Date sent: Thu, 27 May 1999 20:49:14 -0500 From: Steve Tucker <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights] To: firstname.lastname@example.org Send reply to: email@example.com
> "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'.
> OK, by "readily available" I meant legalized concealed carry. Available to law-abiding
> 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.
> - Steve
Well, now such evidence has been posted, and since you don't like its conclusions, you'll do your dead-level best to ignore or impeach it.