Scholar says gun danger to children grossly exaggerated

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
We know this. How do we get the information out to the people with their heads in the sand?

Scholar says gun danger to children grossly exaggerated
Rusty Pugh
OneNewsNow.com
October 15, 2007
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/10/scholar_says_gun_danger_to_chi.php

An author and noted scholar says guns do not kill children -- irresponsible adults with guns do.

Guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics are advising doctors to ask their young patients if their parents own guns. If the answer is yes, they are advised to interrogate children about their parents' bad behavior, grilling the youngsters on how many guns their parents own and where the guns are kept in the house.

Dr. John Lott, Jr., of the University of Maryland says anti-gun forces are grossly exaggerating the danger that guns pose to children. Lott says the truth is, accidental gun deaths among children are much rarer than what people are led to believe.

According to statistics, there are approximately 90 million gun owners in the U.S. and about 40 million children under the age of ten. In 2003, 28 children under ten years of age died from accidental gunshots. "More kids under age five -- about 90 -- drowned in bathtubs in the home. You have over 30 a year who drown in five-gallon plastic water buckets," says Lott.

What is not reported, he says, is that the vast majority of accidental gun deaths are not children who innocently get hold of a gun. Lott explains that the majority of children in accidental gun deaths are killed by adults, most of whom have a history of violence or drug or alcohol abuse.

"It would make much more sense for these doctors to be asking 'Is your father a convicted violent felon?' than it does to ask whether or not guns are owned in the home," he points out.

Lott says the number of children killed by guns in law-abiding homes is along the lines of the number of children killed by lightening strikes.
 
THe problem is that Lott did the research. Unfortunately his research can no longer be used against the anti crowd because they have discredited him because of he continual stance of pro gun. Meaning, that even though he may be (and often is) correct, you're not going to win any battles by citing his research. Great read though.
 
oobray said:
Unfortunately his research can no longer be used against the anti crowd because they have discredited him because of he continual stance of pro gun.
Huh? :confused:
 
THe problem is that Lott did the research. Unfortunately his research can no longer be used against the anti crowd because they have discredited him because of he continual stance of pro gun. Meaning, that even though he may be (and often is) correct, you're not going to win any battles by citing his research. Great read though.

In other words, he's been smeared, so he's no longer credible even though he's right.

Maybe the answer is to employ the same smear tactics as the Stalinist Left does.
 
Lott didn't get smeared, he engaged in sloppy work, then started touting his own work under the handle "Mary Rosh".

Lott brought his troubles on himself. There's good pro gun work being done by non screwballs like Gary Kleck.
 
ive never heard of this guy before (lott). i googled him and, yeah he seems like hes used some shotty research methods. is he relitavely well known as far as gun rights debate goes?
 
is he relitavely well known as far as gun rights debate goes?

Yeah, he's cited a lot in in gun control debates. Regardless of whether or not he's right (which he usually is to some degree), he's usually considered a partisan by anti's, so facts from him are usually treated about the same as facts from the NRA - i.e. suspect.

I tend to not use his research in my arguments for that reason. There are enough good sources out there -- such as government sources and from researches who don't demonstrably have a vested interest in the subject -- that I don't have too much trouble coming up with sources to back my claims.
 
Lott didn't get smeared, he engaged in sloppy work, then started touting his own work under the handle "Mary Rosh".

Any examples/links illustrating this assertion?

Yeah, he's cited a lot in in gun control debates. Regardless of whether or not he's right (which he usually is to some degree), he's usually considered a partisan by anti's, so facts from him are usually treated about the same as facts from the NRA - i.e. suspect.

Who cares whether or not he is considered a partisan by the antis? Are they not partisans themselves? How about Arthur Kellerman, the guy who got all those CDC grants. ("A gun in the home is 43 times more likely.......") This guy's garbage research is still being quoted by the antis.

Then there's that Michael Besliles fellow ("Arming America"), the historian/fabulist/acidhead who tried to convince us that guns were rare in early America, and weree mostly owned by the government.

Lott is a numbers guy, an economist. I have yet to see a valid refutation of his work. A couple of gun grabbers have tried to do it using cherry-picked data, but none have succeeded.
 
Any examples/links illustrating this assertion?

Google around. Julian Sanchez over at Reason magazine outed him on that Mary Rosh nonsense. Lott admitted to doing it.

Update:

Looks like Car Knocker beat me to it.
 
is he relitavely well known as far as gun rights debate goes?

Just to second the original reply, he is by far the most cited pro-gun researcher currently active. Lott is a good man, but we need more like him. I wonder if I should up the ante and get a PhD? Too bad a comp-sci PhD wouldn't likely be credible on this, I sure don't want to have to get one in sociology or political science.
 
Who cares whether or not he is considered a partisan by the antis? Are they not partisans themselves?

Normally, I wouldn't, but when I'm in the middle of a debate, and I'm trying to bring some fence sitters into the fold, I don't want to sink the deal by using sources the antis can easily dismiss, even if their dismissal amounts to sticking their fingers in the ears and yelling loudly. If your sources can easily be brushed off, even if they're good sources, then they're not much use to you in that situation.
 
Mary Rosh <yawn>

Like I said, I have yet to see Lott's work refuted. A couple of gun grabber academics have made lame attempts using cherry picked data, but no one has succeeded yet that I have heard of.

The most anyone has said, including the CDC, is that allowing shall issue CC has had no measureable effect on crime.

And even that is a winning argument for us. Because if there is no public safety issue, and allowing for CC enables some LAC's to defend themselves against criminal attack, then why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Of course even that argument misses the main point. Bearing arms is a 2A right, and that right needs to be honored even though there might be a social cost. This is no different than the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments which, when honored allow for some known criminals to be free to walk the streets.

At any rate, Lott's work is what it is. The regression analysis is sound, and so are his conclusions. He could run around in pink underwear on nights and weekends and it wouldn't change the body of data he has amassed and analyzed, nor would it change the results.
 
Like I said, I have yet to see Lott's work refuted. A couple of gun grabber academics have made lame attempts using cherry picked data, but no one has succeeded yet that I have heard of.

See section 7 of the NAS study, and further discussion in Appendix D.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881

While that might just be poor scholarship, the Mary Rosh behavior and the numerous times he's made dubious claims about the efficacy of defensive gun use pretty clearly points to a chronic pattern of dishonesty.

Claiming this is persecution is just nonsense. The gun rights movement needs John Lott like it needs a hole in the head.
 
As far as disproving Lott besides the NAS report there is also the CDC study

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Also try reading Tim Lamberts web site http://timlambert.org/lott/ Lambert is very anti Lott but he has an excellent summary of Lott's foolishness.

It is a shame because he MAY be correct about some thing but in the academic world he has trashed his reputation.

However may I suggest a slilghty different viewpoint from John Ross of Unintended Consequences fame.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070205065719/www.john-ross.net/ross_in_range.htm

THEY SAY: ?If we pass this License-To-Carry law, it will be like the Wild West, with shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it.?



WE SAY: ?Studies have shown blah blah blah? (FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed License-To-Carry laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, Right-To-Carry should be illegal.)



WE SHOULD SAY: ?Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that?s not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don?t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We?d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound??

NukemJim
 
If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don?t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We?d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound??
This might be off-topic but I have to say that I love that analogy :D

On-topic - thanks for the Lott info, fellers. So basically he acted like a muppet (for whatever reason), but there is still dispute concerning his data/conclusions?
 
Like Lott or not, you don't have to rely on his research for the arguments in the original article. These numbers are easily available from the CDC (except for the one about "plastic buckets").
 
If a liar says the earth rotates on it's axis, does that mean it doesn't?

Facts are true, else they are not facts. Disparaging the source of a fact does not make it any less so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top