s methodology in the literature (other than editorials) I’d be interested to see it. The folks at Handgun Control, Inc. have no case, thus far. Professor Lott,s article was on the money. I read the complete study and it was very thourough. Not like the surveys and studies by HCI and CDC. You may not like what he says, but is is factual. And that is what gripes the gun control crowd. Mr. Lott forgot to mention that in cities with total bans against carrying by citizens, there is more violence compared to cities with licensed carry. A case in point is our own capitol, Washington DC where guns are totally banned, but the gun homicide rate is still very high. Ditto for cities like NY, Chicago, LA. Other countries’ cultures are probably different, but I still remember traveling to Rome and noticing that on a lot of streetcorners, there were police with submachine guns. I also had two incidents where people were bold enough to come up to me and try pickpocketing me (one actually stuck his hand into one of my front pockets!).
Pretty bold if you ask me… To Paris France: I am an American and after spending several years in Europe and visiting several countries (including France) I still choose the United States over ALL others. There isn’t space here to tell you all the reasons. Whether you want to believe it or not, gun control does not work here and never will for a variety of reasons. I carry a concealed weapon (legally) and have never had to use it. Armed law abiding citizens are not a threat to anyone except criminals. I enjoy visiting other countries. The only country that I and my family only visited once was France. We found the people to be rude and obnoxious. And you prove we were right… I’ve noticed that there are cities in this world that have total bans on civilians carrying guns, yet which still have reasonably low violent crime rates (e.g., Innsbrook and Tokyo).
On the other hand, I have also seen cities that actively encourage civilians to carry weapons (e.g., Tel Aviv and Zurich), yet they also have reasonably low violent crime rates. These anecdotal, unscientific examples encourage me to disbelieve any claims that gun bans have any large effect on violent crime rates. What I have noticed, however, is that the cities with gun bans (and low violent crime rates) keep large numbers of armed police on duty at night (Innsbrook stationed soldiers on street corners when I was there last).
Martial law is hardly freedom, and should be discouraged whenever possible (even if it works in reducing crime).
So I’m left to conclude that trusting the common man to protect himself (in the best way available) is a better answer to crime than the passing fad of banning guns from civilians (I’m not aware of any nation that bans weapons from government employees such as police and soldiers).
However, if a nation were to propose banning guns from its police, security personnel, and soldiers, then I might at least be inclined to view the dying breed of anti-gun politicians as unhypocritical. 3/29/98 Ron Boe [email protected] I believe concealed carry of firearms is much better than open carry (which I think is like carrying a big sign saying”I dare Ya!”) but question the need in MOST areas of the county. What I would like to see is a study that conpares investment of money and enforcement of automotive laws vs gun laws. Where would todays’ society benifit the most from? I think lack of enforcement of common motor vehicle laws causes more grief and death than any firearm related problems. A study made by the goverement after the 1968 rash of gun laws showed that gun related deaths and injury was a small sliver of the total death and injury pie while car related death & injury was a huge majority. This was while the Vietnam war was going pretty good! We really need to step back and look at the bigger picture; this article hopefully points this out in a back handed way. 3/29/98 Steven Poor [email protected] A few have voiced their suspicions about the the graphs and statistics quoted.
These people probably did not click on the blue-colored word “study” at the top of the article, which leads you to the full study done by Lott and Mustard. If they had, they could see how in-depth this study really is. Remember, if an author writes an article, they must be as brief as possible. Listing the graphs for every state would not have been allowed by the editor, in the interests of readability. Daid Lenan: The fact that Americans rightfully claim their right to selfdefense apparently upsets you very much. I have a suggestion. Why don’t you move to one of those gun control countries which you are so fond of? Nobody here will stop you. They speak english in Canada, Ireland, England and Australia. So the language barrier is no excuse. No? Then will you admit that socialism and its consequent restrictions of citizens rights are evil? Or on a pragamatic level, that socialism “just doesn’t work”? After all, inquiring minds want to know why you would consider living in such a violent place as America when one of those peaceful socialist havens could be your home? If the revolutionaries at Concord and Lexington didn’t have guns you and I wouldn’t have the rights and liberties we now enjoy.
3/29/98 Brad3000 [email protected] Gentlemen, I am Australian, shot IPSC there for many, many years. I was not that great at it but enjoyed it none the less. I have lived in the US for 10yrs now and my wife & I are active target shooters. GunSafety begins in the head and my old club was very strict about screening out the ones with records and drug abuse. Any club with a sporting interest in firearms cannot afford to be “brought-down” by members that have a cavalier attittude about serious gun usage and safe handling. What has happened recently to gun-ownership in Australia is a political hype/knee jerk reaction using the sad event that happened in Tasmmania as justification, it will not have much impact on crime as evidenced by many surveys done in the US. We have been mugged 2 times in Australia & CT and shot at in Quebec but survived all. I am for a well screened Carry system that permits ANYONE the CHOICE of carrying. Where we live it is impossible to get one currently and this also means that we cannot use ranges in other states that we used to go to with other collegues. Each States Laws are a legal mindfield often without reciprocity. Thanks for the Bandwidth.
BRAD3000. 3/29/98 John R. Lott, Jr. [email protected] Paris (France): Our study accounts for many possible reasons for why crime is changing over time: arrest and conviction rates, prison sentence lengths, income, poverty, unemployment, drug prices, the most extensive demographic information used in any crime study, many different types of gun control, etc.. There are obviously many reasons why crime is changing over time, but one thing that we also do is control for overall national and state or county level trends in crime. For example, crime may have been falling nationally between 1991 and 1992 but we found that those states who adopted concealed handguns had even greater reductions in crime rates. The variables that include can explain about 95 percent of the variation in crime rates across all American counties from 1977 to 1992. By the way, the decline in murder rates nationally since 1991 can not be explained only by the policies in New York city, nor is New York city somehow unique. Many other large cities that did not adopt the particular programs followed in New York and still had large drops in murder. As my new book shows using more recent data, the continued drop in crime rates since 1992 can also be explained by the same variables that I used earlier. 3/29/98 Pete Smith [email protected] “Likewise, in Virginia, not a single permit holder has been involved in a violent crime.” I wonder if this just means that they haven’t been arrested yet? I’ve never visited here before, have I been trolled? or is there a risk that some of the other statements of compensating for poverty and demographics might also be as glowingly general? 3/29/98 John R. Lott, Jr. [email protected] Paris (France): The reason why crime rates fell relatively more in largest cities is that they are the most sensitive to changes in drug related crimes (i.e., gang battles over drug turf).
Since 1991 the U.S. government has greatly reduced its drug interdiction efforts and as a result cocaine prices fell by 50 percent between 1991 and 1996. New York with the heaviest concentration of drug usage has crime rates that are the most sensitive to changes in drug prices. I am not sure what to make about your second message. It is well known that the Mafia makes money by smuggling illegal items. The Mafia in the United States was created by prohibition. It is not surprising to me that the Mafia in Europe also thrives on providing items that are illegal there. Is the message that we should legalize guns in Europe just as we ended prohibition in the U.S.? Or, is your point that it is nearly impossible for governments to control the inflow of either drugs or guns? 3/29/98 John R. Lott, Jr. [email protected] Pete Smith: The numbers for Texas involve arrest rates, but the numbers for most other states involve the rates at which people are convicted. Licenses are suspended while people?s legal cases are pending but permanent revocation depends upon them being convicted. The bottom line is that whether the numbers are in terms of arrest rates or conviction rates, concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the general adult population. When they are convicted it is for activities that rarely involve threats to others (e.g., accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a prohibited place).
People who use a gun defensively are also frequently arrested when the police arrive because it is difficult for the police to be completely sure who is telling the truth. Permit holders who actually who fire their guns are almost always found to have done so in self-defense. Compare that to arrests for most murders where the conviction rate conditional on arrest is about 90 percent. It is thus very misleading to look at the arrest rates for permit holders who are arrested for using their guns. Thank you Mr. Lott for interjecting a comment to clear things up. I just wish to remind the U.S. posters that it is extremely difficult for people from other cultures to understand ours. The U.S was founded on violence. Early settlers killed native americans to take their land. In 1776 we defeated the British and had to again in 1812. We fought a bloody civil war in the 1860’s, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, along with other countless wars and conflicts over the last 222 years. Possibly survival of the fittest? Whether due to tenacity or technology the strong will survive and thrive over the weak. Even today our strength is being used as we have large contingent serving as U.N peacekeepers. The U.S. is a violent group of people, like it or not, but because of this we won most of those conflicts I listed. (CONTINUED)—— (CONTINUATION)——— Humans are predators, note our binocular vision for needed depth perception when hunting prey (look at birds, an eagles eyes are in front, a parrott has eyes on the side of its head).
Please remember that were it not for the U.S the person from France would be speaking German today and not be allowed on the internet to voice an opinion anyway. The greatest French victory of late was the sinking of a Greenpeace ship in a New Zealand harbor. This was done by their ‘elite’ special forces group and they got caught. Other countries are not burdened with that pesky Bill of Rights either, and remember it is not a bill of privledges. We all know why the second amendment was put there, you cannot expect people from other countries to know our countries history as we do not generally know theirs. (Plese pardon me for the length of this response) To John Lott Jr.; We always hear that the “police” are anti-gun and support the Brady Bill. In my hometown of 22,000, we have 19 police officers and I personally know 12 of them. None of the 12 support the Brady Bill or any additional measures for gun control. All of them support concealed carry laws. I wonder if that is typical of most police , or if it is a “southern” thing. How about a survey of police and their own individual opinions? Not the executive branch, just the common patrol officer, say, seargent and below ? I wonder if we would get different stats than the ones that we are used to hearing.
Any potential there? Bob Bailey — Please pardon me for adding my two cents worth relative to your question because what I have to say is purely limited and has no validity statistically. I know six uniformed police officers across four states, north and south, and not a single one of them is opposed to CCW or have any desire to see more gun control laws. These police officers span from sheriff departments, to highway patrol, to medium-sized city officers. They are all, however, what one would call the rank and file. 3/29/98 Dick Brudzynski [email protected] Lott is a paid pimp of the right-wing Olin Foundation. His suggestion in the Wall Street Journal that teachers carry concealed weapons is typical of the NRA mentality. To DICK ; Hey Dick, my wife is a teacher and teaches 9th grade civics. As a result of her 20 years of teaching , many of my friends are teachers and believe it or not, we have talked about this very subject. I personally think that it would be a good idea if teachers were armed. Not a mandantory thing, but a law that would allow them to do so if it were their choice. Think about it. Who could respond in a more timley manner ? NO ONE. Like Lotts’ study points out, just knowing some teachers were armed would undoubtedly prevent some violence.
My wife has a CCW permit . I am a CCW range officer and you would be suprised at the amount of teachers here in Arkansas that have permits. They are some of the most responsible and respected people I know.Why don’t you ask some teachers what they think ? You may be suprised at the answers. TO Stan Watson : Your 2 cents worth was good to hear. The Sherrif here in Pope county is a personal friend of mine , and I have picked his brain a time or two on gun related issues. As sherrif, he sees all the gun applications for this county before he sends them to the state police for approval. He has stated to me and to many CCW classes that he attends that “the people that apply for the permits are not part of the problem”, and he personally likes the idea of concealed carry and actively supports it by teaching the law enforcment parts of the classes– on his own time . I can tell you this , he has got a lot of votes doing that, the last election we had , a republic candidate made the statement that “only the police and military should have guns” and after saying that, he never had a chance. Bob Bailey — I guess that some politicians really do commit political suicide when they open their mouth. I wouldn’t have voted for him either, and I am a life long Republican. I wonder, was he endorsed by your local Republican organization or was he one of those single candidate primary winners? Stan Watson: Yes , the candidate was endorsed by the Rep. party. He was a career Army man, 20 years in the Military Police. He must have forgot that he was retired and talking to civilians.As a matter of interest, the Rep. party refused to endorse him again, saying that our current Sherrif was “unbeatable”. We are fotunate. Our sherrif has common sense, great family values and believes in a much higher authority than himself (unlike most democrats).
He is the most conservative “democrat” I ever met. He has a clear unnderstanding of right and wrong. (unlike most Democrats).He is a good dude. To Dick Brudzynski: Dick, Mr. Lott’s suggestion that people consider allowing teachers to be armed was not unreasonable or unjustified. His editorial in Friday’s Wall Street Journal (one of the better days for editorials, I might add) pointed out that the killer at the High School in Pearl, Mississippi was immobilized not by the police…but by a teacher who ran to his car and retrieved his gun and SAVED the children at that school from further bloodshed. The police didn’t arrive for another four minutes or so (imagine how many innocent, young children that killer would have killed had that teacher not been armed – hence, Mr. Lott’s suggestion for reasonable consideration of such).
————– Now, since you criticized Mr. Lott’s affilliations, why you don’t you clear the record and reveal to the readers on this forum that you have been posting the one-sided text of anti-gun court cases on Compuserve for years? Who are you affilliated with, Mr. Dick Brudzynski? If you think it is fair to carp about Mr. Lott’s affiliations (which has no bearing on the statistics in a peer-reviewed document, by the way), then surely it is fair for you to be asked the same question. 3/30/98 John R. Lott, Jr. [email protected] Dick Brudzynski: The gun control advocates like the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Control have continually spread these claims about my funding that they know are false. 1) The endowment made by the Olin foundation was raised by the University of Chicago. I had nothing to do with it and absolutely no contact with the foundation. There have been Olin fellows at the University of Chicago since the 1960’s and I did not arrive here until the mid-1990’s. 2) I was given the fellowship as a reward for my past research, none of which has had anything to do with guns. The University of Chicago Law School faculty, which voted to give me the position, never asked what future research I intended to pursue.
3) Of the several hundred Olin fellows at Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Stanford, etc. since the 1960’s, I am the only one to do any research on gun control. 4) It is my understanding that the Olin Corporation gets something like one percent of its profits from Winchester ammunition, and that there is no connection between the Olin Corporation and the Olin Foundation. 5) For those interested in a more indepth discussion on this issue please see my new book More Guns, Less Crime. I found how gun control groups attack those with whom they disagree very interesting. To Dick Brudzynski – First I applaud the fact that you list your e-mail address. This lends a great deal of credibility to your response. Many anonymous posters are just mouthing off and one does not know if they are truely making an arguement or just trying to cause controversy. I must point out that in a recent school shooting, the shooter was held at gunpoint by his vice principal for 4.5 min. until police arrived. Yes the VP was breaking the law by having a firearm on school property but the little psycho was only able to kill 2 classmates until the VP apprehended him. This is not popular so was, of course, usually left out of media reports.
There were only two things wrong with Mr. Lott’s article. As noted by another, the role of police in America is not as protectors. Secondly, Mr. Lott stated, these states “gave the right” to carry guns to citizens. No sir! The U.S. Constitution “guarantees” the right to carry….. openly, concealed or otherwise! None of the “right to carry” laws would be necessary if government would simply obey the “law of the land,” the Constitution! Each of these states recognize in their constitutions, that the U.S. Constitution is supreme, is the law of the land; and guarantee in their constitutions, the “right to keep and bear arms.” More laws=more government control! David Lenan sounds more like Vladimir Lenin. Need he be reminded that if not for an armed, gun-toting America, he wouldn’t have the right to spew out his stupity here? He contradicts himself, saying GUNS kill people, then says that falling homicide rates is due to baby-boomers getting too old to commit crimes. The 14 – 24 yr olds have always been our biggest criminal element. Homicide rates are falling because baby-boomers are the ones arming themselves and the youngsters fear armed citizens. We’re not too old to shoot street hoodlums! Komrade Lenan also praises “gun free” societies, ignoring their per capita crime rates being higher than America’s, using alternative weapons . . . and have tax rates of 50-68%, and few freedoms. Is that what this moron wants for us? GUNS=FREEDOM! (I’m a retired cop).
Right on Chief Preston and John Lott! America is only free because of honest citizens standing up and telling the truth. Paris, France can cite all of the propaganda agents it wants to, but the fact remains, the names they give you are people involved with gun-control/gun-banning politics and organizations. These people in any other decade would have been called what they are: Communist Socialists! If anyone thinks Communism is dead, they’re only ignorantly fooling themselves. The New World Order is all about Socialism (remember Kruchev said in 1961, that Socialists would take over the world without firing a shot).
What stands in their way is free, armed societies! Anti-gunners are nothing more than propaganda agents of the New World Order. It’s not a peaceful they want, it’s an un-armed and imprisoned society, incapable of fighting back! Go to hell Paris! America shall remain the land of the free! We’re keeping our guns, for people like you! I find it interesting that everyone will admit that drunk drivers kill people but no one says that Dodge or Ford or GMC or Nissan or Toyota or (insert your favorite vehicle) kills people. It’s too easy to blame the gun and not the person using it. However with drunk drivers they will instead put the blame where it belongs and that is with the driver and not with the car. Even the criminals will say that they fear breaking into a house where they know the person has a gun because they don’t want to get shot. If that fear can extend out to the street because they don’t know who is carrying a gun then I’m all for it. The Second Admendment and concealed carry laws are needed just as much today as they were needed 200 years ago. Does anyone really believe that the criminals will turn in their guns if a law was passed that forbide ownership of guns ?? Lott has right.
More guns, less crime. I like this book. I am American and a patriot. I dislike peole who comes here argue with us andthat are totally alien to our way and tought process. I am a gun owner and I will never let Socialists and Communists take me off. I have a bill of right and I will take my gun in an airplane. All this immigrants who comes across in my country and steal my job and my house. 3/31/98 F. Lassen [email protected] I can’t belive the amount of people who want the honest Citizen disarmed. I live in a rural area and it takes the Sheriffs department 40 minutes to get a deputy here when a crime is commited. The place I live is beside a state hwy. leading into another state and when the sheriff is called the criminal goes acrossed the state line. I have called the sheriffs office many times because many drug deals go down here on the Hwy. There response is horrible. I have to keep a loaded gun here as I have had people drive into my yard at 1AM and 2 AM and want directions and they were on drugs or had been drinking a lot. The police and sheriffs jobs is not to protect, it is to apprehend criminals after a crime has been commited. With over 390 million Acres in the United States and only about one percent of the population of approxmately 262 million people in the US on some type of law enforcement jobs, it is easy to see they can’t help you if they are called and you have only seconds to take care of your family during a crime.
Require the anti gun crowd to be sign up at police dept. and sheriffs offices saying they don’t believe in guns so the criminals will leave me and my family alone. Gun Control will lead to People Control. Thank You 3/31/98 Rob Waterson rob(at)mindspring(dot)com I am a proud American and I do not give a damn about how they do things in Europe; we have a different attitude towards government here. I have carried a concealed weapon for several years now and never even had to draw it. I do indeed have a carry permit, but I also know that I do not NEED one; what part of “keep and bear” does the government not understand? HERE IS MY MAIN POINT: Those of you (and it warms my heart to see how many) who firmly believe in the right to keep and bear have to abandon the republicrats and the demopublicans; they have both abandoned freedom and individual rights. I find it interesting that even though they were at odds with one another at the time, both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist would be considered Libertarians by today’s standards. Take the plunge, vote for freedom! Bob Bailey: You have to differentiate Police Chiefs from Police officers. Every poll that I have read shows that police officers support the rights of citizens to be armed. Police Chiefs, especially those in big cities, are usually political appointees, and as such, usually care more about the policies of the current administration, than they do about the concerns of the citizens. 3/31/98 Dr. Bill [email protected] As a person who has spent many decades dealing with measurements, I have to agree that Mr. Lott’s charts are simply too smooth to be remotely possible. He is clearly misrepresenting some real data that may or may not actually have the trends he presents; there is no statistical validation to back up what he claims with those figures. In addition, we know that violent crime has generally dropped throughout the country, so drops in murder rates etc. that center on the “anti-crime” implementation of gun-toting laws or any other local public policy initiatives of the past decade are likely just coincidental. These compelling scientific arguments having been made, there is still a vague suspicion that Mr. Lott may be correct, even to a staunch anti-gun person such as myself (I grew up in Houston TX when it was the murder capital of the civilized world and always saw stories on the evening news about petty disputes that grew to deadly confrontations given the ready access to guns, or childhood buddies killed during innocent play).
Criminals have to think twice about an attack on a potential target who just might have a gun up their sleeve. However, I can’t imagine that such policies would work well in a crowded Manhattan subway, or that they could reduce our murder rates to merely several times that of European countries which don’t even necessarily arm their police. Dr. Bill: You absolutly right Sir ! 4/1/98 John R. Lott, Jr. [email protected] Dr. Bill: The graphs shown in my piece trace out the quadratic regression lines for the periods before and after the concealed handgun law goes into effect. (These were the graphs discussed in the published version of January 1997 study in the Journal of Legal Studies. The version on the web does not contain this information.) If you are interested in the actual year to year variation in crime rates before and after the imposition of the laws, please see pages 136 to 138 of my forthcoming book. However, the bottom line is that for both ways the results look remarkable similar. As to you concerns about how these laws would work in New York city, I have a couple thoughts. The largest cities that I have studied who have changed their laws are Houston and Philadelphia, which why they are not as large as New York are still fairly sizable. The results also strongly indicate that concealed handgun laws reduce crime the most in the most densely populated counties. However, it is possible that the relationship be the passage of these laws and crime rates may change for the city populations above those which I have been able to study. One can only test this by actually changing the law. New York City does currently issue about 8,000 permits, but if one believes that the impact in New York would be different than it has been in other cities, it is possible to change the law gradually in stages. Benjamin Disraeli once said “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” I got that quote out of a great little book called ‘How to Lie With Statistics’. For years it has been a little hobby of mine to look at the conclusions of various published studies and surveys, and find the little lies, the outright misrepresentations, the (mis) manipulation of data, etc. Little of the original data is provided, typically, yet often it is sufficient to debunk the conclusions. This tendency to lie with statistics is especially common in studies involving public policy issues where political philosophy usually trumps academic detachment (does that even exist any more?).
I have no respect for anyone who intentionally misuses data and statistics to reach conclusions not supported by that data. John Lott: pass. Douglas Weil: fail. 75% of those polled don’t care what TomC thinks of statistics. 69% thinks he’s currently ingesting some sort of narcotic. 92% thinks he is paranoid to the point of needing prozac. 54% believe he doesn’t trust his mother. 99.9% think Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, M.D., is pretty wrong. Dr. Bill/TomC, At least Dr. Lott has made an honest attempt to study the subject, and let the data take him where it may. Perhaps you should do the same. Just go in with no preconcieved results, analyze the data and let it take you where it leads. The truth shall set you free…and a good Springfield M1 will ensure that you remain so. Okay, I have a few things to add. 1. The “Canadian Freedom” argument is garbage. To think a Canadian is as free as we are is bull. SOcialist HealthCare, Permits needed to transport weapons, come on. Canada screams socialism. They are damn fine humanitarians, however, as is indicated by the fight to end several different forms of oppression and hostage taking, and kidnapping. 2. To those questioning the statistics. Buy the book. Determining causality is nearly impossible in the social sciences. Period. However, being able to explain, or at least recognize other variables is important to the conclusion. Lott seems to have a good graps on the variables involved, and the methodology, but was hamstrung in this case by space. Guess I got baited into buying the book when it comes out. My personal .02. I live in a great country that is occaisionally interrupted by some lowlife criminal, many of whom are WELL armed. It is the responsibility of the government to see to our protection, that is the primary purpose of any government. SO, when the government can not protect me, it had better not interfere with my ability to protect myself, lest it is oppressing me, and I will fall back to the teachings of T.J. a little revolution is a good thing. There was one in ’94 with the Republican sweep, and there will be many more of the same nature. With thought on the part of our elected leadership, our revolutions will all be peaceful. do Wm. Bach: Good heavens! I passed Mr. Lott and failed Mr. Weil I may have been tedious, but my point was that typically data and statistics are misused to support a position. In Mr. Lott’s case any such misuse is certainly not apparent. In Mr. Weil’s case, it is. This study reflects what most of us have know for years. I am glad that the truth is finally coming out. Thanks to the authors for doing the reaserch using the facts, instead of lies from a political group’s agenda. Compareing legal gun ownership to what happended in Arkanas is like comparing the act of a husband and wife making love to a gang rape. Only the weak carry a handgun. That applies to criminals and to regular citizens. Handgun ownership gives people a false sense of security. Sure there a rare cases where carry a handgun actually saved someone. But the net effect of gun ownership has definitely been negative in our society. How many children accidently shoot themselves while playing with their daddy’s gun?? How many handguns are stolen from law abiding citizens only to be used in crimes?? How many drunken arguments end up deadly because someone decided to use a gun?? Let’s use common sense and end the gun menace NOW. The best way to end this crime madness is to attack the root causes of violence and poverty. Not by handing out guns to everybody. I take it my namesake, Fred (above), either didn’t bother to read the above article, or having read it, chose to completely ignore its findings. How about asking, how many children were saved from uncertain futures because their parent stopped a carjacking by being armed? How many burglaries or robberies were aborted by an armed citizen? How many women prevented a rape or sexual assault because they brandished their pistol? Statistics vary (as they must because so few of these incidents are ever reported to the police) but I’ve heard anywhere from 250,000 to 1,000,000 such incidents per year. The gun control fetishists refuse to deal with the facts as evidenced by their posts to this board. That doesn’t make their emotional appeals any more convincing. It just makes them appear juvenile: standing there with hands over ears chanting “la la la la…I can’t hear you!!” Sorry, Fred, but your simplistic answer, while noble, is far off the mark. Violence the problem. Attacking guns is a easy out for people who don’t want to really deal with the problem. It makes it look like you are doing something. Yur statements are similar in content to “I believe in peace” or “motherhood” or “justice.” It is a tired song of liberals who are afraid to live up to their principles and see the anti-gun attack for what it is, an attack on personal freedom and rights. Liberals who wouldn’t stand up for the Japanese -Americans, who as US citizens were imprisoned during WWII, and now are letting gun owners becoem the whipping boys (and girls) for society’s failings. Guns have been a part of this country from the beginning, for good or bad, but the even greater access to guns permitted in the past didn’t lead most people to kill thier schoolmates, and guns don’t do that now. Picking on guns is a treasured addiction of the politically-correct. The truth is you are more wrong than right, and you are an impediment to both the discussion and the solution of the problem of violence in America. 4/1/98 Mike Orick [email protected] How many kids killed playing with daddy’s gun? A lot less than killed playing with the bicycle daddy gave them or the pool daddy put in the backyard or the cleaners mommy keeps under the sink! During the time the number of guns in America quadrupled, the accident rate was cut by more than half. The safest counties in California are the ones with the most CCW permits issued. The most dangerous county has the least. Guns are made JUST to kill people, how many times must this be said?? Okay, that’s fair, yep, erasers kill people. Guns are just to kill da peeple. Toll Booth Willy, you are absolutely ignorant on this issue. 1. Intent is not made into any tool. 2. Ever heard of shooting sports? Skeet, Trap, IPSC, Bowling Pin Matches, Hunting (You Know, FOOD) 3. The issue is freedom, not safety. The reason the Second AMendment exists is to kill off oppresive regimes. 4. SO do knives only have one use? So, what is your argument anyway? Ban guns because with my gun I can protect my rights from someone like you who doesn’t respect them? You believe more kids are killed with a parent’s gun than drown in the parent’s swimming pool? I’d like to play poker with you. Bring lots of cash. You can teach me how to play. 4/1/98 Muad’Dib [email protected]_nospam Fred: “Only the weak carry a handgun. That applies to criminals and to regular citizens.” That’s right. I am absolutely and unmistakably weaker than an armed agressor – _if I am unarmed_. Thank you for making the point for me…. “Sure there a rare cases where carry a handgun actually saved someone.” Research indicates the number of such “rare cases” ranges from 850,000 to as many as 2.5 million a year – the vast majority of which (some 98%) do not result in an injury or a death. Kolasky cites some of these stats in the accompanying article. Didn’t you read it? …. “How many children accidently shoot themselves while playing with their daddy’s gun?” Not very many, and the number’s been steadily dropping for the last decade, since the NRA started it’s Eddie Eagle Gun Safety classes in schools (US$100 million they’ve spent so far. What have you done besides howl for my freedom to be limited?).
Also, this figure is an order of magnitude lower than the number of children killed in auto accidents. If I give up my gun, will you give up your car? FRED; If only the “weak” carry a handgun , why are liberals and governments so danged scared of them ? Why is it that criminals prefer to victimize the unarmed ? Your statements reflect those of a paranoid that believes eveything he hears without ever bothering to reasearch the facts. Tell me the truth now, is it the gun that you fear, or is it the mental state of the owner ? Why is it that you refuse to accept the fact that not ALL people are wimps ? Some of us WILL take the responsiblity of family and personal protection. There are some of us that WOULD stand against an oppresive government if need be . So tell me. Is it really the “GUN”, or is it the “ATTITUDE” that you’re scared of ? Please enlighten me . daniel: Get off the crack!! How many people have guns that don’t use them for anything else except killing? The 2nd amendment wasn’t for what you say so, read my other posts you idiot. Okay there, tissue please, just honk here, good boy. Okay, now…. Okay Willy. I quit smoking crack because it screwed up my aim, and interfered with my ability to cause mass destruction with my target weapons. Make an argument. I couldn’t find a SINGLE post from you in which you make an argument as to the actual existence of the 2nd amendment. AND you failed to continue your explanation. MOST OF THE GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT USED FOR KILLING. Fact. Live with it. If they were there would be hundreds of millions deaths per year in this country. Many of us own guns that are used for shooting sports that involve no bloodshed. If you made an argument I would respect you, but you are making ad homs, so I destest you. grow up, blow your nose, and deal with me, my attitude, and my guns…. So, in your informed opinion, what IS the purpose of the 2nd amendment? The 2nd amendment was another way to allow the American to be self-sufficient. Therefore much of the 2nd amendment is based in colonial times; when hunting and fishing was often key to survival, therefore guns were needed. This isn’t so anymore. Also, a gun culture evolved in the south, as whites had to keep control over the slaves. This culture, which glorifies guns, continues to this day (e.g. westerns).
Often the 2nd amendment is used to justify these other reasons, such as the culture of keeping slaves from escaping, and what better way for rebels to brainwash people than pulling out the Consitution? Tissue? 4/1/98 TOB [email protected] “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” –Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis Criminals don’t abide by the law, period. If a criminal wants to assault, rob, rape, or murder someone, I feel pretty confident that he would prefer his victim to be unarmed and defenseless. If you were a criminal would you choose to victimize someone in a state, city, or county where your intended victim might be carrying a legally concealed handgun that might send you to the morgue? I doubt it. Whether you ban handguns or not, there already on the street. The criminals will get their hands on weapons one way or another. The police are spread to thin to protect you. The justice system is a revolving door. Who is going to protect you from the criminals? Not members of the anti-gun movement. It all comes down to the law-abiding tax-paying citizen versus the law-disregarding criminal, and I’m positive that he would prefer for you to be unarmed. So what kind of world do you want to live in?? One in which things are so out of control that everybody has to carry a gun because of a REAL threat of physical harm. Or a world in which gun violence was nonexistant. It seems to me that we are in an escalating arms race to destruction. Giving everybody a gun is not the answer!! Is it posssible that pro-gun people use self defense as a smoke screen?? Maybe the truth is they are addicted to the feeling of power derived from shooting a gun. Like I said, guns are for the weak. Shooting and owning a gun makes the weak and insecure feel powerful. 4/2/98 Norman Potts [email protected] Willy: The Second Amendment was not written with hunting in mind. It was about colonial opposition to a standing national army. After the British military occupation, the colonists wanted to ensure that the army of the new nation could not be used against them, but to only protect them from OUTSIDE aggression. The Founding Fathers wrote many commentaries in favor of the common people to own firearms and keep them in their homes, not to hunt, but to be ready to defend liberty from an internal threat. Yes, it can happen here. A state of martial law can be declared by the president (not necessarily Clinton) and the constitutional rights of citizens can be suspended. What if the person in power decides he or she likes it that way? That’s why the military cannot be used in law enforcement operations (although they sometimes are.) The prospect of defending one’s home and family is also present. Here in Dalla’Fort Worth, home-invasion robberies are becoming more common. It is often a tactic used by Asian Gangs, in particular. I don’t think 911 will help you very much in such a situation. 4/2/98 Norman Potts [email protected] Fred– I would like to see how “strong” you would be while watching your wife get raped by some punks as their friends hold you back and wait their turns (or maybe even rape you.) Sure, it likely won’t happen to you, will it? But it HAS happened to SOMEBODY. I bet they never thought it would happen, either. During the course of my law enforcement career, I once worked as an officer in a federal prison. Fed prison officers are not allowed to carry guns, either, unless they do so with a concealed-carry license. One night around midnight I was on my way home from work and I stopped by Kroger to get a few groceries. As I was standing in line a couple of teens were in front of me and one was obviously high. They asked me about my uniform and I told them where I worked. As I tried to make small talk with them, I said something that set the bigger of the two off. He satrted to come at me, cursing and with clenched fists. All I had was a pocket knife. His buddy eventually pulled him out of the store before anything happened. After standing around outside a couple of minutes, they finally drove away. If that kid had wanted to shoot me right then, he could have. Although I had my knife in hand (he was high and there WERE two of them) he could have easily killed me. He could have just as easily come back inside and shot me. I got lucky that night. 4/2/98 Norman Potts [email protected] The point is, I didn’t expect any of that to happen when I pulled up to that store, as I had many times before. I could have been taken, and I wouldn’t have even been able to run. Now I’m in an agency that issues me a pistol, and you bet I carry it every time I walk out the door. No, I’m not afraid, and I’m not paranoid, but I am ready. Criminals will ALWAYS be with us. They have been since the cavemen. They will do anything in their power to get what they want, and resort to methods most people would never even think of, and someday they may just want YOUR stuff. Or maybe they might just want to see what it feels like to “pop” somebody. Happens every day, friend. Be safe. 4/2/98 Joe [email protected] Fred we don’t want to hand out guns to everyone! If people wish not own arms for recreation or defense that is their right to choose. Just don’t take my right away from me! You never have and never will be able to legislate human behavior. As far as firearms being for the weak, well I sincerely hope you never find out how mistaken you are. because a weak person would not have the strength of character to defend themselves regardless of how they were armed. As has been stated – the possiblility of the average citizen being the possessor of a firearm or other lethal weapon will always be a deterrent for criminals. Also remember that there are firearms out there for the criminal that we as law abiding citizens cannot or willnot get due to our respect of the law. It is time to quit focusing on the lawabiding and focus on the criminal. They have forfetted their rights when they step outside the law and do not need protection from the average lawabiding citizen. Why should you worry about more people carrying concealed handguns? On Sept. 10, 1997, five men licensed to carry concealed handguns got into a fight outside a Pittsburgh saloon after exchanging “hostile looks.” All of the men fired their weapons and ended up in the hospital. Earlier this year in Indianapolis, two women were unintentionally shot when a concealed handgun fell out of a man’s pocket at a crowded Planet Hollywood restaurant. In February 1997, two Tulsa men were arguing over who would take their four-year-old granddaughter home from day care. One of the men, who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, shot the other man in front of 250 school children. Why were these dangerous and poorly-trained people allowed to carry concealed handguns? They live in states that recently weakened “carrying concealed weapons” (CCW) laws. This legislation — a favorite of the gun lobby — takes discretion away from law enforcement in determining who receives a concealed weapons license and requires the state to allow virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon to carry a loaded handgun. Under this system, the background check required of applicants for CCW licenses is supposed to screen out people with violent criminal histories, but it cannot screen out all criminals or people with bad tempers or bad judgment — and no one should think otherwise. Daniel Blackman is one example of a dangerous man who was allowed to carry a concealed weapon despite prior criminal behavior. In February 1996, the former candidate for judge in Broward County, Fla., threatened to put three bullets in the head of a meter maid who had written him a ticket — behavior that should have prevented him from carrying a concealed handgun but did not. Though he was arrested, Blackman was not convicted of a crime because he agreed to seek psychological treatment. A year later, Blackman was arrested again, this time for pulling a gun on an emergency-room doctor who refused to write him a prescription. Only then was his CCW license revoked. In states with lax CCW laws, hundreds of licensees have committed crimes both before and after their licensure. For example, in Texas, which weakened its CCW law in 1996, the Department of Public Safety reported that felony and misdemeanor cases involving CCW permit holders rose 54.4% between 1996 and 1997. Charges filed against Texas CCW holders included kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, illegal drug possession and sales, drunken driving and impersonating a police officer. Clearly, the Texas background check does not ensure that everyone who receives a CCW license is a responsible or upstanding citizen. From Texas to Illinois and California to Delaware, law-enforcement officials have led the charge against this dangerous liberalization because they know that more guns will only lead to more violence. Thanks to the efforts of our men and women in blue and concerned citizens, the gun lobby has not passed any new concealed-weapons legislation in more than a year. Despite the opposition of most voters, the gun lobby currently is trying to pass these senseless laws in Michigan and Nebraska, and also has set its sights on Kansas, Ohio and Missouri. The gun lobby attempts to justify this dangerous political agenda by citing research conducted by Dr. John Lott. Lott’s study concludes that making it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons reduces violent crime rates. What the gun lobby and Lott do not say is that this study has been totally discredited by many well-respected, independent researchers. In fact, in a nationally-televised symposium at which Lott’s work was critiqued, Dr. Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky, and Dr. Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University agreed that Lott’s study is so flawed that “nothing can be learned of it” and that it “cannot be used responsibly to formulate policy.” Since then, no credible evidence has been produced to rebut the conclusions of Black, Nagin and Ludwig, or other researchers who have identified additional flaws with Lott’s work. Contrary to the gun lobby’s claim, no evidence exists to suggest that “an armed society is a polite society.” In reality, the United States already has more guns in civilian hands than any other industrialized nation, and not surprisingly, we also have one of the world’s highest rates of gun crime. As the casualties of weak concealed-weapons laws begin to mount, it is unconscionable that Lott and the gun lobby continue to use this flawed data to put more guns on the street. Fortunately, the American people and law enforcement know better. They deserve primary consideration from their state representatives, not the special-interest gun lobby. It is truly a matter of life and death. Why should you worry about more people carrying concealed handguns? On Sept. 10, 1997, five men licensed to carry concealed handguns got into a fight outside a Pittsburgh saloon after exchanging “hostile looks.” All of the men fired their weapons and ended up in the hospital. Earlier this year in Indianapolis, two women were unintentionally shot when a concealed handgun fell out of a man’s pocket at a crowded Planet Hollywood restaurant. In February 1997, two Tulsa men were arguing over who would take their four-year-old granddaughter home from day care. One of the men, who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, shot the other man in front of 250 school children. Why were these dangerous and poorly-trained people allowed to carry concealed handguns? They live in states that recently weakened “carrying concealed weapons” (CCW) laws. This legislation — a favorite of the gun lobby — takes discretion away from law enforcement in determining who receives a concealed weapons license and requires the state to allow virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon to carry a loaded handgun. Under this system, the background check required of applicants for CCW licenses is supposed to screen out people with violent criminal histories, but it cannot screen out all criminals or people with bad tempers or bad judgment — and no one should think otherwise. Daniel Blackman is one example of a dangerous man who was allowed to carry a concealed weapon despite prior criminal behavior. In February 1996, the former candidate for judge in Broward County, Fla., threatened to put three bullets in the head of a meter maid who had written him a ticket — behavior that should have prevented him from carrying a concealed handgun but did not. Though he was arrested, Blackman was not convicted of a crime because he agreed to seek psychological treatment. A year later, Blackman was arrested again, this time for pulling a gun on an emergency-room doctor who refused to write him a prescription. Only then was his CCW license revoked. In states with lax CCW laws, hundreds of licensees have committed crimes both before and after their licensure. For example, in Texas, which weakened its CCW law in 1996, the Department of Public Safety reported that felony and misdemeanor cases involving CCW permit holders rose 54.4% between 1996 and 1997. Charges filed against Texas CCW holders included kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, illegal drug possession and sales, drunken driving and impersonating a police officer. Clearly, the Texas background check does not ensure that everyone who receives a CCW license is a responsible or upstanding citizen. From Texas to Illinois and California to Delaware, law-enforcement officials have led the charge against this dangerous liberalization because they know that more guns will only lead to more violence. Thanks to the efforts of our men and women in blue and concerned citizens, the gun lobby has not passed any new concealed-weapons legislation in more than a year. Despite the opposition of most voters, the gun lobby currently is trying to pass these senseless laws in Michigan and Nebraska, and also has set its sights on Kansas, Ohio and Missouri. The gun lobby attempts to justify this dangerous political agenda by citing research conducted by Dr. John Lott. Lott’s study concludes that making it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons reduces violent crime rates. What the gun lobby and Lott do not say is that this study has been totally discredited by many well-respected, independent researchers. In fact, in a nationally-televised symposium at which Lott’s work was critiqued, Dr. Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky, and Dr. Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University agreed that Lott’s study is so flawed that “nothing can be learned of it” and that it “cannot be used responsibly to formulate policy.” Since then, no credible evidence has been produced to rebut the conclusions of Black, Nagin and Ludwig, or other researchers who have identified additional flaws with Lott’s work. Contrary to the gun lobby’s claim, no evidence exists to suggest that “an armed society is a polite society.” In reality, the United States already has more guns in civilian hands than any other industrialized nation, and not surprisingly, we also have one of the world’s highest rates of gun crime. As the casualties of weak concealed-weapons laws begin to mount, it is unconscionable that Lott and the gun lobby continue to use this flawed data to put more guns on the street. Fortunately, the American people and law enforcement know better. They deserve primary consideration from their state representatives, not the special-interest gun lobby. It is truly a matter of life and death. Douglas Weil is the research director at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. The Center, affiliated with Handgun Control Inc., is chaired by Sarah Brady, and was founded in 1983 to reduce gun violence through education, legal advocacy, research, and outreach to the entertainment community. For Related Information on the Web, Click Here http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/issues.intellectualcapital.com/;sz=468×60;ord=73396?http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/issues.intellectualcapital.com/;sz=468×60;ord=73396? 3/26/98 Paul Austin [email protected] Boy, are you gonna get letters… HCI predictably hates “shall issue” concealed carry laws. They hate them for one reason: the experience to date in the thirty states that have such laws is that contrary to the picture painted by Weil, that holders of CCW are much more law abiding than the populations of the states in question. Weil and HCI have attempted to refute Lott & Mustard’s study by selective data analysis (both temporal and geographical) compared to L&M’s method of using _all_ the data available from _all_ counties in the US. L&M determined that the presence of large numbers of unknown, armed citizens acted to decrease crimes of personal violence. They reported that states with “shall issue” CCW laws experienced consequent decreased in murder, assault, robbery and rape and that if all states had such laws in place that more crimes would be prevented. HCI disputes L&M as they must to stay credible but they cannot refute the extraordinarily low rate at which CCW holders misuse their priviledge. The example of “Daniel Blackman … the former candidate for judge in Broward County, Fla” is particularly risible since Blackman is _precisely_ the type that gets a carry permit in jurisdictions where Law enforcement has discretion in determining who receives a concealed weapons license. The experience of Florida and other states is that citizens can be trusted. HCI doesn’t understand that. 3/26/98 Les Seago [email protected] I find it interesting that Dr. Weil relies on anecdotal evidence to support his argument that private citizens should not be permitted to carry firearms. Meanwhile, Dr. Lott offers solid statistics that show violent crime has decreased in states where concealed carry permits are granted citizens who have no record of criminal conviction or mental illness. It is also interesting that Weil is a staff member of an organization dedicated to the disarming of American citizens. Lott holds a fellowship at the University of Chicago, and the study he cites was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Not everyone should carry a weapon, but no law should prevent an honest citizen from going armed if he or she wants to do so. Punish those who use firearms irresponsibly, but do not disarm those who have committed no crime. We have to answer this question: Do we trust a government that does not trust its citizens to go armed? Let’s put aside our ideologies and faiths for a minute, and just think about something: Why do we accept so easily a world where people feel the need to carry concealed weapons? Why doesn’t anyone try to make the need obsolete? I’m sorry, but I didn’t grow up on Gunsmoke, so I can’t relate to the Wild West fantasy. Would anyone really want to live there? Why doens’t anybody care? If things have gotten this bad, why aren’t there demonstrations in the streets? Are the Russians who stopped the tanks in 1991 or the Chinese in Tiananmen Square more courageous than us or just more concerned about their countries? It takes a lot more courage to organize to drive criminals out like what’s going on in a lot of inner-city neighborhoods than carry a Glock under your coat. Things have always been this bad. Crime has been a fact of urban life in America for over a two centuries, with concealed gun laws for as long. Guess what, with people you get crime, with crime you get guns. In Russia, they really do have the Wild East with regular shootouts. Just like Chicago in the 20’s. Nothing Changes. Unless society really wants to get rid of the gangsters, they just keep proliferating. Look at the culture of the inner city and see how they glorify and perpetuate the sterotypes. Machine guns have long been highly regulated in the US (since the 20’s! thanks to J. Edgar Hoover), but one could readily buy illegally imported uzis in Detroit in the early 80’s. After all, if you are going to move a ton of coke into the US, shoving a ton of guns onto the same plane won’t really affect you prison sentence- just scare off the competition. Switzerland manages to have a civilian militia with access to weapons with a murder rate far below the US- it’s the people who are stupid here. Psuedonymless: If what you say is true, then police officers should be disarmed (that would make them care more for their country, you say, and that would also make them more courageous).
But that’s Rubbish! On top of that, the police have proven inneffective at preventing violence against citizens, so it is hardly surprising that state after state is passing concealed carry laws so that all of their law-abiding citizens can protect themselves. And funny, but EVERY state that has passed a concealed carry law has seen its violent crime decrease! Douglas Weil deliberately misleads his audience when he states “that felony and misdemeanor cases involving CCW permit holders rose 54.4% between 1996 and 1997” in Texas. ——- Although when examined in a reasoned light, this statistic actually destroys his own argument when one considers that Texas had almost no CCW permit holders before 1996 (so the few who held them committed a few crimes, while the MASSES who earned CCW permits committed only 54.4% more TOTAL crimes in 1997 than the tiny earlier population in 1996 or before).
He also neglects to point out that Texas requires gun-safety courses to earn the CCW permit, and being anti-gun-safety further undermines his already weak credibility. So, where are the anecdotes of people *defending* themselves with concealed weapons? The NRA’s American Rifleman publishes documented self-defense reports every month in “The Armed Citizen”, but for some mysterious reason the mass media never seems to ferret *these* stories out. Whether fired or not (usually not), handguns, rifles and shotguns have defended peaceable people millions of times. So let the lefties just TRY to disarm the American people. As George Bush has been parodied numerous times: “Wouldn’t be prudent. Not gonna do it.” Lets forget about all the hype for a minute. I personally would ‘nt give a cent for what the educated idiots have to say about “Gun Control”. I have a concealed weapons permit. I had to prove to the FBI that I was innocent of crime by submiting my fingerprints. Once they decided it was ok. I got my weapon permit. Remember the R .Gene Simmons murders here in Arkansas ? A good friend of mine was killed by that jerk. If he had a gun at least he MAY have had a chance. He liked to hunt and was knowledgable about guns. Because he obeyed the law, he did not have a chance against someone that did not. I personally feel safer when I tote. It gives the common man a chance against aggression. Unlike many liberals, I feel that it is my responsibilty to protect my loved ones, if necessary , with force. Wake up people ! You know, I never said a word about gun control laws. I just questioned why people are far more willing to carry weapons than work to change society so it wouldn’t be necessary. Do you carry weapons because you want to, or because you feel a need for protection? Maybe it’s because people are too busy watching Sunday football to try to make their environment better. That’s the real problem with America. Nobody cares. About their country, about their neighbors, and especially about their children. I’d much rather do something for my children’s welfare than wall myself off from the world, as most people here seem to want to do. It would be far easier for me to pat myself on the back and carry my little pistol around than to actually go and participate in my community. People will always kill, and crime will always be with us, but it’s sad that so many people have bought into carrying concealed weapons as a substitute for working to make their community better. Every man for himself, right? Law of the jungle. Kill or be killed. That’s not freedom, that’s savagery. Oh, and by the way, I think gun control laws are pretty useless. But some gun-control opponents are so fanatical that even suggesting that the way to make America safer is by community involvement and spending time with your children rather than carry guns to school is equivalent to publishing “Das Kapital”. People, that’s why most Americans get really sick and tired of the NRA. Hey Christopher – why don’t you try responding to what I say rather than what you wish I said? I said it took more courage to actually do something rather than carry a weapon and make myself an island unto the world. I never argued against the object called a gun. I questioned the motives of those who place that object above all other people and things in the world. In your first philosophy course in college you should have learned about the straw man fallacy. 3/26/98 David Reavis [email protected] ummm interesting… a counter argument with out a single study to provide any support to his argument other than 4 individual cases out of the thousands of permits issued. Do the math- if you assumed only 1000 permits being issued, then you get a 0.4% percent rate of crimes by all the holders of CCW permits…. Then compare that to the overall of society and I think that concealed carry is not the cause of crime. As for as Psuedo’s comment on Russian and China, where ther e is no civilian gun control, the Goverments are able to run over their people with tanks and have no fear of revolution. If the US Goverment tried the same, I think the results would have been a lot different… And Why wont the goverment of America try something like this? Its because of the 2 million plus guns in the hands of the people. A goverment of the people, by the people. for the people only exists as long as the body politic is in fear of the people’s power to upsur them. Psuedonymless: You claim that you “never argued against the object called a gun.” Fine. No problem. Noted. Then you claimed that you merely “questioned the motives of those who place that object above all other people and things in the world.” Forgive me. Somehow I didn’t manage to pull that philosophical position from your earlier post. I will say, however, that carrying a weapon for protection is something that civilized humanity does to PRESERVE society and PROTECT innocent lives and property. If you look at areas devoid of decent people carrying guns such as the slums in Rio or Central Africa, you will see that law, order, and civilization have ceased to exist. Certainly the 500,000 innocent, unarmed civilians slaughtered in Rwanda didn’t see a “civilized” society that you or I would recognize. The rampant crime in Congo and Brazil is also endemic and typical of areas without large numbers of armed law-abiding citizens (witness Haiti and Puerto Rico closer to home).
So I must disagree with any possible point that you could have dreamed of in your earlier post simply because it is the ACT of carrying weapons by law-abiding citizens that proves that there are people who will do what is needed to preserve liberty and society. In contrast to your point, it is those who denigrate arming such law-abiding citizens who cause harm to befall on order, freedom, and civilization. 3/26/98 Muad’Dib [email protected]_nospam In 1987, when Florida passed its CCW law, the media and control-freaks like Weil predicted that the street would “run red with blood.” Instead, violent crime has decreased; except for one group of victims: Shortly after Florida’s was passed, foreign tourists started getting robbed and killed at a startling rate. Why? Perhaps because they were more easily identified by _criminals_ as being people who were unlikely to be armed. Survey data of convicted criminals resoundingly supports the notion that criminals try to avoid armed victims and outside data further supports this conclusion. For instance, Great Britain has a “hot” burglary (victim in the home) rate that far exceeds ours. Why? Well, according to American convicts, breaking into a home when somebone’s home is a “good way to get shot.” So, Weil and his ilk persist in their anti-gun prejudice in spite of masses of evidence (and let’s face it, the vast majority of studies support gun-ownership).
There must be a reason. Let’s get beyond his anecdote-driven diatribe for a moment and get to his agenda. Since he is affiliated with HCI, he can be presumed to share HCI’s agenda. That agenda was made very clear in the following statement, printed in the _National Educator_: “Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” – Sara Brady (Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.) Telling. Pseudonymless asks the question “Why do we accept so easily a world where people feel the need to carry concealed weapons?” I think that maybe the answer may be that people are scared. There is a subculture in America today that is totally amoral. They do not care about you, your family, or your possessions…in fact they delight in harming or killing. They ENJOY it!! Check out ABC News Nightline tonight. It is the second part of a prison report. Last night they were showing some of these people. Even the old time prisoners are scared of these people, not to mention the guards. Until society can determine how these cretins are made and more importantly, what to do with them, people will want the option of using a gun for personal protection. As another poster pointed out, the police can not protect you from a violent crime, but do a pretty good job after the fact…that is if you are around to notice. Pseudnymless:You really crack me up. I don’t think that you are as silly as you come across.I agree with you on several points.Yes it is true that most people are apathetic and could care less. Most kids do not grow up with the same parents that they started out with. Many male children grow up with No male influence. I coach basketball and baseball with both of my children (11 & 14) so I get to see up close how it affects young boys to only grow up with a moma. I get to see how a lack of parental guidance affects them. My wife teaches ninth graders, and most of them simply need a hug every now and then and many of them are absolutley screaming for attention. As for society being a jungle, you had better believe it. I don’t like it, but it is fact. So if the tiger comes to eat, whattaya gonna do, call the cops? Or hope that someone like me is close by? 3/26/98 John Doe doe . john @ earthling . net Sometimes I wonder if Intellectual Capital doesn’t use creative editing to make leftist contributors seem dumber than they really are. The author provides, what, 4 or 5 examples of people with guns going nuts? Does he imagine that other people could not come up with 4 or 5 counterexamples? Or are a few anecdotes supposed, in our minds, to taint the 2nd Amendment and millions of law-abiding gun owners? It may surprise this author, but such tactics do not work with most intelligent readers. The author doesn’t even do the bare minimum of listing the specifics of Mr Lott’s work which he believes faulty in reasoning or fact. I could use this author’s same tactics to condemn chairs. “Joe Blow of Pigknuckle, Arkansas lost a hand of euchre, freaked out, and bashed 3 old ladies over the head with a chair.” Big deal. To John Doe: I’ve wondered about the same points that you do. But I have come to the conclusion that “leftists'” don’t need any help sounding dumb or uneducated because they really are ! They are usaully ignorant of the facts, and most of them don’t even realize it. True Ignorance. C. Halsey, how dare you call Conservatives a sub-class just because they don’t care about others or their possessions, but only themselves and get thier kicks out of others’ suffering. Self interest is the driver of human achievement, just ask any billionaire who cheated, cut corners, and rampaged his way to success. I admire the self made ones; the real wimps are the trust fund/inheritors of wealth who don’t even have a notion of what it takes to succeed, or a notion of how little they themselves have achieved given the huge head start they had. Violent crime is decreasing because employment is increasing. People with something to lose don’t act like people with nothing to lose. And I’m glad this article confirms what should be obvious from Lott’s graphs. Lott’s data is cracked, cooked, and unusable for determining the cause of any social change. To BT,DT : Yeah it’s true that anybody can come up with a survey to say anything that they want. So really we are just taking someones word that what they have to say is based on accurate measures. But employment? If everybody is working then who is breaking into homes during the day ? What about the people that will Not work ? I fail to see the corelation between ownership of guns and unemployment. Please enlighten me. I couldn’t tell if David Weil was proposing prohibition of all gun possession, elmination of CCW laws, or just strengthening CCW laws, but I assume he mostly supports elimination of CCW laws. To justify this, he cites the examples of irresponsible folks. I take this to mean that the 2nd amendment rights of all Americans, most of whom are very responsible, should be stripped away to accommodate the irresponsible few. Seems like this is the reasoning of most liberal and totalitarian views. I’d like to say “thank goodness we live in America where individual liberties and the Constitution takes precedence”, but I know better. Chances are very good that the tragedy in Arkansas will be used to further strip us of our rights. Clinton is right now thinking of ways to do this. How many of you who read IC are willing to let this happen? Now, how many of you who answered no are going to vote for a Repub-ocrat for congress/president and ask for the same gov’t we now have? 3/26/98 John Boch [email protected] I saw the televised debate on C-SPAN with Lott and the other researchers and Lott thoroughly discredited their arguments. The good “doctor” here cites a few cases of either accidents or alleged crimes by permit-to-carry holders, yet he ignores the tens of thousands of crimes these permits effectively prevent. Bad guys don’t like running up against a potentially (and lawfully) armed victims. Come visit the ILLINOIS DEATH CLOCK at www.chambana.com/~CCG to see how many lives in Illinois have been lost because a few politicians have blocked permit-to-carry here. As usual the case for restricting freedom is based solely on an emotional appeal not based on verifiable facts. This only makes me distrust the hidden motives. The question that I have to ask of the author of this article is simple. Why are you more afraid of law-abiding citizens than you are of predatory criminals that have proven thier lack of respect for your property, your family and your very life. 3/26/98 Bees [email protected] Clinton’s on safari so he puts Reno on the guns & kids problem. Reno reports after the first week that her troops have accidentally incinerated Jonesboro so Louis Freeh’s troops move in. But there’s not much going on and pretty soon his snipers are passing the hours picking off pregnant women across the Mississippi. I know a lot of irresponsible drunks have killed thousands with their cars (and I have anecdotal proof!), therefore tomorrow I think we can start talking about taking people’s cars from them. Until everyone can sit up straight and show some manners, the Nanny State will keep you from exercising ANY judgement. The Nanny State knows what’s good for you. The Nanny State likes to come through your door late at night when the local SWAT team gets the wrong address (Sorry about your grandmother, did she have a weak heart?) Go ahead, make yourself an island unto the world, but don’t be surprised if someone shoots you in the lagoon. BT,DT: You say that you are “glad this article confirms what should be obvious from Lott’s graphs. Lott’s data is cracked, cooked, and unusable for determining the cause of any social change.” ———– Man, I must have missed that confirmation in this article. Please point out the statistics and sources used by Weil to “discredit” Lott. ———- I must warn you, however, that to do so will be also discrediting the FBI’s own statistics (which MR. Weil’s organization previously relied on when they showed a more violent America).
——— Then again, I read Weil’s article, and no such statistics were cited. Nor was anything more substantive than anectdotal evidence presented to support his intellectually weak argument. Well, of course he did say that three college professors agreed with him! ——– If mere baseless propaganda can sway you, I suggest that you give up interaction on the internet and return to being fed your daily dose of TV entertainment. ———– On the other hand, if you are open-minded enough to objectively examine multiple sources or facts and statistics prior to drawing conclusions, then please rejoin this debate! In fact, why don’t you cite your own statistics as your intro back into this debate! 3/26/98 Muad’Dib [email protected]_nospam But, Christopher! Of course Lott’s data is “cracked” and “cooked” – isn’t it obvious?!? It does not support Weil’s (and BT,DT’s) views, so it must be, obviously is, “unusable for determining the cause of any social change.” Now, if Lott had used the same methodology to determine that CCW permitees were unstable sociopaths who are prone to random acts of violence and don’t brush their teeth oten enough, then we’d not only have heard about it on the news, Weil (and BT,DT) would be citing it form here to eternity. I am a Sociologist and have concentrated on statistical technique in my studies. I read Lott’s entire study but found no methodological grounds for dismissing it. I admit that because I agree with his findings my opinion is suspect, but I offer it nevertheless. Weil fails to give such grounds. I humbly suggest that is because he didn’t find any either, just a few anecdotes. This is, of course, the standard liberal technique: When the data don’t support your desire to take away somebody’s freedom, dredge up an handful of examples that you can bundle together to take the place of data (maybe no-one will notice).
It seems to me that, somewhere along the way to his doctorate, someone should have told Weil that anecdotal evidence is not statistically valid. 3/27/98 John R. Lott, Jr. [email protected] Doug Weil is wrong to assert that there is a positive relationship between a country’s level of gun ownership and murder or other crimes. Such results are only possible when a very selective set of comparison countries is used. In many countries, such as Finland, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Israel, citizens own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland’s murder rate was 40 percent lower than Germany’s, and New Zealand’s was lower than Australia’s. Finland and Sweden have very similar murder rates but very different gun ownership rates. Israel, with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, has a murder rate 40 percent lower than Canada’s. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few, there is no relationship between gun ownership and murder. The televised debate that Weil refers to was sponsored by Handgun Control, they picked the participants, and they insisted that I be the only academic allowed to defend my study at that forum. He apparently forgets about the independent academics who flew to Washington at their own expense to support the integrity of my research. My data set has been made available to academics at 36 universities. No one has had any trouble replicating my results. Anyone who would like to see what Black and Nagin did (e.g., selectively throwing away 86 percent of the sample) should look at the January 1998 Journal of Legal Studies or see my soon to be published book (More Guns, Less Crime).
Dr. Weil is engaging in the typical liberal trick of pulling the most negative events out of a universe, as statistically insignificant as they are, relating these abnormalities in an emotional, anecdotal manner, and then concluding that public policy should be formulated to deal with the abnormalities. He has done the same thing with the Lott study; relating someone’s objections just as though those objections were themselves valid. In other words, he concludes exactly what his preconceived notions lead him to conclude. (This, by the way, is called prejudice and is hardly a foundation for scholarship or even intellectual honesty.) To date, there has not been a single scientific study conducted that refutes either the data or the conclusions of the Lott-Mustard paper; and I have no doubt but what Dr. Weil is perfectly aware of that. And yet we listen to these people just as though they had something to say worth hearing. Well, Dr. Weil, I say that you tread periously close to charlatanism if, in fact, you have not engaged in it. Mr. Lott. The graphs in your commentary are very powerful. However, being able to replicate your results from the same data is not necessarily an argument for the completeness of your analysis. Nor is my statement a refutation of the accuracy and integrity of your study. I am only suspicious of the completeness of your analysis because of the lack of references to other possible causes. What confuses me is that those who accept without critical thinking that Concealed Guns Laws are to be fully credited for the reduction of crime rates, argue also that crime is highly complex and involve much more than gun laws. By the same token, one must argue that factors such as the unemployment rates, state of economy, and (I may be lynched for this) minimum wage levels, must be eliminated before reaching such a powerful conclusion. Assume for the sake of argument that trends similar to those shown in your graphs are obtained when you plot the relationship between years since the adoption of concealed gun laws and the reduction of unemployment rates. Would you be more inclined to say that these laws are the reason for the reduction of unemployment or that the latter is somehow responsible for reduced crime rate. In science, we do not reach conclusions as affirmative as yours without proving, at least with certain confidence levels that other factors are definitely excluded as possible causes. Even then, correlation is not equal to causation. Similarly, and even more critically, I find Dr. Weil’s anecdotal arguments even weaker than Mr. Lott’s. At least Mr. Lott has some data on his side of the argument, and there seems to be some merit to his hypothesis which still needs further testing. Dr. Weil as many of the discussants have mentioned, relie’s on isolated cases which prove nothing but the stupidity of those involved in them (not the victims of course).
And last time I checked, stupidity is not a felony that prevents one from getting a license until it acts-up and causes problems. I would like to point also, that most of the folks who responded in favor of unlimited gun access, argued in response to the first commentary that the main objective of the 2nd amendment is to protect the citizens from potential government tyranny. Herein, however, their argument completely shifts to the concept of self-defense against criminals !!!! A key point that gets lost in refuting the logically limited arguments of HCI types: The founding fathers (you know, those DWEM’s – Dead White European Males) saw the bill of rights as enumerating pre-existing intrinsic rights. These are not granted or removed by pieces of paper! You can’t repeal the Second Amendment – not without fundamentally changing the charter that the People granted government in this country. We fundamentally alter that charter by trying to remove these intrinsic rights (all of them!) at our peril. In the 20th century, government run amuck has done most of the killing of innocents. The Turks in Armenia, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia come easily to mind. All of these governments believed in gun control. “It can’t happen here!” I’d like to believe that, too, but I keep my powder dry. And protect myself and my family from predators with the same right, tools, and abilities. Firstly, I’d like to say that I’m honored to be the subject of such derision. Secondly, I’m going to try very hard to put my ideas into a (somewhat) coherent summary. People in the U.S. don’t seem to care about anything outside of their own little worlds. Nobody cares that we have no choice at the ballot box except for two sides of the same coin. People chant “Waco, Waco”, while not realizing that the true threats to freedom comes from initiatives to monitor nearly all communications on national security grounds, and surveillance from our employers (many now circumscribe legal behavior outside of work).
Increasingly, we leave our gated communities with our Star Trek-home alarm systems, drive in our LoJacked(?) cars, go to work under incredible surveillance from our employers, and go home again, afraid to venture out at night for fear of crime, unless we’re armed to the teeth. What scares me is that while we become more and more alienated from our communities and each other, we grow more and more dependent on guns as psychological security blankets, rather than actual protection. One More Anonymous — As I understand the Lott-Mustard results, crime rates are not necessarily reduced. It indicates that the rates of _violent_ crimes such as rape and robbery are reduced. Other types of crimes that are not so likely to be directly confrontational, such as car theft and burglary, actually showed an increase. This seems to me to indicate that criminals have a tendency to shift their modes of operations from those that could result in a direct confrontation with an armed citizen to those activities less likely to have such a result. Economic activity _might_ have an influence upon the overall crime rate, but I do not see it as having an influence upon the shift in criminal activity. When does it end? How much are you willing to sacrifice to your fear? I choose not to carry a gun because I will not live in fear. If something happens, it happens. But so many others have been whipped into a frenzy by relentless TV coverage of shootings that everyone is afraid of everyone else. It has to stop somewhere. The arms race only intensifies, as we all know from the past 50 years. But these aren’t the evil nasty Communists. These are our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans that we’re living in fear of. The Constitution is absolutely worthless if it is not founded on a social contract between citizens. That contract is fast fraying, and it won’t be fixed by walking around with pistols. Pseudonymless — I don’t know where you live or work, but I suggest that you quit whatever GESTAPO agency you work for and leave the concentration camp you think is a neighborhood and move out somewhere into the real world. Yikes – I forgot to put my name on my last comment. Don’t want to ascribe my comments to people who might disagree. Stan Watson – Like I said, I’m honored to be so hated. Bring it on… 🙂 Oh, and I was wondering how long it would take somebody to call me a Nazi or a Communist. Guess you showed me, huh? “That contract is fast fraying, and it won’t be fixed by walking around with pistols.” Even if your hypothesis is correct, which I doubt, it won’t be fixed by being sheep amongst the wolf pack either. And to think – I never said a word against gun ownership… Funny – the so-called “defenders of our liberties” sound like a bunch of Communists, split into Trotskyites and Leninists and Maoists… Pseudonymless — I don’t hate you. What gives you the idea that I do? And I didn’t call you a NAZI or a communist. One can live and work within an oppressive environment as a victim of that oppression. All that I suggested is that if you find yourself in such an environment, as obviously you do or think you do, then leave it. Now how is that displaying hatred toward you? Stan – But I have left it. The sad thing is that so many people don’t realize what environment they’re creating. And by the way, you did use the word Gestapo, which was the (suprisingly inefficient, according to recent scholarship) Nazi secret police. I shouldn’t have used the word hatred for you – you’re just disagreeing strongly (and well, I might add – you have some points).
But there’s been some things here that have led me to wonder if my pseudonym is going into a shoebox somewhere… 🙂 Stan: Obviously you weren’t displaying any hatred towards pseudo. The temptation and inclination to believe you were, however, is far too strong for liberals to resist since they preconceive anyone who forcefully articulates a somewhat right-of-center position as being mean spirited, spiteful, hateful…blah, blah, blah. They reserve the right to vigorous debate without fear of being labeled as hateful unto themselves alone, for they truly care! Pseudo: Why is it that liberals think that just because someone chooses to bear arms that they are living in fear? I choose to bear arms and I can assure you that I do not live in fear. I happen to believe that is the mans responsiblity to to protect himself and his family and if need be his friends. I will admit it does make me feel a little more secure to know that I have the means to resist and I don’t have to wait on someone like the cops to protect me. If you like to think the cops will be there , that’s fine with me. But know this, if you are being victimized and I am able to prevent it, I will do my best to help you ! So see, even liberals or those that do not agree with me , benefit. What’s the difference between refusing to live in fear, and prefering to ignore reality? Secondly, Psuedonomless errs when he claims that those who carry guns have given up on changing society. It’s just that unlike he, they feel that it is easier to change society while still alive. BT, RT: Would either of you care to document your claim that crime rates, especially the rates for murder and rape, are strongly affected by the unemployment rate? In Lott’s article, he states that he controlled his numbers for all of the standard variables. Secondly his article was published in a peer reviewed journal. If you seek to discredit his numbers or his findings, you will have to do a lot better than that. Pseudonymless: you equate taking precaution against a perceived risk as “living in fear”. I disagree with this philosophy. Do you practice the same ideology with respect to locks, insurance, or seatbelts? Are people who buckle up paranoid in your opinion? Furthermore, you rightly point out how many non-gun crime prevention policies invade privacy and jeopardize freedom. Guns, on the other hand do neither. To John Lott JR: I find your work on statical data on gun control to be very informative. A few questions for you. What prompted you to begin this study when there seens to be mountains of information ? What was your opinon on gun control before the research ? Lastly, in light of your observations has your opinion on gun control changed ? I would like to thank you for your efforts. Your info may possibly save some lives that may have been lost . 3/27/98 [email protected] John R. Lott, Jr. I started this project because I had decided to assign some gun control papers to a class that I was teaching on criminal deterrence when I was at the University of Pennsylvania. After looking at the existing work, I thought that papers on both sides of the debate were pretty bad and I thought that I could do a better job. As to my opinions prior to doing the research, I would say that I didn’t expect to find much of anything. I have definitely changed my mind after doing this research. Dr. Weil, An appeal to emotion is not an argument. You have not convinced me as to what fundamental change in human behavior has occurred that now prevents these particular animals from preying on others or forming gangs to accrue power and then use that power to subjugate or kill those that are outside of the group. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will continue to carry my “great equalizer”. Mr Weil, I wonder if there is a non-flawed study that addresses the same as Mr Lott’s, and what its conclusions were? Sorry to be harsh, but it couldn’t possibly be as flawed as the use of anecdotal evidence to form policy. Also, what was flawed about Mr Lott’s study? ————————————– BTW, a programming class I teach did a project to determine if states with tighter gun control had less or more violent crime; it was clearly more. Unfortunately this doesn’t tell us what caused what. —————– Pseudonymless, regardless of the flame war, I’d say you raise an interesting question. I wish I knew why America is so violent, and so angry. 3/27/98 Joe Gartrell [email protected] Why carry a concealed weapon? When I go to an isolated ATM machine (or any other similar situation), I carry my gun in my hand, albeit holstered. I don’t think I’m going to be a victim in that situation, but if my gun was concealed, the criminal doesn’t know I am armed and will act agressively absent of that knowledge. This is dangerous for me. It would take a very stupid criminal to try to rob an armed man! My wife carries her gun in plain view when she is in the parking lot of a store. Concealed weapons can, in some situations, escalate the violence needlessly. This is not to say that people who carry concealed weapons have not protected themselves and their families, but the attempted act of violence probably wouldn’t happen in the fisrt place if the criminal knew his intended victim was armed. Just a thought to chew on. When I see someone present a way to guarantee me near total personal security, then I will consider eliminating CCW. After all, the police have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect me as an individual. CCW is about personal responsibility. 3/27/98 Julie Cochrane [email protected] I work as a programmer, but when I got a BS in Psych from Georgia Tech the goal of the program was to train researchers and industrial type psychologists. They taught us how to read a study critically, and the nuts and bolts of statistics, including how to guard against being misled by their misuse or inadvertently misusing them. I’ve read Lott’s study–which he references in his editorial. Don’t gripe about the abbreviated version of his numbers in his opinion piece, go read the study where the full numbers are. Weil is appealing to emotion and authority, Lott is appealing to statistics. From what they taught me in school, Lott appears to be using the statistics in a legitimate fashion, and the numbers appear to say what he says they say and the conclusions he draws from them appear to be justified. It is by far the most comprehensive and thorough study in the field, with the best methodology. If you have a background in social science, read it yourself. It’s obvious who’s being straight forward and who’s dissembling. If you don’t have a background in social science, go find someone who does who doesn’t know a thing about the gun issue and doesn’t care, and ask them to read it for you and tell you if it’s good science, the methods are sound, the numbers are done right, and the conclusions follow from the data. I’m fairly confident of what that disinterested social science researcher at your local major university will tell you. 3/27/98 Mitch Berg [email protected] Mr. Weil: I thought I’d advise you of the error of some of your reasoning. First: you cite virtually nothing but anectodal evidence, the worst of which was the case of Mr. Blackman. Any rational gun-rights proponent will be the first to tell you that Mr. Blackman should never have been issued a permit – but that’s a flaw in the law-enforcement system, not in the logic of concealed carry reform. You also cite the Georgetown study which purported to “refute” Lott/Mustard. Have you read the study, Mr. W? I have. What we have is a bit of academic/statistical nitpicking, dressed up with a lot of wishful rhetoric by academics who’ve cast their lot with the gun-grabbers. Finally – you subvert whatever credibility you have by saying that the US is the most heavily-armed industrial nation. This is demonstrably false. Switzerland, Israel and New Zealand have almost equally-high rates of private gun ownership, and vastly lower crime rates than ours. Further – Israel, Switzerland and Norway require military reservists to keep fully-autojmatic military weapons in the home. The conclusion? It’s not the guns that are the problem, as much as you may wish to demonize them. It’s the criminals. Please email me with any responses. 3/27/98 Mitch Berg [email protected] Interesting statistical evidence: as I mention in my previous post, Switzerland, New Zealand and Israel have as much private gun ownership as the US, and lower crime rates. What’s more – Taiwan, Jamaica and Indonesia have bans on private gun ownership – and much HIGHER crime rates than ours. And what about Europe? Germany, England and many other nations ban most gun ownership – but crime rates in each of these countries ROSE after the bans were instituted. What scares me, Mr. Weil, is that your baseless attacks on our Second Amendment rights gain credibility, not from any merit, but from the fact that you are an academic. This, truly, is scary. 3/27/98 Arthur Phillips [email protected] Douglas Weilds comments are not above suspect. He works for an organization who’s unique reason for existence is insuring the removal of guns now possessed legally by American Citizens. He is a member of a most dedicated and obsessed clique who fear, not only guns, but the American People who own weapons. He states his premise, not in facts supported by research, but distortions, citing some failures. However, to bolster his negative report he omits any facts readily available, that moderates, and dismisses his examples as anomalies. In other words his article is solely based, on emotional rhetoric that borders, on propaganda. 3/27/98 Arthur Phillips [email protected] More Anonymous, One More Anonymous, If your theory of poverty, low minimum wage, racism coupled with limited educational opportunities are correct than please explain, to this poor old country boy, the 1930’s. 3/27/98 Eric Williams [email protected] Douglas Weil’s argument seems to be that you can’t trust anybody with a gun. Well, what about the police? Why are they exempt? The thousands of legally-armed citizens in the state of Florida commit crimes at a rate ONE-TWELVETH that of the officers of the New York Police Department. Which of the two should we be disarming? As for Mr. Lott’s study, the absolute worst Mr. Weil’s biased criticisms can conclude is that it doesn’t prove CCW laws are useful. Notice the very careful omission of whether or not keeping people from being able to defend themselves is in any way helpful in fighting crime. The Lott & Mustard study is light-years ahead in detail and precision compared to the studies that are used to “prove” having a gun is dangerous. If Mr. Weil’s opinion is that that study is flawed, then the ones supporting his position in favor of further restrictions on guns are a complete joke, and should be treated as such. First, I used this handle way before the nitwit a couple message above (just check the archive).
Second, he is way wrong about China’s gun ownership policy. Way wrong. In China (the mainland, the policy in Taiwan province is different), you can own automatic assault rifles if you lived in a rural area. It’s more difficult in urban area, you’ll have to be a member of a gun club – which is easy to do. In Taiwan province, there is NO private gun ownership unless you are member of the provincial shooting team. Using gun to commit a felony will get you the death penalty in both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan province. There is however no death penalty in Hong Kong SAR. 3/28/98 Robert Waterson bobw(at)Mindspring(dot)com I didn’t know Mr. Weil’s affiliation while reading his article. I did know while reading it, however, that it was unconvincing, anecdotal and not well reasoned. And then at the end I saw the HGI affiliation and could at least understand how such low-level thinking could be put down on paper. I think that when the dust settles what is truly disturbing is that no major traditional media outlet (e.g., TV / newspapers) will publish editorials that outline the low quality of research and sources cited by HCI, even though HCI press releases and staged “conferences” are so often quoted by reporters at these institutions. Thankfully at least the Internet provides both sides the *opportunity* to present their views (and their sources)…and perhaps that is one of the more exciting developments of this interest in the new technological medium. After all, free people only stand to benefit from free and full discussions. 3/28/98 Norman Potts [email protected] I happen to be one of those “men in blue” and I am FOR concealed carry licenses, and I am AGAINST both the Brady Law and the so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban. I would like to point out that there has been virtually NO statistical evidence that prohibitive gun laws have reduced crime in this country. In fact, gun laws are even more strict now than they were when gun deaths were lower. Many of the charges against CCW permit holdersin the article have also been made against police officers. Should we disarm our cops? Don’t think so, friend. Actually, these incidents illustrate that the laws work as they should. The permit holders had their licenses revoked and can no longer legally carry concealed weapons. Also, the number of violators is miniscule compared to the number of those who respect the CCW laws and never have any problems. 3/28/98 Dave Workman [email protected] Oh, please. Your assertion that Jens Ludwig has refuted and debunked Dr. Lott’s data is, at best, preposterous. And I mean, at best. I witnessed the debate between Lott and Ludwig on C-SPAN some time ago. Neither is very camera-friendly, but Ludwig’s arguments against concealed carry laws boiled down to little more than personal opinion, with virtually no hard data to back them up. Dr. Lott’s painstaking study was a ground-breaker. Despite Handgun Control’s weak attempts to reject Lott’s conclusions through emotionalism and anecdotes, the evidence is irrefutable. Handgun ownership sas, the solid evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable, regardless what HCI claims. I know concealed handguns save lives. I know from personal experience. That’s the most compelling proof there is. Have a nice day. Weil and Brady will not be persuaded to be logical and rational — that would be directly in oppostion to their position which is entirely emotional. 3/28/98 John Kavanagh [email protected] I could never understand why anyone would defend the right of a private citizen to own anything other than, perhaps, a hunting rifle. Then the anti-smoking frenzy picked up velocity and the United States went from being a nation where cigarette smoking is regarded as a minor vice to a nation where state and federal governments practice legalized extortion and gut the First Amendment on the grounds that cigarettes are a health hazard. So, until the Anointed (thank you, Dr. Sowell) in this country tone down their zeal and their rhetoric A LOT – and that’ll be the day! – you can count me in with the gun owners. Incidentally – doesn’t the Second Amendment have something to say about all of this, or are we getting ready to throw it on the scrap heap with the First? 3/28/98 Bees [email protected] The libertarian world advocated by our Founding Fathers was predictably messy. Government was to do little other than enforce the law, provide for a common defense, keep people from hurting one another, limit fraud and deception in business and civil proceedings. This is way too much freedom for the socialist utopian. Kids break into their parents’ gun cabinets and mow down their classmates. Guns kept in the home ostensibly for defense are used for suicide and crimes of passion. Still, the concept of freedom allows us to fail, fall hard and perhaps not get up. This flies in the face of the ordered world of the socialists. Better you should not have the choice than to make the wrong one. We are all fallible and flawed human beings who must rely on the much more intelligent socialists among us to protect us from ourselves. (How do I know they’re more intelligent? They’ve told me!) While they’re at it, they’d also like to collectivize child care, health care and education. Oh yeah. Bring on that 5-year plan baby! We are putty in your sanctimoniously superior hands! The saying is true, there is nothing more frightening than seeing ignorance at work. I don’t know what police officers Douglas Weil has been speaking to, but the vast majority of street cops are actually against gun control. The officers that actually support gun control are the desk jockeys and political suck-ups that are looking to further their career. States that make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense have seen a subsequent drop in violent crimes. Florida, for example, saw rapes, assaults and muders drop by almost a third. On the flip side, Washington, D.C. banned the private ownership of handguns by lawful citizens back in 1979, and the results were horrid in the extreme. After the ban, the only people that were armed were the criminals and the over-worked police force. It became so bad that for several years in the 1980’s, Washington was named the “murder capital” of the nation. Such are the results when you deny law-abiding citizens their God-given right to defend themselves and their families. As far as Dr. John Lott’s study is concerned, the reason that Douglas Weil and his narrow-minded counterparts have been scrambling to find ways to discredit Dr. Lott is that the results of his study do are so damaging to their cause. Tthey truly hate it when the general public is well-informed, because an intelligent public is more likely to see through the web of lies fabricated of HCI. He wrote above: “Charges filed against Texas CCW holders” Charges aren’t convictions, which is why he didn’t say convictions, the numbers are actually far less. Mr. Lott’s study as accurate & thorough, unlike the fake “guns=death” articles funded by those who wish to ban all guns from the law-abiding and leave the scum armed. 3/28/98 R.E. Hafner [email protected] It appears that Douglas Weil is another “hot air” specialist eating out of Sarah Brady’s hands. He has no facts, just hysteria. It Weil took the time to properly research the subject, he would have discovered that the areas with the most armed citizens have the lowest crime rates. If Weil has any doubts, he can check with the National Center for Health. One fact is the deaths from medical error account for more fatalities than accidential deaths from firearsm. Would Weil advocate the banning of doctors to eliminate the problem of medical blunders? Joe Gartrell: You have some valid points. I don’t know wher you live, but here in Arkansas, if you flash a weapon it is grounds to lose your permit to carry. AS for the above article, instead of using opinions to refute Lott how about you doing a “valid” study? Bet you can’t. when it comes to issues like this you can forget about statistics and studies. i do not want to live in a country where everyone walking down the street has a gun on them. to me that is not freedom, it is a sign of a sick and fearful people i do not believe a gun is going to protect you from being taken over by a nother country. if you must hunt then keep your rifle locked up otherwise a accident will occur soonewr or later. 3/29/98 Steven Poor [email protected] HCI maintains that guns should be outlawed. Even if getting rid of all the guns saves just one life, it is worth it. Unfortunately they also agree that guns are used by citizens 60,000 times every year (by their own estimate) to save innocent lives. Hmmm, maybe they should change their slogan to “…even if it kills 60,000 more people, it’s worth it.” 3/29/98 John R. Lott, Jr. [email protected] The 60,000 defensive gun uses per year is a quite old estimate from the National Crime Victimization Survey is from many years ago. The most recently available number indicates 108,000 defensive uses per year. There are many problems with this survey (e.g., the survey does not directly inquire about defensive gun uses), but I agree that 108,000 is still a large number. In any case, estimates from 15 private surveys conducted by organizations such as the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart and Associates imply at least 760,000 defensive uses per year and possibly as many as 3.6 million. Kleck’s number of 2.5 million seems like the most accurate estimate. 3/29/98 Darrin Ziliak [email protected] The debate can also turn on the State constitutions. Indiana’s specifically guarantees the right to bear arms for the defense of oneself in as many words. This was affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court was said that it is both a liberty right and a property right to be able to bear arms. The Founding Fathers never intended for the Federal government to intrude in every aspect of our daily lives, but I guess Mr. Weil thinks that the Feds know what’s best for all of us unwashed rabble who are just too stupid to be trusted with anything. 3/29/98 Martin Cook [email protected] Many people think that the police will always be there to protect them. How long does an armed confrontation take? How long does it take for a criminal to shoot you in the back and take your wallet? Do you think you’ll have time to step aside and call 911 on your cell phone? Is there a police officer on every block watching your back? I would feel 100% safer if every honest citizen in America was carrying concealed. 3/29/98 William D. Grazier [email protected] Evidently, we have not learned a thing about the danger of firearms. As an expert marksman in the army, we were trained in the handling of weapons. We learned that live ammo is always issued only before use; the rest of the time it is under lock and key. We also learned that we kill and injure more “FRIENDLIES” than the “ENEMY” during wartime because of “accidents”. The safest place to be in war is in the military because most of those killed are women and children. William D. Grazier — Interesting observations. If this is the case, I suggest that we don’t arm the soldiers at all and let the enemy kill themselves off shooting at us. Do you really believe the nonsense you posted? Another man with an emotional message, this man does not even present statistical data to support him. Dr. Black, Dr. Ludwig and Dr.. Nagin have impressive credentials, but the statement is they “agreed” he had no basis for his analysis. They did not disprove him. Like many college professionals they misunderstand that the gun control issue is not a “debate”. Their learned opinion means relatively nothing to me without the statistics to back it up. Mr. Lott uses that well known gun owner support group the FBI and their data (heavy sarcasm intended).
I am tired of listening-to/reading newspapers who speak from emotion rather than facts or men who claim to be educated from their own lofty podiums of denial to the facts. Hmm..a gun-control w/ anecdots and *zero* citations. Seems like a typical pro-gun-control article to me 🙂 Compare this to typical pro-gun articles that cite studies so *you can look yourself*. Compare the made up “statistics” on the handguncontrol.org web site with the nra.org site where all the articles have cited references. He also uses the increased Texas *charges* number instead of the *gun-related convictions* number to justify his stand. This is flawed already, so the rest of this article should be questioned for validity. It’s rather refreshing to see such a rekindling of the 60s love, peace, and happiness thing. A warm fuzzy fairytale of Making the World a *Safe* Place For All, indeed. The earth is a violent place, please observe the current round of volcanoes and other catastrophies then wake up, drink some coffee, and face reality. Since creation, big fish eats little fish, and it is most likely to remain so for the rest of the current period between ice ages. In nature there are preditors and preys, this is a natural order in LIFE, nobody is going to change that regardless of how much regulation and good wills they dishes out. And what will you do when the wolves come ? I, for one, am keeping my fangs. 3/30/98 JBD, ScD. (Initials used @ employers request) I read a great many of the responses to Douglas Weil’s spiel on CCW and his attack on John Lott. Perhaps some might find it interesting, that first of all, Douglas Weil’s degree ScD (doctorate of science) is only an honorary degree, and not earned. In my case, i earned my degree, in a field I pioneered: Analytical Investigative Science. I know Doug Weil, I know what he is and I know how he does things. If he can’t get the numbers he wants, he takes somebody elses numbers and plays with them, to make them say what he wants. If numbers aren’t available, he invents them. Doug Weil is 100% committed to Hand Gun Control,Inc. and the disarming of America. To characterize him as anything less than totally Socialist minded, would be to honor him. The numbers he used in this article were twisted and misused. The question was raised as to why America is so violent. The answer is simple, if one simply understands human nature. No creature takes pleasure in being caged, especially the human creature. The more you take freedom and liberty away from any creature, the more tense that creature becomes, and the more they resist! The anti-gun crowd would have everyone believe that repressive laws have been passed, in response to anti-social behavior. (cont’d) 3/30/98 JBD, ScD (continued from above) But you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or historian to research some facts. The anti-gunners would have us believe that restrictive laws (such as the Gun Control Act of 1968) have been passed in response to criminal behavior, but it simply isn’t true. Crime immediately escalates after passing restrictive laws, not before (Gun Control Act of 1968 is a great example).
Restrictive laws get passed, because the Socialists see an area of society where people are not under their control, and decide to rectify the situation. They invent incidents, stage incidents, and create media frenzies, in order to sway public and political opinion to their cause. Consider this: In two of the three “attack” incidents in 1993 involving the White House, there were “accidental tourists” who just happened by with camcoders to record the incidents. However, it turned out that these “tourists” were HCI staff members…..waiting along side the street in their car. It was later learned that in at least one incident, an HCI owned car was used to drop off the shooter! *****People are always making reference to America’s Wild West. Would it startle anyone to learn that there was NO wild west? Hollywood has continued to purvey the myth originally created in the “dime novel.” (continued below) Hollywood’s portrayal of the American West, would lead us to believe that hundreds, if not thousands, were murdered every year, but that simply isn’t true! Historians featured in the American West series on Discovery Channel, have frequently supported and documented what I am about to say. From 1824 to 1888 (Indian wars/hostilities exclude)there were only 63 people murdered west of the Missippi River. That was a 64 year period! Of all the Wild West gunmen who were reputed to have killed scores and dozens, less than six of these figures can be accurately proven to have killed more than four five people in their lifetimes. During this same period of time, where control measures were already being enacted in such places as New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia and others, murder was rampant, with at least one murder per week in each of these civilized cities!*****Doug Weil disputed that an Armed Society is a Polite Society. But it is! People don’t screw around with other people who are armed. Criminals don’t try robbing armed citizens. Bank robbers don’t usually try to rob banks with several armed guards. Instead, they chose banks with “don’t resist” policies, staffed by unarmed women. Since CCW came into practice, at least 15 bank robberies have been thwarted by armed customers! More than four-dozen hold-ups of grocery/convenience stores have been prevented by armed customers. (continued below) 3/30/98 JBD, ScD (continued from above) Dozens of rapes, assaults, burglaries and thefts are prevented every day by armed citizens.**Each year, there are more criminal shooting/gun incidents involving police officers than incidents involving people with CCW permits, by far! So who should we really be afraid of? Since 1980, cities and counties around America that began passing local ordinaces requiring home owners to own a gun or allowed for “packing guns on your hip,” there has not been a single incident of wrongful use of a firearm by any of these citizens in any of these communities. ** Why are so many kids becoming violent? Twenty years ago, laws began to be passed, declaring the rights of children, which a lot people fought. The essance of these laws: Kids became instant adults, and no longer had to listen to their parents. They had rights, they could make their own decisions, they could do what they wanted. Then comes Slick Willie, and for the past 6 years, kids have been under assault. Kids were suddenly told that they couldn’t smoke cigarettes. It’s a federal crime if they do! With parental discretion, kids could use/own firearms. But today, kids are being told from Washington, that they are criminals if they own or use firearms. Kids are feeling the pressure too! Freedom must be restored! Just imagine, if the girls who were shot were carrying guns, they may not have been shot. What’s the point I am trying to make? In American society, it should be made compulsory to either carry guns or stay close to somebody who carries guns. The experience of European societies where they have lower gun ownership rates and low crime rates is irrelevant. 3/30/98 Sergio DiMartino [email protected] The gun-grabbers just don’t seem to get it. Criminals, by virtue of the fact that they are criminals, DO NOT OBEY LAWS. Therefore they will not obey stricter CCW laws. This is not a difficult concept, people. Criminals who want to carry handguns with the specific intent of hurting others will do so regardless of how lax or restrictive CCW laws are. Stricter CCW laws do not restrict criminals from carrying handguns with the specific intent of harming others. They do, however, restrict law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns with the specific intent of protecting themselves and their loved ones. What’s wrong with this picture? The criminals already carry concealed weapons. Laxing CCW laws just levels the playing field in favor of the law-abiding citizens. 3/31/98 Paul Apfelbeck [email protected] Dr. Weil: Your article appeals to the emotion of the reader, making several anecdotal instances seem indicative of the whole. Let me balance the scales of emotion: last fall a thug armed with twin hunting knives knocked down a female clerk at the store where I work, threatening her with death. My boss, who carries a concealed weapon, was working in the back of the store. He confronted the thug, who ran away, but not before he was able to shoot out the thug’s car window, thereby allowing police to quickly identify and capture the criminal. I would guess Mr Weil would be happier seeing a dead woman in a pool of blood on the floor, and the feel the anguish of a man unable to defend his employees. How’s that for emotion? Apparently I’m late to the fray here, so I’ll try to be brief. Thank you Mr. Lott for undertaking your study in a professional manner, even if the results don’t fit in with much of what the media wants us to believe. To the writer who didn’t understand why someone would want to go about armed, or own anything but a hunting rifle, all I can give you are two points. Criminals are cowards and will most often attack targets which cannot effectively fight or resist, such as older (out of shape) adults, lone women, or those inattentive to their surroundings. Secondly, when you, an out-of-shape office worker, are attacked out of the blue by an athletic criminal half your age, the mere presence of a firearm often halts the act immediately! In those cases where it does not, it offers the elderly, the middle-aged, the petite, or someone with the flu to defend themselves decisively. Please visit my web page on gun-control for more information at: http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/guninfo.html Jim: You are free to your opinion. As for me, it wouldn’t bother me one bit if everybody walking down the street were armed? Why does other people being armed bother you so much? Do you have so little faith in your fellow man??? As to guns in private hands detering invasions. The Japanese disagreed with you. During WWII, the Japanese were considering a raid on the Northwest US, in order to force the US to divert resources to defend this area. They decided against it precisely because they knew how well armed and trained the citizens were. This is not theory or conjecture, the minutes of the meetings were captured when Japan surrendered. During WWII, civilian patrols were quite influential in protecting British shores against sabuetors. Julie Cochrane: I think I’m in love (with my wife of course).
I graduated from Tech in ’85 with a BSEE. Your name sounds familiar, what year did you graduate? 3/31/98 Alexander S. Koczur [email protected] One thing I find interesting about the people who believe that “guns” are the problem is that they are strong advocates of double standards and hypocrisy. First, the double standards are glaring in the two main areas surrounding this issue. First, the city where I live (San Jos, Calif.) has, in addition to Federal and State laws against “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines, also implemented a ban on “junk” guns (i.e., pistols less than $500).
At the same time, to combat bank robbers from LA, they now issue assault weapons with high-capacity magazines to the police. The local news told us that these officers must pass a 20 hr basic training and monthly time on the range. My training (US Army Ranger / Special Forces) is vastly superior to anything these cops will receive, but I am not allowed to own these guns, let alone carry them in the trunk of my car. Double standard no. 1 is in effect, the “enforcement” officials are “above the law” that it is their job to enforce against me. These sorts of double standards are unacceptable to anybody who wishes to be, and stay, free. Double standard No. 2 is the belief that the exception should be the rule. Look for my next post… 3/31/98 Alexander S. Koczur [email protected] Double standard no. 2 is the belief that the execption should be the rule. It is a small number of criminals that are responsible for most gun crime, the other people cited as “examples” by HCI and their ilk can only be called “crazy.” These are not representative of the 98% of gun owners (or 99.9% of everybody in the US) who do not misuse firearms. What is not discussed is that if we wish to use such examples as the basis for policy, then they clearly come down on the side of disarming the gov’t (police & military).
With a few “rogue” states and “crazies” like Hitler, Stalin and others killing MILLIONS of people (instead of the few thousands killed by criminals), I think we should take guns away from the various gov’t gang members… 3/31/98 Jerry Cote [email protected] Spoken like a true TV “journalist”. Take a few isolated facts and ignore everything else. 200,000 crimes prevented by handguns per year, 99.9%+ of registered guns are never used in a felony (read: most owners are responsible persons).
For years I thought that media liberals knew the facts, but deliberately left them out to support their view. Silly me. That would assume that they bothered to track down many facts, including those that their immature little hearts wouldn’t want to know. If ever there was a shooting danger in America, it’s know-nothing-by-choice “reporters” shooting off their mouths to the millions (or should I say, for the million$$$) 3/31/98 Winsor Naugler III [email protected] It is a given that there would be a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy in Arkansas, since HCI and their ilk have naught but fear and ignorance in their favor. Were the malefactors in this incident to have used gasoline or a station wagon to effect their mayhem, there would be no hue and cry to further restrict their instruments of destruction, since this sentiment would be viewed as patently stupid. It is no less stupid to wish firearms to be as restricted and difficult for miscreants to obtain as, say, cocaine and heroin. It is axiomatic that one should seek to arm their allies and disarm their avowed enemies, and it is disturbing that Dr. Weil has thus shown his enmity toward the citizenry of the US. Since the Government of a Democracy is, by definition, The People, “gun control” is by nature seditious. Socrates observed that a man sees in others what he knows of himself. I contend that one who cannot be trusted with a loaded firearm cannot be trusted, and is unfit to populate a free society. That Dr. Weil and his ilk at HCI see the world as being populated with terminally irresponsible people says more about them than it does about those they accuse. For such timerous souls as Dr. Weil to feel their fears warrant serious consideration is disquieting. The sheer mediocrity of the sentiments thus voiced is shameful, and the lack of character whereby this is not apparent is appalling. 3/31/98 Steve Fischer [email protected] This article is typical of the emotional baloney that routinely passes for “scholarship” in the hoplophobic community. The author pulls out a few – and I do mean *FEW* examples of some CCW owners (out of the hundreds of thousands who don’t misuse them) who act like idiots and then tars the whole community with their misdeeds. Most revocations of permits are for technical violations and virtually none involves a violent crime. Then the author, who has probably never even read the study by Lott and Mustard (I have, by the way!), drags out the names of some people whose only claim to fame, as nearly as I can tell, is that they criticized Lott in a public arena. No reason is given for us to believe that they have any special expertise in this subject. The author neglects to mention that Lott has substantially answered their criticisms with plausible explanations. It seems the only irrefutable research to these persons is anti-gun research. The current vogue is to think of guns as germs, yet none of these doctors has explained why, when 50 million people are exposed to the virus, so few people actually catch the infection of gun violence. Most of those who do, have long criminal records! Facts are so inconvenient. 3/31/98 Chris Boaro [email protected] Douglas Weil makes the statement that CCW laws “…takes discretion away from law enforcement in determining who receives a concealed weapons license…”. It’s time that the anti-guners dropped this argument.Do you want the local police department to decide if you can own a gun? If you can drive? If you can vote? If you can read a newspaper? Where you should go to church? How would they decide? Would they care if you were black or white, jew or christian, poor or rich? A society where “law enforcement” is allowed to make arbitrary decisions about which rights and privilages a person may exercise is a POLICE STATE, not a free country. Is that what you’re asking for, HCI? This article is insipid drivel. I have legally, and responsibly carried a concealed defensive handgun as a private citizen for almost 12 years. The mere presence of that weapon has saved my life on more than one occasion; without a shot ever being fired! In my home state, the local sheriff’s dept. completes the necessary background check for issuance of a ccw permit, just as the dept. of motor vehicles determines the fitness of an individual for a driver’s license. Firearms enthusiasts, as a whole, exercise great responsibility in the pursuit of their sport; something I wish I could say of most drivers. The law is put in place to “weed out” ,if you will, the irresponsible individuals in either case. Recently having become physically handicapped, my leagally carried weapon is an even greater consolation, now that I am not able to physically fend off an attacker. Dr. Weil, if you wish to remain unarmed, so be it; but don’t presume to tell me that because you don’t wish to exercise that right, I should’nt be able to. It is painfully evident that you have never had to defend yourself, or anyone else, from an attack. Otherwise, I can virtually guarantee that you would see this matter in a completely different light. Good Day, Sir! Dr. Weil, Two simple questions: : Who kills more of a given nations citizens/subjects – the government or fellow citizens/subjects? Who is killed more often by the above prime killers – armed citizens or unarmed subjects? I think you know the answer to the question, but do not care since you hope to be on the side of the ones accruing all of the power – and the lumpen be damned. Heil Clinton! Weil and his affiliates at HCI are engaging in their last-ditch strategy of “post-and-run,” whereby they post an article in a public forum and then run from any valid questions raised against their contents. This strategy has as its goal the lone hope that a few uninformed, easily-persuadable souls will read their articles and be swayed to their viewpoint. —————- But this strategy can hardly prove effective to a free, informed, and inquisitive populace (hence their efforts will merely serve the useful purpose of reminding those defenders of liberty to remain vigilant).
————– Certainly Mr. Weil did not respond to questions regarding his lack of sources and statistics in his article, nor did he explain what specific part of Lott’s study was flawed (and under what reasoning), nor did he inform readers of his desire to see police departments (and hence a police state) with the authority and discretion to annoint certain chosen citizens with certain civil-rights, nor at any time did Mr. Weil explain why he based his “persuasive” article on anecdotal examples rather than readily available statistics. Perhaps Mr. Weil understands that he can only “post-and-run,” since his position seems undefendable at this point. Therefore I suspect to see more of Mr. Weil’s writing…if only briefly! I find it amusing that you are excercising your rights under the 1st amend, and yet you want to take away my rights under the 2nd amend. What hypocracy! Have you been highly trained in the use of the Engilsh language? Did you wait fifteen days and cool off before you wrote this article? As for you claims that the gun studies are bunk here is a website complied by two university professors using Law enforcement data. Take a close look, this is the truth, not a study done by your allies a Hand Gun Control. Not only will these gentlemen show you where they got thier info, they will tell you how it was compiled. We have nothing to hide Can you say the same? http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html I will gladly debate and refute any argument that you have. If you do not like the laws and freedoms of this county please leave immediatley. Interesting to note the CDC graphs showing the number of firearms related deaths(which include all legitimate shootings i.e. self defense and police) rise in proportion to the number of gun control laws. Recently, as more states allow their citizens to exercise their right to carry a weapon the number of firearms related deaths go down. This destroys HCI propoganda. Like most liberals, they can’t bear to admit being wrong. They will not take responsibility for their own actions. For the few bad examples posted there are thousands of examples of guns used to save lives. Given the fact that there are over thirty states that allow CCW and he only came up with 5 bad examples, that’s a ratio I can accept. 4/1/98 Brian Mooney [email protected] The few examples cited in this anti-gun diatribe are about the only ones they could dig up – the fact is, gun owners as a whole, and especially those who hold concealed weapons permits, are more law-abiding than the average citizen. I do not argue that carrying a concealed weapon should be an automatic right for everyone – I think competency and fitness have to be judged. Contrary to what is written above, the laws and background checks ARE thorough. Basically, this argument comes from those who want a governmental answer and who are willing to whittle away at indivdual rights in return for more control of people. It is based on an inability to trust the average citizen to act responsibly. “We need to amke up their minds for them,” is what this says. Maybe we’d get more individual responsibility (it’s on the decline) if we expected it of people, and allowed them to exercise it. But that would mean relinquishing control. That is what the above article is rerally about – the public is a bunch of idiots who can’t be trusted to run their lives in an enlightened fashion. Ohnyes – I’m a liberal, Democratic voter, who belongs to the ACLU and Amnesty International. And the NRA. He is part of a failed approach to the problem of violence. We don’t need another noble experiment like that the endured during alcohol prohibition. 4/1/98 Laszlo Markos [email protected] Wow!!! For a while there I could not figure out weather this Dr. Weil was being serious in his posting or merely being funny. I guess since I can come up with anecdotal references of government agency personnel abusing their firearm rights we should disarm all police and gov. personnel. Does that make any rational sense??? For those that are considering gun control as an answer to today’s societal problems, specifically crime, please think rationally for a moment. We live in a time when firearms are under probably the strictest control they have ever been and yet the crime rate is still the high. If your arguments regarding firearms were true then how do you explain the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s? Continued… 4/1/98 Mike Orick [email protected] Dr. W sees what he want to see, not what is. The evidence is overwhelming that shall-issue is working, and working well. He pulls isolated, and very rare, incidents out of his biased hat. There are over two million CCW holders in the US now, and they are definitely NOT a problem. CCW has a better documented history of lessening violent crime than gun banning. What about all the other states that have had zero problems with license holders? Many LE officials who were opposed have admitted they were wrong, Dr. W won’t. I would rather live where everybody carries and there is less crime, than where nobody carries but criminals. Thanks to shall-issue CCW, we are moving in that direction. 4/1/98 Laszlo Markos [email protected] Aside from that think of what effect bans have had in our society. Way back when people felt that outlawing alcohol woule help solve a lot of problems. Did it? My opinion is that it did not. In actuality it made things worse without having any effect on alcohol consumption. People went to Speak Easies(sp?) and got their gin. Meanwhile we created a market which made violent criminals rather wealthy and powerful. Well that couldn’t happen today, you say. How about the war on drugs. Various drugs have been illegal in most countries around the world for decades. Our federal gov. probably spends billions each year in foreign aid, interdiction programs, we even have an agency whose goal is to enforce drug laws. Aside from the feds, each and every state, county, and city law enforcement agency probably has a narcotics division. How much does that cost us and how effective has it been? Do thousands upon thousands of people still obtain, use and abuse drugs? Have we eliminated the lucrative business of dealing/importing/growing controlled substances? What makes you think that the same thing will not happen with gun control laws? Passing Laws to help control the actions of lawless individulas is as effective as trying to bale water with a pasta strainer. It gets you nowhere fast. 4/1/98 BigBossMan [email protected] Two brief points: 1. The good Dr Weil’s silence to the follow-on discussion involving his article is, ummmmm…..deafening. He has chosen not to enter the discussion to clarify his position on the article points that have come into question….I wonder why?? 2. Go to HCI’s, VPC’s. or any other gun control organization’s web page, and look around. then go to the NRA’s or any other pro RKBA web page and look around. Compare and contrast. Notice a difference? The gun-control organizations invariably have no links inviting comments and email. The RKBA sites invariably do….Again, I wonder why?? Everybody knows that the sources quoted by the Mr. Weil are at best misrepresenting the facts. You’ll notice that the author describes no flaws in Lott’s statistical methods just emotional invectives hurled against the Lott study.. Time and again we see HCI and the like deliberately misleading the American people. I know, for close to 4 decades I was on their side. Then one day I looked behind the propaganda and to the facts. The result was that now I stand with the “gun lobby” – the fault lies not in the firearms but in ourselves. The gun banners are a continuance of a long tradition: their predecessors burned witches at the stake, cowered in their homes when the moon eclipsed the sun and believed the earth to be flat. I will no longer be party to that thinking. Weil, please! You say that Lott is incorrect. Give me a little more than four examples. Data proves points. I’m an engineering student, and I couldn’t publish any findings based on several stories that I heard. The fact is that a criminal prefers to target those that are unarmed. Try to dispute that. Lott has the data to back up his points, you on the other hand site several incidents. You have not persuaded the majority of your readers based on the comments posted here. So _cases_ investigated ‘involving’ concealed carry permit holders in Texas increased by a huge percentage from 1996 to 1997. Well, duuuhhhhh!!! The number of concealed carry permit holders in Texas went from essentially zero in 1996 to several hundred thousand by the end of 1997. [The Department of Public Safety was slow initiating the process, and very few permits were issued in 1996 after the passage of the law.] As most of the inferences from the statistics in Dr. Weil’s article, this is the logical equivalent of saying “nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.” A bit too partisan for objective and clear-cut analysis. The recent controversial gun control bill marks yet another in a long list of social and criminal justice issues that have been prostituted for political purposes. The highly publicized debate on the relationship between guns and public safety, and the partisan strategizing on implications of gun control measures for the upcoming presidential race have taken precedence over the pragmatic prospects of the bill itself–making the “gun issue” a platform for political posturing. But what of the bill itself ? would it have effectively regulated guns toward the end of a safer, less violent society? We do not think so for the following reasons. Proposals that sales at gun shows by private individuals be subject to the same background checks currently required of sales by licensed gun dealers (at gun shows, or at gun stores) are based on two beliefs. First, that there are good gun owners and bad gun owners. And second, the present level of gun-related violence in society dictates serious regulatory efforts to keep guns out of the hands of these bad owners. These two beliefs have led some to the conclusion that any infringement upon the rights of good gun owners are justified by the greater social interest in preventing criminals, the mentally insane and juveniles from acquiring guns. These two beliefs are the logical underpinnings of the recently debated, and sure to return, proposals requiring background checks on gun show sales by private individuals. (Again, checks are already required when firearms dealers sell guns at gun shows.) Several key points have been ignored, however, in the heated and emotional debate over the wisdom and effectiveness of federal regulations on gun show sales. Many states already regulate private gun sales in such a manner that federal requirements would simply be redundant. In California, Maryland and Rhode Island, for example, state statutes subject all private gun sales—including those that take place at gun shows–to criminal history background checks. In many other states, both private sellers and buyers must first obtain a permit from a local or state authority. Even more troubling is the unintended but unavoidable problem of displacement. No one knows exactly how many private gun sales take place in a year but experts estimate that thirty to fifty percent of all gun sales are between private individuals. In states that do not regulate the private gun market, private gun sales are essentially cash-and-carry no questions asked transactions. And as long as both the seller and the buyer are not prohibited from owning firearms, such transactions are legal. What would federally mandated background checks on gun show sales by private individuals accomplish? Quite simply, since gun shows comprise only a fraction of the unregulated private gun market, proposed restrictions would displace many sales into other segments of the private gun market (e.g., classified ads, garage sales, and, most importantly, personal contacts).
Anyone desiring to purchase a gun without a background check might simply locate a seller in such informal markets. The truth, then, is that the proposed restrictions will not effect the desired outcome. Given that criminals can easily circumvent these token background checks, the question becomes, what do the restrictions accomplish in terms of the gun policy-social violence-constitutional rights interrelationship? The answer: empty political symbolism. Once it is understood that the unregulated private gun market is a viable alternative to licensed and regulated sources, the entire national instant background check system is called into question. It achieves little more than deterring stupid criminals from buying weapons from licensed dealers, while the savvy simply utilize the private market. The heart of the issue is this: As long as an unregulated private gun market exists, mandatory criminal history background checks are a waste of time and money. The government should either regulate all gun sales or accept the realities of the gun market. To do so, of course, would be concession of the notion that certain spheres of American life are, and should remain, beyond legislative control. And that is unlikely in our identify-legislate-regulate approach to social violence wherein guns serve as scapegoat. It is easier for almost everyone (parents, school authorities, and, especially politicians) to focus on guns instead of our many and often overlapping sources of violence (e.g., weakened social bonds, familial disruption, and the increasing isolating nature of modern life) for which we as a society are all responsible. A Message to All Gun Owners from the Prime Minister of Australia To help make Australia safer you need to know how gun control will affect you. Recent horrific events have caused all Australians to consider what sort of firearms are acceptable in our community. You will have seen a lot of information recently about gun control and not all of it has been accurate. The following information is the agreed view of all Australian governments made at the special meeting of Police Ministers in May 1996. For more information contact your local police station or the office of your Federal member or senator, after Tuesday 18 June, for a copy of the free pamphlet, Gun Use. How it Affects You. The following types of firearms will be available to owners who have a genuine reason for such a firearm: rimfire rifle (excluding self loading) For the following types of firearms, owners may also have to prove a genuine need for such a firearm: single shot centre fire rifle double barrel centre fire rifle repeating action centre fire rifle break action shotgun/rifle combination A genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm will include: sporting shooters using lawful firearms with valid membership of an approved club; recreational shooters/hunters who produce proof of permission from a public or private landowner; people with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes, security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes; bona fide collectors of firearms; and people with other limited purposes authorized by legislation (e.g. firearms use in film production).
The following types of firearms will remain restricted subject to the tightest possible controls: The following types of firearms will be restricted to persons such as primary producers who have a genuine occupational need for the gun: self loading rimfire rifle The following types of firearms will be banned throughout Australia except for official purposes and professional shooters: self loading centre fire rifle self loading rimfire rifle Newsweek magazine’s article “The Media’s Message” (January 9, 1995) described an unprecedented public hostility toward the national media.” To a great degree, the hostility arises from the presses preference for the “cheap shot” and an addiction to negative stories peopled by “villains.” “What was lost in the press was that there were good people on all sides that differed philosophically about what should be done.” Those of us that want to encourage a rational informed debate about armed crime in America can certainly relate to that article. In spite of her obvious good intentions, Ann Landers’ columns provide abundant examples of cheap shots, shrill attacks, and just plain misinformation. Once she wrote that a crime victim was better off not to resist an armed assailant. This seemed odd to me for reasons that will become clear below. I wrote and asked where she had gotten her information, and after some prodding, she cavalierly responded that I should do as she had done and ask a policeman. The ones I had already asked had certainly not agreed with her. But more important, we have all read any number of her columns where she makes a major point out of the source of her information. Her unwillingness to specify which officer in what department she had consulted seemed more than a little odd. I could fill this article with examples from her column because her zealous pursuit of crime control through gun control seems to accept truth as an unimportant casualty. Ann Landers is by no means atypical. In the April 1994 Bar News, I described a 90-day summary of the stories about shootings that had appeared in the Longview Daily News. Pieces about misuse of firearms by criminals and crazies predominated over stories about legitimate self-defense, in spite of the fact that many criminological studies have shown at least a rough correspondence between the numbers of firearm abuses and legitimate self-defense uses. More telling, the stories about abuse were from locations that averaged 26 times further away from Longview than the incidents involving self-defense. The paper, or more properly the wire services from which the paper drew, would print an article from anywhere in the world about firearms abuse, but not articles about self-defense. So unless the events described in those stories had occurred so close to Longview that the reader could learn about the incident from other sources of information, he wasn’t going to learn about it from the Daily News. In the fall of 1994, there was spectacularly successful example of self-defense near Portland that ended with the armed citizen driving the wounded would be carjacker to the hospital. That incident was not reported here, even though it occurred only a few miles away. This prompted me to repeat my Daily News study, and the lack of balance was even more pronounced. In 13 weeks there were 92 stories about abuse and not a single one about self-defense. Incidents involving successful self-defense occurred in the Northwest during the study, but they were not reported either. The zeal we see in Landers’- columns seems to permeate the whole industry. If you take nothing else away from this article, realize that someone cannot be well-informed on this subject simply by casualty reading a few newspapers and weekly magazines. [1] But in fairness to the media, much of the information to support the views advanced in this article is there for someone who wants to spend the time digging it out. The sources cited herein are all well respected mainstream publications, and they are supplemented only by material drawn from specialized professional periodicals. This article provides some balance on this subject by presenting information that has failed to get the exposure it deserves, such as the substantial body of scholarship that holds that gun control, as it has been pursued in this country, has failed to be a significant deterrent. (See Nelson Polsby of Northwestern University School of Law, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” Atlantic Monthly, page 57, March 1994).
That is not a point of view that gets much exposure from the media. The main point that Polsby’s article makes is, “Guns don’t increase national rates of crime and violence, but the continued proliferation of gun control laws almost certainly does.” The bulk of the homicide in this country does not involve stressed-out madmen or domestic violence, but rather organized crime (drug dealers’ turf wars, etc.) and petty crime that escalates into violence. Our worst nightmare of a dictatorship could not collect all of the guns in this country. A great many will continue to be in circulation no matter what we do. The main effect of gun laws is to drive up the price of firearms and to encourage the stickup artist to believe that his victim will not be armed. To see what Polsby is getting at, compare the experiences of the city of Chicago, which has tightened its concealed carry law, with the state of Florida, which loosened its law. Chicago’s action followed a period of several years when the proportion of homicides committed in the city with handguns had been failing, a trend which stopped immediately; the proportion of homicides committed with handguns has increased substantially since. (Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1991) By way of contrast, Florida has experienced a phenomenal 29 percent decrease in its homicide rate since it eased its concealed-carry law (Time, March 27, 1995), and only 19 of the permits granted since the easing have had to be revoked because of the holders’ criminal acts. (Christian Science Monitor, April 6, 1995).
One weakness in the case for gun control as crime control is that Americans use their guns with startling frequency to defend themselves. Gary Kleck is a criminologist at Florida State. Although gun prohibitionists summarily dismiss him as “pro-gun,” he began studying civilian defensive use of firearms primarily because it was an open field, not because he had a particular point of view he wanted to advance. He is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. A self-characterized “tree hugger,” he is a lifelong registered Democrat. He initially published an estimate that Americans make legitimate self-defense use of firearms on the order of one million times a year. (Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 1993).
It was based on 10 surveys done by other researchers that yield results of the same order of magnitude. This was so startling that he conducted his own survey and found, “Each year there are at least 2.5 million defensive uses of guns by crime victims, about four to five times the number of crimes committed with guns.” (Citing Kleck and Gertz in Social Pathology, January 1995).
Anyone who wants to deny Americans the opportunity to defend themselves has to deal with the fact that Kleck’s research encountered all too many cases like that of the Everett couple who felt the need for an armed neighbor to be at their home when their son arrived from school. When an intruder-who was later identified as a suspect in several sexual assaults on children-tried to break into the house, the neighbor used his gun to drive him off, and the would-be intruder was apprehended by police (The Herald, December 12, 1991).
In contrast, estimates of the criminal use of firearms range between 600,000 and 1,000,000 times a year (Longview Daily News, May 16, 1993).
All this certainly gives one a reason to be skeptical of Ann Landers. Also, much of that criminal use takes place in areas like New York and Washington D.C., where the citizen is legally forbidden to be armed for self-defense, and which have the highest crime rates in the country. Strip away the laws that disarm the citizen, and criminal use of firearms in those areas might decrease to the lower levels that typically exist where such laws are not in effect. The weakness of the case for gun control is also masked by the fact that the mainstream press normally presents statistics for the nation as a whole as if the level of armed crime were the same everywhere. But that is not at all true. In an article that appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine, November 10, 1989, the authors tried to make a case for gun control as crime control by comparing homicide statistics from Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. But what came to light was that the homicide rate for “Non-Hispanic Caucasians” (about 75 percent of the population in both cities) was actually lower in Seattle, with all its lack of gun control, than it was in Vancouver. The higher overall homicide rate in Seattle was due to the fact that certain portions of Seattle’s minority populations have extremely high homicide rates compared to its ‘Non-Hispanic Caucasian majority” and to similar communities in Vancouver. The situation among African-Americans is typical. The homicide rate in the whole Seattle African-American community is five times the rate among Seattle’s “Non-Hispanic Caucasian” rate. Nationally, the per capita homicide rate for African-Americans is 11 times that of whites. (Newsweek August 25, 1994) Since there is no reason to believe that the rate among African-Americans who live in suburbs is any different from that of their white neighbors, the rate in the inner-city portions of the African-American community must be actually much higher. Nationally, about a fifth of African-Americans live in poverty in inner cities (Christian Science Monitor, August, 17, 1994), which suggests that the per capita homicide rate among the part of the community that lives in those inner-city neighborhoods must be on the order of 20 to 25 times the rate for the city as a whole. [2] These circumstances are not an argument for gun control. Guns are barely a symptom of our problem, not a basic cause. African-Americans have the highest rates among ethnic groups in Washington for aggravated assault, rape and homicide. The category of race is a proxy for social and economic status-factors directly linked to the incidence of violent crime. “A Preliminary Assessment Of Violent Crime in Washington State, ” Washington State Department of Health, 1993″ These facts call for efforts to deal with these underlying causes, not for more gun control. Actually, Vancouver’s experience is one of many examples of a gun ban being followed by an increase in the homicide rate. In the seven years following British Columbia’s ban, Vancouver’s rate went up substantially (“Evaluation of the Canadian Gun Control Legislation.” Elisabeth Scarff, Decision Dynamics Corporation).
This pattern was noted as far back as the passage of the Sullivan Act in New York. (The Gun in America, Kennett and Anderson, page 185), as well as when Chicago effectively banned the concealed carrying of pistols by refusing to license any more residents to carry them (Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1991, page A 10).
It was also noted both when Washington D.C. banned handguns and when California banned certain assault weapons (FBI uniform crime reports).
In some cases, there probably wasn’t a cause-and-effect relationship. But the sheer number of times the phenomenon has been noted means that it can’t be ignored, especially since a decrease in the crime rate has been noted when gun controls are loosened (“A Better and Safer Place to Live, ” Washington State Bar News, April 1994).
What initially seemed to be a strong argument for gun restrictions was a study of suicides and gun ownership done in Seattle by Gary Kellerman and his associates that appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine, June 12, 1986. The authors found that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to shoot a member of the family who lives in the home than it was to be used to shoot an intruder. Most shootings were self-inflicted. The authors argued that substantial numbers of lives might be saved if people did not keep guns in their homes. But this study turns out to be one of the best examples of why prohibitionists’ claims are worthy of very close scrutiny. The people I contacted who work in suicide prevention indicated unanimously that suicide incidence is governed by drug and alcohol abuse and personality disorders, and that controlling access to guns would not have a significant effect. I became even more skeptical when I realized that firearms are only marginally more effective than hanging and other commonly used means of committing suicide. In order to accept the authors’ conclusion that gun control might significantly reduce suicides, we must first accept the proposition that somehow having a gun in the home encourages thoughts of suicide. This flies in the face of what I was told by the people I contacted. The study was heavily criticized (See The New England Journal of Medicine, December 24, 1992).
The authors fell back on earlier work that suggested “that guns kept in homes are involved in unintentional deaths or injuries at least as often as they are fired in self-defense.” But if rough parity between legitimate (self-defense) shootings and “unintentional deaths or injuries” is the best the authors can claim, they are on exceedingly weak ground. Kleck and his associates found that there are several defensive uses of a firearm where the gun is not fired for every time it is. Taken together, his work and the authors’ arguments suggest strongly that guns are used far more often for self-defense than in instances where they create “unintentional deaths or injuries.” These are just some of the reasons that gun control as crime control is viewed skeptically by crime prevention experts. Politicians in police uniforms get considerable publicity when they ask for gun control measures. But no policeman with whom I have ever discussed the matter (perhaps a hundred over the years) has ever spoken in favor of gun control as a crime control measure. The response that I got from a State Patrol sergeant was typical. He felt that a gun law would keep an honest person honest, but a crook would always get a weapon if he wanted it. Some police officers do favor gun control. But when the Death Penalty Information Center polled police chiefs and sheriffs, only three percent said that gun control was the most important thing we could do (Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1995).
It appears that the popularity of the argument for gun control as crime control comes not from some strong intellectual or factual basis, but from the tens of millions of dollars of free publicity that the media give gun prohibitionist groups every year. Most people who have not made a study of gun control have the impression that our homicide rate is now far worse than it was at any time in the past, and that it is rising rapidly. That impression comes from the constant drumbeat of crime stories appearing in all segments of the media. But the truth is that the per capita homicide rate in this country is no worse now than it was 20 years ago, and considerably below its all-time high. Most experts see it currently trending slightly downward (Christian Science Monitor February 19,1994; Longview Daily News, December 7, 1993, February 19, 1994; Money, June 6, 1994).
Press bias is especially evident and especially misleading in the coverage given to opinion polls that purport to show a vast base of support for the prohibitionists. Typically, the questions asked by the pollsters concentrate on traditional gun control proposals (registration, confiscation and the like).
They usually don’t even give the respondent the opportunity to express a preference for less gun control or for alternatives, such as the restrictions that are designed to impact groups whose behavior has suggested that they should not have the same access to firearms as the rest of the population- convicted felons, juveniles and those with a history of mental disability. This abuse of the media’s discretion is so clear that Everett Carll Ladd, the head of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, used it as an example in his column in the Christian Science Monitor, (June 18, 1993), “Misreported Polling Data Fails an Informed Citizenry.” The article centered on a poll conducted by Lou Harris, no longer associated with Louis Harris and Associates. It made the startling finding that “a majority of Americans now favor a total ban on the possession of handguns unless a court explicitly grants an exception”. Ladd notes that this result is enormously different from other poll results. Harris got that response by asking the crucial question after a long series of other questions designed to put the respondent in a mood to answer the way he wanted. Ladd’s conclusion was that Americans need to be skeptical, and the press needs to “develop more effective means for assessing accuracy”. Even if they had the money, the NRA and similar groups simply do not have the opportunity to match the publicity that the media regularly hands anti-gun groups. It was only when measures such as three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws became popular that the fact that the homicide rate is actually stable received wide dissemination as part of arguments that such Draconian measures were unnecessary. So far, this article has suggested that there is good reason to be skeptical about traditional gun control measures as crime fighting tools, and that that skepticism is shared by many people whose opinions ought to be heard. It suggests that those opinions are not given the attention they deserve because the press often falls well below any reasonable standard of objectivity on this subject. It has also presented reasons to suspect that at least some of the scientific work that appears to favor traditional gun control is subject to the same criticisms. But it is equally important that a good part of the research that analyzes the gun crime link concludes that traditional gun control is not a useful means of controlling crime. The work of two of the most distinguished sociologists in contemporary America, James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, is a case in point. Wright is a Professor of Human Relations at Tulane and has received numerous professional honors. Initially there was a distinct antigun bias in his published work. But as he and Rossi explored the subject, they became increasingly disenchanted with that viewpoint. In their landmark study, “Weapons Crime and Violence in America” (1981), they concluded, “There appears to be no strong causal connection between private gun ownership and the crime rate …. There is no compelling evidence that private weaponry is an important cause of, or a ,deterrent to, violent criminality.” Such a conclusion from someone who must contradict his own prejudice and previous pronouncements does not come lightly and has a special credibility. But Wright’s later work moved him even further from advocating traditional gun control measures. In his article in the March/April 1995 issue of Society Magazine, he concludes that that type of anticrime measures are unlikely to impact our problems in any positive way. He finds that evidence for this is so clear that he notes that it is difficult to dismiss the theory that the measures are just a first step toward outright confiscation of all firearms (as Senator Dianne Feinstein recently advocated).
For example, Wright found that almost all firearm purchases covered by the Brady five-day waiting period were made by individuals who resided in households where there were already one or more guns. How can a delay in selling an additional gun to someone who already has access to one or more guns reduce crimes of passion? Wright also notes that a detailed examination of instances where large-magazine capacity “assault weapons” were used in crimes found that large magazine capacity was almost never a factor in how much damage was done. However, there was at least some evidence that substitution of hunting rifles, whose rounds are normally far more lethal than the low- or medium-power cartridges used in “assault weapons,” substantially increased the seriousness of wounds that were inflicted and the number of deaths that resulted. More importantly, he has moved away from his original conclusion that there is no compelling evidence that guns are a valuable deterrent against violent criminality. He cites Gary Kleck’s work, which was not available when he made that statement, and asks, “Does a society that is manifestly incapable of protecting its citizens from crime and predation really have the moral authority to tell people what they may and may not do to protect themselves?” This article has examined the proposition that we can control crime by limiting the access of all Americans to firearms. The historical evidence and the scholarship cited here show that that is a very dubious proposition indeed. Allowing people to be free to defend themselves and concentrating gun control on those that abuse guns might be much more productive. None of this can be read as an argument that gun control is illegal or necessarily unproductive. Neither is it an argument that our homicide rate 20 years ago, or now, is anything to brag about. But it does suggest that we would not be wise to institute most of the gun controls that are currently being advocated. [1] Alas, the legal profession, which is often criticized for emphasizing its advocacy role at the expense of scholarship, is not immune to the news media’s problems. In the July Bar News, I described an advertisement, signed by a number of law school deans, that advances the theory that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right. But none of the signatories had published on the topic, and the vast preponderance of those scholars who had published had come to the conclusion that we do have such a right. Another example is the interview with Nadine Strossen of the ACLU that was published in Reason magazine in October 1994 and contained the comment, “The plain language of the Second Amendment in no way, shape, or form, can be construed as giving an absolute right to unregulated gun ownership.” The comment is accurate, but it implies that some major player in the debate, such as the NRA, thinks that there is such a right. Anyone who has read NRA material on this topic knows that it doesn’t take such a position, and to the best of my knowledge, neither does any other major player. The debate is about the shape or extent of that right. [2] Anyone who thinks that I am being unfair to the authors is obliged to read the devastating criticisms of their work that appeared in the May 4, 1989 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. My favorite comment remains that of John Gryder of Johns Hopkins University, who identified himself as “politically in favor of gun control” and then went on to explain why this work is flawed science. I feel the need to respond to William G. Dennis’ article, “A Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The State of the Debate” in the July Bar News. Let me start off by saying that the logic that Professor Glen Reynolds uses in response to a New York Times advertisement is simply, in my view, his own opinion, based on people who write articles for law reviews, which of course is only their opinion, none of which is based on any kind of law. Mr. Dennis then would have us believe that both the National Rifle Association and Handgun Control Inc. favor some form of gun control. This is just not correct. The NRA has never! I repeat, never! been in any kind of favor of gun control, and this includes the semi-automatic. the NRA never saw a weapon it didn’t love. The fact of the matter is that the NRA has poured millions of dollars to fight groups such as Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) to defeat any kind of gun control in this country. Mr. Dennis then goes on to try to explain how the two groups go about getting their information. I would suggest that Mr. Dennis gives more credibility to the NRA staff on where it obtains its information on the Second Amendment issue than he does HCI. He goes on to say that “HCI is dependent on paid staffers to argue its position.” I say, so what! Are we to assume that Mr. Dennis is challenging the credibility of HCI staff members? If, in fact, that is the case, why doesn’t Mr. Dennis lay a foundation as to that claim? The main thrust I would submit is that HCI has the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation on its side, and I might add that on more than one occasion the Supreme Court ruled, giving the Second Amendment a militia interpretation; and when last checked is still the final authority when it comes to the law of the land. Like it or not, it doesn’t matter at this stage what the lower courts have decided, or how one goes about obtaining his information, or even who the scholar is. Another point I would take grave issue with is the statement, “most of the available statistics, however, do not demonstrate that local gun control laws reduce crime.” That statement is just plain ludicrous. On the contrary, according to The Washington Post, in the first month of operation the Brady Bill Law prevented at least! 1,605 buyers from purchasing handguns, including fugitives and felons convicted of armed robbery, murder and manslaughter, this according to preliminary statistics from fifteen cities. “Forty-four fugitives or persons facing outstanding warrants were denied guns, including one South Carolina man wanted for sexual assault who was arrested in the gun store.” So once again I would challenge Mr. Dennis to produce evidence to show that local gun control laws do not reduce crime. Let me just state again that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Second Amendment was well thought out. Remember! that whenever the NRA quotes the Second Amendment it always quotes the second half. The first half is less convenient because it undermines the lobby’s propaganda for universal weaponry. Nowhere does the Constitution say the right to keep and bear arms means the right to bear any or all arms. Even the late Chief Justice Warren Burger called the NRA’s distortion of the Second Amendment a “fraud” on the American public. In conclusion, let me quote from former American Bar Association president R. William Ide, 3d: “I am saying to the NRA and the gun lobby, to put their convictions where their rhetoric is. The ABA challenges them to bring suit against the Brady Law on Second Amendment grounds. They should either put up or admit there is no Second amendment guarantee.” Finally, the next time you hear the NRA proclaim itself as the Great Protector of some imagined right to be armed, ask yourself: If this “right” is so precious, why is it not worth defending in court? John S. Mueller’s letter about “A Right to Keep and Bear Arms?” illustrates the weakness of the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right so well that a review of his comments is appropriate. His first point is that those who do see an individual right lean heavily on the published works of scholars. He would prefer to dismiss their work as mere “opinion” even though courts regularly cite such sources themselves. More importantly gun prohibitionists cite them, whenever and to whatever extent they can. So it is not at all clear why we should not do so also. I suspect that gun prohibitionist advance this argument because the scholars who have no ideological commitment support our side of the question almost unanimously. Mr. Mueller would prefer to emphasize court decisions. But the only thing that we know unequivocally from the high court is that we don’t have a right to weapons that do not have a potential militia use (See U.S. v. Miller 1939).
Since that decision the high court has twice stated that the Second Amendment provides an individual right-but without elaborating on the subject. Professor Van Alstyne ably summed up how little is to be learned from high court decisions. He compared guidance about the Second Amendment to that which was available about the First Amendment at the turn of the century. Someone depending only on court rulings at that time would have concluded that freedom of speech was not very important or to be construed broadly. It was only after the scholars had developed their arguments for a broad construction that the courts began to agree. Mr. Mueller also “took grave issue” with the statement that “most of the available statistics do not demonstrate that local gun control laws reduce crime.” He went on to a discussion of how the Brady Bill, which of course is not a local law at all, has interfered with handgun sales. This is not crime reduction as it was defined when its proponents were selling the Brady Bill. More important, I wrote in the July issue that that statement was a quote from an article that is relied on by HCI and was included in the bibliography that organization sent me. While I suspect that its author is correct, I made it clear that I included the quote to advance the proposition that HCI has grave difficulty in finding work by independent scholars that supports their positions. It was asserted that I had dismissed the writings of HCI’s paid staff without establishing a proper foundation for doing so. Actually I rejected them, which they deserved, after I analyzed Mr. Henigan’s comment that “The Second Amendment poses no threat to laws effecting the private possession of firearms, (and this) may well be the most settled proposition in constitutional law,” (Legal Times 5/22/ 91).
In the five years before his comment there were at least ten bar review articles published that disagreed with him. In addition the high court stated a year earlier that it found the same sort of individual right in the Second Amendment as it did in the First Amendment (see Verdugo-Urquidez 1990).
Mr. Henigan’s comment is startlingly at variance with the available evidence. Actually what appears to be without foundation is the statement by Mr. Mueller that the NRA opposes all gun control measures. When I read that I picked up the NRA publication that happened to be lying nearest me and found this description of the NRA’s efforts to unite “victims, criminologists and police to close the loopholes in America’s catch and release criminal justice system” through “tough mandatory sentences for armed and violent crime.” Almost any issue of the American Rifleman contains material on the NRA’s gun control proposals and the efforts that organization is making to see them implemented. More important, the lack of sure and certain punishment for criminals has become such a problem that in recent years as many as one-third of the murders in this country were committed by people who are out on bail (U.S. Attorney General William Barr.) The material quoted above from the August 1995 American Rifleman documents that it is inaccurate to say that the NRA opposes all gun control. It is also clear that controlling armed crime by controlling armed criminals is an approach that has considerable merit. I suspect that what is causing the NRA to be subjected to such unwarranted attacks by gun prohibitionists is that the prohibitionists arguments rarely survive close scrutiny. Take the cherished myth that the main reason that we have a high homicide rate is because we have an armed populace. This was spelled out in unusual detail in Scientific American (11/9 1) in an article which was subtitled “More guns means more deaths from crime and accidents.” It was filled with graphics that showed our homicide rate advancing in lock step with the number of guns in the hands of our citizens. The problem is that during the last three years there has been a tremendous reduction in our homicide rate at a time that Americans have been adding briskly to their personal arsenals. Florida’s astounding 29 percent decrease in its homicide rate is no longer entirely unusual but almost any gun store operator will tell you that sales remain vigorous indeed. There were allegations that the author of the article cooked the books to support his argument and the last three years data adds to this suspicion. The weakness of the theory that the availability of guns is a root cause of our crime problem is also shown by the Canadian experience. In the period when our rate had been declining, that country, which has extremely tight gun laws, has had serious growth in its homicide problem (The Oregonian, August 27, 1995.) The argument that we would be better off if we disarmed potential crime victims doesn’t have any more credibility than the argument that the best way to protect the Bosnian Muslims from their Serbian neighbors is to embargo their arms supplies. We all know how well that has worked out. I suspect that most arguments for gun control measures that have a blanket effect instead of targeting, likely firearms abusers are similarly vulnerable to scrutiny and this is why there is so much rancor from some of their proponents. Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health Introduction1 In early 1998, Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell proposed that local officials sue gun manufacturers to recover costs related to firearms violence in their cities.2 Although Rendell later put his plans for a lawsuit on hold, Mayor Marc Morial of New Orleans and Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago have filed suits.3 Other cities have since filed and still more seem likely to.4 In addition, two similar lawsuits have been filed on behalf of private citizens. In one case, which resulted in a mixed verdict [discussed in Appendix II], attorney Elisa Barnes sued gun manufacturers on behalf of six families who had lost loved ones to criminal gun use and one man injured by gunfire.5 And on June 9, 1998, the MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Chicago Law School filed suit on behalf of three Chicago families, each of which had lost young family members in gang-related shootings.6 The second suit is now moving through the courts. The Chicago suit and the two private suits contend that (1) guns are a public nuisance and (2) gun manufacturers knowingly flood cities with more guns than they expect to sell to law-abiding citizens, thus aiding and abetting criminals in obtaining firearms. [The New Orleans lawsuit, which takes a different tack, is examined in Appendix I.] The mayors argue that the firearms industry should reimburse their cities for the public health and safety costs associated with treating and preventing firearms injuries. The two private suits seek compensation from the firearms industry for the plaintiffs’ suffering plus punitive damages to discourage the industry from allowing its guns to end up on the black market. The demand that the gun industry pay the costs associated with gun violence parallels the demands in suits brought against the tobacco industry. However, there is convincing evidence that the benefits to society from the use of guns in self-defense and crime prevention outweigh the costs. The lawsuits discussed in this study all seek redress from the firearms industry for the cost of criminal violence to the plaintiffs (i.e., in the private suit the plaintiffs are individuals who have suffered from criminal gun violence and in the cities’ suits the plaintiffs are seeking recompense for the medical and policing costs related to criminal gun use).
There are costs associated with gun use other than those related to criminal activities, however. For instance, in 1995 1,225 people died as a result of fatal firearm accidents.7 In addition, approximately 30,000 people commit suicide in the U.S. each year and guns are used in approximately half of these deaths.8 On the benefit side, more than 20 million Americans participate in various shooting sports each year, accounting for more than $30 billion in economic activity.9 A full accounting of the relative costs and benefits of firearms to society would include all of these factors as well as others. However, since the lawsuits at issue limit their claims for redress to the costs associated with instances of criminal gun misuse, this study limits its inquiry to the costs associated with criminal gun violence and the benefits associated with firearms used in defense against criminal activities.10 After outlining the cases brought against the firearms industry, this study analyzes how guns prevent crime and compares the societal costs and benefits. It also examines the unintended ill effects on law and public safety of the restrictions on the firearms industry sought by the plaintiffs. “Suits against the gun industry contend (1) guns are a public nuisance and (2) manufacturers flood cities with guns.” Suing Gun Makers When Mayor Rendell was considering whether Philadelphia should sue gun makers, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) collected information and shared it with Pennsylvania’s state police in an unprecedented fashion.11 The data showed that of the 38,000 handguns legally purchased in Philadelphia in 1996, 17 percent, or approximately 6,460, were sold to just over 700 individuals – each of whom bought more than five handguns that year.12 David Kairys, a lawyer originally consulted by the mayor, concluded that either many of these purchasers were buying guns on behalf of criminals or unlicensed black-market gun dealers were reselling legitimately purchased handguns to ineligible persons.13 The Chicago Lawsuit. Both overall serious crime and murder rates have dropped in Illinois in general and Chicago in particular, but not as fast or as far as in the nation as a whole. While the national murder rate declined 9 percent in 1997, Chicago saw less than a 4 percent decline.14 The Illinois murder rate has fallen only 19 percent since 1993, compared to 30 percent nationally.15 Nearly 500 people die in Chicago each year from gunshot wounds. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Handgun sales and the private ownership of any handgun not registered before March 30, 1982, are illegal. However, handgun sales are still legal in the suburbs and, according to the lawsuit, suburban sales are the source of Chicago’s problems. Chicago sued gun manufacturers and others on November 12, 1998, for $433 million the city claims it spent in the previous five years on police, emergency medical care and other costs associated with gun violence. The lawsuit, building on the work that David Kairys did for Philadelphia, alleges that the gun industry oversupplies suburban gun shops, knowing the guns will be sold unlawfully to Chicago residents. This oversupply of guns is a public nuisance analogous to noxious factory emissions, the lawsuit alleges. It also claims that manufacturers advertise gun characteristics that appeal to gang members and other criminals. Among these characteristics are concealability, affordability, fingerprint resistance and the capacity to fire highly destructive ammunition.16 In addition to gun manufacturers and wholesalers, the suit names 12 licensed gun dealers as codefendants. These dealers had sold guns to undercover Chicago police who, the city claims, made clear to the sellers that the guns were being purchased for criminal purposes, by one person on behalf of another or for resale to criminals. The Hamilton Suit. The lead plaintiff in Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, the lawsuit filed by tort attorney Elisa Barnes, was Freddie Hamilton, a New York mother who lost her teenage son, Nunzi Ray, to a bullet intended for another teenager.17 The accused shooter in the Nunzi Ray killing was acquitted in a criminal trial. Ms. Barnes claimed gun manufacturers distribute a dangerous product in a negligent manner in that they do not track firearms from production to final destination in criminal hands. Various gun control advocacy groups (e.g., the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control Inc.) declined to join with Ms. Barnes in the suit because, in contrast to traditional negligence cases, she was not going after a particular gun, traced from a particular crime back to a specific manufacturer.18 She responded that this had been tried and had failed in previous negligence cases against gun makers. A more important reason why Ms. Barnes did not sue just the gun manufacturers is that the police identified the gun involved in only one of her plaintiffs’ cases. None of the manufacturers Ms. Barnes sued had guns tied to these cases. Indeed, Ms. Barnes could not even show whether the guns used against her clients’ loved ones were bought from gunrunners by criminals or bought over the counter by lawful gun buyers, then stolen by criminals. Ms. Barnes relied on three critical factors to make her case: a sympathetic judge, testimony from a gun company insider and data on gun sales. She successfully fought to have the case assigned to semiretired judge Jack Weinstein because he is widely known for his pro-plaintiff solutions to mass injury lawsuits and his penchant for judicial lawmaking. In fact, he presided over an earlier birth defects suit Ms. Barnes brought against manufacturers of the antimiscarriage drug DES. In that case, Judge Weinstein pioneered the theory that in rare circumstances, when consumers were unable to identify the particular makers of a product which had caused harm, manufacturers’ liability could be based on their market share. Her faith in Judge Weinstein’s willingness to make new law was vindicated early. In a preliminary ruling, Judge Weinstein declared, “[There may] come a point that the market is so flooded with handguns sold without adequate concern over the channels of distribution and possession that they become a generic hazard to the community as a whole because of the high probability that these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals and minors.”19 Judge Weinstein also allowed Ms. Barnes to expand her plaintiff group to 11 from two. Ms. Barnes hoped that testimony from Robert Hass, a former senior vice president for marketing at Smith & Wesson Corp., would prove that the industry knows many of its guns end up in the hands of criminals via black market sales from federally licensed but largely unsupervised firearms dealers. Hass and the BATF both acknowledge that manufacturers do cooperate with the BATF when responding to a request to trace a specific gun. However, Hass claims that the industry, using internal records, could do more to track suspiciously high-volume gun sales to specific retailers – especially when evidence emerges that guns sold by a particular retailer are regularly linked to violent crime. When this occurs, Hass claims, the companies could halt sales to the suspicious dealers. [See the sidebar: The Structure of the Firearms Industry.] Third, Ms. Barnes hired corporate consultants National Economic Research Associates (NERA) to search government statistics and reports on guns for evidence of trends. NERA found a pattern of gun smuggling from states like Florida with relatively lax laws to states like New York with relatively strict laws concerning gun purchases. In addition, NERA concluded that more handguns were sold in less restrictive states than could be expected given the levels of legitimate gun ownership, supporting Ms. Barnes’ claim that gun makers knowingly oversupply gun markets with low regulations. The MacArthur Suit. The MacArthur Justice Center’s suit (Young v. Bryco Arms, Inc.) was brought on behalf of the families of three victims of handgun violence in Chicago.20 This suit was more focused than the ones brought by the mayors or Ms. Barnes, since it aimed only at the manufacturers of the guns actually used to commit the crimes cited – Smith & Wesson Corp., Navegar, Inc. and Bryco Arms, Inc. – rather than the gun industry as a whole. The victims had two things in common: they were young and they died as the result of gang shootings: Andrew Young, 19, was killed by two gang members who mistook him for a member of a rival gang. Salada Smith, 24, was the innocent victim of a drive-by shooting (she was several months pregnant at the time).
Robert Owens, 15, was killed by a 12-year-old white with orders to kill a couple of black people. The arguments made in Young are similar to those made in the Chicago lawsuit and in Hamilton. The plaintiffs in Young argue that the manufacturers should be held financially responsible for gang violence because “[the defendants] creat[e] and suppl[y] a vast, illicit, underground market in handguns in order to meet the demand for weapons of gang members and juveniles.”21 As in the Chicago suit, the plaintiffs’ claim that the manufacturers design guns for and market them to gang members is based on the characteristics claimed for the guns. “Chicago claims it spent $433 million in the previous five years on police, emergency medical care and other costs associated with guns violence.” “A previous suit pioneered the theory that manufacturers’ liability could be based on market share.” “The plaintiffs funded a study that found a pattern of gun smuggling from states with lax gun purchase laws to states with relatively strict laws.” Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health Guns: Criminal Misuse and Self-Protection According to the 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics figures, 483,000 firearm crimes were reported to the police in 1996. We can derive an upper bound to the number of firearm crimes, 915,000, by multiplying the number of rapes/sexual assaults, robberies and aggravated assaults reported in the 1997 National Crime Victimization Survey, which estimates crimes both reported and not reported to the police, by the percentage of these crimes committed with firearms from the 1997 BJS Sourcebook.22 [See Table I and Figure I.] More than 15 studies have shown that citizens use guns in self-defense between 764,000 and 3.6 million times annually.23 Criminologist Gary Kleck has estimated there are more than 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.24 A study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and carried out by the Police Foundation found an even greater number of defensive gun uses – approximately 2.73 million a year.25 Either figure is larger than the number of crimes committed with firearms. The only survey that ever found fewer than 700,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year is the National Crime Victimization Survey, which estimated that guns were used defensively approximately 80,000 times annually.26 Not surprisingly, supporters of more restrictive firearms laws cite this survey as evidence of the relative infrequency of defensive gun use versus gun crime. The clearest evidence that the NCVS data on defensive gun uses is seriously flawed is that it is radically different from the results of every other survey. Near unanimity is relatively rare in crime studies but, except for the one outlier, it seems to be the case on the issue of DGUs. Among the notable problems with the NCVS are: (1) the respondents were not anonymous, (2) respondents were not directly asked if they had ever used a firearm for self-defense but rather simply whether they had done “anything” for self-protection and (3) most violent crimes reported to the NCVS were committed away from home but relatively few people have concealed carry permits. A respondent admitting defensive use would have been admitting – to a government agency – illegal or legally questionable behavior. Other studies show that criminals fear armed citizens far more than they fear the police.27 Their fear is reasonable. Approximately 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed each year by armed civilians – more th
