Invisible Swordsman
Member
Posted on National Review Online today.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott_richardson200511081204.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott_richardson200511081204.asp
John Lott on the Brazilian gun ban vote
- Thread starter Invisible Swordsman
- Start date
- Status
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Definitely worth the read.
agricola
Member
He repeats the same old tired rubbish about the UK in that article. If it was the first time he was posting it it would be forgivable, but the fact is it isnt and he should know better. As it is, it just allows us to call him a fraud.
It'd help if Lott actually did some homework on the UK. A handful of people actually owned handguns and the 1997 law was pretty much a fait acompli. The stats for gun crime going up are still small. If you have 2 crimes instead of 1 that’s a 50% increase in crime - OMG BLOOD IN THE STREETS! The fact is there is blood in the streets but it's not guns that are causing it.
Most criminals use knives since they are cheap, effective and disposable. Most crime involves knives, for muggings, assaults and so on. Carrying a blade is normal. You can still buy black market guns but for most of your criminal needs a knife is enough to get what you want. Stabbings and the like are much more common. While the people can't overthrow the government, they're still very capable of killing and beating the crap out of each other. Think of it like feudal Japan, swords are outlawed but that didn't stop the peasants getting on with makeshift weapons and tools.
I'm as pro-RKBA as they come. Ignoring what's happening on the ground and saying other things only hurts the cause.
Most criminals use knives since they are cheap, effective and disposable. Most crime involves knives, for muggings, assaults and so on. Carrying a blade is normal. You can still buy black market guns but for most of your criminal needs a knife is enough to get what you want. Stabbings and the like are much more common. While the people can't overthrow the government, they're still very capable of killing and beating the crap out of each other. Think of it like feudal Japan, swords are outlawed but that didn't stop the peasants getting on with makeshift weapons and tools.
I'm as pro-RKBA as they come. Ignoring what's happening on the ground and saying other things only hurts the cause.
John Lott has proven himself an esteemed, serious social science researcher who is meticulous and thorough - make that impeccable - in his research and circumspect in his statements. He calls a spade a spade. If a certain gun 'control' measure works, he unhesitatingly reports it. For you to accuse him of misreporting something is a serious allegation, which requires serious proof. For you to call him a fraud is outlandish unless you have some evidence. What, EXACTLY, that he said, is 'rubbish'?
For now while I go away, and check what’s been linked to.
The link used in the article doesn’t work for me, so I’m going to have a look on the site. Off the top of my head the numbers are something like 1500 increasing to 3000 or the like and is probably total gun crime stats including everything from pistols to shotguns and rifles.
Serious violent crime, robbery and murders are mainly carried out with knives and other non-gun objects. These are unrelated to the handgun ban.
I’m now looking at what the actual numbers are, and what an ‘armed’ robbery is defined as.
My main gripe what that article says Lott said, is that Lott ignores the importance of knives and the comparitive rareness of guns and being misleading with stats. Yes having two crimes instead of one means a 50% jump. It doesn't change that its still a small number.
Sorry since this is not comprehensive and answers it all right now but I’ll get round to it.
The link used in the article doesn’t work for me, so I’m going to have a look on the site. Off the top of my head the numbers are something like 1500 increasing to 3000 or the like and is probably total gun crime stats including everything from pistols to shotguns and rifles.
Serious violent crime, robbery and murders are mainly carried out with knives and other non-gun objects. These are unrelated to the handgun ban.
I’m now looking at what the actual numbers are, and what an ‘armed’ robbery is defined as.
My main gripe what that article says Lott said, is that Lott ignores the importance of knives and the comparitive rareness of guns and being misleading with stats. Yes having two crimes instead of one means a 50% jump. It doesn't change that its still a small number.
Sorry since this is not comprehensive and answers it all right now but I’ll get round to it.
jrhines
Member
Faithless said "Serious violent crime, robbery and murders are mainly carried out with knives and other non-gun objects. These are unrelated to the handgun ban."
I belive that they are directly related to the handgun ban. If people were allowed to carry for their own protection I think they would be less likely to be attacked. I don't know if Lott claimed more gun crime due to a gun ban or simply more crime, because the criminal element feels safe from their victems.
I belive that they are directly related to the handgun ban. If people were allowed to carry for their own protection I think they would be less likely to be attacked. I don't know if Lott claimed more gun crime due to a gun ban or simply more crime, because the criminal element feels safe from their victems.
I'm not tracking.
The left says banning guns reduces crime.
Lott has demonstrated the opposite trends. How is that wrong? Who cares if a 50% jump equals a hundred or ten thousand new cases? He is simply is demonstrating the trend and making a very valid point.
The left says banning guns reduces crime.
Lott has demonstrated the opposite trends. How is that wrong? Who cares if a 50% jump equals a hundred or ten thousand new cases? He is simply is demonstrating the trend and making a very valid point.
agricola
Member
here you go:
Firstly, it should be evident to almost everyone that when you make something illegal, it will result in more people breaking the law. Also, the only part of the Firearms Act that was effected by the 1996 and 97 bills were handguns; the other categories were not effected, and Lott should point that out. As faithless alludes to, this is an increase from around 6000 a year for the entirity of England and Wales to around 11000.
That was not a claim made at the time - as faithless has noted, from 1988-9 onwards (after Hungerford) Britain already had probably the most stringent firearms legislation in the world - banning handguns, as Colin Greenwood and many others from the British shooting community have noted and said at the time, has had no effect at all on the crime rate.
Saying it could have had an effect would be nonsensical and recognized as such, because s1 licences, then as now, were rigorously enforced - even Thomas Hamilton, the murderer of Dunblane, would have had his and his guns taken off him if the Prosecution authorities in Scotland had listened to the public and police who repeatedly tried to deal with what it now transpires was a paedophile (to the extent of ordering a Detective Sergeant to not investigate him after allegations were made that Hamilton had been taking photos of children he had told to strip). One wonders what is contained within the documents about Dunblane sealed under the 100 year rule. As it is, the ban was "designed" to prevent another massacre of the Dunblane or Hungerford type (and please dont think for a moment that its something I approve of - I have repeatedly posted the knee-jerk response nature of firearms legislation in the UK).
One also notes that Lott refers to the "serious violent crime rate". As he points out, that is an immense rise since 1996; the problem is that its bogus. As is noted here (page 86), the system by which violent crimes reported to the Police were measured was changed in 1998, a change which a study found had caused an 83% rise in the number of allegations reported. There was another change in 2002 which further increased the number of allegations classified as "violent crime" or "serious violent crime". Any statistician worth his or her salt would point these out to their readers, and yet for some reason I cant recall Lott ever mentioning it.
However, the survey that is spared these changes - the British Crime Survey - actually shows a fall in violent crime since 1995, something else that escapes Lott's attention.
Statistics show that robbery where a "firearm" (which for the statistics can mean a firearm, or an imitation, or in some cases an allusion to a firearm) features makes up 4% of the statistics, and has operated at around that level since the ban. As a result, firearms cannot be responsible for the rise in crime - they arent enough of a generator. So what is? It turns out, there are a number of factors, the greatest of which is the widespread use, and rapid turnover of models of, mobile telephones (source). The link demonstrates the clear correlation between the rise in numbers of subscribers and the increase in the numbers of allegations recorded, and it has been available since 2002, has been widely reported in the British press. It is a clear correlation and Lott is irresponsible not to mention it, especially as (for reasons mentioned above) it is far more likely than his own theory.
Its also worthwhile to draw your attention to what Lott leaves out - namely the offence of burglary. Burglary has been falling year on year since 1993 in whatever survey you wish to chose (source), despite the fact that other crime statistics have been rising. If Lott's theory that the gun ban led to an increase in crime, one would expect to see it here - after all, people are unable to defend themselves now that all their guns that they had pre-1997 have been taken away - and yet the fall continues into this decade up to the present day with no effect for the gun ban at all.
Firstly, it should be evident to almost everyone that when you make something illegal, it will result in more people breaking the law. Also, the only part of the Firearms Act that was effected by the 1996 and 97 bills were handguns; the other categories were not effected, and Lott should point that out. As faithless alludes to, this is an increase from around 6000 a year for the entirity of England and Wales to around 11000.
That was not a claim made at the time - as faithless has noted, from 1988-9 onwards (after Hungerford) Britain already had probably the most stringent firearms legislation in the world - banning handguns, as Colin Greenwood and many others from the British shooting community have noted and said at the time, has had no effect at all on the crime rate.
Saying it could have had an effect would be nonsensical and recognized as such, because s1 licences, then as now, were rigorously enforced - even Thomas Hamilton, the murderer of Dunblane, would have had his and his guns taken off him if the Prosecution authorities in Scotland had listened to the public and police who repeatedly tried to deal with what it now transpires was a paedophile (to the extent of ordering a Detective Sergeant to not investigate him after allegations were made that Hamilton had been taking photos of children he had told to strip). One wonders what is contained within the documents about Dunblane sealed under the 100 year rule. As it is, the ban was "designed" to prevent another massacre of the Dunblane or Hungerford type (and please dont think for a moment that its something I approve of - I have repeatedly posted the knee-jerk response nature of firearms legislation in the UK).
One also notes that Lott refers to the "serious violent crime rate". As he points out, that is an immense rise since 1996; the problem is that its bogus. As is noted here (page 86), the system by which violent crimes reported to the Police were measured was changed in 1998, a change which a study found had caused an 83% rise in the number of allegations reported. There was another change in 2002 which further increased the number of allegations classified as "violent crime" or "serious violent crime". Any statistician worth his or her salt would point these out to their readers, and yet for some reason I cant recall Lott ever mentioning it.
However, the survey that is spared these changes - the British Crime Survey - actually shows a fall in violent crime since 1995, something else that escapes Lott's attention.
Statistics show that robbery where a "firearm" (which for the statistics can mean a firearm, or an imitation, or in some cases an allusion to a firearm) features makes up 4% of the statistics, and has operated at around that level since the ban. As a result, firearms cannot be responsible for the rise in crime - they arent enough of a generator. So what is? It turns out, there are a number of factors, the greatest of which is the widespread use, and rapid turnover of models of, mobile telephones (source). The link demonstrates the clear correlation between the rise in numbers of subscribers and the increase in the numbers of allegations recorded, and it has been available since 2002, has been widely reported in the British press. It is a clear correlation and Lott is irresponsible not to mention it, especially as (for reasons mentioned above) it is far more likely than his own theory.
Its also worthwhile to draw your attention to what Lott leaves out - namely the offence of burglary. Burglary has been falling year on year since 1993 in whatever survey you wish to chose (source), despite the fact that other crime statistics have been rising. If Lott's theory that the gun ban led to an increase in crime, one would expect to see it here - after all, people are unable to defend themselves now that all their guns that they had pre-1997 have been taken away - and yet the fall continues into this decade up to the present day with no effect for the gun ban at all.
Last edited:
Since I'm nearly out of time I'll just say this.
Civilians have not been carrying handguns for self defence in England, Scotland and Wales from around 1920-30 for a number of reasons. It's not like there was millions of people with CCW in 1996 and they all handed in all their pistols once this law was made.
The people have been unarmed victims since at least 1920-30 but general crime other than murder/armed robbery and the like has been rising since the 1990s in the UK for reasons other than the fact the people are unarmed. They've been unarmed since 1920-30 to the early 1970s and the crime rate was relatively stable. The fact that the people don't have guns doesn't apply because they were unarmed before and the crime rate was lower.
And NavyDoc, in a population of 40 million, would you consider a 100 new cases in anything an important trend?
Edit: Doing all that before I saw Agricola's post.
Civilians have not been carrying handguns for self defence in England, Scotland and Wales from around 1920-30 for a number of reasons. It's not like there was millions of people with CCW in 1996 and they all handed in all their pistols once this law was made.
The people have been unarmed victims since at least 1920-30 but general crime other than murder/armed robbery and the like has been rising since the 1990s in the UK for reasons other than the fact the people are unarmed. They've been unarmed since 1920-30 to the early 1970s and the crime rate was relatively stable. The fact that the people don't have guns doesn't apply because they were unarmed before and the crime rate was lower.
And NavyDoc, in a population of 40 million, would you consider a 100 new cases in anything an important trend?
Edit: Doing all that before I saw Agricola's post.
Hawk
Member
Well, I generally just lurk in L&P but...
Welcome back, Ag! 3 months is too long.
Welcome back, Ag! 3 months is too long.
Aguila Blanca
Member
No, that's a 100% increase. But if you had two last year and one this year, it's a 50% decrease.Faithless said:
Starting point was one. You added one. One is not 50% of one, it's 100%.
If handguns were not outlawed for reasons of crime control then what was the reason ?
Same question - If not related than why ban handguns ?
So criminals with knives who don't have to face firearms are less active now ? The crime rate has dropped ?
Isn't that what he said ? He said gun crimes (not just handgun) about doubled - isn't 1500 increasing to 3000 about doubled ?
I think the point is - does restrictive gun ownership amoung good citizens do anything to prevent criminal activity . So far the answer seems to be no , and it seems to have just the opposite effect . The degree of that effect may fall to some variation in numbers, but that doesn't change the conclusion.
agricola
Member
mnrivrat said:
As I alluded to above, you misunderstand the nature of firearms control in this country. Each of the major pieces of legislation is not a well-thought out, well planned law; indeed one facet that is not recognized is that it would require only a Home Secretary to change his or her mind for Britain to go from what it is now to a shall-issue permit system with no further input from Parliament. Basically each piece of legislation stems from an incident - the murders of three unarmed Policemen led to the 1968 Act, Hungerford led to the 1989 Act and Dunblane to the 1996 and 1997 Acts, in each and every case a reaction by the Government of the day to political pressure to do something. Indeed, many UK posters may remember the hue and cry raised about handguns post-Dunblane and the outrage (and political capital raised) when the Tories were alleged not to have gone far enough. It had nothing do do with "crime control" (and it would have been nonsensical to suggest that because they formed such a tiny number of crimes) and everything to do with "this must never happen again" type theories.
Criminals with knives wouldnt have had to face firearms then either - noone with an S1 licence between Hungerford and Dunblane would have been able to carry a loaded firearm on their person because even if they used it to defend themselves they would have had their licence revoked for carrying it around loaded. It is perhaps the most important thing to note that pre-Dunblane we were not all CCW'ed up, it was only a little less restrictive than it is now.
Thats what he said, but he forgets to qualify it, and data for just handgun offences are available so there really is no justification for using the total number (unless you want to scare people with a big rise).
Thats the problem with Lott - there is a good deal wrong with firearms legislation in this country, and it would be interesting to have an in depth look at statistics and examine the causes of crime; but that isnt what he is doing - he is just making a point and presenting flawed and misleading data, which just means he is wrong, and what makes it worse is that he has been told all this before.
Hawk
Member
Different cultures.
It was difficult for me to get my arms around the concept that firearms could be restricted without invoking a smoke screen of crime control. I assume a good number of US citizens would have the same "deer in the headlights" look that I'm sure I had.
My guess is that if Sarah or Kristen had anywhere near that degree of honesty, the gun control movement on this side of the pond would grind to a halt almost immediately. I believe the majority of grabbers in this country at least like to delude themselves that there would be some impact on crime.
Similarly, the oft-repeated saw on this side of the Atlantic that firearms homocides in Victoria went up 300% after restrictive legislation went into effect in Oz is true, but doesn't mean much.
7 homocides in 1996 to 19 in 1997 is "close enough" to 300%, I guess. But those numbers are trifling in comparison to anything we deal with and connecting them to any sort of legislation is an enterprise I'm not prepared to undertake.
Personally, I don't believe the main body of Lott's work is compromised by dubious internet avatars, but I could do without simplistic stat tossing - it reminds me of the VPC.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" - just say "no" to it.
Facts, like good Bourbon, should be served "neat".
IMHO, YMMV, Yadda.
It was difficult for me to get my arms around the concept that firearms could be restricted without invoking a smoke screen of crime control. I assume a good number of US citizens would have the same "deer in the headlights" look that I'm sure I had.
My guess is that if Sarah or Kristen had anywhere near that degree of honesty, the gun control movement on this side of the pond would grind to a halt almost immediately. I believe the majority of grabbers in this country at least like to delude themselves that there would be some impact on crime.
Similarly, the oft-repeated saw on this side of the Atlantic that firearms homocides in Victoria went up 300% after restrictive legislation went into effect in Oz is true, but doesn't mean much.
7 homocides in 1996 to 19 in 1997 is "close enough" to 300%, I guess. But those numbers are trifling in comparison to anything we deal with and connecting them to any sort of legislation is an enterprise I'm not prepared to undertake.
Personally, I don't believe the main body of Lott's work is compromised by dubious internet avatars, but I could do without simplistic stat tossing - it reminds me of the VPC.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" - just say "no" to it.
Facts, like good Bourbon, should be served "neat".
IMHO, YMMV, Yadda.
I honestly think our perspectives are different, rather than I having a misunderstanding of the purpose of gun control legislation.
The "this must never happen again" you refer to is to me the criminal act. Therefore the action the gun control laws had in mind , had everything to do with "crime control" . At least as presented .
The effect of laws banning hundguns having no relation to "crime control" is obvious , and that is what the numbers show.
It seems obvious to me also that the purpose of the ban ,when implimented, was "crime control" related . Or as you say "this must never happen again" .
That said, I didn't miss your point regarding criminal acts with a firearm have not traditionaly been a large portion of the violent crime in your country. And therefore the banning of handguns would not be a significant cause/effect factor in the overall violent crime rate.
That is exactly what we are fighting here and why John used the example of England in my opinion . It simply shows that banning firearms in attempts to prevent crime ( crime control ) simply does not work. It is only what we call "feel good" political BS that strips the right of self defense from good citizens.
agricola
Member
mnrivrat,
Thats a very specious argument, and its not something that is supported by common sense. "Crime control" is clearly something that is expected to affect the number of crimes, either total or of a specific group; not allegedly preventative measures in response to a single incident. I would also question whether Lott meant it in that way because he clearly refers to statistical rises in his cherry picking article later on.
Thats a very specious argument, and its not something that is supported by common sense. "Crime control" is clearly something that is expected to affect the number of crimes, either total or of a specific group; not allegedly preventative measures in response to a single incident. I would also question whether Lott meant it in that way because he clearly refers to statistical rises in his cherry picking article later on.
Kjervin
Member
Agricola,
are you suggesting that "crime control" can only be quantitative and never qualitative? I think most of our gun control advocates get more mileage out of one multiple murder situation then multiple single murder situations even if the aggregate number slaughtered is the same. That said, I'm not sure I understand why laws to prevent one would be labeled "crime control" and the other would not. I don't see the distinction. Please clarify.
Kj
are you suggesting that "crime control" can only be quantitative and never qualitative? I think most of our gun control advocates get more mileage out of one multiple murder situation then multiple single murder situations even if the aggregate number slaughtered is the same. That said, I'm not sure I understand why laws to prevent one would be labeled "crime control" and the other would not. I don't see the distinction. Please clarify.
Kj
Call me confused but if the banning of handguns in England was not presented as a measure inacted to prevent crime , then what was the purpose ?
How does your statement in the first quote at the top correlate to the statement in the second quote ? They seem to be conflicting statements to me . Unless you do not associate legislation to restrict firearms with attempted crime control measures . Or as one might say - presented as a crime control measure .
agricola
Member
mnrivrat said:
They were knee-jerk responses to incidents, specifically the incidents described following political pressure.
You seem to be having problems here based on an incorrect definition. I have given you a definition of a crime control measure, and pointed out that the precursor events to the enactment of each bill were specific incidents that led to political pressure, which led to legislation. They were not intended to "reduce" or "control" crime because of the extremely low level at which firearms crime found itself meant that the legislation could never do that. They are symbolic acts of the kind I would have thought that a US reader would understand.
davec
Member
Maybe Mary Rosh wrote the article.
I assure you I understand exactly what they were - What I was unsure of is how they were presented and justified. You made it sound as if they were not presented as anything other than symbolic acts.
I was stating that they were being presented as acts to prevent crime.
Perhaps I am wrong . Perhaps it is just in America that restrictions on firearms are presented as crime control measures. I am not familiar with lawmakers passing legislation under the presentation of symbolic acts .
Hawk
Member
See my previous post - I may be missing something but it is, indeed, hard for a US citizen to understand. At the time it was going on there were specific, overt statements that crime control was not at issue.
It wasn't stated to be crime control but really wasn't (like here). It was, in fact, not misrepresented.
I doubt it could happen here (while the current generation lives) as misrepresentation of gun laws as crime reduction measures is built into the very fabric of the debate.
But nobody said it had to be that way all over the globe. My perceptions may be off - I wasn't there at the time. But the tenor seemed to be "let's ban handguns" with the response "OK, fine". There were no promises that anything would improve thereby.
It wasn't stated to be crime control but really wasn't (like here). It was, in fact, not misrepresented.
I doubt it could happen here (while the current generation lives) as misrepresentation of gun laws as crime reduction measures is built into the very fabric of the debate.
But nobody said it had to be that way all over the globe. My perceptions may be off - I wasn't there at the time. But the tenor seemed to be "let's ban handguns" with the response "OK, fine". There were no promises that anything would improve thereby.
- Status