To continue on the subject of FACTS (remember those?) Prof. John Lott's
work on the gun issue has been offered by the pro gun side as "the"
definitive work on the subject.
Can any anti-gunners offer any comparable, scientifically rigorous work to
refute the evidence presented by the other side?
Can any anti-gunners offer any comparable, scientifically rigorous work to refute the evidence presented by the other side?
Remember everyone, hard, cold facts don't go away just because you dont want to believe them.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael S. Lorrey [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 8:24 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
> Steve Tucker wrote:
> > 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.
> The largest study done that shows evidence for gun control was a study of
> five hand picked
> counties at different times, that demonstrated that crime went up. It was
> such a small
> sample that in each case the increase in crime was attributable to a
> single individual or
> gang in that jurisdiction on a continuous string of crimes. I don't recall
> the name of the
> person who did the study, but she was the person who called Prof. Lott's
> study 'flawed'. I
> know he mentions her in the back of his book.
> Mike Lorrey