Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]

Steve Tucker (stevet@megsinet.net)
Wed, 26 May 1999 23:31:15 -0500

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.