|
 |
More Guns, Less
Crime
Should Gun Owners
Believe John Lott.
|
Review by Mike Cumpston
Most
of the time, its better not to know very much than to know a bunch of stuff that
ain’t so.
Will
Rogers- Early 20th century rope twirler.
History teaches us that the Social
Sciences- Sociology, Anthropology, and Economics often present
“findings” that do not stand up to the crucible of history and frequently
echo the prejudices of a given time and place. We find it easy to dismiss as
pseudo-science those datum that go against our better judgment or firmly held
beliefs- but what do we do when the Social Researchers agree with us?
In 1997, with publication of his
findings on the relationship between laws licensing carry of concealed handguns
and an observed decrease in violent crime, John R. Lott Jr. forever altered the
gun control debate. The
Lott-Mustard study incorporated comprehensive data from the U.S. Department of
Justice and other public sources to examine the relevant factors influencing
crime as it occurred on the state, county and national levels. It was a
cross-sectional study using available data form the 3000+individual counties in
the United States during the years 1977 – 1992.
This was the largest database ever used in a research project on the
subject of Guns and Crime and the only one based on data that is generally regarded as incontrovertible.
The original study, published in the Journal of Legal Studies attempted to examine the factors associated
with rising or dropping crime rates, determine the influence they have on the
present decrease in the crime rate and, whenever possible assign an economic
loss or benefit to the individual measures.
In 1998, Lott Senior Research
Scholar in the School of Law, Yale University and Fellow of the John T. Olin
Foundation Chair at the University of Chicago School of Economics, published the
findings in the first edition of More
Guns, Less Crime. A second and
updated edition saw publication in the summer of 2,000. The current book
presents the original data and incorporates new information made available
because of the passage of a number of Shall Issue Concealed Handgun laws in the
years1992-96. He was also able to make a number of generalizations about the
utility or lack- there-of of such anti-gun measures as the Brady Act and the
Child Safety Laws enacted in recent years.
What
He Learned
This is a partial list of findings
consistently supported by research methods designed to control and isolate a
great number of factors that might contribute to changes in specific crimes and
the crime rate as a whole:
1.
Serious Crime and Particularly, violent crime decreases significantly
with increased arrest rates, conviction rates, and the passage of Shall Issue
Concealed Handgun laws.
2.
While Arrests and Convictions are the most important factors in lowering
crime rates, Concealed Handguns in the hands of civilians are a substantial
factor and by far, the most cost-effective means of -reducing crime.
3.
Crime continues to decrease in the years following passage of the
Concealed Handgun laws
4.
Crime continues to decline as the number of people carrying handguns
increases.
5.
A measurable increase in
certain non-contact property crime occurs when citizens are allowed legally
concealed handguns. Perpetrators avoid confronting victims who may be armed.
6.
Neighboring counties in non- shall issue States show an immediate
increase in crime when a county of similar demographics lowers its crime rate
with passage of Concealed Carry. The criminals move to greener pastures.
7.
Accidental deaths from gunshot do not increase or increase very little
when more citizens are licensed -neither do violent acts by persons licensed to
carry weapons.
8.
Gun control measures such as waiting periods, one gun a month laws, safe
storage laws do not appear to reduce the crime or accident rates but appear to
cause increases in contact crime where they are adopted. There are indications
that gun laws in general discourage ownership of firearms and contribute to
increases in crime.
9.
Lott examined data related to the Brady Act and found a definite
correlation with increases in sexual assault and indications that Brady might
also cause increases in personal and property crimes.
It is not surprising that wide
publication of these findings would raise a huge outcry from Handgun Control
Inc, the Violence Policy Center. and their fellow travelers. Lott was amazed by
the level of criticism he received from HCI and the major media . This was his
first published work on the gun topic. As
a non- gun- owner, he was unaware of the tactics of Handgun Control Inc. and
their access to positive media exposure. This was his first exposure to the
willingness of HCI spokespersons to lie and launch ad-hominem attacks. He found
himself vilified as a ‘toady” of the gun manufacturers. There were telephone
death threats as well as a threatening note on his apartment door.
A small hand full of “Social Scientists” challenged his selection and
interpretation of data. Major media dutifully reported the HCI assertion that
his studies were flawed and had been scientifically refuted.
The Gun Control groups had not even reviewed the study.
“ Forget it, there’s no way I’m going to look at
it. Don’t send it.” – (the study). And; “We can get favorable media
coverage whenever we want it.” Susan Glick-Violence Policy
Center when approached about appearing opposite Lott at the Cato Institute and
offered an opportunity to review and comment on the study.
Should
We Believe Him?
The temptation of course, is to
buy the entire package. After all,
he agrees with most of what we have been saying for most of our lives. Still, a
cautious approach is in order lest we lower ourselves to the level of
the anti-gun crowd. If we
have learned anything in the Culture War, it is a profound skepticism of
“scientific” opinion on the Gun Issue.
We need to keep our objectivity even when the professors agree with us.
In edition two of More
Guns, Less Crime, Lott presents
a detailed explanation of his
research methods and statistical tools. He also provides thorough answers to the
critics of his studies and refers to studies that have validated his data.
In the balance, his supporters outweigh his detractors both in numbers
and in credentials. Are the
research methods valid? What about his use of statistics? Do the Grey Eminencies
in the fields of Law and Economics who have spoken out in support make him more
believable?
I, and I expect most readers, find
that the intricacies of statistical
analysis cause my eyes to glaze over and my brain to fog.
However well written the explanations of “dummy-variables and
“ regression analysis” might be, I get no joy and little information
in reading them. Likewise, I understand that there is a “bandwagon effect”
in the academic community -as elsewhere- that might cause likeminded professors
to be less than objective about the works of their peers.
So, how can the layman-gun owner
make an informed decision about the validity and integrity of Lott’s work?
Chucky
Schumer and Handgun Control Inc Spring into Action
“…Perhaps most disturbing
is s Lott’s documentation of role of the media and academic commentators in
distorting research findings that they regard as politically incorrect.”
Edwin Meese III U.S Attorney
General 1985-88,
The nature and origin of the
criticisms offer some clues to the validity of Lott’s results. At no time did
anyone with academic standing attack his use of basic statistical tools. The
core data derives from public sources frequently used by both sides in the gun
control debate and is as accurate as any such data can be. Among the first
“refutations” of the study came from HCI and Chucky Schumer.
The most dangerous place to be in the District of Columbia is between
Chuck and a television camera. When
the Lott-Mustard study began to gain widespread circulation, Schumer quickly
announced that the project was funded by the Olin Foundation, A company that
makes ammunition. In his lust for media attention, Chuck had neglected to do his
homework. This caused an immediate and well-publicized response from
the Olin Foundation and the public quickly learned that the Foundation has no
relation to the Olin Company which owns Winchester Western. Further, Mr. Lott
works for the University of Chicago, was hired by the Faculty there and the Olin
Foundation has no knowledge or oversight of his research projects. Schumer’s
found that his accustomed attack tactics had backfired and his credibility was
shot. Lott responded to early media
attacks on the study by telling media shills that Handgun Control Inc. had
declined offers to read and comment upon advanced copies of his study and had
made up data they publicly attributed to the FBI.
He also convincingly refuted claims by HCI that he is a spokesman for the
gun culture, a racist and a nut who advocated arming schoolteachers. Media
interviewers wishing to profile Lott and his work quickly learned that HCI and
the other anti-gun groups were afraid to debate him in public forum. This became
very obvious after Lott appeared at a televised forum on ‘Gun Violence”
hosted by Handgun Control Inc. and proceeded to destroy the arguments of the
hacks assigned to repudiate the study. Handgun
Control Inc. had finally met their match. The usual shouting tactics were no
longer effective in the face of Lott's confident and comprehensive explanation
of his findings.
Aside from the tactics of personal
destruction, critics of the study also claimed that Lott had failed to study
factors other than the Concealed Handgun laws that could have caused the
observed reduction in crime. In almost every case, these criticisms merely
proved that the opposition had not read the study and that the factors were
covered in the original work. In
other cases, the extensive nature of the base data allowed Lott to re-run
studies controlling for additional variables and shutting down the critics once
again.
“…make no mistake. Lott
has painstakingly constructed a massive data set, analyzed it extensively and
commendably shared it with scholars across the Country. In these respects he
deserves high praise for following the scientific protocols so faithfully.”
Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue
III, American Law and Economics Review
A prime indication of Lott’s
integrity as a researcher is the care he takes in identifying the areas in which
the data is flawed or insufficient to support firm conclusions. From the first
publication and presentation of the study, Lott made his data and methods
available to other researchers affording them the opportunity to do independent
testing. A number of reputable
academics did exactly that and came up with essentially the same conclusions as
presented in the Lott project. Conversely,
no one presented a credible interpretation of the data or overall work that
would refute the major findings of the project.
If further evidence of Lott’s
believability is needed, consider the application of his findings to his
personal life. At the beginning of
this project, John Lott was not a gun owner. He and his wife lived in a “ gun-
free household” and believed that the risks associated with gun ownership
outweighed any potential benefits. This is no longer the case. Confronted with the overwhelming evidence that firearms
present an effective deterrent to violent crime,
the Lotts have acquired a gun.
We find that supporters of the
Second Amendment can feel very confident in accepting the validity of the
findings put forth in More Guns, Less Crime. John Lott Jr. has initiated a
revolution in the way the issue of gun control is studied. Revisiting the data
in light of subsequent events has served both to validate and refine the
original study. Consistent with
important scholarly research, the study has also provided a basic vehicle for
examining other important questions that arise from the data and its
interpretation. Questions such as “ How significantly have existing gun laws
contributed to the creation a pool of victims and influenced the growth of
violent crime,” and; “How many violent crimes occur in places where licensed
carry of concealed handguns is forbidden by law,” are now addressable by an
established research modality.
The database and methodology
developed by Lott has value over and above its contributions to gun control
research. It lends itself directly
to studying the effects of other factors that influence the growth or reduction
of Crime in general and violent crime in particular. The door is open for
examining the value of various policing modalities, sentencing patterns and a
broad array of public policy and demographic variables as they relate to
criminal behavior and its consequences.
| 