some advice -Dont use the "more guns, less crime" study when defending firearms

[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?????

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[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]

(wrinkled-nose smile. . .)

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.