An armed America: Time for a change
BySeptember 24, 2009
The gun brandishing and outbursts at town hall meetings this summer were like a brain scan of the nation.
It was surprising, for instance, how off-point some parts of the national brain were. Criticism leveled at individuals with weapons, even if porting them was legal, were out of place and inappropriate, but seemed to not phase them at all.
Arms are instruments of threat and coercion; town hall meetings are about information and reason. Guns are not friendly persuasion.
None of the vehement negative protests made sense until I realized how this was foreshadowed about three years ago at a seminar I attended. A small group of journalists, filmmakers, academics and others were invited to share ideas about what was driving public opinion when it came to immigration. In 2006, numbers in the 70 percent range favored immigration reform but legislation got stuck in Congress as if a consensus didn’t exist.
In the mid-term congressional election that year and again in 2008, voters turned out many of those incumbents who favored either punitive approaches or who obstructed change.
The losses contributed to dragging the Republican Party from a majority to a minority in Congress. It was the coming apart of the political tapestry Richard Nixon had begun as early as the turbulent 1970s when he appealed to a “silent majority” who felt alienated by the anti-war and civil right protests.
Republicans were in a similar pickle again in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan appealed to religious groups, as a new constituency, and matters of conscience got into the platform. The “socialism” bugaboo was also thrown about rather recklessly in the political rhetoric of the time.
Now, in the face of Republican contraction, the shrinking size inspires divisive rhetoric like a primal scream.
The 2006 seminar I attended had a lesson that applies today.
A survey showed that roughly a quarter of the public at large is just opposed to any kind of change most of the time, especially measures that involve public expenditures or that appear to give anybody any kind of social “advantage.” This 25 percent mainly perceives itself as bearing the cost and doesn’t calculate benefits to them or others.
About 35 percent of the public is pro-reform. This group knows we can’t continue like this without paying later and that something serious needs to be done.
The struggle is for the hearts and minds of the 40 percent in the middle. They don’t have very well formed opinions on hot-button issues. They are the folks who take cookies over when new neighbors move in and that you see mostly around in church or at the PTA meeting. They are also less susceptible to facile fear mongering.
That’s why the 25-percenters gin up the fear, run all the issues together, turn on the fear factor, and let the angst spill over. Their goal is to get 25 percent plus 1 of the 40-percenters.
Now here’s the problem: the pro-reform 35-percenters need only 15 percent of the middle 40 percent, but liberals and progressives broadcast wonk and complexity, not lifestyle and living. They may be right but their discourse is like reading the fine print of an insurance policy. The message is lost in the details.
That dynamic now stands a good chance of stalemating the kinds of changes needed in health care, education and immigration. While the reactionaries deserve to lose decisively, the liberals and progressives compromise too much and too soon to the 25 percent they will never persuade.
To put the national train back on track means refocusing on reform. That’s done by talking to the middle 40 about the stewardship of the nation through health care, education and immigration to form a more competitive country in the global economy. No-Change means pushing the country into stagnation.
Most of all, tell them the No-Change side speaks for itself. They make as much sense as taking a gun to a town hall meeting or to the PTA.
(Jose de la Isla’s latest digital book, sponsored by The Ford Foundation, is available free at www.DayNightLifeDeathHope.com. He writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service.. E-mail him at joseisla3(at)yahoo.com.)
43 Responses to An armed America: Time for a change
Pogo
September 24, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Only a sheeple or a subversive would want people to give up their guns when ruled by the most subverted, corrupt, evil and violent government the world has ever known here in the US.
Tell you what, once the government has been fully disarmed, I will join the gun banners. Until then, there are millions of large plastic polygaurd FEMA coffins being piled up around the US waiting for fat sheeple to fill them.
Sleep tight…
Carl Nemo
September 25, 2009 at 1:40 am
Hear hear Pogo…! : )
Carl Nemo **==
Procrustes
September 25, 2009 at 4:37 am
when ruled by the most subverted, corrupt, evil and violent government the world has ever known here in the US
There is Gazelle 1928′s point. Talk like this is inflammatory and lends support to people who would hang someone for being a census taker.
And you and those like you have deluded yourselves about the quality and value of the government. Take a look at Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, to name just a few of many. Anyone who believes that the US is in that league may sleep tight, but is not wrapped too tight. Seek professional help, guy, you need it.
woody188
September 25, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I think you misunderstood. He’s saying it’s the worst government the US has ever seen, not the world.
They snatch people off the street without charges. They torture them. They hold them indefinitely. They don’t allow them to see any charges or evidence against them or give them a chance to refute any charges. They spy on all of our telephone, email, and internet activity. Recently I’ve found they track the GPS data from our phones so they know where we are at every point in the day so long as we have our cell phones. They can turn on our cell phones remotely and ease drop in on conversations which is why all cell phones now have speakerphone capability. All without warrant. Who is the delusional one?
Heck, this website may or may not have received an NSL from the Bush Administration because of these types of discussions taking place. They are watching you whether you want to believe it or not.
Case in point, the recent arrest of a “terrorism” suspect for lying to Federal authorities. They didn’t find any bomb making material. He didn’t blow anything up. All they have is he lied about being friends with one of their FBI informants. But he is now in jail, just like that fellow from North Carolina. At least we assume they are in jail, since they essentially disappear after arrest. All it takes is for them to call you a terrorist and poof, you are gone quite possibly forever. Is this the USA or Communist China?
I think Woodrow Wilson might have been the worst in damaging the USA, but Junior Bush comes in a close second and was certainly the most imperialistic US President ever. That is until Obama invades another country in the Middle East. Bush Doctrine is essentially manifest destiny under a new name and Obama is continuing it’s practice.
Procrustes
September 25, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I misinterpreted nothing. If that’s what the person meant he did a crappy job of conveying the message. Sounds to me like your being an apologist.
As to this crap:
Recently I’ve found they track the GPS data from our phones so they know where we are at every point in the day so long as we have our cell phones. They can turn on our cell phones remotely and ease drop in on conversations which is why all cell phones now have speakerphone capability. All without warrant. Who is the delusional one?
I submit that people who believe that the government is using their phones to track them and to “ease drop” on them is seriously delusional. The word you are looking for is eavesdrop by the way.
almandine
September 25, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Welcome to the crapper.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-150467.html
Procrustes
September 25, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Good Lord! Do they do this stuff without a warrant? Or is it that they can do it?
almandine
September 25, 2009 at 8:29 pm
They do what they want, when they want.
Can you say Patriot Act?
Warren
September 25, 2009 at 9:36 pm
New term: Hoplophobia
I came across this term during some web surfing. It is a clinically recognized condition described as “a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons” (Wikipedia). The term was first used by a firearms instructor, Colonel Jeff Cooper, in 1962. According to Cooper, “the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user.” According to Wikipedia, it’s not uncommon in PTSD sufferers.
—W—
woody188
September 25, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I’m telling you I’m not crazy. And I think maybe we’ve just gotten off on the wrong foot. If you see what I’ve seen and approach it from a scientific/academic standpoint and forget all the pre-conceived notions of what you think of the USA, you will find the USA you love is no longer in existence.
And yes, it was eavesdrop, thanks. Was in a hurry due to family matters. I spend lots of time editing posts so in general I catch most mistakes but some inevitably make it through. I actually believe my typos are less frequent than most AP stories.
Note that zdnet article is from 2006. So they have been remotely tapping cell phones for at least 3 years already.
Here is another that will kill you. The first illegal wiretaps set up by the Bush Administration began before 9/11 occured. So the terrorism justification for the illegal taps is entirely false. Obama continues these same programs and uses the same justifications today.
If we stop to think about it this would also mean random taps don’t work because they didn’t prevent 9/11.
Ready for some 9/11 truth?
Wait for my next blog entry. It’s important enough to risk the ban from Doug. I’m just hoping he respects the journalism work in it enough to allow me to discuss that forbidden topic.
Warren
September 27, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Doug’s position on this matter may come from more than just personal whim. We should respect it, ban or no.
—W—
woody188
September 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I agree, but when the members of the 9/11 Commission all come forward and state they were purposefully lied to and that the conclusions they came to are entirely false, I think it’s time to report that but corporate media doesn’t think so.
Sandra Price
September 24, 2009 at 7:57 am
This article makes no sense to me. The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms even at town hall meetings. I am not the one to take on this subject but there are many here who will.
Sandy
gazelle1929
September 24, 2009 at 9:04 am
That is not correct. The Second Amendment does not give one the right to bear arms where there carrying a weapon is prohibited. Insignificant places like courtrooms, schools, public office buildings, hospitals, nursing homes, sports stadia, airplanes, buses, trains, of course, but places nonetheless. In fact, it is illegal to carry a weapon into or onto any property where the person responsible for that property has posted prohibiting signs.
How many places do we go everyday where we see a no firearms sign? Not enough in my opinion.
anoyaliberal
September 24, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Your right Sandra the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms and is one of our most highly prized rights!It was not put in the Constitution of the United States of America so people could make it a sport or go hunting or use in the Olympics tho all of those are worthwhile activities It is there so we the people can protect ourselves from our own government if it ever got out of hand and started imposing unrealistic and unwanted mandates and tax’s on the people so it is really no surprise that the garbage and lies spewing forth from Washington these days have led people to ( in a manner of speaking ) show their teeth at town hall meetings which is exactly where they need to do it. across
Siannan
September 24, 2009 at 9:13 am
I dunno Sandy. I recently ran across an article (I think I linked to it through Reader Rant) about a couple who were denied the opportunity to have a float in the local parade. The content of their float was to portray Barrack Obama as Adolf Hitler. In their screed to the local Editor of the daily rag, one of the items they stated as the reason for claiming Barrack = Adolf was that our current President is actively working behind the scenes to quietly repeal the second amendment, and that once he did that, all our precious guns would be gone (I’m paraphrasing, but you get the gist of the matter).
Anyway, this horrible denial of their free speech rights (the denial of a parade float that had nothing to do with their free speech rights, since the organizers of the parade had every right to determine who could and could not have a float in THEIR parade) was further proof to them of the deterioration of the constitutional values our country was founded on. To me, this is more and more indicitive of the nutcases encouraged by fools like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to believe that our government is being subverted and turned into a fascist state (which is nonsense).
Hence, you have nuts bringing guns to town hall meetings.
anoyaliberal
September 24, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Afraid to call them what they are? PATRIOTS
Sandra Price
September 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm
One can never account for bad taste. In Pasadena floats like you described would never be allowed in the Rose Parade.
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do not bother me in the least; it is the people who listen to them and take them seriously. It’s just a lack of academic education. Our government is not subverted but the voters are. I believe the Secret Service has the right to ban guns when the President speaks. Town Hall meetings are simply a result of bad manners.
Sandra Price
September 24, 2009 at 10:47 am
I am not an expert in gun laws. I have asked one who is to come here with his expert opinion on the situation.
Anywhere the President is presented to the people, there should be no guns allowed except the secret service. I don’t know if this is a valid reason. I do know that gun violence has increased in my area of N.W. Phoenix. I have bars on my windows at home and do not answer the phone or door after 7 PM, unless I’m hosting a meeting. My guard dogs are dead after protecting me for a combination of 25 years and I’m too old to train another dog.
woody188
September 24, 2009 at 10:51 am
Debates would be a lot more honest if we all were packing heat.
Reform sure, but not reform written by lobbyists to take more from everyone and concentrate wealth further like the current health care insurance reform bills and cap-and-tax laws do.
When Jose talks of ‘stewardship of the nation’ he means how to make the 40% pay for reforms while not allowing them any say in the proposed reforms. Real reform would take little convincing.
The country is already stagnate. We’re at only 60% of our industrial capacity. But that doesn’t mean rush ahead and make the wrong types of changes. I see Jose doesn’t mention that so called free trade, the global economy, and unrestricted immigration are reasons for the decline of the USA. You think Jose might harbor a little bias?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain
Naturalist
September 24, 2009 at 11:00 am
This one is easy. In the old west sometimes you had to give up your gun upon entering the town and almost always at court proceedings, voting and town hall meetings. Common sense tells you that it is best to remove firearms from areas that might end up in a heated discussion.
Procrustes
September 24, 2009 at 11:43 am
Let’s just let everyone carry concealed weapons. Then think about that next football game. The hometown hero had darned sight better not fumble that football with 75,000 pistols ready to blow his sorry but to atoms.
Firearms are nasty atavisms that have no place in a civilized society. Period. If we cannot solve our problems without firearms we are not a society, we are a mob.
woody188
September 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The weapons were not concealed which is why it was legal to carry them. Had they been concealed no one would probably even know they were there. Could you find the Secret Service by looking for their guns without the tell-tale dark suit and earpiece?
The people cited in the news were at Obama’s town hall as part of an organized gun protest group. They had a permit and the police knew who they were and who was carrying a gun. The news stories were staged for your pleasure.
Concealed-carry permits exist in many states, but that is part of changing from common Germanic law to Federalized Roman type of law. Under common law, it isn’t illegal to carry a non-concealed weapon and by requiring a permit to carry concealed, the message is that all carrying of guns is illegal.
So you don’t think law enforcement should carry guns in civilized society?
My brother walks the beat in Akron, OH and I can tell you, he wouldn’t do it without a gun. In fact, I’m sure even if guns were outlawed entirely he would demand one for that job.
Mobs will kill and maim with or without guns. Look up any mob in history and people died from being beaten to death as much as anything else. Guns don’t make a mob as they existed before guns. Injustice and poverty create mobs.
Clearly our guns are one of the only reasons our government has restrained itself from totalitarianism this last decade.
Carl Nemo
September 24, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“Firearms are nasty atavisms that have no place in a civilized society.”… extract from post
A nice thought Procrustes; it’s just too bad oppressive governments along with the ever-scheming crimpols and faceless bureaucrats that run them don’t share the same views. /:|
*****
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
*****
Carl Nemo **==
gazelle1929
September 24, 2009 at 1:15 pm
>Clearly our guns are one of the only reasons our government has restrained itself from totalitarianism this last decade.
You really believe that hornswaggle, don’t you? Must be tough living like that, always wondering if the next helicopter has your name on it.
woody188
September 24, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Not tough at all because I’m not paranoid despite your attempt to paint me as such.
It would be tougher to close my eyes and lick the boots of your masters. Impossible for me to do, in fact. I will live free or die trying.
giving-up-in-nc
September 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm
>Clearly our guns are one of the only reasons our government has restrained itself from totalitarianism this last decade.<
The Branch Davidians had lots of weapons at Waco Texas and we see how that all turned out.
Like it or not the firepower of the state dwarfs anything private citizens can scrape together.
woody188
September 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm
In direct conflict yes, but in guerrilla warfare like Afghanistan it is the population that has the advantage unless the stronger power is willing to take on a policy of genocide.
Time is on the side of the native population.
Sandra Price
September 24, 2009 at 1:32 pm
We have opinions about what should and should not be legal. It’s like abortion, gay marriages and assisted suicide. Can you even imagine a police state from D.C. watching everything we do, smoke, sleep with or even try to marry someone we love? Who makes the rules that we ask the government to enforce? We know what the founders wanted and they insisted we live by our own choices.
Our newspaper this morning announced that the “Hell’s Angels” are now part of our street gangs. That calls for an armed society who will stop these thugs from helping themselves to our stuff!
Why not get a group together and live in a state where guns, abortions, and gays are banned? Then you can stop forcing your laws on the rest of us.
giving-up-in-nc
September 24, 2009 at 1:38 pm
We even have a sign prohibiting guns from our dump/landfill in N.C. I don’t own a gun myself but I don’t have a problem with people who do, and use them for protection in their homes, for hunting, and target shooting, etc.
But IMHO the ones that have some mental need to strut their gun stuff around town is just a bit odd to me. I guess it’s legal to walk around with a lamp strapped to your waist too… but why?
anoyaliberal
September 24, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Far,to many.
Sandra Price
September 25, 2009 at 5:47 pm
In Arizona there are no signs to ban guns. There are enough prohibitions already in America. You seem angry at everything on this CHB blog. Is there anything you like about this world? I can only hope you are happy where you live, because Arizona would not understand your prohibitions. I would imagine there are a lot of prohibitions on your list.
Guns are welcome in our bars but I don’t know about churches as I do not attend churches.
Warren
September 24, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I’d be long dead and buried in the desert if not for carrying a concealed firearm. It’s a long story and I won’t recount it here. Firearms probably save a lot more lives, both directly and indirectly, than are used in the taking of life (excluding war) – but the statistics don’t exist.
—W—
almandine
September 24, 2009 at 7:04 pm
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
Warren
September 24, 2009 at 9:26 pm
In Defense of Self Defense. See the blog entry I just added. This is basically the same text I’ve used for the past several years during campaigns to describe my feelings on the matter. I’m not running for anything right now, there’s no campaign, so it’s not a political issue.
—W—
Sandra Price
September 24, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Bravo Warren. The more out of control the American people become, the greater our need to be armed. I’ve read threats that President Obama will disarm us and I find that ridiculous.
The cost of locating and removing arms from Americans would cost more than the Iraqi and Afghanistan war put together. If you thing the prohibition of alcohol brought in crime, try it with guns.
We all must be aware of the prohibitions coming from both parties and quietly vote them out of office. I received a letter from Huckabee who wants all sins mentioned in the bible to be put into the Constitution. His cute and folksy ways are simply an act for people to trust him. I’ve had enough of people on both sides of the aisle who want us to stop thinking for ourselves and follow what ever they believe will be for our own benefit. So far only one Republican has refused to discuss the prohibitions and that is Ron Paul.
Warren
September 24, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Nice fact sheet. Thanks, almandine. I’ve bookmarked it.
—W—
gazelle1929
September 24, 2009 at 8:04 pm
The statistics in that url don’t seem logical, particularly the one that says there are 2.5 million incidents in a year where guns are used to deter a criminal. That’s almost 7000 a day, or five times a minute every minute of the year. Think about that. When’s the last time you saw in the paper or on the news any indication that every 13 seconds someone used a gun to deter a crime.
Further, the claim is made that of the 2.5 million a year in less than 8 percent of the cases the citizen kills or wounds the perpetrator. Let’s use 8 percent. That would mean that 200,000 perps are killed or wounded every year. Almost 550 every day.
Doesn’t that sound awfully high? 22 plus every hour? Don’t you think that might make the newspapers or Fox News, which I’d bet would LOVE to report that there were 550 perps shot today. Know why you don’t read it? Well, it isn’t true, that’s why.
The Centers for Disease Control reported that there were about 115,000 gunshot injuries every year from 1993-1998. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm And that includes victims of crimes, accidental injuries, and suicides. Can someone explain to me how we can have 200,000 wounds and deaths from crime-preventing incidents when the CDC shows a TOTAL of slightly more than half of that every year?
People, please think about this. If a number seems unreasonable or illogical, it probably is. And if the first two numbers claimed in the url above are suspect, can you trust any of the others without doing careful research? People use numbers like this because they have an axe to grind. They are lying to you. And you accuse the President of lying about a bill pending in the Congress but accept blindly a number like 2.5 million gun incidents when it cannot possibly be true.
The National Institute of Justice published a research paper in 1997
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm
on this subject. I suggest that you read starting on page 8 the section entitled Defensive Gun Uses. What you find there may be enlightening (provided you choose to be enlightened.)
almandine
September 24, 2009 at 8:52 pm
It’s true that the number of firearms uses in this report seems high… and granted, the data are somewhat dated. However, there are many legitimate references in the bibliography, and then there’s this DOJ report:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
which also has some interesting data. For example, they report about 1,250,000 victims of gun-related violence in 1993. The numbers in that report decreased to about 500,000 per year in 2005. Do these sound any more believable?
The report you cite is also about gun-related injuries, which is hardly the same issue. While the numbers in the report you cite are indeed much lower, the DOJ report above also said that incidents with gun-related injuries accounted for less than 1% of the total number of gun-related incidents. Are they lying too?
Returning to the url I cited, you took issue with the first 2 bullets. There is much more in there worth thinking about.
There are also many informative articles and reports available by googling “guns save lives”…
gazelle1929
September 25, 2009 at 11:04 am
“Returning to the url I cited, you took issue with the first 2 bullets. There is much more in there worth thinking about.”
Yep. You certainly are correct in that. I spent a couple of hours on this, and I’ll share with you what I found and what I think. But since it disagrees with what most people here want to hear, I’m pretty certain I’m beating my head against a brick wall. I just want to get one or two people to think about blindly accepting statistics simply because they turn up in a url (and primarily because those statistics reinforce a previously-determined mindset.)
Let’s look at some of the other statistics in your url:
“This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.”
This is the citation to the sentence above:
According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
We’ve pretty much agreed, you and I, that the 2.5 million number was wrong. But let’s examine it a bit further, shall we? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there were half a million defensive gun uses (DGUs) annually. What part of those was as the result of property as opposed to person protection? I haven’t yet found a breakdown, but common sense says that most DGUs are in response to proerty crimes, robberies, B&Es, trespassing, vandalism, etc. I think you get the picture. It is beyond reason to expect that guns were used 80 times more often to protect live than to take it.
“As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.” “As many as” makes this just an absolutely meaningless statistic. Why not say “As many as 20 million”? This is a throwaway number.
Next number: “. . . Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). . . . “
For starters, this is the citation for those numbers:
Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
Oh, look. Kleck. He’s the same person that came up with the 2.5 million number which you admitted wasn’t likely accurate. So we should reject that number and accept this number because it’s in a different book? Let’s accept it. Why do citizens kill more than twice as many perps as police do? Hmmm. There’s lots more citizens. Even in the police state that many people here allege. And citizens are THERE when the crimes are committed. That’s two pretty good reasons why this number may well be accurate. But I will not blindly accept what Kleck says just because it’s published in a book. No way.
Next statistic:
“only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”
This apparently came from a Newsweek article, not to be found on the net. But I did find that it was based on data from some guy named Don Kates, but I spent half an hour googling and could not find whence his data. If the data were that good, a reasonable person might conclude that it would be findable.
“Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.” This is from an article by George Will, and guess who the source was. Kleck!
The next number we find:
“Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. “
Well, I’ll be darned. Kleck again. What a coinkeedink.
Then there’s this from your url:
“States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10”
I don’t know whether these are good statistics, but this is from the wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
Research into the effect of concealed carry laws on the incidence of crime has yielded mixed results. In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott’s analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott’s conclusions remain controversial. Yale Law Professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres, for example, have claimed that Lott’s conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott’s tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed.[36] Such criticism by Donahue and Ayres appears questionable, however, when one considers a recent analysis that criticizes their data set for being too narrow. An article by Moody and Marvel indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the cost of crime. This is according to the more extensive data set of Moody and Marvel, as well as the data set of Donahue and Ayres when projected beyond a five-year span.[37] The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, similarly claims to have found “no credible evidence” supporting Lott’s thesis.[38]
I have a great deal of respect for Ayres, and I certainly intend to read his article on this subject, which is available here:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf
And when the National Academy of Sciences find “no credible evidence” supporting Lott’s thesis, that ought to make one think twice about the conclusions he reached.
almandine
September 25, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I agreed that the numbers seem high at first glance, but I did not say they were wrong – just dated. Mine was a statement about being skeptical, not a bald-face attack on something for which I had no personal expertise. In fact, they would square with this quote you provided.
What is interesting, is that these numbers are within striking distance of the DOJ report I cited but you ignore. In that report the DOJ indicates that there were about 1,250,000 victims of gun crime in 1993 which fell to about 500,000 in 2005. They also state that gun-related injuries accounted for less than 1% of total gun-related incidents. Are they lying too?
Who, pray tell, would deny “statistics simply because they turn up in a url (and primarily because those statistics reinforce a previously-determined mindset.)”? Talk about projection.
My regards to Ayers, but should you look around this area from an academic perspective, and study data acquisition as applied therein, you will see that Kleck is generally given high marks for his work. Perhaps his numbers are not replicated as much as is possible, because of the substance of a note I found elsewhere indicating that gun use statistics are generally skewed to the minimalist side because of fear that admitting such gun use could lead to prosecution. In fact, the report you cite indicates such problems with reliability of its data.
What is clear in it all, though, is that there are far too many violent crimes committed with a gun, and that the ability to defend oneself is a necessity. There’s an old saying, “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight,” nor to quote Warren, a cell phone.
woody188
September 25, 2009 at 1:44 pm
You still cite deaths/injuries while almandine’s link cites brandishing, threatening, and warning shots. That is the difference between your links and his.
Also, you glaze right over the his DOJ link that confirms many of the numbers from his other URL while still pushing your deaths and injuries numbers as being the only correct numbers.
Personally I feel the numbers from 1991 to 2005 are probably skewed due to that period being a time of great economic increase from technology advances. It was probably as much a reduction in poverty that lowered the crime rates as any concealed carry law. Note the increase in crime since 2005. Wouldn’t surprise me if there have been huge spikes in recent years either as millions of people have dropped into poverty.
But it’s easy to cite Britain, which has outlawed firearms but has seen an increase in violent crime after doing so. For instance, you are far more likely to have a break-in while someone is at home (some 45% of break-ins) in Britain while in the USA that number is just 12% of break-ins. This is most likely due to fear of the owner being armed in the USA.
Hey look, I’m using the census data that I don’t think should be collected to make my point. Yay. Just think, if I had my way, you could argue these facts as fictions of my mind. Go go census power!
Siannan
September 25, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Idiots works well for me.