Date sent: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:05:28 -0400 From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights] Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Steve Tucker wrote:
> > I guess I'll weigh in also.
> > All of the insinuations and outright name-calling seem non-productive, to say
> > the least. I think we can safely assume that we all share a desire to see the
> > overall level of violence decrease, whether in the schools or in society at
> > large.
> > I propose a test to determine whether rational debate is possible for this topic
> > on this list, in the form of two questions. (1) If there existed a
> > preponderance of evidence showing that violence does in fact _decrease_ when
> > guns are readily available, would the anti-gun forces actually change their
> > stripes? (2) If there existed a preponderance of evidence showing that violence
> > does in fact _increase_ when guns are readily available, would the pro-gun
> > forces renounce their faith in the proliferation of the weapons? If the answer
> > to either question is "no" (as I rather suspect it is) then rational debate is
> > impossible and no one will allow themselves to become susceptible to whatever
> > evidence or argument the "other side" may offer. A counter-productive
> > enterprise to say the least (though perhaps illuminating to any who do not feel
> > knowlegdeable enough to take a position).
> This is too simplistic. Readily available to who? Even if guns are outlawed here
> today, the criminals will still have ready access to guns to their hearts desire,
> there are so many squirreled away. Given this, and since it has already been
> conclusively proven that crime does in fact go down when guns are readily available
> and can be carried concealed by law abiding citizens, then I can say, ok. A telling
> fact is that Prof. John Lott's original study was done under the employ of Handgun
> Control Inc, until his results showed the opposite of what HCI wanted him to prove.
> HCI took him to court to prevent him from attaching their name in any way to the
> study, and despite the fact that his study covers the largest sample of crime data
> in history (all FBI crime stats from 1979 to 1995), the gun crime researchers who
> are invested in the gun control cause insist on calling his study 'flawed'.
> > I will contribute that I have seen studies of these questions conducted by
> > Professor Lott of Chicago, and am unaware of any party discovering major flaws
> > in his and his associates' work. The studies strongly suggest that overall
> > levels of violence, death, and injury decrease when concealed-carry is legal.
> > They also show specifically that mass-shooting incidents such as at Columbine
> > also decrease markedly. Finally, when analyzing the lawsuits pending against
> > gun manufacturers, they conclude that gun ownership saves society far more money
> > and people (in terms of crimes, injuries, and deaths prevented) than they cost
> > in terms of illegal shootings and suicides. If anyone has missed the previous
> > references to this work on this list, I'm sure I can dig them up.
> > I am curious to know if anyone can present evidence (not flaming rhetoric) that
> > suggests the opposite conclusion.
> They can't which is why they get into their hysterical spitting moods...
> Mike Lorrey
It cannot be argusd that removing guns selectively from those with the propensity to lawlessly and/or irresponsibly use them (convicted violent criminals, children, the mentally deficient or deranged, spouse and/or child abusers) would provide the maximum in societal protection. However, the pro-gunners are addicted to punishment and immune to prevention. They would rather have Harris and Klebold shoot up a school full of kids, and then punish them, than to adopt reasonable and rational measures designed to prevent the guns from getting into their hands.