From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@lorrey.com)
Date: Thu May 27 1999 - 10:05:28 MDT
Steve Tucker wrote:
> 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).
This is too simplistic. Readily available to who? Even if guns are outlawed here
today, the criminals will still have ready access to guns to their hearts desire,
there are so many squirreled away. Given this, and since it has already been
conclusively proven that crime does in fact go down when guns are readily available
and can be carried concealed by law abiding citizens, then I can say, ok. A telling
fact is that Prof. John Lott's original study was done under the employ of Handgun
Control Inc, until his results showed the opposite of what HCI wanted him to prove.
HCI took him to court to prevent him from attaching their name in any way to the
study, and despite the fact that his study covers the largest sample of crime data
in history (all FBI crime stats from 1979 to 1995), the gun crime researchers who
are invested in the gun control cause insist on calling his study 'flawed'.
>
>
> 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.
They can't which is why they get into their hysterical spitting moods...
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:49 MST