John Lott Jr. and Gun Locks...

Status
Not open for further replies.

cavman

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
1,002
Location
Maine
A small article in today's Washington Times ...



A false safety

TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By John R. Lott, Jr.
July 6, 2006

It seems simple enough to require that handguns sold in the United States have gun locks. Yet, last week the House of Representatives voted 230-191 to bar using federal funds to enforce the law that was passed only last year as part of a law to shield gun makers from reckless lawsuits. It is now up to the Senate.
Touting locks as a way to reduce accidental gun deaths among children, Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign, a gun-control organization, immediately responded to the House vote by saying, "as a mother, this makes me ill." But despite the obvious feel-good appeal of these rules, gun locks and safe-storage laws are more likely to cost lives than to save them. Possibly the worst thing about mandating that handguns be sold with locks is that it exaggerates the risks of guns in the home and scares some people into not owning them.
Accidental gun deaths among children are, fortunately, much rarer than most people believe. With 40 million children in the United States under the age of 10, there were just 20 accidental gun deaths in 2003, the latest year with data from the Centers for Disease Control. While guns get most of the attention, children are 41 times more likely to die from accidental suffocations, 32 times more likely to accidentally drown and 20 times more likely to die as a result of accidental fires. Looking at all children under 15, there were 56 accidental gun deaths in 2003-- still a fraction of the deaths resulting from these other accidents for only the younger children.
Given that there are over 90 million adults in America who own at least one gun, the overwhelming majority of gun owners must have been extremely careful, even before the 2005 law, or the figures would be much higher.
Despite the image of children firing these guns and killing themselves or other children, the typical person who accidentally fires a gun is an adult male, usually in his 20s. Accidental shooters overwhelmingly have problems with alcoholism and long criminal histories, particularly arrests for violent acts. They are also disproportionately involved in automobile crashes and are much more likely to have had their driver's licenses suspended or revoked. Even if gun locks could stop children from using guns, gun locks are simply not designed to stop adult males from firing their own guns -- even if they were to use the gun locks.
Academic studies of safe-storage and gun-lock laws have also overwhelmingly found no evidence that they reduce the total number of suicides -- although a few studies have found some small reductions in suicides committed with guns. There are simply too many ways to commit suicide. If people are intent on killing themselves, they will still do it, with or without a gun.
Yet, gun locks also pose real risks. Besides the costs that may deter poor people from buying guns, locked guns are also not as readily accessible for defensive gun uses. Since potentially armed victims deter criminals, storing a gun locked and unloaded may therefore increase crime.
Exacerbating this problem are serious reliability issues. Even though the police are extremely important in reducing crime, they simply can't be there all the time and virtually always end up at the crime scene after the crime has been committed. Having a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a criminal.
Even if one has young children, it does not make sense to lock up a gun if one lives in a high-crime urban area. Laws, or for that matter exaggerations of the risks involved in gun ownership, which make people lock up their guns or cause them not to own a gun in the first place will result in more deaths, not fewer deaths.
Research that I have done examining juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides for all U.S. states from 1977 to 1998 found that safe-storage laws had no impact on either type of death. The families that obeyed the laws were the ones where there were essentially no accidental deaths occurring. What did happen, however, was that law-abiding citizens were less able to defend themselves against crime.
The 16 states that adopted safe-storage laws during this period faced over 300 more murders and 4,000 more rapes per year. Burglaries also increased dramatically.
Laws frequently have unintended consequences. Sometimes even the best intentioned ones cost lives.

John R. Lott Jr. writes frequently on the issue of crime and guns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060705-085728-5245r.htm
 
The 16 states that adopted safe-storage laws during this period faced over 300 more murders and 4,000 more rapes per year. Burglaries also increased dramatically.
While I appreciate John's contribution to the cause, sometimes I feel as though his work might come to some incorrect conclusions at times.
 
I agree - being a social scientist and having attended the American Society for Criminology meetings and hearing him, Kleck and the others present - I don't think the data is out there to support that last conclusion.

I clearly think that he has demonstrated that CCW hasn't dramatically increased crime in states that passed those laws (the blood in the streets argument) but he's stretching it to draw this conclusion from the rates. Too many other factors.
 
On what basis do you attack his conclusions? Simply because they are counter-intuitive or not what you would expect? Because they seem too good to be true?

I agree - being a social scientist and having attended the American Society for Criminology meetings and hearing him, Kleck and the others present - I don't think the data is out there to support that last conclusion.
But he says he has the data. Maybe the conclusions of others are wrong or overly broad. Maybe not. But neither of you have supported your criticisms of his data or conclusions.
 
But despite the obvious feel-good appeal of these rules, gun locks and safe-storage laws are more likely to cost lives than to save them.
What good is a "Safely Stored Firearm" in an emergency?

It's useless if you can't get to it or can't use it because it is unloaded.

Thusly, the BG has 100% of the advantage and can do his will with you, your family and friends.
 
I don't really understand the anti-gun-lock argument.

I leave home. My guns are locked. (For me, in a safe.) Okay. I come home. I take out a gun for self defense. Why is that difficult for me?

Routines: I get up in the morning, brush my teeth, get dressed, lock up the gun, do the last check* before out-the-door, go to work.

I come home, unlock the gun, put on comfy clothes, grab a beer and the newspaper and the TV clicker...

This is difficult?

Art

* I'm not crossing myself; just checking: Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch.
 
If the gun is not under your personal control, yes it
should be "safely stored".
But locking the gun up while you are at home
renders it useless for self-defense.
A defensive gun should be under your personal control;
when not under your personal control, or not being kept
for defensive use, the gun should be locked.

We do need some porportion here: while ten children
five or under die of accidental gunshot in a year,
forty drown in five gallon mop buckets. Going overboard
on gun locks to the extent of ignoring other safety issues
can cost lives too.
 
But he says he has the data. Maybe the conclusions of others are wrong or overly broad. Maybe not. But neither of you have supported your criticisms of his data or conclusions.
Indeed and its impossible to disprove his information too. I'm not convinced that his data backs up his claims. I don't believe through looking at generic trends for violent crime you could ever attribute its rate changes as being due to just 1 thing. I think it would be incredibly difficult to show that an item even influences it. The data he gives in the article is to me like saying "most shootings happen at night therefor sunlight must prevent criminal thought." I don't see a distinct correlation of the data. I'd certainly welcome a chance to review the work and see if it changes my mind. If his data comes from interviewing recently convinced violent criminals and they attribute their actions to safe gun storage laws I'd change my mind. I want to see a scientific method applied that would make the paper qualify for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Art Eatman
I don't think its as much about thinking safe storage is dumb, but more about it being legislated. No gun control at all.
 
These esoteric econometrics are used to predict, deny or
confirm such things as the impact of abortion rates on
crine, or lives saved through seat belts.

To actually mirror reality, the data set would be so huge
that no storage device could hold it, and the mathematical
model would be so complex that no arithmetiric-logical unit
could calculate the results. Besides, reality is analog
not digital. Digital is just simulation, not reality.

"300 more murders and 4,000 more rapes per year" may be
too low, too high or just right. The bottom line is, if
criminals believe their victims are helpless, they are
emboldened to attack. Most criminals are cowards.

A simple advisory: if you are not in direct control of your
gun, keep it secured against unauthorized access; should
be sufficient. These elaborate gun lock laws, rules and
regulations are useless is not harmful.

They did sell a lot of padlocks. I still have not figured out
how I could have used the padlock that came with my
M6 Scout without damaging the finish of the gun.
 
As I said, I heard him present this - all the techniques are regression and really don't have causal power. He has not shown a mechanism through which gun locks influence rape. It is his responsiblity to do such before making a causal interpretation. Rape is a complex topic with various subcategories and victims.

Criminologists have studies the causal nature of gun deterrence in other types of crime. Lott needs to do such. I know other progun criminologists and they think he pushes it with this type of global statement.

Let's be real here - we are all progun here but we don't throw away our training to just accept a blanket statement.

One might recall that such not gun friendly folks contributed to taking down Bellesiles as they were honest scholars. We can't just support a progun statement without basis.

I think he has a good case on burglarly, carjackings and things like that based on CCW laws. Gun locks and rape or rampage shootings - more work is needed.

Let's play - 16 states have 4000 more rapes - that's 250 per state (I'm ignoring population). How many were stranger rapes, date rapes, rapes of your own children, etc? What rapes can be influenced by gun presence? Only stranger rapes when you are in your own home and the gun is locked up. What percent of them are deterred by a burglar/rapist actually thinking that a house has a gun locked up? We know burglars are deterred by not entering homes with people present as they think they might have guns. Has the lock issue entered the rapist mind?

There is much more to the issue than this glib claim, I'm afraid. I don't make causal statements like this without a much better data analysis.

It pains me to write this but what is, is in science. Like I said, folks in the field who are progun don't like this glib type of claim.
 
soybomb, I follow your point about the philosophy. However, I do support SOME sort of legislative effort to get irresponsible people to secure their firearms. There is way too much theft from beneath mattresses, from bedside tables, or from beneath car seats. I'm open to alternative suggestions. :)

Back during the hearings on the AW Ban, BATF or FBI testified that some 86% of guns used in crimes were stolen. At the time, there were some 600,000 gun crimes per year (Kleck), and some 15,000 homicides involving handguns(CDC).

Way too much of the noise level against this particular form of security seems to involve the belief that the locks should be in place at ALL times until the weapon is needed.

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top