Drizzt
Member
AScribe Newswire
April 24, 2003 Thursday
LENGTH: 661 words
HEADLINE: New Book Debunks Myths About Guns
BODY:
DURHAM, N.C., April 24 [AScribe Newswire] -- Everybody knows guns deter burglars, right? Not according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.
In fact, having a gun in your home may actually increase your likelihood of being burgled, since guns are valuable "loot" and gun-rich communities are profitable to burglars, researchers at Duke University and Georgetown University have found.
"Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence," a new book published by the Brookings Institution and edited by researchers Philip J. Cook of Duke's Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy and Jens Ludwig of Georgetown, seeks to debunk similar myths and conventional wisdom surrounding guns and gun ownership. Their work on guns and burglaries and that of other authors do so through rigorous data application and analysis. The result, they hope, will be more rational and effective gun policy.
"People feel very passionately about gun violence, and about what needs to be done to reduce gun violence while preserving this country's historical right to bear arms," said Cook, ITT/Terry Sanford Professor of Public Policy Studies and professor of economics and sociology. "As public policy researchers, our role is to provide sound, data-based guidance for a more pragmatic approach to gun policy."
America has at least 200 million firearms in private circulation, with 65 million of those being handguns kept for defense against crime, the editors note. Guns do a great deal of harm, being used in two-thirds of all homicides, 60 percent of suicides, and a large share of robberies and assaults. The social costs of their misuse are equivalent to a $100 billion annual reduction in the American standard of living, according to an earlier analysis by Cook and Ludwig.
Yet public opinion about guns and gun ownership remains strongly held -- and strongly divided. "Differences in opinion flourish partly because of the lack of sound evidence that might help cut through conflicting assertions," the editors say. "Improving the quality of evidence on what works in reducing gun violence requires sound research by scholars who maintain an open mind on the relevant issues."
The book was reviewed favorably in the Washington Post, which said, "The rallying cry of Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig's Evaluating Gun Policy is 'more data, better policies.' Given the polarized nature of the debate, this collection of essays deserves special praise for including authors on both sides. ... it ought to be the starting point for any future debate over gun policy."
Book chapters address issues such as gun ownership, design and availability, as well as crimes associated with gun violence. One researcher, Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor, also at Duke's Sanford Institute, and co-author James Mercy with the National Center for Injury Prevention, looked at the effects of state laws designed to keep domestic-violence offenders from owning guns. "Vigdor and Mercy find that laws that prevent those who are subject to a restraining order from owning or purchasing a handgun reduce rates of homicides of intimate partners," the editors note. The study, Vigdor says, "clearly shows the laws are effective at reducing intimate-partner homicides, but the key factor is whether the state is able to check firearms applicants against a database of people under restraining order."
The editors conclude in their introductory essay, "We offer this book in support of the view that the goal of a skilled and dispassionate analysis of the evidence is attainable, even in an area as contentious as firearms policy. For pragmatists who wish to reduce the social burden on gun violence, there is no acceptable alternative."
CONTACT:
Keith Lawrence, Duke University Office of News &
Communications, 919-681-8059; [email protected]
Philip Cook can be reached for additional comment at
919-613-7360.
April 24, 2003 Thursday
LENGTH: 661 words
HEADLINE: New Book Debunks Myths About Guns
BODY:
DURHAM, N.C., April 24 [AScribe Newswire] -- Everybody knows guns deter burglars, right? Not according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.
In fact, having a gun in your home may actually increase your likelihood of being burgled, since guns are valuable "loot" and gun-rich communities are profitable to burglars, researchers at Duke University and Georgetown University have found.
"Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence," a new book published by the Brookings Institution and edited by researchers Philip J. Cook of Duke's Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy and Jens Ludwig of Georgetown, seeks to debunk similar myths and conventional wisdom surrounding guns and gun ownership. Their work on guns and burglaries and that of other authors do so through rigorous data application and analysis. The result, they hope, will be more rational and effective gun policy.
"People feel very passionately about gun violence, and about what needs to be done to reduce gun violence while preserving this country's historical right to bear arms," said Cook, ITT/Terry Sanford Professor of Public Policy Studies and professor of economics and sociology. "As public policy researchers, our role is to provide sound, data-based guidance for a more pragmatic approach to gun policy."
America has at least 200 million firearms in private circulation, with 65 million of those being handguns kept for defense against crime, the editors note. Guns do a great deal of harm, being used in two-thirds of all homicides, 60 percent of suicides, and a large share of robberies and assaults. The social costs of their misuse are equivalent to a $100 billion annual reduction in the American standard of living, according to an earlier analysis by Cook and Ludwig.
Yet public opinion about guns and gun ownership remains strongly held -- and strongly divided. "Differences in opinion flourish partly because of the lack of sound evidence that might help cut through conflicting assertions," the editors say. "Improving the quality of evidence on what works in reducing gun violence requires sound research by scholars who maintain an open mind on the relevant issues."
The book was reviewed favorably in the Washington Post, which said, "The rallying cry of Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig's Evaluating Gun Policy is 'more data, better policies.' Given the polarized nature of the debate, this collection of essays deserves special praise for including authors on both sides. ... it ought to be the starting point for any future debate over gun policy."
Book chapters address issues such as gun ownership, design and availability, as well as crimes associated with gun violence. One researcher, Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor, also at Duke's Sanford Institute, and co-author James Mercy with the National Center for Injury Prevention, looked at the effects of state laws designed to keep domestic-violence offenders from owning guns. "Vigdor and Mercy find that laws that prevent those who are subject to a restraining order from owning or purchasing a handgun reduce rates of homicides of intimate partners," the editors note. The study, Vigdor says, "clearly shows the laws are effective at reducing intimate-partner homicides, but the key factor is whether the state is able to check firearms applicants against a database of people under restraining order."
The editors conclude in their introductory essay, "We offer this book in support of the view that the goal of a skilled and dispassionate analysis of the evidence is attainable, even in an area as contentious as firearms policy. For pragmatists who wish to reduce the social burden on gun violence, there is no acceptable alternative."
CONTACT:
Keith Lawrence, Duke University Office of News &
Communications, 919-681-8059; [email protected]
Philip Cook can be reached for additional comment at
919-613-7360.
Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of violence (or any other action).
