From: Steve Tucker (stevet@megsinet.net)
Date: Wed May 26 1999 - 22:31:15 MDT
I guess I'll weigh in also.
All of the insinuations and outright name-calling seem non-productive, to say
the least. I think we can safely assume that we all share a desire to see the
overall level of violence decrease, whether in the schools or in society at
large.
I propose a test to determine whether rational debate is possible for this topic
on this list, in the form of two questions. (1) If there existed a
preponderance of evidence showing that violence does in fact _decrease_ when
guns are readily available, would the anti-gun forces actually change their
stripes? (2) If there existed a preponderance of evidence showing that violence
does in fact _increase_ when guns are readily available, would the pro-gun
forces renounce their faith in the proliferation of the weapons? If the answer
to either question is "no" (as I rather suspect it is) then rational debate is
impossible and no one will allow themselves to become susceptible to whatever
evidence or argument the "other side" may offer. A counter-productive
enterprise to say the least (though perhaps illuminating to any who do not feel
knowlegdeable enough to take a position).
I will contribute that I have seen studies of these questions conducted by
Professor Lott of Chicago, and am unaware of any party discovering major flaws
in his and his associates' work. The studies strongly suggest that overall
levels of violence, death, and injury decrease when concealed-carry is legal.
They also show specifically that mass-shooting incidents such as at Columbine
also decrease markedly. Finally, when analyzing the lawsuits pending against
gun manufacturers, they conclude that gun ownership saves society far more money
and people (in terms of crimes, injuries, and deaths prevented) than they cost
in terms of illegal shootings and suicides. If anyone has missed the previous
references to this work on this list, I'm sure I can dig them up.
I am curious to know if anyone can present evidence (not flaming rhetoric) that
suggests the opposite conclusion.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:49 MST