"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> Steve Tucker wrote:
> > 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'.
> Steve Tucker wrote:
OK, by "readily available" I meant legalized concealed carry. Available to law-abiding citizens.
I also found it significant that Lott began the study expecting to validate the gan-banners' preconceptions, but had the intellectual honesty to believe what the data told him.
> > 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...
My main point was to find out if anyone is even interested in evidence here. So far I've seen evidence backing the increased benefits to society of gun ownership, but none for gun banning. No one has officially asked (on this list anyway) if someone knows of such evidence, so I thought I'd step forward.