- Posts: 1078
- Thank you received: 0
What are you reading right now?
12 years 4 months ago #13963
by LebbenB
Right now, I'm between new books so I'm re-reading Band of Brothers
Replied by LebbenB on topic What are you reading right now?
I could send you my copy of FM 22-100, Army Leadership if you need to wash your mind out.jtallen83 wrote: Right now I'm getting a bunch of progressive biased anti-American text books shoved down my throat. They even use the word problems in a math book to spout their socialist drivel, you wouldn't believe how a business management text reads :banghead: leadership is categorized as a trait left over from the "old" management style and is not a positive for the modern management of business, this should now be done with everyone having a say like a group of equals, management by committee. Sometimes I read things three times looking for a punch line.
I look forward to getting back to some objective history, American history that is. :usa:
Right now, I'm between new books so I'm re-reading Band of Brothers
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- nubbinhead
-
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 25
- Thank you received: 0
12 years 4 months ago #13966
by nubbinhead
Replied by nubbinhead on topic What are you reading right now?
I am reading from cover to cover The Bible, also studying some and listening to commentaries while i drive. Currently I am in the Book of 1 Samuel. Praise God for saving a wretch like me.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 4 months ago #13972
by Sharkey
Replied by Sharkey on topic What are you reading right now?
Amen.. :thumbs:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 4 months ago #13976
by VTIT
Replied by VTIT on topic What are you reading right now?
I just finished reading a Java programming book. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Last book I had to read to finish my degree so that is great! I am so glad to get out of the liberal studies incorporated into all the college curriculum. That is one of the reasons I got a degree. Hopefully I can get a job teaching and offset some of this crap they are teaching.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jtallen83
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 4 months ago #13977
by Sharkey
Replied by Sharkey on topic What are you reading right now?
Hopefully you ALSO end up in a school where the Pledge of Allegiance, discussions about God and Christianity and a good solid American Ideals system is still legal as well.
Congrats VTIT. Great to see things going well for members of our family. :thumbs:
Congrats VTIT. Great to see things going well for members of our family. :thumbs:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 4 months ago #13978
by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic What are you reading right now?
VTIT second Sharkey's thoughts. Congrats. We need more independent thinking, not less. Nubbinhead, I was raised Catholic and went to a parochial school and always wondered why we always read passages instead of the whole thing. So in 10 th grade I read the whole thing. I think it's time to go back and do it again.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 4 months ago #14144
by VTIT
Replied by VTIT on topic What are you reading right now?
Thanks to both of you!
I don't want to hijack this thread but:
:soapbox:
One of the main reasons I want to get into teaching is that I have worked in education as an IT professional. What I saw made me sick. I know you have to keep the separation of church and state but that doesn't mean that you have to check your moral values at the door.
To me going to church every Sunday doesn't make you any more of a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car. The values that are taught there are what you need to take away with you.
My wife is a teacher, my mother-in-law and my sister are teachers and they are probably the best teachers I know. All of them are dedicated and want what is right for their students. They also have a strong moral code which is reflected in their teaching. I think God guides their teaching without anyone knowing.
That being said; I just started reading Jim Buther's Dresden Files (Storm Front being the first book). My son wanted me to read it so we could talk about it. Great writer and totally different from what I usually read.
I don't want to hijack this thread but:
:soapbox:
One of the main reasons I want to get into teaching is that I have worked in education as an IT professional. What I saw made me sick. I know you have to keep the separation of church and state but that doesn't mean that you have to check your moral values at the door.
To me going to church every Sunday doesn't make you any more of a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car. The values that are taught there are what you need to take away with you.
My wife is a teacher, my mother-in-law and my sister are teachers and they are probably the best teachers I know. All of them are dedicated and want what is right for their students. They also have a strong moral code which is reflected in their teaching. I think God guides their teaching without anyone knowing.
That being said; I just started reading Jim Buther's Dresden Files (Storm Front being the first book). My son wanted me to read it so we could talk about it. Great writer and totally different from what I usually read.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 4 months ago - 12 years 4 months ago #14149
by Akai
Replied by Akai on topic What are you reading right now?
Navy SEAL dies rescuing American doctor
A U.S .Navy SEAL is being praised as a fallen hero after he died during the rescue of an American doctor kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan. NBC’s Atia Abawi reports.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/50143405#50143405
I believe he was a member of Seal team 6 that raided and succeeded in their mission against the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin! Not even going to waste the time to get his name spelled right!
A loss for sure: I send send out my regards to his family and teammates. :pray:
A U.S .Navy SEAL is being praised as a fallen hero after he died during the rescue of an American doctor kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan. NBC’s Atia Abawi reports.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/50143405#50143405
I believe he was a member of Seal team 6 that raided and succeeded in their mission against the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin! Not even going to waste the time to get his name spelled right!
A loss for sure: I send send out my regards to his family and teammates. :pray:
Last edit: 12 years 4 months ago by Akai.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 4 months ago - 12 years 4 months ago #14154
by Sharkey
Replied by Sharkey on topic What are you reading right now?
Teaching is a great thing VTIT. We need people who care about our children, our country and yes, I firmly believe Christian values in our schools.
Thank you and from the sound of your post, I would say you are a good candidate to fill the chair well.
Thank you and from the sound of your post, I would say you are a good candidate to fill the chair well.
Last edit: 12 years 4 months ago by Sharkey.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 4 months ago #14492
by Akai
Replied by Akai on topic What are you reading right now?
Concealed Carry Prevents Violent Crime
by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
10/1/97
(Originally published in the American Gun Review)
In recent years, the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms for purposes of self-defense has become a hot and controversial topic. Claims have been made citing everything from "the presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by 43 times" to "there are up to 2.5 million defensive uses of private firearms per year, with up to 400,000 lives saved as a result" There are people who feel endangered by the presence of a gun nearby and other people who feel vulnerable when not carrying a gun on their person. Some law enforcement agents welcome the increasing numbers of lawfully armed citizens while others view them as a deadly threat. What and where is the truth in all of this disagreement, and what are the implications for public policy?
Review
Prior to Prohibition, there was virtually no federal gun control, and no concept of guns being "evil". Guns were seen as a threat to society only when they were possessed by blacks, and the history of gun control closely parallels the history of racism in this country. Guns were simply tools, useful for protecting one's livelihood and property, obtaining food for one's family, recreation, and when necessary, self-defense. The gun culture was an accepted and respected part of American life.
However, in a situation similar to the one we face today, Prohibition gave birth to a criminal subculture which depended on violence and guns, terrorizing law abiding citizens. After Prohibition was repealed, these criminal organizations remained. Rather than attacking crime and criminals, the government passed the National Firearms Act in 1934, which put a $200 "transfer tax" (about $4000 in 1996 dollars) on certain guns, particularly machine guns and short barreled shotguns. (For comparison, a short-barreled shotgun cost only about $5!) The Federal Firearms Act followed in 1938, which required firearms dealers to obtain licenses, and started a new federal bureaucracy to "control guns".
The war on guns again escalated after the assassinations of President Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and the Rev. Martin Luther King in the 1960's. This resulted in the Federal Firearms Act of 1968 which, when compared word for word to the Nazi weapons laws of 1938, is almost identical. Most recently, the attempted assassination of President Reagan and the wounding of his Press Secretary James Brady, and the escalation of violent, firearms-related crimes due to the failed "War on Drugs", have led to an intensification of the "War on Guns". We now have innumerable state and local laws restricting gun ownership, carrying, use, and even appearance, along with federal laws such as the Brady Act and the impending "Brady II".
To enforce these laws, the government needed to get "the people" to support them, to willingly give up their Second Amendment rights and their right to self-defense. To do this, it recruited powerful spokespeople, primarily doctors and the media, to convince people that guns were bad and needed to be banned. Doctors, at least until recently, were highly respected professionals, scientists whose words were above questioning. The same was true of the elite medical journals. Most prestigious of all were the revered doctors and scientists who worked at the huge federal institutes of research. To their enduring shame, some of these doctors were co-opted into helping the government in its "War on Guns".
Doctors, of course, are not superhuman and they have weaknesses like everyone. Many well-meaning doctors just didn't analyze correctly what they were seeing, and didn't bother to ask the right questions, since they had been trained to obey medical authorities. For example, doctors who work in emergency rooms see the horrors that misuse of guns can create. They dedicate their lives to saving lives, and watching people, especially young people, die of gunshot wounds is extremely painful. This makes it easy for them to be swayed by emotion and blame the gun instead of the person who misused it. Of course they never see the people who use guns safely and responsibly, and they never see the people whose lives were saved by defensive gun use. It's a very one-sided view.
At the same time, there were other doctors who saw the huge amounts of money being poured into biased gun research and saw the opportunity to get grant money, have their work published, or become famous. All this required was designing research that aided the government's pre-conceived policy of "proving" that guns were bad in order to disarm the populace. In my opinion there is only one term that applies to people who sell their integrity and their credentials for fame and profit.
Thus for the past ten years we have been bombarded with medical "experts" proclaiming that guns were the cause of nearly everything wrong in society. The media gave tremendous coverage to these studies, and reinforced them with emotional and melodramatic stories of lives ruined by guns - by inanimate guns, not by criminals, carelessness, or their own stupidity. People, especially people raised in urban areas who had no experience with guns, believed these stories. No doubt you've heard these claims, and maybe even worried that invoking your Second Amendment rights was a bad idea.
Many of these studies were funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), a division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - funded, of course, with OUR tax dollars. That's right. Our government officials, sworn to uphold the Constitution, used our money to try to deprive us of one of our most important Constitutional rights. And the NCIPC didn't even pretend to be objective. Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former director of NCIPC, has been quoted avowing his and the CDC's desire to create a public perception of firearms as "dirty, deadly - and banned".
One common excuse for gun control, designed to sound scientific, is that guns are a public health problem, that guns are "pathogens" (germs) which must be eliminated to eliminate the "disease" of gun violence. This simply is not true. To be true, the presence of a gun would cause the disease (violence) in all those exposed to it, and in its absence, violence should not be found. (Every physician is taught the criteria for determining what is or isn't a pathogen early in medical school, so this is inexcusable.) If all those exposed to firearms attempted homicide, our streets truly would be running with blood. Approximately half of all American households own guns, yet few people are involved with homicide or other gun misuse. There are approximately 230 million guns in the United States, more than enough for each adult and teen, yet only a minuscule number of people commit homicide. And if degree of exposure to guns correlated with homicide rates, our police would be the worst offenders.
One often quoted study is the Sloan-Kellerman comparison of Seattle and Vancouver, published in the "New England Journal of Medicine". Their methodology was simplistic and merely compared the homicide rates in the two cities, then assumed the lower rate in Vancouver was due to gun control. Obviously there are nearly infinite differences in any two cities, yet the study did not control for any differences. The difference in homicide rates could just as easily have been due to economic, cultural, or ethnic variables, differences in laws, age differences, substance abuse, or anything else. Based on their data, one could just as well conclude that the difference was due to the number of movie theaters or eating Twinkies. As a final insult to scientific research, the homicide rates before gun control were not evaluated. Homicide actually increased 25% after the institution of the 1977 gun law.
Another study by Loftin claimed to show that Washington, D.C.'s 1976 gun ban decreased murder. In fact, the supposed drop in the murder rate was temporary and tiny and actually occurred two years before the gun ban. The study stopped "counting" when the murder rate rose. In reality, the rate of homicide in Washington tripled between 1976 and 1991 - evidence of the actual effects of gun control.
Perhaps the most often quoted myth about the risks of gun ownership is that having a gun in one's home increases one's risk of homicide by a factor of 43. This study, by Kellerman , is full of errors and deceit, and has been widely discredited. Yet the 43 times figure continues to be repeated until it has now achieved the status of "common knowledge". Among the errors, Kellerman did not show that even ONE victim was killed with the gun kept in the home. In fact, at least 49% of the victims were killed by someone who did not live in the home and probably had no access to guns kept there. He assumed that the victim of the crime was the one killed, ignoring the possibility that it was the criminal, not the victim, who was killed. Finally, the study showed that substance abuse, family violence, living alone, and living in a rented home were all greater predictors of homicide than was gun ownership. Curiously, the authors have refused to make their data available to other researchers who wish to evaluate the study. Yet, as I mentioned before, this study was funded with our tax dollars.
Fortunately, these fraudulent researchers at the NCIPC were finally exposed last year by a coalition of physicians and criminologists who testified before the House appropriations committee. As a result, the NCIPC's funding for so-called "gun research" was cut from the budget. Of course there were people doing well-designed, accurate research on guns and violence during this period as well, people such as Don Kates, David Kopel, Gary Kleck, James Wright, Peter Rossi, Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and others. But they weren't doctors, they weren't supported by the government, and the media totally ignored them. They were criminologists, sociologists, lawyers, and their studies weren't considered important, especially by the medical establishment.
Gary Kleck's book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America , was published in 1991, and received a prestigious criminology award. Although it was generally ignored by both the media and the medical researchers, it was a turning point. At last there was a comprehensive, unbiased assessment of the issues surrounding guns and violence that was available to lay people and researchers alike. In 1995 there was another breakthrough when Kleck and Gertz's study "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" was published. This study is the first one devoted specifically to the subject of armed self-defense. Of the nearly 5000 respondents, 222 reported a defensive gun use within the past 12 months and 313 within the past 5 years. By extrapolating to the total population, he estimated there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians each year, with 1.5 to 1.9 million involving handguns! 400,000 of these people felt the defensive use of a gun "almost certainly" prevented a murder. This is ten times the total number of firearms deaths from all causes in a year! Clearly the risk of allowing civilians to arm themselves for self-defense pales in comparison to the huge numbers of lives saved.
The Lott and Mustard Study
Now, in the words of David Kopel, "All of the research about concealed-carry laws has been eclipsed by a comprehensive study by University of Chicago law professor John Lott, with graduate student David Mustard."
This study goes far beyond any previous study both in its design and in the comprehensive data collected. Most studies of handgun effects on crime or violence use either time series or cross- sectional data. Time series data means that you look at a particular area (for example Salt Lake County) over time, either continuously or at specified times. As we saw with the Washington, D.C. study, such studies are open to error due to the time periods chosen. If someone compared the crime rates in Salt Lake County from 1992 to 1995 (the year the "shall issue [a permit to carry a pistol]" law became effective), there would likely be little difference since few people had had the time to obtain the permits to carry concealed.
Cross-sectional data refers to comparing two or more different areas at the same time. The accuracy of these studies depends on how well the areas are matched, and how well the differences between them are controlled for in the study. As we saw with the Seattle -Vancouver study, if the cities are not well matched, it is easy to draw, or even create, the wrong conclusions. In addition, the area one chooses to study is important. Cross-sectional data from states are commonly used, since concealed carry laws are generally passed at the state level. But states are not uniform at all; they have large cities, small cities, suburban areas, rural areas, etc. Mixing data from extremely different areas, such as large population centers and rural communities together obscures important information. For example, combining statistics from Salt Lake County (urban) and Kane county (rural) and saying it represents "Utah" actually makes any statistics representing "Utah" quite misleading.
The Lott study solves these problems by using cross sectional and time series data. They studied every county in the United States continuously from 1977 to 1992, a period of 16 years. Studying counties allowed them to separate urban from rural areas, and a sixteen year study period is long enough to allow for any temporary, but meaningless, shift in statistics. In addition, the Lott study includes such variables as the type of crime committed, probability of arrest, of conviction, and the length of prison sentences, as well as mandatory sentencing guidelines. It also includes variables such as age, sex, race, income, population and population density. This provides a more detailed, "three-dimensional" picture of the effect of concealed carry permits on crime.
The numbers of arrests and types of crimes were provided by the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, while the information on population was collected from the Census Bureau. Additional information was obtained from state and county officials whenever possible. Other factors which could affect the results such as changes in the laws involving the use of firearms, or sentencing enhancement laws were either eliminated as possibilities or controlled for statistically.
The results of this study show that violent crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault) decrease dramatically when "shall issue" laws are passed. At the same time, property crimes (auto theft and larceny) increase slightly. This can be explained by habitual criminals changing their preferred method of crime. It makes sense that criminals would switch from crimes where they must confront the victim and thus may get shot, to crimes of stealth where they are much less likely to confront an armed victim. Certainly a small increase in property crimes is a small price to pay for a large savings in human life and health.
The statistics are dramatic. Whenever concealed carry laws went into effect in a county during this 16 year period, murders fell by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, and aggravated assaults by 7%. If, in 1992, all states had enacted "shall issue" laws, murders in the United States would have decreased by 1,570. There would have been 4,177 fewer rapes and over 60,000 fewer aggravated assaults. This unequivocally supports the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who guaranteed that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
It means that the bleeding heart gun control advocates, the Sarah Brady types weeping about dead children, and our legislators and presidents who support them, are directly responsible for the deaths of over 1500 Americans and the rapes of over 4,000 innocent women every single year!
The anti-gunners are unable to find any scientific flaws or errors of analysis in this study. Instead they have attacked the researchers personally, just as they did to the doctors who dared speak the "politically incorrect" truth. There is no place for name-calling in either scientific research or in setting policy that effects millions of lives.
Anti-gunners might ask if allowing concealed carry would cause an increase in accidental deaths. However, the entire number of accidental deaths in the U.S. in 1992 was 1409, and only 546 of these occurred in states with concealed carry laws. The total number of accidental handgun deaths per year is less than 200. At most, there would be nine more accidental deaths per year if all states passed concealed carry laws, in contrast to 1500 lives saved.
Anti-gunners use the argument that if concealed carry were enacted, every minor fender-bender or disagreement would turn into a shoot-out. Over 300,000 permits have been issued in Florida since 1986, but only five violent crimes involving permitted pistols were committed as of December 1995, and none of them resulted in a fatality. There is only one recorded instance of a permitted pistol being used in a shooting following a traffic accident, and in that case a grand jury found that the shooting was justified.
In 1993, private citizens accidentally killed 30 innocent people who they thought were committing a crime, while police killed 330 innocent people. Given the nature of police work, this is not an entirely fair comparison. However, it clearly shows the public can be trusted with concealed pistols.
Another finding is that people who carry concealed handguns protect not only themselves and their families, but the public in general, even that part of the public that protests most loudly against guns. Since by definition a concealed weapon is hidden, a criminal has no way of knowing if a prospective victim is armed, and is therefore less likely to commit a violent crime against any given person.
This is particularly important for women. Women are the victims of a disproportionate number of violent crimes. A woman who carries a gun has a much greater deterrent effect on crime than does a man. Women are usually smaller and weaker than their attackers, and the presence of a firearm equalizes this imbalance. Because the imbalance between a woman and her attacker is much greater, the benefits of carrying are also much greater. A woman carrying a gun decreases the murder rate for women by 3-4 times the amount a man carrying a gun decreases the murder rate for men.
While numerous studies have attempted to quantify the cost of firearms related deaths and injuries, this is the first paper to study the economic benefits of allowing concealed carry. For the sake of consistency, the authors based their figures on estimates for the cost of various crimes used by a National Institute of Justice study published in 1996. Costs included loss of life, lost productivity, medical bills, property losses, as well as losses related to fear, pain, suffering, and decreased quality of life.
These figures are based on jury trial awards, which may not be the best way to estimate economic loss. However they are the figures used in anti-gun studies and so the authors chose to use them to more clearly illustrate the economic benefits of gun ownership. The reduction in violent crime caused by concealed weapons permits provides an economic gain of $6.6 billion, compared to a much smaller economic loss of $417 million due to the increase in property crimes. The net gain is still $6.2 billion!
These results may seem like ordinary common sense. Other results seem to go against "common wisdom". For example, it has been traditional to have the most restrictive gun laws in high population, high crime, urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C. It is common to hear people say that "It's fine for those people who live out in the country to have guns, but people in the city shouldn't have them."
But this study shows that the effect of allowing concealed carry is much greater in high population counties and in high crime counties. For example, the murder rate in very large cities drops by 12% when CCW is passed, while it drops by only about 1.6% in an average-sized city. Data for rural areas in unreliable since the murder rates in most rural areas are so low that accurate statistical studies cannot be done. An increase from one murder per year to two would show up as a 100% increase in the murder rate, which is misleading when compared to cities with daily murders. However, consistent with the earlier comments on criminals switching to "safer" methods of crime, the increase in property crimes in urban areas is also greater than the increase in rural areas.
Contrary to frequently espoused theories about causes of crime, real per capita income showed only a small, though statistically significant, correlation with both violent crimes and property crimes. It would appear that living in a high population density area may contribute more to crime than does poverty, although this requires more study.
Another finding which deserves comment is that the presence of young, black males increases the rate of property crime by 22% and violent crime by 5%. However, these numbers cannot be accepted completely at face value, nor should they be used to justify racism. The history of gun control in this country reflects the history of racism. The first state and local firearms laws were designed primarily to disarm blacks , and enough damage has already been done. It is necessary to take into account studies showing that young black males are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated for crimes, and that they are disproportionately victims of crimes. In addition, they tend to live in high population areas and have low incomes, both of which are independent factors for increased crime. Finally, in view of recent allegations that the CIA deliberately introduced drugs, guns, and thus crime, into inner city black neighborhoods , more study is necessary before any definite conclusions can be reached. Neither Professor Lott nor I believe that race is a cause of crime.
Lott does not just study the effects of concealed carry on crime; he also studies the effects of other forms of deterrence. One of the most surprising findings is that the arrest rate has the most consistent effect on crime. It appears that merely being arrested, independent of subsequent conviction or prison sentences, is the single greatest deterrent to crime. This is true for both violent crime and property crime. Lott attributes this to the social consequences of arrest, such as embarrassment, shame, loss of jobs, etc. This is particularly true of arrests for rape. It is also possible that the reality that they may be caught and punished deters many would-be criminals before they become fully committed to a criminal lifestyle.
Conviction is also a deterrent, but has a smaller effect than arrest. Enhanced sentencing laws for using a firearm in the commission of a crime were shown to be ineffective except in the case of aggravated assault, where they result in a 4% decrease. Likewise, no clear correlation between longer prison sentences and a decrease in crime was found. However, because prison sentencing guidelines and release guidelines changed frequently and rapidly during the time period studied, because there is often a significant lag time between commission of the crime and eventual sentencing, and because data collection in this area is not good, it requires more study before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Policy Implications
While it is generally a bad idea to base policy on the results of a single study, the Lott and Mustard study is so well designed and well controlled that it is difficult, if not impossible, to argue with their findings. In addition, their results agree with those of previous researchers, most notably Kleck and Gertz.
Two findings stand out above all. Concealed carrying of firearms by citizens with no prior felony record or history of severe mental illness decreases violent crime, providing a large benefit both to the individuals who carry and the public as a whole. Second, arrests by law enforcement officers have a large deterrent effect on crime, while conviction has a lesser, but still important, effect.
The obvious conclusion is that concealed carry provides a very large benefit to society in terms of lives saved, violent assaults and rapes prevented, and economic savings. At the same time misuse of legally concealed weapons and accidental handgun deaths from concealed weapons are almost non-existent. Thus every effort should be made to facilitate concealed carry by law-abiding citizens. "Shall issue" permit laws should be adopted by all those states that have not yet done so. In particular, large, urban areas should actively encourage arming their good citizens and definitely should not prevent or discourage them from carrying concealed weapons.
Regulations such as gun-free zones which serve only to disarm and/or harass gun owners are counterproductive and should be eliminated at local, state and federal levels. The Supreme Court has already found gun-free school zones unconstitutional and the justices should uphold this finding in light of the current administration's repeated attempts to enact this misguided legislation. Concealed carry permits should be accepted on a reciprocal basis by all states, just as driver's licenses are, under the full faith and credit act of the Constitution.
In view of the negligible incidence of negative events resulting from concealed carry, further studies are indicated to determine whether the extensive background checks and training requirements which most states demand are even necessary. It may be that "Vermont-style", i.e. universal concealed carry without need for a permit, is more appropriate and would remove both the financial disincentives to lawful carry as well as decrease the demand on the often overworked staff of state permitting agencies and the FBI. Further, the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and many people (including the author) consider the requirement for a permit, which gives them "permission" to exercise what is already an enumerated right to be both unconstitutional and offensive.
Because the beneficial effect of women carrying concealed weapons far outweighs that of men carrying, women should be encouraged to carry, and special classes designed to teach women how to safely use, maintain and carry weapons, along with other self-defense techniques, need to be developed and made widely available. Learning to protect oneself from crime and violence is as important to a woman's health as is learning to detect breast cancer or prevent heart disease. The psychological benefits to women of feeling safe are very significant, but have yet to be studied scientifically.
In many areas, including the Salt Lake metropolitan area, there is currently much bad feeling between some law enforcement officers who feel citizens who carry pose a "deadly threat" to them and citizens who feel harassed by police. Lott's study shows that this is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive. Armed citizens can protect themselves, their families and others from violent crimes. Police cannot be everywhere simultaneously, and have no duty to protect individuals. Their role is primarily to investigate crimes after the fact and bring perpetrators to justice. By decreasing the number of violent crimes committed, armed citizens actually decrease the police workload and enable them to be more productive and apprehend a greater percentage of criminals which in turn further decreases crime.
Armed citizens and police who are able to cooperate have a synergistic effect on decreasing crime. Both groups need to acknowledge this, accommodate to the changes in the laws, stop competing, and learn to respect and trust each other. Law enforcement agencies, working with citizens' groups, must develop clear written policies for police and armed citizen interactions and disseminate these policies widely. The self-sufficient, self-protecting gun culture must be restored to its rightful place of respect in society, not demonized as a hotbed of terrorists. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms must be unequivocally upheld.
Those who wish to disarm the populace of this country must be exposed for the frauds they are and held responsible morally, if not legally, for the deaths and suffering created by their misguided policies. In the four years since 1992, those who preach gun control have contributed to the deaths of at least six thousand innocent people whose lives they have sworn to protect and whose freedoms they have sworn to uphold.
In another distressing development, some people who don't like Lott's findings (although they have been able to find no grounds to dispute them), have resorted to attacking Professor Lott and his motivations personally, and a few have even resorted to threats of death or violence . Clearly these people have no more respect for the First Amendment than they do for the Second, and have no idea of the principles that have made this country great. One of the most frightening aspects of this behavior is that the gun control advocates, who claim to be pacifists, who claim to have "our best interests" at heart, are willing to resort to actual threats of murder to suppress evidence that contradicts their dangerous agenda. Are these not the very same people who claim that "even one death is too many"?
Physicians must cease to be propaganda agents for the anti-gunners and must begin to work with experts in other fields including sociology, criminology, law, and economics to further define the causes, and appropriate solutions, to our current crime problems. Fortunately this is already beginning to happen under the auspices of such groups as Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, the Lawyers Second Amendment Society, the Independence Institute, the Cato Institute, and Academics for the Second Amendment.
Our national gun policy must be reversed. To quote Lott: "Our study is the first to provide direct empirical evidence of the Brady Law's effect on crime rates - and we found just the opposite (of the intended) result: The law's implementation is associated with more aggravated assaults and rapes." The implementation of the recently passed law preventing those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a firearm will undoubtedly contribute to the worsening of this situation. Since both parties are often arrested and charged in domestic disputes, this law will prevent those women who are most in need of effective means of self defense from obtaining firearms.
We must all remember that gun control is often a prelude to dictatorship and genocide, and that genocide has claimed nearly 56 million lives in this century alone. It can happen here, and it will happen here if we, as responsible citizens, do not take the responsibility for providing for our own self-defense against crime and tyranny. The Lott and Mustard study is available online, or by calling (312) 702-8359 or 702-0303. It will be published in the January, 1997 edition of the University of Chicago's "Journal of Legal Studies".
© Sarah Thompson, M.D
by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
10/1/97
(Originally published in the American Gun Review)
In recent years, the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms for purposes of self-defense has become a hot and controversial topic. Claims have been made citing everything from "the presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by 43 times" to "there are up to 2.5 million defensive uses of private firearms per year, with up to 400,000 lives saved as a result" There are people who feel endangered by the presence of a gun nearby and other people who feel vulnerable when not carrying a gun on their person. Some law enforcement agents welcome the increasing numbers of lawfully armed citizens while others view them as a deadly threat. What and where is the truth in all of this disagreement, and what are the implications for public policy?
Review
Prior to Prohibition, there was virtually no federal gun control, and no concept of guns being "evil". Guns were seen as a threat to society only when they were possessed by blacks, and the history of gun control closely parallels the history of racism in this country. Guns were simply tools, useful for protecting one's livelihood and property, obtaining food for one's family, recreation, and when necessary, self-defense. The gun culture was an accepted and respected part of American life.
However, in a situation similar to the one we face today, Prohibition gave birth to a criminal subculture which depended on violence and guns, terrorizing law abiding citizens. After Prohibition was repealed, these criminal organizations remained. Rather than attacking crime and criminals, the government passed the National Firearms Act in 1934, which put a $200 "transfer tax" (about $4000 in 1996 dollars) on certain guns, particularly machine guns and short barreled shotguns. (For comparison, a short-barreled shotgun cost only about $5!) The Federal Firearms Act followed in 1938, which required firearms dealers to obtain licenses, and started a new federal bureaucracy to "control guns".
The war on guns again escalated after the assassinations of President Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and the Rev. Martin Luther King in the 1960's. This resulted in the Federal Firearms Act of 1968 which, when compared word for word to the Nazi weapons laws of 1938, is almost identical. Most recently, the attempted assassination of President Reagan and the wounding of his Press Secretary James Brady, and the escalation of violent, firearms-related crimes due to the failed "War on Drugs", have led to an intensification of the "War on Guns". We now have innumerable state and local laws restricting gun ownership, carrying, use, and even appearance, along with federal laws such as the Brady Act and the impending "Brady II".
To enforce these laws, the government needed to get "the people" to support them, to willingly give up their Second Amendment rights and their right to self-defense. To do this, it recruited powerful spokespeople, primarily doctors and the media, to convince people that guns were bad and needed to be banned. Doctors, at least until recently, were highly respected professionals, scientists whose words were above questioning. The same was true of the elite medical journals. Most prestigious of all were the revered doctors and scientists who worked at the huge federal institutes of research. To their enduring shame, some of these doctors were co-opted into helping the government in its "War on Guns".
Doctors, of course, are not superhuman and they have weaknesses like everyone. Many well-meaning doctors just didn't analyze correctly what they were seeing, and didn't bother to ask the right questions, since they had been trained to obey medical authorities. For example, doctors who work in emergency rooms see the horrors that misuse of guns can create. They dedicate their lives to saving lives, and watching people, especially young people, die of gunshot wounds is extremely painful. This makes it easy for them to be swayed by emotion and blame the gun instead of the person who misused it. Of course they never see the people who use guns safely and responsibly, and they never see the people whose lives were saved by defensive gun use. It's a very one-sided view.
At the same time, there were other doctors who saw the huge amounts of money being poured into biased gun research and saw the opportunity to get grant money, have their work published, or become famous. All this required was designing research that aided the government's pre-conceived policy of "proving" that guns were bad in order to disarm the populace. In my opinion there is only one term that applies to people who sell their integrity and their credentials for fame and profit.
Thus for the past ten years we have been bombarded with medical "experts" proclaiming that guns were the cause of nearly everything wrong in society. The media gave tremendous coverage to these studies, and reinforced them with emotional and melodramatic stories of lives ruined by guns - by inanimate guns, not by criminals, carelessness, or their own stupidity. People, especially people raised in urban areas who had no experience with guns, believed these stories. No doubt you've heard these claims, and maybe even worried that invoking your Second Amendment rights was a bad idea.
Many of these studies were funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), a division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - funded, of course, with OUR tax dollars. That's right. Our government officials, sworn to uphold the Constitution, used our money to try to deprive us of one of our most important Constitutional rights. And the NCIPC didn't even pretend to be objective. Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former director of NCIPC, has been quoted avowing his and the CDC's desire to create a public perception of firearms as "dirty, deadly - and banned".
One common excuse for gun control, designed to sound scientific, is that guns are a public health problem, that guns are "pathogens" (germs) which must be eliminated to eliminate the "disease" of gun violence. This simply is not true. To be true, the presence of a gun would cause the disease (violence) in all those exposed to it, and in its absence, violence should not be found. (Every physician is taught the criteria for determining what is or isn't a pathogen early in medical school, so this is inexcusable.) If all those exposed to firearms attempted homicide, our streets truly would be running with blood. Approximately half of all American households own guns, yet few people are involved with homicide or other gun misuse. There are approximately 230 million guns in the United States, more than enough for each adult and teen, yet only a minuscule number of people commit homicide. And if degree of exposure to guns correlated with homicide rates, our police would be the worst offenders.
One often quoted study is the Sloan-Kellerman comparison of Seattle and Vancouver, published in the "New England Journal of Medicine". Their methodology was simplistic and merely compared the homicide rates in the two cities, then assumed the lower rate in Vancouver was due to gun control. Obviously there are nearly infinite differences in any two cities, yet the study did not control for any differences. The difference in homicide rates could just as easily have been due to economic, cultural, or ethnic variables, differences in laws, age differences, substance abuse, or anything else. Based on their data, one could just as well conclude that the difference was due to the number of movie theaters or eating Twinkies. As a final insult to scientific research, the homicide rates before gun control were not evaluated. Homicide actually increased 25% after the institution of the 1977 gun law.
Another study by Loftin claimed to show that Washington, D.C.'s 1976 gun ban decreased murder. In fact, the supposed drop in the murder rate was temporary and tiny and actually occurred two years before the gun ban. The study stopped "counting" when the murder rate rose. In reality, the rate of homicide in Washington tripled between 1976 and 1991 - evidence of the actual effects of gun control.
Perhaps the most often quoted myth about the risks of gun ownership is that having a gun in one's home increases one's risk of homicide by a factor of 43. This study, by Kellerman , is full of errors and deceit, and has been widely discredited. Yet the 43 times figure continues to be repeated until it has now achieved the status of "common knowledge". Among the errors, Kellerman did not show that even ONE victim was killed with the gun kept in the home. In fact, at least 49% of the victims were killed by someone who did not live in the home and probably had no access to guns kept there. He assumed that the victim of the crime was the one killed, ignoring the possibility that it was the criminal, not the victim, who was killed. Finally, the study showed that substance abuse, family violence, living alone, and living in a rented home were all greater predictors of homicide than was gun ownership. Curiously, the authors have refused to make their data available to other researchers who wish to evaluate the study. Yet, as I mentioned before, this study was funded with our tax dollars.
Fortunately, these fraudulent researchers at the NCIPC were finally exposed last year by a coalition of physicians and criminologists who testified before the House appropriations committee. As a result, the NCIPC's funding for so-called "gun research" was cut from the budget. Of course there were people doing well-designed, accurate research on guns and violence during this period as well, people such as Don Kates, David Kopel, Gary Kleck, James Wright, Peter Rossi, Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and others. But they weren't doctors, they weren't supported by the government, and the media totally ignored them. They were criminologists, sociologists, lawyers, and their studies weren't considered important, especially by the medical establishment.
Gary Kleck's book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America , was published in 1991, and received a prestigious criminology award. Although it was generally ignored by both the media and the medical researchers, it was a turning point. At last there was a comprehensive, unbiased assessment of the issues surrounding guns and violence that was available to lay people and researchers alike. In 1995 there was another breakthrough when Kleck and Gertz's study "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" was published. This study is the first one devoted specifically to the subject of armed self-defense. Of the nearly 5000 respondents, 222 reported a defensive gun use within the past 12 months and 313 within the past 5 years. By extrapolating to the total population, he estimated there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians each year, with 1.5 to 1.9 million involving handguns! 400,000 of these people felt the defensive use of a gun "almost certainly" prevented a murder. This is ten times the total number of firearms deaths from all causes in a year! Clearly the risk of allowing civilians to arm themselves for self-defense pales in comparison to the huge numbers of lives saved.
The Lott and Mustard Study
Now, in the words of David Kopel, "All of the research about concealed-carry laws has been eclipsed by a comprehensive study by University of Chicago law professor John Lott, with graduate student David Mustard."
This study goes far beyond any previous study both in its design and in the comprehensive data collected. Most studies of handgun effects on crime or violence use either time series or cross- sectional data. Time series data means that you look at a particular area (for example Salt Lake County) over time, either continuously or at specified times. As we saw with the Washington, D.C. study, such studies are open to error due to the time periods chosen. If someone compared the crime rates in Salt Lake County from 1992 to 1995 (the year the "shall issue [a permit to carry a pistol]" law became effective), there would likely be little difference since few people had had the time to obtain the permits to carry concealed.
Cross-sectional data refers to comparing two or more different areas at the same time. The accuracy of these studies depends on how well the areas are matched, and how well the differences between them are controlled for in the study. As we saw with the Seattle -Vancouver study, if the cities are not well matched, it is easy to draw, or even create, the wrong conclusions. In addition, the area one chooses to study is important. Cross-sectional data from states are commonly used, since concealed carry laws are generally passed at the state level. But states are not uniform at all; they have large cities, small cities, suburban areas, rural areas, etc. Mixing data from extremely different areas, such as large population centers and rural communities together obscures important information. For example, combining statistics from Salt Lake County (urban) and Kane county (rural) and saying it represents "Utah" actually makes any statistics representing "Utah" quite misleading.
The Lott study solves these problems by using cross sectional and time series data. They studied every county in the United States continuously from 1977 to 1992, a period of 16 years. Studying counties allowed them to separate urban from rural areas, and a sixteen year study period is long enough to allow for any temporary, but meaningless, shift in statistics. In addition, the Lott study includes such variables as the type of crime committed, probability of arrest, of conviction, and the length of prison sentences, as well as mandatory sentencing guidelines. It also includes variables such as age, sex, race, income, population and population density. This provides a more detailed, "three-dimensional" picture of the effect of concealed carry permits on crime.
The numbers of arrests and types of crimes were provided by the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, while the information on population was collected from the Census Bureau. Additional information was obtained from state and county officials whenever possible. Other factors which could affect the results such as changes in the laws involving the use of firearms, or sentencing enhancement laws were either eliminated as possibilities or controlled for statistically.
The results of this study show that violent crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault) decrease dramatically when "shall issue" laws are passed. At the same time, property crimes (auto theft and larceny) increase slightly. This can be explained by habitual criminals changing their preferred method of crime. It makes sense that criminals would switch from crimes where they must confront the victim and thus may get shot, to crimes of stealth where they are much less likely to confront an armed victim. Certainly a small increase in property crimes is a small price to pay for a large savings in human life and health.
The statistics are dramatic. Whenever concealed carry laws went into effect in a county during this 16 year period, murders fell by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, and aggravated assaults by 7%. If, in 1992, all states had enacted "shall issue" laws, murders in the United States would have decreased by 1,570. There would have been 4,177 fewer rapes and over 60,000 fewer aggravated assaults. This unequivocally supports the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who guaranteed that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
It means that the bleeding heart gun control advocates, the Sarah Brady types weeping about dead children, and our legislators and presidents who support them, are directly responsible for the deaths of over 1500 Americans and the rapes of over 4,000 innocent women every single year!
The anti-gunners are unable to find any scientific flaws or errors of analysis in this study. Instead they have attacked the researchers personally, just as they did to the doctors who dared speak the "politically incorrect" truth. There is no place for name-calling in either scientific research or in setting policy that effects millions of lives.
Anti-gunners might ask if allowing concealed carry would cause an increase in accidental deaths. However, the entire number of accidental deaths in the U.S. in 1992 was 1409, and only 546 of these occurred in states with concealed carry laws. The total number of accidental handgun deaths per year is less than 200. At most, there would be nine more accidental deaths per year if all states passed concealed carry laws, in contrast to 1500 lives saved.
Anti-gunners use the argument that if concealed carry were enacted, every minor fender-bender or disagreement would turn into a shoot-out. Over 300,000 permits have been issued in Florida since 1986, but only five violent crimes involving permitted pistols were committed as of December 1995, and none of them resulted in a fatality. There is only one recorded instance of a permitted pistol being used in a shooting following a traffic accident, and in that case a grand jury found that the shooting was justified.
In 1993, private citizens accidentally killed 30 innocent people who they thought were committing a crime, while police killed 330 innocent people. Given the nature of police work, this is not an entirely fair comparison. However, it clearly shows the public can be trusted with concealed pistols.
Another finding is that people who carry concealed handguns protect not only themselves and their families, but the public in general, even that part of the public that protests most loudly against guns. Since by definition a concealed weapon is hidden, a criminal has no way of knowing if a prospective victim is armed, and is therefore less likely to commit a violent crime against any given person.
This is particularly important for women. Women are the victims of a disproportionate number of violent crimes. A woman who carries a gun has a much greater deterrent effect on crime than does a man. Women are usually smaller and weaker than their attackers, and the presence of a firearm equalizes this imbalance. Because the imbalance between a woman and her attacker is much greater, the benefits of carrying are also much greater. A woman carrying a gun decreases the murder rate for women by 3-4 times the amount a man carrying a gun decreases the murder rate for men.
While numerous studies have attempted to quantify the cost of firearms related deaths and injuries, this is the first paper to study the economic benefits of allowing concealed carry. For the sake of consistency, the authors based their figures on estimates for the cost of various crimes used by a National Institute of Justice study published in 1996. Costs included loss of life, lost productivity, medical bills, property losses, as well as losses related to fear, pain, suffering, and decreased quality of life.
These figures are based on jury trial awards, which may not be the best way to estimate economic loss. However they are the figures used in anti-gun studies and so the authors chose to use them to more clearly illustrate the economic benefits of gun ownership. The reduction in violent crime caused by concealed weapons permits provides an economic gain of $6.6 billion, compared to a much smaller economic loss of $417 million due to the increase in property crimes. The net gain is still $6.2 billion!
These results may seem like ordinary common sense. Other results seem to go against "common wisdom". For example, it has been traditional to have the most restrictive gun laws in high population, high crime, urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, D.C. It is common to hear people say that "It's fine for those people who live out in the country to have guns, but people in the city shouldn't have them."
But this study shows that the effect of allowing concealed carry is much greater in high population counties and in high crime counties. For example, the murder rate in very large cities drops by 12% when CCW is passed, while it drops by only about 1.6% in an average-sized city. Data for rural areas in unreliable since the murder rates in most rural areas are so low that accurate statistical studies cannot be done. An increase from one murder per year to two would show up as a 100% increase in the murder rate, which is misleading when compared to cities with daily murders. However, consistent with the earlier comments on criminals switching to "safer" methods of crime, the increase in property crimes in urban areas is also greater than the increase in rural areas.
Contrary to frequently espoused theories about causes of crime, real per capita income showed only a small, though statistically significant, correlation with both violent crimes and property crimes. It would appear that living in a high population density area may contribute more to crime than does poverty, although this requires more study.
Another finding which deserves comment is that the presence of young, black males increases the rate of property crime by 22% and violent crime by 5%. However, these numbers cannot be accepted completely at face value, nor should they be used to justify racism. The history of gun control in this country reflects the history of racism. The first state and local firearms laws were designed primarily to disarm blacks , and enough damage has already been done. It is necessary to take into account studies showing that young black males are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated for crimes, and that they are disproportionately victims of crimes. In addition, they tend to live in high population areas and have low incomes, both of which are independent factors for increased crime. Finally, in view of recent allegations that the CIA deliberately introduced drugs, guns, and thus crime, into inner city black neighborhoods , more study is necessary before any definite conclusions can be reached. Neither Professor Lott nor I believe that race is a cause of crime.
Lott does not just study the effects of concealed carry on crime; he also studies the effects of other forms of deterrence. One of the most surprising findings is that the arrest rate has the most consistent effect on crime. It appears that merely being arrested, independent of subsequent conviction or prison sentences, is the single greatest deterrent to crime. This is true for both violent crime and property crime. Lott attributes this to the social consequences of arrest, such as embarrassment, shame, loss of jobs, etc. This is particularly true of arrests for rape. It is also possible that the reality that they may be caught and punished deters many would-be criminals before they become fully committed to a criminal lifestyle.
Conviction is also a deterrent, but has a smaller effect than arrest. Enhanced sentencing laws for using a firearm in the commission of a crime were shown to be ineffective except in the case of aggravated assault, where they result in a 4% decrease. Likewise, no clear correlation between longer prison sentences and a decrease in crime was found. However, because prison sentencing guidelines and release guidelines changed frequently and rapidly during the time period studied, because there is often a significant lag time between commission of the crime and eventual sentencing, and because data collection in this area is not good, it requires more study before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Policy Implications
While it is generally a bad idea to base policy on the results of a single study, the Lott and Mustard study is so well designed and well controlled that it is difficult, if not impossible, to argue with their findings. In addition, their results agree with those of previous researchers, most notably Kleck and Gertz.
Two findings stand out above all. Concealed carrying of firearms by citizens with no prior felony record or history of severe mental illness decreases violent crime, providing a large benefit both to the individuals who carry and the public as a whole. Second, arrests by law enforcement officers have a large deterrent effect on crime, while conviction has a lesser, but still important, effect.
The obvious conclusion is that concealed carry provides a very large benefit to society in terms of lives saved, violent assaults and rapes prevented, and economic savings. At the same time misuse of legally concealed weapons and accidental handgun deaths from concealed weapons are almost non-existent. Thus every effort should be made to facilitate concealed carry by law-abiding citizens. "Shall issue" permit laws should be adopted by all those states that have not yet done so. In particular, large, urban areas should actively encourage arming their good citizens and definitely should not prevent or discourage them from carrying concealed weapons.
Regulations such as gun-free zones which serve only to disarm and/or harass gun owners are counterproductive and should be eliminated at local, state and federal levels. The Supreme Court has already found gun-free school zones unconstitutional and the justices should uphold this finding in light of the current administration's repeated attempts to enact this misguided legislation. Concealed carry permits should be accepted on a reciprocal basis by all states, just as driver's licenses are, under the full faith and credit act of the Constitution.
In view of the negligible incidence of negative events resulting from concealed carry, further studies are indicated to determine whether the extensive background checks and training requirements which most states demand are even necessary. It may be that "Vermont-style", i.e. universal concealed carry without need for a permit, is more appropriate and would remove both the financial disincentives to lawful carry as well as decrease the demand on the often overworked staff of state permitting agencies and the FBI. Further, the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and many people (including the author) consider the requirement for a permit, which gives them "permission" to exercise what is already an enumerated right to be both unconstitutional and offensive.
Because the beneficial effect of women carrying concealed weapons far outweighs that of men carrying, women should be encouraged to carry, and special classes designed to teach women how to safely use, maintain and carry weapons, along with other self-defense techniques, need to be developed and made widely available. Learning to protect oneself from crime and violence is as important to a woman's health as is learning to detect breast cancer or prevent heart disease. The psychological benefits to women of feeling safe are very significant, but have yet to be studied scientifically.
In many areas, including the Salt Lake metropolitan area, there is currently much bad feeling between some law enforcement officers who feel citizens who carry pose a "deadly threat" to them and citizens who feel harassed by police. Lott's study shows that this is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive. Armed citizens can protect themselves, their families and others from violent crimes. Police cannot be everywhere simultaneously, and have no duty to protect individuals. Their role is primarily to investigate crimes after the fact and bring perpetrators to justice. By decreasing the number of violent crimes committed, armed citizens actually decrease the police workload and enable them to be more productive and apprehend a greater percentage of criminals which in turn further decreases crime.
Armed citizens and police who are able to cooperate have a synergistic effect on decreasing crime. Both groups need to acknowledge this, accommodate to the changes in the laws, stop competing, and learn to respect and trust each other. Law enforcement agencies, working with citizens' groups, must develop clear written policies for police and armed citizen interactions and disseminate these policies widely. The self-sufficient, self-protecting gun culture must be restored to its rightful place of respect in society, not demonized as a hotbed of terrorists. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms must be unequivocally upheld.
Those who wish to disarm the populace of this country must be exposed for the frauds they are and held responsible morally, if not legally, for the deaths and suffering created by their misguided policies. In the four years since 1992, those who preach gun control have contributed to the deaths of at least six thousand innocent people whose lives they have sworn to protect and whose freedoms they have sworn to uphold.
In another distressing development, some people who don't like Lott's findings (although they have been able to find no grounds to dispute them), have resorted to attacking Professor Lott and his motivations personally, and a few have even resorted to threats of death or violence . Clearly these people have no more respect for the First Amendment than they do for the Second, and have no idea of the principles that have made this country great. One of the most frightening aspects of this behavior is that the gun control advocates, who claim to be pacifists, who claim to have "our best interests" at heart, are willing to resort to actual threats of murder to suppress evidence that contradicts their dangerous agenda. Are these not the very same people who claim that "even one death is too many"?
Physicians must cease to be propaganda agents for the anti-gunners and must begin to work with experts in other fields including sociology, criminology, law, and economics to further define the causes, and appropriate solutions, to our current crime problems. Fortunately this is already beginning to happen under the auspices of such groups as Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, the Lawyers Second Amendment Society, the Independence Institute, the Cato Institute, and Academics for the Second Amendment.
Our national gun policy must be reversed. To quote Lott: "Our study is the first to provide direct empirical evidence of the Brady Law's effect on crime rates - and we found just the opposite (of the intended) result: The law's implementation is associated with more aggravated assaults and rapes." The implementation of the recently passed law preventing those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a firearm will undoubtedly contribute to the worsening of this situation. Since both parties are often arrested and charged in domestic disputes, this law will prevent those women who are most in need of effective means of self defense from obtaining firearms.
We must all remember that gun control is often a prelude to dictatorship and genocide, and that genocide has claimed nearly 56 million lives in this century alone. It can happen here, and it will happen here if we, as responsible citizens, do not take the responsibility for providing for our own self-defense against crime and tyranny. The Lott and Mustard study is available online, or by calling (312) 702-8359 or 702-0303. It will be published in the January, 1997 edition of the University of Chicago's "Journal of Legal Studies".
© Sarah Thompson, M.D
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
All content of this site is copyright 2003 - 2017
AR-10(T)™, AR-10™, are trademarks of ArmaLite, Inc.®
AR10T.com is NOT endorsed or affiliated with ArmaLite, Inc.®
About AR10T.com
AR-10(T) is a community focused on rifles, optics, scopes, gear, accessories, and components used by the professional operator and skilled marksman. Enthusiasts, shooters, and gunsmiths alike contribute to our gallery, articles, and reviews Thank you for visiting!