Whither Gun Control?

Saturday, May 22, 2004

By John R. Lott, Jr.

What is happening to the gun control movement?

This month, the Million Mom March in Washington drew an anemic
showing of only 2,000 people, while this year, all of the
Democratic presidential candidates however unenthusiastically
spoke of Americans’ Second Amendment right to own guns. These
are just a few of the signs that the facts finally seem to be
catching up to the movement. The future for the movement looks
even worse.

Whether the subject is concealed handgun laws or bans on
semi-automatic so-called assault weapons, gun control debates
have been filled with apocalyptic claims about what will happen
if gun control is not adopted. One common prediction is that laws
allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon will result in crime
waves, or permit holders shooting others. However, with 37 states
now having right-to-carry laws , and another nine states letting
some citizens carry, permit holders have continually shown
themselves to be extremely law-abiding. It is becoming more and
more difficult to attack those laws.

Disarray among gun controllers is becoming common, even on one
cornerstone of the gun control movement — the semi-automatic gun
ban. Take the statements made on National Public Radio by a
representative of the Violence Policy Center just one week after
the assault weapon extension was defeated in the Senate this
March.

NPR described the VPC as "one of the more aggressive gun groups
in Washington." Yet the VPC's representative claimed: If the
existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe
it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms
of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting
a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it
doesn’t pass, it doesn’t pass.

The NPR reporter noted: "[the Violence Policy Center's
representative] says that's all the [assault-weapons ban] brought
about, minor changes in appearance that didn't alter the function
of these weapons.

Yet, before the Senate vote the VPC had long claimed that it was
a "myth" that "assault weapons merely look different. The NRA and
the gun industry today portray assault weapons as misunderstood
ugly ducklings, no different from other semi-automatic guns. But
while the actions, or internal mechanisms, of all semi-automatic
guns are similar, the actions of assault weapons are part of a
broader design package. The 'ugly' looks of the TEC-9, AR-15,
AK-47 and similar guns reflect this package of features designed
to kill people efficiently."

So why the sudden disarray after the Senate defeat? Simply,
gun-control groups' credibility is on the line and they are
getting cold feet. With no academic research showing the assault
weapons ban reduces crime, gun control groups realize that soon
it will be obvious to everyone that their predicted horror
stories about "assault weapons" were completely wrong.

Internationally, dramatic gun control victories in countries such
as England, Australia, and Canada are also unraveling.

— Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in
January 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. Yet,
serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29 percent
higher than 1996; robbery was 24 percent higher; murders 27
percent higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50
percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned,
the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

— Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar after its
Port Arthur gun control measures (search) in late 1996. Violent
crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after
the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year
before the law in 1996. The same comparisons for armed robbery
rates showed increases of 45 percent.

— The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most
recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England
and Australia was twice the rate in the US.

— Canada has not gone anywhere near as far as the United Kingdom
or Australia. Nevertheless, their gun registration system is
costing roughly a thousand times more than promised and has grown
to be extremely unpopular, with only 17 percent of Canadians in a
poll release this week supporting the system. Nor does the system
seem to be providing any protection. The Canadian government
recently admitted that they could not identify even a single
violent crime that had been solved by registration.

Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is
that if the law-abiding citizens obey the laws and the criminals
don’t, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend
themselves. While the debate is hardly over, gun control is just
another example of government planning that hasn’t lived up to
its billing. And like other types of government planning,
eventually its failures become too overwhelming to ignore.

John Lott, Jr., is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute and is the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery
2004).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120638,00.html


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , Gunner says...

So why the sudden disarray after the Senate defeat? Simply,
gun-control groups' credibility is on the line ...

Well at least they're not dressing up in women's undies
and prancing around on the internet. Sorry Gunner but
Mary Roush has about as much credibility with me as
Moore has with you. Unhappy facts of life but I suspect
if you check your credibility-O-meter you will
understand where I'm coming from.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 23 May 2004 11:28:46 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

So why the sudden disarray after the Senate defeat? Simply,
gun-control groups' credibility is on the line ...

Well at least they're not dressing up in women's undies
and prancing around on the internet. Sorry Gunner but
Mary Roush has about as much credibility with me as
Moore has with you. Unhappy facts of life but I suspect
if you check your credibility-O-meter you will
understand where I'm coming from.

Jim

Shrug..lots of folks with unsavory practices you probably approved of
at one time or another. Ben Franklin, (liked little girls..a lot),
etc etc..and of course..Bill Clinton. shrug.

Lott **** in his messkit. But that neither changes his research one
way or another. Or are you claiming Bill Clinton was completly a wash
as a Prez?

EG

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , Gunner says...


Lott **** in his messkit. But that neither changes his research one
way or another.

For me it does. His credibility *might* go up after
a time - maybe ten years or so. But that will always
be there.

Or are you claiming Bill Clinton was completly a wash
as a Prez?

Why *do* you have such a fixation on him? He did some
good, he did some bad, as president. But he's gone down
in history as the 'man with the blue dress.' Nobody
can change that. Same as nixon and the tapes, carter
and playboy magazine. etc.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 24 May 2004 05:58:38 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...


Lott **** in his messkit. But that neither changes his research one
way or another.

For me it does. His credibility *might* go up after
a time - maybe ten years or so. But that will always
be there.

See your next paragraph below. Seems you are a victim of your own
double standards, no?

Or are you claiming Bill Clinton was completly a wash
as a Prez?

Why *do* you have such a fixation on him? He did some
good, he did some bad, as president. But he's gone down
in history as the 'man with the blue dress.' Nobody
can change that. Same as nixon and the tapes, carter
and playboy magazine. etc.

Jim

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:11:14 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote --

Lott **** in his messkit. But that neither changes his
research one way or another.

Lott's 'messkit' is his research.

Shrug..Still waiting for an answer to the question
"is the right to keep and bear arms an individual right" in the US.

Yes or no.

Its obvious why you refuse to answer..and its quite telling about your
intellectual honesty.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , Gunner says...

See your next paragraph below. Seems you are a victim of your own
double standards, no?

Not at all. Lott's core business depends on his truthfulness
and reliabilty in print. The Roush thing did more than decimate
that.

Clinton (and all those other folks) are politicians. They're
supposed to lie and sleaze.

The difference is subtle but real.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:11:14 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote --

Lott **** in his messkit. But that neither changes his
research one way or another.

Lott's 'messkit' is his research.

Shrug.

IOW, you don't care that Lott is a discredited and dishonest
hack economist.

...

Shrug..Still waiting for an answer to the question
"is the right to keep and bear arms an individual right" in the US.

Yes or no.


Inquiring minds are anxiously awaiting your answer, Carl.

michael

Mary Roush has about as much credibility with me as
Moore

The real comparison is the Mary Roush affair is like Abu Ghraib prison
scandal.
If you are a liberal, find the tiniest thing wrong with a conservative
and focus on it.

Should we someday find out that Pres George W. Bush, himself, commited
littering in 1954, we have our headlines for a month.

--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

In article , Clark Magnuson says...

If you are a liberal, find the tiniest thing wrong with a conservative
and focus on it.

Clark, *why* do you have to be liberal to find the image of
Lott playing 'dress-up' on the internet, tooting his own
horn shamelessly, as completely hilarious?

I think that folks of all persuasion can see that what he
did destroyed his journalistic credentials for a long, long
time. It would be like you, replying to yourself here on the
ng, saying, 'yep, uh huh, that guy Clark is just the *best*,
he knows _so_ much, and I'm So impressed with everything
he writes here!'

You may be a smart, skilled individual, but pretending to
be somebody else to puff up your own image is wrong. Almost
anyone can see that. You don't do that. He shouldn't either.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 24 May 2004 11:24:12 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

See your next paragraph below. Seems you are a victim of your own
double standards, no?

Not at all. Lott's core business depends on his truthfulness
and reliabilty in print. The Roush thing did more than decimate
that.

Clinton (and all those other folks) are politicians. They're
supposed to lie and sleaze.

They are Supposed to lie and Sleaze? With an attitude like that..no
wonder you are a Democrat.

Geeeeze.

The difference is subtle but real.

Jim

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:29:34 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:11:14 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote --

Lott **** in his messkit. But that neither changes his
research one way or another.

Lott's 'messkit' is his research.

Shrug.

IOW, you don't care that Lott is a discredited and dishonest
hack economist.

...
Still waiting, Cattle

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:27:49 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:29:34 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:11:14 GMT, Carl Nisarel

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote --

Lott **** in his messkit. But that neither changes his
research one way or another.

Lott's 'messkit' is his research.

Shrug.

IOW, you don't care that Lott is a discredited and
dishonest hack economist.

...
Still waiting

We are waiting for you to explain why you are using
'research' from a discredited hack.

We are still waiting to find out why you will not answer the question
about Individual Rights.

You have become null and void. Thanks for playing.

Bye.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

In article , Gunner says...

They are Supposed to lie and Sleaze? With an attitude like that..no
wonder you are a Democrat.

No. A Pragmatist - like you. If you really think that the stripes
are any different on the Republi-tigers than on the Demo-tigers,
then I've severely mis-judged you.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 25 May 2004 09:11:38 -0700, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

In article , Gunner says...

They are Supposed to lie and Sleaze? With an attitude like that..no
wonder you are a Democrat.

No. A Pragmatist - like you. If you really think that the stripes
are any different on the Republi-tigers than on the Demo-tigers,
then I've severely mis-judged you.

_Both_ are repainted skunks.

--
Life's a Frisbee: When you die, your soul goes up on the roof.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, jim rozen wrote:



I think that folks of all persuasion can see that what he
did destroyed his journalistic credentials for a long, long
time.



Lott wasn't a journalist, he was an academic researcher. Now
that he's blown his reputation as an academic, all he can do is
publish op-ed articles in newspapers. He's become a journalist.


I watched on C-span a few years back, a pier review of "More Guns, Less
Crime".
The other professors of economics that were proficient in econo metrics
one by one went to the podium and tried to find fault.
To quote one professor before his presentation he said with a snarl,
"It turns out the gun nuts were right."

To make an analogy, if Newton put on a dress and dance the Hokie Pokie,
rocket engines would still work.
Likewise, concealed carry permits when introduced, will lower the crime
in that state, no matter how many variables are normalized.

--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Clark Magnuson
wrote:



Likewise, concealed carry permits when introduced, will
lower the crime in that state, no matter how many variables
are normalized.



You don't know what you're talking about, do you?


An armed society is a polite society, and that goes for muggings too,
hence the change in crime rate.
If we could kill each other with a click of the mouse right now, you
might have a more honest and sincere dialog.
As it is, you chose pointless insults with neither technical merit or wit.

--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

In article , Clark Magnuson says...

To make an analogy, if Newton put on a dress and danced the Hokie Pokie,
rocket engines would still work.

Right but just try getting something published in Phys Rev Letters
after you stand up and do that at an APS meeting.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Clark Magnuson wrote:



Carl Nisarel wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Clark Magnuson
wrote:


Likewise, concealed carry permits when introduced, will
lower the crime in that state, no matter how many variables
are normalized.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?


An armed society is a polite society, and that goes for muggings too,
hence the change in crime rate.
If we could kill each other with a click of the mouse right now, you
might have a more honest and sincere dialog.
As it is, you chose pointless insults with neither technical merit or
wit.


--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of
atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.


Well done, Clark!

mj

On Wed, 26 May 2004 00:58:33 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Clark Magnuson
wrote:

Likewise, concealed carry permits when introduced, will
lower the crime in that state, no matter how many variables
are normalized.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?


Troll... PLONK

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Clark Magnuson
wrote:

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Clark Magnuson
wrote:

Likewise, concealed carry permits when introduced, will
lower the crime in that state, no matter how many
variables are normalized.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

An armed society is a polite society,

Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others prove otherwise.

You definitely don't know what you're talking about.

And you do? Probably have a piece of paper that says so.

Steve McQueen

In article m, Carl Nisarel
says...


You definitely don't know what you're talking about.

And you do?

Yes, I do.

Welcome to third grade recess. We now
return you to our regularly scheduled
metalworking newsgroup.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================