From: hal@finney.org
Date: Fri May 28 1999 - 11:18:30 MDT
Al Villalobos, <ALV@qm.com>, writes:
> To continue on the subject of FACTS (remember those?) Prof. John Lott's
> work on the gun issue has been offered by the pro gun side as "the"
> definitive work on the subject.
>
> Can any anti-gunners offer any comparable, scientifically rigorous work to
> refute the evidence presented by the other side?
It's always good to check both sides of an issue. I went to Handgun
Control's web site, www.handguncontrol.org, and typed Lott in the search
box. Here are the first two hits:
http://www.handguncontrol.org/gunowner/statflaw.htm
Since its publication, researchers across the country have reviewed
the Lott Study and reanalyzed Lott's data, and found its conclusions
unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown
University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin
at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel
Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory
University; and Douglas Weil at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
http://www.handguncontrol.org/concealed.htm
This study conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence has
concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong:
allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime.
Presumably people interested in this issue will want to follow up and
compare these studies with Lott's, to derive their own conclusions.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:51 MST