╌>

Gun-control activists need to stop demonizing John Lott

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  texan1211  •  4 years ago  •  14 comments

By:   Michael R. Weisser (MSN)

Gun-control activists need to stop demonizing John Lott
The problem is both Lott and his critics misread how and why gun violence actually occurs.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Gun-control activists need to stop demonizing John Lott

The recent reaction of Griffin Dix to the appointment of John Lott as an adviser to the DOJ Office of Justice Program reflects the continued inability of the gun-control advocacy community to address the fundamental issues that prevent us from making an effective response to the problem of gun violence.

© Istock gun and ammo

Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" has become a flashpoint for arguments on both sides of the gun debate. On the one hand, the book is celebrated by the pro-gun lobby as a justification for 'stand your ground' laws and other legal rationales for armed self-defense. On the other hand, the book is condemned by gun-control activists as error-filled propaganda that promotes the false idea that guns are an effective response to fears about personal safety and threats of crime. As a long-time member of the Brady Campaign, Griffin Dix obviously belongs to the latter group.

The first edition of John Lott's book was published in 1998. Over the previous decade, violent crime declined by almost 40 percent. At the same time, the number of states that granted concealed-carry licenses (CCW) without requiring proof of special need doubled from 15 to 30 states.

Lott argues that in many jurisdictions that began issuing CCW, violent crime such as robberies and assaults declined while anonymous crimes like burglary increased. He supports this finding with regression analysis that shows that crime rates are more sensitive to CCW issuance than to other demographic or social trends.

To counter Lott's work, Griffin Dix cites a study by respected scholars John Donohue and Ian Ayers who produced seemingly contradictory results by substituting different sets of variables measured through alternate regression analysis models. In fact, producing critiques of Lott's work has become something of a cottage industry among academic researchers, with critical reviews coming from Daniel Webster at Johns Hopkins, David Hemenway at Harvard, and Franklin Zimring at Berkeley, to name just a few.

The problem with all these efforts to discredit Lott's thesis, however, is they fail to confront the most important assumption in his work, an assumption based on a misreading both by Lott and his critics of how and why gun violence actually occurs.

Lott's thesis rests upon the idea that when a particular jurisdiction begins issuing CCW licenses, this process will make the criminals believe that their victims might be armed. Hence, criminals switch from in-person crimes like robbery and assault to impersonal crimes such as burglary where a live victim is rarely around.

Contrary to what Lott argues, intentional gun assaults are not committed by 'bad guys' against 'good guys.' Indeed, victims of violent assaults are overwhelmingly individuals who come from the same demographic groupings and neighborhoods as their attackers, and in as often as 50 percent of such assaults, the victim committed behavior that precipitated the violent event.

Lott's critics, on the other hand, are wrong when they promote the idea that gun violence increases because more people are walking around with legal guns. Criminal gun injuries - homicides, aggravated assaults - are rarely committed by people with legal access to guns. The Violence Policy Center publishes an annual report, "Concealed-Carry Killers," which after suicides are deducted, gives us roughly 100 fatal shootings committed by CCW-holders annually, which happens to be less than .007 percent of all fatal gun assaults each year.

What both Lott and his critics fail to acknowledge is that Americans increasingly believe that access to a gun is more of a benefit than a risk, a belief which continues to grow whether crime trends go up or go down.

A 2018 poll taken by NBC found that nearly 60 percent of Americans believe their home is safer if it contains a gun. Since somewhere between 30 percent and 40 percent of American households contain a legal gun, it would appear there are many Americans who do not own guns but nevertheless feel that having a gun around is more of a blessing than a curse.

If gun-control activists are seriously committed to developing and implementing strategies that will reduce gun violence, they need to stop demonizing John Lott.

Instead, they need to develop a persuasive and effective narrative that will convince gun owners about the risk of owning guns. Until and unless this occurs, gun owners will continue to cite John Lott's research as one of the reasons why they won't give up their guns.

Michael R. Weisser has manufactured, imported and sold both law-enforcement and civilian guns since 1968. He wrote a weekly gun-violence column for Huffington Post and is a Patriot Life Benefactor member of the NRA.

Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    4 years ago
The Violence Policy Center publishes an annual report, "Concealed-Carry Killers," which after suicides are deducted, gives us roughly 100 fatal shootings committed by CCW-holders annually, which happens to be less than .007 percent of all fatal gun assaults each year.

Not sure how stricter gun laws are going to reduce that .007%  rate of all fatal gun assaults each year.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1    4 years ago

Not long ago, I could never envision myself owning a gun. Since the rioting and the defund the police movement began, I've been looking into buying a gun.

I believe the Beretta PX4 Storm Compact sells for less than $500.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    4 years ago

It seems to me that those clamoring for more laws and stricter laws are refusing to acknowledge facts regarding legal gun ownership.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    4 years ago

I guess there are important facts concerning legal gun ownership, as well as those who know how to handle a firearm responsibly. That's the world of difference between Texas and Massachusetts. Most where I am lack the experience.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to    4 years ago
I mostly didn’t have guns in the house because I had  3 young  boys in the house.

That would be my main concern as well.  


 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @1    4 years ago

Lott has been a very effective defender of 2A rights for a long time.  I’m glad he’s doing that. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

A 2018 poll taken by NBC found that nearly 60 percent of Americans believe their home is safer if it contains a gun. Since somewhere between 30 percent and 40 percent of American households contain a legal gun, it would appear there are many Americans who do not own guns but nevertheless feel that having a gun around is more of a blessing than a curse. 


I am one of those with out a gun who is a strong pro 2A person.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Texan1211    4 years ago

Can anyone who advocates for stricter and more gun laws tell us how the laws they want will reduce that .007% fatal incident rate?

Anyone willing to even take a stab in the dark at it?

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
3.2  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @3    4 years ago
Can anyone who advocates for stricter and more gun laws tell us how the laws they want will reduce that .007% fatal incident rate?

A leading question that tries to obscure a huge problem with gun laws -- gun acquisition is too easy in most of the US. Pretty much all guns manufactured in the US start out legal, then through straw purchases, bad FFDs, and to a much lesser extent, theft, we end up with a massive number of guns in the hands of criminals. The number of illegal guns smuggled to Mexico is around 200K/year. If you look at a state with strict gun acquisition laws, like NJ, 80% of the guns recovered at crime scenes come from out-of-state. In neighboring Pa, over 90% recovered at crime scenes come from in-state. We could keep a huge number of guns out of the hands of criminals, without restricting legitimate buyers, but, in a country where it's too much to ask to wear a mask to protect your neighbors during a pandemic, some additional inconvenience to save lives is simply intolerable.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @3.2    4 years ago

Your post doesn't outline how new or stricter laws will reduce the murder rate.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
3.2.2  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.1    4 years ago
Your post doesn't outline how new or stricter laws will reduce the murder rate.

If you look at suicide attempts, 90% of attempts with guns are successful, whereas it drops to about 40% for other mechanisms. Around the same time Newtown occurred a crazy person in China attempted the same thing with a knife -- maybe one died. Guns are super effective at killing, it is what they are designed to do. If 80% of the guns available to criminals disappeared, can you honestly believe that this will not significantly lower the murder rate? It's hard for me to imagine depriving criminals of so many guns by introducing really minor inconveniences being a bridge too far.

 
 

Who is online


Krishna
Drinker of the Wry
CB


69 visitors