The Cold Hard Facts About Guns

“THE COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT GUNS

Chicago Tribune, May 8, 1998, NORTH SPORTS FINAL EDITION


By John R. Lott Jr., the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers. The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.”

“I think that sums it up.

8|

Very good points!!!!”

“.'In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).'

???? Naturally in these states it is known that none of the unsolved violent crimes were committed by any of the permit holders! Or are there no unsolved violent crimes there?”

“That is a very good point!

Man there is just to many if's and maby's involved with guns.

Its like I said before even if all guns were taken away people would still finds ways to hurt and kill each other.

So what is the way to solve the problem?

Who knows?

8|”

“Sounds like Lott is providing powerful support for requiring permits and registration for gun ownership.”

“do i have to register my nukes too?

8/”

“"Sounds like Lott is providing powerful support for requiring permits and registration for gun ownership."
pedxing
----------------
If you take the time to read his book “More Guns, Less Crime” , he says that anything that hinders the acquisition of firearms by the private citizen will cause more crime and victimization. He makes a good case against gun registration also. Guns serve as a very strong deterrent to those who would do you harm..... READ THE BOOK!”

“You got nukes???

Where did ya get them?

8)”

“Tommy, they register cars, don't they? What is the big deal about that? Why is it such a big deal to register guns?

Or rather why would some one object to telling the authorities (by registration) that they own certain guns, that is if they were law abiding citizens, and had no plans for illegal usage?”

“Klimber, If I'm a law abiding citizen why does the government need to know if I have a gun or not? Unless of course they were interested in gun confiscation some day in the future.

Driving a car is a privledge, owning a gun is a right guaranteed by the second amendment.”

“Ditto Rugerman- That is exactly the case. Do yu see anywhere in the constitution where you have a RIGHT to a car, a horse, house, walking stick? No the only "hard object" guaranteed in the constitution is "arms", specifically firearms. If you register and license your car you can drive it to all 50 states and into Canada. So if we register and license all our firearms will the Govt go for a national carry license where I can take a handgun to all 50 states? I think not. In every instance confiscation was proceeded by registration.”

“Looks like Ruger and Mtnman have this one under control. I'll stay out of it. Tommygun, its good to see you offer up a personal thought, rather than just quoting someone else's work. Keep it up!”

“The second amendment does not give us any right - it only says the government will not take that right away. Some would say the right is given by God - probably what the founding fathers had in mind.”

“Oh, hell, I lied. Garfum's semantically correct, the Bill of Rights only enumerates our rights, as the FF's believed that we were endowed with certain inalienable, God-given rights.
Hey man, I really like Mufrag better. You would consider changing yer handle, would ya? :D”

“You are, of course, correct. The constitution enumerated specific rights from our creator that it is guaranteing the government can not take away. Wording error on my part. Trust me, I can quote a lot of the doc. Its very near and dear to my flag flying little heart.”

“Divinely guaranteed, or your money back.”

“Uphill, regarding the licensing and registration of firearms as compared to cars.

Cars are only reguired to be registered,licensed and insured when they are used on public property. Old trucks used on private farms or "4 wheelers" are NOT required to be registered as they never come in contact with the public.


That being said, my firearms are only used on private property (mine and my families) so using the car model,my firearms will remain unregistered.

And registration isnt a safety feature, registered cars kill 10's of thousands yearly.”

“Tommy, they register cars, don't they? What is the big deal about that? Why is it such a big deal to register guns?
-----------
 GUN LICENSING LEADS TO INCREASED CRIME, LOST LIVES

 By JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
Los Angeles Times,  August 23, 2000 

John R. Lott Jr. is a senior research scholar at  the Yale, University Law School. The second edition of his book "More Guns,  Less, Crime" (University of Chicago Press) was released in July

  Who could possibly oppose licensing handgun owners? Requiring training  for potential gun owners both in a classroom and at a firing range before  they are allowed to buy a gun seems obvious. Licensing, especially when  eventually coupled with registration, will supposedly also help identify  criminals and prevent them from getting guns.

 Yet, as usual with guns, the debate over licensing mentions just the possible  benefits while ignoring the real costs to people's safety. If the California  Senate passes licensing this week, it will not only cost Californians  hundreds of millions of dollars annually, but, more important, it will  increase violent crime.

 In theory, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, licensing and  registration will allow a gun to be traced back to its owner. But, amazingly,  despite police spending tens of thousands of man hours administering these  laws in Hawaii (the one state with both rules), as well as in big urban areas  with similar laws, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., there is not even a  single case where the laws have been instrumental in identifying someone who  has committed a crime.

 The reason is simple. First, criminals very rarely leave their guns at the  scene of the crime. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or  register their weapons.

 So what of the oft-stated claim that licensing will somehow allow even more  comprehensive background checks and thus keep criminals from getting guns in  the first place?

 Unfortunately for gun control advocates, there is not a single academic study  concluding that background checks reduce violent crime.

 The Journal of the American Medical Assn. this month published an article  showing that the Brady law produced no reduction in homicides or suicides.  Other, more comprehensive research actually found that the waiting period in  the Brady law slightly increased rape rates.

 The Clinton administration keeps issuing press releases boasting that violent  crime rates have fallen since 1994, when the Brady law was adopted. Yet  violent crime started falling in 1991. The Brady law did not apply to 18  states, but after 1994 their violent crime fell as quickly as other states.

 While still asserting that the law "must have some effect," U.S. Atty. Gen.  Janet Reno was reduced this month to saying, "It might just take longer to  measure it ."

 The reason why the Brady law does not affect criminals is simple. It is the  law-abiding citizens, not the criminals, who obey the laws. For example, the  waiting-period provision in the law prevented law-abiding women who were  stalked or threatened from quickly obtaining a gun for self-defense.

 There are still other problems with the law that the state Legislature is  considering. When added to the current state waiting period, the processing  time for a license will delay access to a gun by a month. While even short  waiting periods increase rape rates, waiting periods longer than 10 days make  it difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns to protect themselves  and increase all categories of violent crime.

 The hundreds of dollars it will take to pay for the license and the  up-to-eight-hour training course, as well as the many arcane reasons for  losing a license, will reduce gun ownership by law-abiding people.

 Since no other state has such restrictive rules for simply owning a gun, it  is difficult to know how much gun ownership will decline, but similar rules  for obtaining concealed handgun permits reduce the number of permits issued  by 60%. The reduction in permits increased violent crime.

 It is already illegal for criminals to go around carrying guns. Making it  difficult for law-abiding citizens to even own guns in their own homes is not  going to make them safer from the criminals.

 Part of the proposed "training" appears better classified as indoctrination,  making gun owners memorize grossly exaggerated fears of the risks of owning a  gun.

 It will also be the the poor who bear the brunt of these costs and who will  be priced out of gun ownership. They are also most vulnerable to crime and  benefit the most from being able to protect themselves.

 With all the new gun laws already scheduled to go into effect after the  November elections, why don't legislators simply require that California  homeowners to put out a sign stating: "This home is a gun-free zone"?  Legislators could lead by example and start with their own homes.

http://www.tsra.com/Lott25.htm
------------------
Licensing and registration has historically been a first step to confiscation. It is necessary if a government were to round up its oppositions ability to resist so it can impose its will . If we are to remain free we must have the ability to resist bad government and the criminal element. Our founding fathers knew this and is why it is one or our rights writen into the constitution. Many "victims" of their own governments found this out to. Especially in the last century.
--------------
--A government that intended to protect the liberty of the people would not disarm them. A government planning the opposite most certainly and logically would disarm them. And so it has been in this century. Check out the history of Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Cambodia.
    Charlie Reese, Syndicated Columnist”

“--The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it.
    James A. Donald”

“"The second amendment does not give us any right - it only says the government will not take that right away. Some would say the right is given by God - probably what the founding fathers had in mind."
garfum
----------------

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
------
--"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." - U.S. vs. Emerson, 5th Circuit Federal Court, published October 16, 2001
---------------
--"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of."
— Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.
---------------
--"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution
-------------
-- "The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority.... it is the one guarantee of human freedom to the American people."
-- Frank Cobb - (Editor, New York World - 1920)
-------------
--Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
    Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States, 1778
-----------
--Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people. – William F. Jasper
----------
In all, our rights are thought to preexist the American constitution. They were thought to be god given and no man had the right to take them away. But it took our founding fathers to sit down and write them into law....”

“Thanks to all for a "reasonable" discussion on this issue. I would rather discuss a mater to find truth and meaning rather then go back and forth with someone who is only trying to prove me wrong.”

“So you can copy and paste from the Bartlett's quotations website. Big deal.”

“Siiggggghhhhhhhh!”

“O.K., gordon, do you have anything (intelligent) to add?”

“There's nothing intelligent about this entire thread.

All these gun threads should just be deleted.

Flogging a dead horse.”

“I'll take that as a 'no'.”

“At least Tommygun shows some intelligence here. The rest of you seem to be a bunch of pacifist wimps.”

“please go to yoga thread and tell me what you think ok?

hint....sex toys”