[Bullet Tooth]

I have noticed that the most commonly cited "proof" that the right to gun ownership reduces crime is John Lotts more guns less crime study

however, the study gets it completely wrong on a number of levels

It is always a bad idea to use studies that describe a change over time (such as the fact that once right to carry laws were established, crime went down)

however, Lott's study is wrong on more levels than that

Not only did, subsequent to the study, crime increase is states that adopted right to carry laws, but most importantly the right to carry laws did NOT result in an increase in gun ownership ... so the "more guns" claim is false

the biggest problem presented with this study , is that anti gun people will always say "correlation does not equal causation" , even if they dont know the flaws behind the study

Here is a good explanation of how the study is flawed

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/


while the person who wrote that is decidedly anti - gun (judging from his other work), i still beleive his proof is sufficient
------------------------------------------

however, there is a much better , indisputable study on how guns lower crimes

according to this study: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

there are 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year, compared to an amount of gun crimes about 1/3 of that

the department of justice ran a survey with a sample size of less than half that concluded there were 1.5 million uses, still alot more than gun crimes : http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

-------------------------------------------

anyway, Im sure most of you know of these studies, Im just trying to point out that the Lott study is bull????, but there is still sufficient evidence to back up the "more guns less crime" argument

[AZ Jeff]

Did you read Lott's book? I did, when it first came out.

I have not reread it since then, but if I remember correctly, Lott did NOT claim that gun ownership rates went up when CCW laws are passed or relaxed in the various jurisdictions.

What he DID claim is that his evidence showed was that violent crime rates go DOWN when CCW laws are relaxed or passed.

The terminology of "more guns" referred not to TOTAL firearm ownership, but to the more specific MORE (legal) CARRYING OF FIREARMS.

I will stand by this statement: There is NO nationwide study done since Lott that refutes the claim made by Lott that issuance of more CCW permits results in lessened violent crime.

There was a limited study done about 3-4 years ago that purported to contradict the results shown by Lott, but it was VERY selective in the jurisdictions chosen for data collection, whereas Lott's study was NATIONWIDE.

[Bullet Tooth]

yes, Ive read the book

Im not neccesarily saying that lott is lying, however, I think that "more legal firearms" isnt as significant as "more firearms toatal"....considering he didnt demonstrate that the demographics of firearm ownership changed significantly (which is improbable, considering that when the amount of guns stay the same, that non malicious citizens are more likely to own guns, would rely on the presumption that criminals got rid of guns)

[Bullet Tooth]

oh, and I would actually like to be proven wrong

If the study really is valid, then that is simply more ammo I could use to argue against gun control

[Henry Bowman]

Troll????? :scrutiny:

[Bullet Tooth]

I dont understand how Im a troll?

I am very pro gun , and that is why I posted this

gun rights advocates who use this study in debate are subsceptible to losing the debate

If you use the other study, youll win the debate decisively

---------------------------------------------

just just because gun advocates might be enamored with this study, doesnt mean its a personal attack to demostrate how Its wrong

[TallPine]

The thing that bothers me about "more guns, less crime" is not whether it is true or not, or not whether the study is valid.

All the statistical studies in world on both sides of the fence shouldn't mean a thing for or against our God-given and constitutionally protected right to defend ourselves and to possess the means to do so.


But ... why is there so little crime in Montana where there are guns in almost every house and many vehicles?

[Sean Smith]

Bullet tooth,

You are missing the point. The demographics of gun ownership are irrelevant to Lott's study. The demographics of gun CARRYING are what is relevant here. Lott is seeking to correlate CARRYING, not ownership, of guns with lower crime rates. You have to own a gun to carry one, but you can own one and not carry it.

Make carrying legal -> more people carrying -> crime rates go down is the line of reasoning. How many people own guns does not per se play into that.

Correlation does not equal causation, but the ABSENCE of correlation in the case of the anti-gun argument makes their position almost impossible to defend.

[Drjones]

The thing that bothers me about "more guns, less crime" is not whether it is true or not, or not whether the study is valid.

All the statistical studies in world on both sides of the fence shouldn't mean a thing for or against our God-given and constitutionally protected right to defend ourselves and to possess the means to do so.

Amen.

I think this is what the initial poster was trying to say.

Statistics don't matter.

[Bullet Tooth]

sean- that is a great point ,and one that I stupidly missed

however, Im still not convinced that there is sufficient proof that increased gun carrying caused the decrease in crime, although I assume that is true, I need to convince others

[Henry Bowman]

Not accusing, just wondering. As a newbe, we don't know your motives yet. But, at The High Road, you will always get the benefit of the doubt.

Make carrying legal -> more people carrying -> crime rates go down

Actually, all it takes is the perception that more people are carrying to get the desired deterrent effect.

gun rights advocates who use this study in debate are subsceptible to losing the debate

I'd say if it's a debate on statistical analysis, the worst case would be a draw. Lott's work has withstood a firestorm of analysis so far. If the debate is against an emotional anti, . . . well, it's not a fair fight. :neener:

[AZ Jeff]

A better title for Lott's book might have been:

"More Legally Carried Guns, Less Violent Crime"

I think he did a pretty good job of showing that. Arguably, in many types of violent crime, Lott's data shows only SMALL drops in crime once CCW laws are enacted or relaxed. (The one area where violent crime drops MARKEDLY is in RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT, wherein the drop after CCW laws being changed is very measureable.)

A more important concept to bring out of Lott's book is that, when CCW laws are enacted or relaxed, crime DOES NOT RISE.

This discovery runs directly counter to all the arguments given by most gun control proponents that CCW laws result in "Dodge City" behavior. Lott's book puts that falsehood to rest pretty solidly.

[Sean Smith]

You can't "prove" cause and effect in human behavior like you can prove cause and effect in a physics experiment. The fact that crime rates went down when carry laws were enacted does not prove that the carry laws caused the change. There could be other factors that reduced crime. But the anti-gun counter-argument isn't that carry laws have no effect on crime; the counter-argument is that carry laws facilitate crime.

This is an extremely important point.

Correlation isn't causation. But correlation indicates that a cause and effect relationship is possible. Thus, Lott's study demonstrates that it is entirely possible that more people legally carrying = less crime. It also demonstrates that it is virtually impossible that more people legally carrying = more crime, which is the position of those in the anti-gun position, becuase there is a NEGATIVE correlation there.

:D

[Bullet Tooth]

of course, the most important thing is that the burden of proof is on the anti gun crowd

[Al Thompson]

Just remember that arguing with a true anti is a waste of time. Most are very convinced and basically irrational beings anyway. Logic and effort is wasted on them. On TFL someone noted that most anti's are actually right. :) Most anti's should not have access to firearms. One of our leading anti's here constantly talks about doing violence to ther folks who disagree with him. No guns for William Fox Price! :barf:

[Henry Bowman]

It is always a bad idea to use studies that describe a change over time (such as the fact that once right to carry laws were established, crime went down)

Always? Why? You can't expect a change literally overnight and as long as you use a control group that did not change the variable and do your best to control for other variables, it is a compelling indication or argument. Not absolute proof. But Lott didn't say it was.

Take care in arguing with an anti who tries to attribute more claims to Lott's book than he ever did.

[Bullet Tooth]

henry- its usually a problem because there can always be other factors involved

[Trisha]

Hi, hon;

Being a budding scholar means you build your own database and define your own equations, yes?

That you seek to understand popular works is laudable, and a source of wonderful intellectual debate - but in the end you're not discovering anything new on your own I think.

In the past, I've enjoyed finding crime statistics published by States who've enjoyed some form of shall-issue, examining their reported numbers from pre shall-issue vs. post. Vermont's a good example:

http://www.dps.state.vt.us/cjs/crime_00/index.html

Obviously, no substantive data will be available to quantify an expansion in firearms ownership as there is no national registry for privately owned firearms; and even State records at best may contain numbers for retail purchases.

What's delightful to discover is that rabidly anti-gun States (California is a personal favorite) do not release such statistics to the general public!

Colorado does, as does Florida (both wonderfully in-depth, with helpful people willing to answer mail if one is clear and concise and polite).

Ready to tackle the bigger picture? When you have a good stock of Advil on hand, start here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm

and:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/00cius.htm

and:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/default.htm

I'll continue enjoying the work of Mr. Lott, though I may have had a bit of pre-existing bias, as he was certainly preaching to the choir here in Park County, Colorado.

I leave you with this as a central thesis to many who argue against shall-issue:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html

and:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/liberty.asp

Trisha

[Monkeyleg]

Many, if not most, of us here on THR believe Lott's research. In the real world, though, people's eyes start to glaze over when you start giving them statistics.

I think it's better when arguing the case for concealed carry to point to the states' reports, which show very little problems. Someone can say that Lott is a lackey for the NRA, or someone can say that so-and-so is Sarah Brady's lackey, but it's pretty hard to dispute numbers from the horse's mouth.

Welcome to THR, Bullet Tooth!

[Bullet Tooth]

trisha- I know that increased gun ownership is a factor in lowering crime, however, I simply dont think more guns, less crime proves that.

I mean, there could certainly be other factors involved

---------------------------------------------

see, i used to love to use examples of changes over time

being an extreme libertarian, I argued about how subsequent to the reagan, kennedy and harding tax cuts, the economy expanded, revenues went up, and unemployment went down

being opposed to welfare, I argued that subsequent to the war on poverty, out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed because welfare subsidized it

now, I stray away completely from that type of argument, and make arguments "as is"

such as the fact that since there is more defensive gun use that criminal gun use - gun ownership prevents crime
or in economics, that those who work full time, become succesful , and that the "rich" taxpayers ,arent rich at all, as I put in this article I wrote:

http://4ranters.com/detail.php?id=57

[Bullet Tooth]

trisha- If you look at the link I provided in my initial post, about the study that showed there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US each year, they explain why the crime victimization surveys are useless (at least, when it comes to DGUs)

[Trisha]

I'll leave you to it, then; discovering the inviolate pure logic that will sate even Diogenes, and wholeheartedly wish you well.

I look up and see the sky is a pure blue, and it could be argued that such a beautiful and simple phenomonon is because Cecil B. DeMille has a hold of a mighty airbrush filled with primary blue paint.

I imply or convey no sarcasm whatsoever, hon. I see your process as having gotten involuted and self-fulfilling, as Escher and Moebius debating the chicken or the egg, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

AZ Jeff and Sean have the meat of this, I think. Sequential reasoning begs for the analogue, and then Pandora's Box is opened. Static absolutism in the abeyance of a cohesive baseline derived from impartial bean counters brings sociological arguments to the mindset of Valentine Michael Smith stating "Thou art god." ("Stranger in a Strange Land," I believe)

I have made my peace with this issue. When I teach and discuss self-defense and firearms issues with someone, I communicate most directly from personal experience, as I believe real change will be made one person, one mind at a time - quite apart from analytical arguments involving incomprehensible millions of faceless people.

Lott and Mustard stand on their own, and are available for you to try and dissuade - though it may well be at the risk of your own education, yes?

I am overmatched to the demands of such intricate arguments, and I wish you well on your quest. Be wary of becoming one who tilts at windmills alone. . . Create, if you will, a new, simple clarity that is unarguable and posterity will heap praise and reward upon you beyong any imaginings.

The self-evident truths to the gun debate has already been advocated by many of the finest minds of the age - and their debate is already in print in The Federalist Papers. Were I given your assignment I would have to be released from that obligation as I could only plagarize their insight and rhetoric.

Trisha

[spacemanspiff]

but most importantly the right to carry laws did NOT result in an increase in gun ownership ... so the "more guns" claim is false

gun ownership didnt increase, but the number of guns that were taken out of the house DID increase. CCW allows a person to have a weapon for protection in more places than just that persons home.
in that sense, MORE guns on the streets carried by law abiding citizens, DOES equate to criminals being reluctant to mug/rob a person on the street, or even to break into a home/business while the occupants are present.

[Thumper]

I wanted to go on a rant about the "utility" argument, but Trisha's writing put me in a trance. Kid has a gift.

She's right...point the opposition in Madison's direction. He handles the whole self-evident right thing a lot better than I ever could.

[Standing Wolf]

I've found that attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like arguing with walls.

[Geech]

Bullet Tooth, it seems like you're getting confused about the purpose of the study. There are so many factors to consider that I don't believe any one study will ever conclusively prove any way or the other whether guns cause crime. There is simply no way to eliminate all of the extra variables. That being said, the study provides correlative evidence toward that assertion. It's all you can really ask for.

[Bullet Tooth]

I've found that attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like arguing with walls.


you get me all worng, I am pro gun!!!

----------------------------------------

Just because I think that a study supported by gun rights advocates is wrong, doesnt mean Im anti gun

I dont like people to expect that I should have a bias (simply taking a studys word for it because it supports my position)

I mean, does someone who is a fan aof ancient grecian culture have to beleive that the solar system revolves around the earth?

[alan]

Gentlemen and Lady:

It strikes me that the problem might well lie in and with the title, More Guns, Less Crime, rather than with any studies that Lott did, or had done.

Perhaps the way it SHOULD have been put might be as follows. More Guns Carried By the Law Abiding, Less Crime. Of course, being somewhat wordy, it wouldn't be as "handy" a title.

How does that strike readers?

[Trisha]

(from "The Princess Bride")

BT (as opposed to "milk-tooth");
Theocratic dogma has shown itself to be very real here, as so many are all but thumbing on the heads-up display and hearing the pre-ignition capacitors charging whenever anyone (me included, in the past and perhaps yet) emotes an audatious notion: "They" raised some worthy points!

I sense hackles going up akin to me stroking my semi-feral barn kitten backwards while I wore a latex glove on a dry, windy day.

"Know thy enemy," is likely oft overlooked, with the ubiquitous 'them' handily and energetically tossed into the outer darkness berefit of a passing glance (much less being shriven) - and the fact that you are indeed blaspheming with energy is worthy and timely.

Earn your keep, then; resolve your case and don't twitch when mutters an imprecation about the anti's with a bit of vitreol - you may well find you are being agreed with as best as one is able. "Each to their abilities, each to their gift," I believe, yes?

Move this thread forward: that Lott and Mustard have been meticulously 'scoped and examined is a given. The observations you've highlighted are worthy of inspection individually, as are any voiced. Personally, I avocate Paxton Quigley's book, "Armed and Female" to my friends, with other tomes (incliding Lott and Mustard) - for no contemporary volume is intrisically capable of being our perfect lamp against the darkness.

I believe you've accomplished much; ably and well - and you've received a spectacular diversity and depth in response.

Connecting this to your other thread on assualt weapons, I'd go through the door you've already opened and draw corollaries to the Greeks - and the 'assualt weapons" of their day - and watch with pat amusement as frentic detractors tried to divert that inescapable sociopolitical reality and intellectual renaissance with irrelevant annotations to WMD's. . .

It's a pleasure to have you here.

Trisha

[adobewalls]

"My first degree was in Maths, and to keep my hand in statistics I've been involved in on-line discussions about gun control. There's lots of statistical arguments there, but it seems to get the most hits of any of my pages. "

That to me says Mr. Lambert is not searching for any form of truth - but is only amusing himself casting stones at others.

Just a gentle reminder that John Lott has a follow up book, "The Bias Against Guns". In it he discusses the data and the analysis methods used on the data. Bullet Tooth, it may be prudent for you to read that book also.

[Geech]

"Each to their abilities, each to their gift,"

Are we communist now? ;)

[Trisha]

Ha! "We," who??

Them commie-types go for agricultural work camps (Pol Pot) and communal resource-pooling! I'm not receptive to mandatory "sharing" with the komisar saying "Be a good girl," while staring at me beneath his cap's visor, y'know?

I was sayin, "Use what resource Goddess saw fit to stuff in ya!"

:p

Trisha

[Henry Bowman]

Mr. Tooth (may we call you Bullet?),

The comment about arguing with 2nd Amend bigots wasn't about you, it was about you attempting to argue with anti's.

[Ryder]

One year after Michigan became shall issue the State police released data which was printed in the newspapers. That stated violent crime rates were significantly reduced. Something like 30% if I recall. National crime rate stats are in decline according to FBI press releases. The rebuttal is on whoever is calling this a lie. That would be you "Bullet Tooth".

Many of the people in my CCW class had bought their first gun to participate and others had borrowed guns and were planning to buy their own. I've bought two newly manufactured (carry format) guns myself in the last year. How could there possibly not be more guns in circulation? That's an insane suggestion. The national production and sales of gun manufaturers is online (BATF). There are something like a half million new firearms put into circulation every year.

Considering the extremely low arrest rate of people with permits you can only be implying that criminals are causing more crime now than before CCW went into effect? Honest people being prepared to defend themselves causes more criminals? There is no deterrent factor? :scrutiny:

Are you French or something :confused:

[Monkeyleg]

Ah, creative writing class. I remember it well. So few pages, so many words.

[Art Eatman]

Ryder, it was a few months back, but my recollection of BATF numbers is some five million rifles/pistols/shotguns into the U.S. market for each of the last ten or twelve years.

A predecessor book to any of Kleck's or Lott's work is "Under The Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly. The study was limited to Florida, but was quite in-depth. The primary conclusion was that no gun control law passed at the state level had ever had any impact on gun crime.

Art

[Wheels 'n' Guns]

Since the original reference which led to such diverse and interesting discussion, was from University of New South Wales, Australia, I would like to add my "local" comments.
Here in Australia, we don't have any "right to bear arms" protection in our Constitution, so all the anti-gun types push the "guns cause crime" line. They point to the large number of criminals who commit their crimes with guns. Many on the pro-gun side have different arguments, but I like to emphasise the "Criminal" act, rather than put the blame on "The Gun". I argue that the Police don't have unlimited resources, so it is best for Governments to tackle the real causes of criminal activity in society, such as Drugs, Racial conflict, Gang Wars, Poverty, etc. Putting more and more laws in place which target law abiding gun owners, actually re-directs Police resources away from those problems, with the result that crime in all classes increases!
With that approach, I recently had following letter published in local paper. Some in the Media, who were previously anti-gun, are now rethinking their position, when it is costing them (taxpayers) so much money, with no result, as well as having to face security guards at their local shopping centres. (article follows):
"After the 1996 buy-back, which saw $500 million wasted on vandalistic destruction of harmless rabbit rifles and fox guns, Crime did not decrease! Murder actually increased by 20%, in 2001/2 according to latest figures from Australian Institute of Criminology. The increase was not due to guns, but such things as fists, knives and Golf Clubs!

The two separate articles in recent (28th May) Daily Telegraph, should prove conclusively that all the money, time and resources, spent on "Tough Gun Laws" has been a complete waste! In one case, where a "hitman" fired several shots into his victim in Haymarket, it should have been a simple matter for the Police to check the Firearms Registry Computer, using the serial numbers of the 3 pistols used. That would have immediately revealed the name and address of the Licenced owner. However, it is well known that criminals do not obey Laws, so would not have Registered their Pistols!

Surprise! Surprise! So, what is the point in having all the massive resources of Firearms Registration, and Computer Power if it can't be used to secure an arrest? Not only that, but had the Handguns been Registered, it would not have lessened the seriousness of the crime!

Then, on page 11 of the same Telegraph, the case of a "fake gun" , with a man having been arrested by Police and charged over having had his 6 year-old brother's toy gun in his car! No criminal act was committed, no bank was robbed and nobody was hurt, yet the Police saw this poor fellow as an easy catch, simply because he had something that "looked like a real gun". Had the police shot this poor man, would they have been excused, because "he had a Gun"?

These two cases graphically illustrate how "Tough Gun Laws" only work to victimise innocent people (who happen to legally own guns for sport or recreation), but do absolutely nothing to stop criminals! Criminals by definition, don't obey the Law!

However, the madness continues, with another round of "Tough Handgun Bans" about to be introduced and another multi-million dollar "buy-back", this time of Legally owned Pistols, used in sporting events, by fully Licenced sportsmen and women, who are the ones least likely to commit ANY Crime!

Are we to assume that the new Gun Laws and the recently formed Australian Crime Commission, will be used to simply further harass Law Abiding Sporting Shooters, over such "dangerous" breaches of the laws, as not attending the correct number of club events, not having all paperwork up to date, only having 2 bolts to secure the gun safe, (not 4, as the Law states) etc. etc.? All this, while the REAL Criminals get an easy go.

Why would the Police want to chase after Real Criminals? They shoot back!!!"

[Dorrin79]

As I've said before - it doesn't matter. My gun rights are based on principles (right to life, right to property) not on specious "social benefits" of said rights.

Even if it was proven that more guns equals more crime, I would still have a right to own and carry guns.

John Lott's work is interesting, and I don't mean to knock it. If it helps convince someone of the error of their beliefs, great. But the fight for liberty in this country was won by principle, not by arguing that "the economy will improve by 3% if we revolt against the Redcoats!". Our fight for the preservation of that liberty will be won the same way.

Or so I hope. :)

[Mute]

First, let's deal with the critics misleading assertion that the Lott book claims more guns equal less crime. That is merely the title of the book. The conclusions that John Lott drew from his statistical analysis was that enactment of shall issue laws in places that didn't have them resulted in an decrease in overall crime rate (stronger in some categories than in others) over time. The longer the time the bigger the decrease. Based on the criterion and controls implemented in his study.

The reason for the year-to-year study is to eliminate the misrepresentative nature of taking single points in an entire time line to make an accurate conclusion to any thesis. There are several other controls put into the study to eliminate as much as possible, any outside factor that could be a genuine cause for the results he found. No single factor could be responsible for the decrease in crime rate or lack thereof, but Lott makes a strong case for the enactment of shall issue law being one of the contributing factors.

However, don't take my word for it. Look at this website where Lott answers some of the criticism on his study:

Confriming More Guns, Less Crime (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID372361_code030121560.pdf?abstractid=372361)

[cuchulainn]

I agree with those who say utility arguments are beside the point when it comes to rights, but if we are going to endulge in utility arguments, at least we should frame the discussion correctly.

Often, we place the burden of proof on ourselves when we should place it on the antis. We shouldn't have to show that CCW helps to stop crime to justify carrying; they should have to show that CCW makes crime worse in order to even think about asking us to stop, much less forcing us (*).

If nothing else, Lott (and Kleck before him) allow us to point out that there is no correlation between CCW and increased crime. While correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation does prove lack of causation. Therefore, we can point out, "Not only would your proposal violate our rights, it lacks basis in a real problem. It does nothing but target disproven, empty fears."

(*)[edited to add] Or to go back to the title of this thread, we shouldn't be "defending firearms," we should be forcing them to "defend gun control."

[Bullet Tooth]

thanks for the link,mute

It seems to back up lott's claim, and therefore makes it yet another source I can use in proving the benefits of gun ownership

[braindead0]

After some looney got an anti letter printed in the local newspaper, I decided to check the numbers. This person had claimed that violent crime is higher in Pennsylvania (where they have CCW) than Ohio.

It was pretty easy to find the gubment crime stats for both states, and even easier to find out that rape is 400% higher in Ohio than Pennsylvania, murder somewhere around 225% and all other violent crimes were higher as well (in varying degrees).

Granted, that's a limited example. But I think much of the demographics in PA vs. OH are similar, so perhaps not a big stretch to compare the two.

I think that John Lott did an excellent job of controlling for any other reasonable explanation and the numbers still showed that CCW lowered violent crime rates.

[NukemJim]

I've found that attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like arguing with walls.

I am sorry I must respectfully disagree.

Walls are not obnoxius and serve a usefull purpose.:p

NukemJim

[Zak Smith]

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html

The above link is a pretty comprehensive list of objections and attempted refutations of Lott/Mustard, in addition to Lott's response to each.

Lambert's objections strike me as straw-man, but here's what Lott himself says in response to Lambert:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Response_to_Lambert.htm

[Shooter 2.5]

If someone is going to tell me that CCW carriers didn't go out and buy guns just for that special occasion when they received their license, I would have to say they're crazy.

Gun manufacturers even came out with new lines just for carrying.

Every time a state would pass a CCW law, the media would send someone to the local gunshops and ask if there was a run on certain carry models and the answer is always "yes".

[Monkeyleg]

Shooter 2.5, I'm not sure I understand your point. I've come across plenty of people who want a CCW law in our state, and who think they'll be able to comfortably carry the 6" revolvers and full-size 1911's that they currently shoot.

Certainly some folks can get used to that, but not most. That's why gun shops stand to make some serious $$$ if we get shall-issue passed here.

It's also why I don't understand why some gun shops just won't help us in the effort. :confused:

[mattd]

Not only did, subsequent to the study, crime increase is states that adopted right to carry laws, but most importantly the right to carry laws did NOT result in an increase in gun ownership ... so the "more guns" claim is false

Yes they did, you are wrong, it says "The ``more guns'' in the title of Lott's book mostly refers to more guns being carried in public by permit holders. " Plus gun ownership is always on the rise. Plus people who never carry or own guns will go out and buy and gun and get a permit. So only if one person that doesn't own a gun goes out and gets a permit there was a increase in gun ownership.

--

I've found that attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like arguing with walls.

you get me all worng, I am pro gun!!!

He said anti-second amendment, not anti-gun, they are not the same thing.

Im not sure of the % but the states with lax of ccw laws have 38% less crime or somewhere around there, but don't quote me on that.

Lott at one time also came on a internet message broard under false name and hyped up his book.

[morganm01]

Everyone here who has not already read Chapter 5 Evaluating Evidence On Guns: How and How Not to Do It Of Lotts New Book "The Bias Against Guns" should do so now. Just go to the store and read it, you don't even need to buy it. You wil see that you are wasting time arguing this thread. No, I don't have all day to explain it for you. But I will give you a start. Lott explains in detail how the cross-sectional and time-series analysis works, and applies to his evidence. The original thread starter must have just looked at a graphic chart in Lott's book then gone to the VPC website before even reading the rest of the books. Or he simply didn't understand the explanation given.

edited:

From the site "Lott claims that ``Guns are used for defensive purposes about five times as often as they are used for crimes.'' In fact, the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the number of gun crimes (about 850,000 in 1996 [38]) is about twelve times as much as the number of defensive gun uses "

errrr...reported defensive uses

"(about 72,000 in 1996 [38]). This is surely not surprising--criminals are more likely to be involved in a situation where a gun might be useful, and so have more incentive to carry a gun.." They can also only choose to commit crimes on the occasions when they are carrying a gun "

Ok...enough time wasted here.

[mattd]

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node21.html

Thats more than just misreading them it could be making them up.

[English John]

1) "attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like arguing with walls" because they base their arguments on emotion rather than logic- their mind is made up, don't confuse them with the facts.

2) What about the present situation in Britain: Less guns = more crime.

3) Remember Florida: A) People get CCW, muggers attack tourists. B) Snowbird tourists get Fla. CCW, muggers attack foreign tourists. C) Cops crack down (to keep tourists coming in), muggers go away.

4) Even if I am the last CCW in the country, it is my right and my decision.