From: John Lindenberg <[j--in--y] at [flinet.com]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun-Control Advocates, The Criminal's Friends! (long version)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 03:01:55 -0400
Gun-Control Advocates, The Criminal's Friend!
John Lindenberg
8/10/96
In a study released on Thursday, August 8, 1996, Professor
John R. Lott and David B. Mustard of the University of Chicago
conclude that allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed
weapons deters violent crime.
Under a grant from the Olin Foundation, the researchers
worked for two years on the project. The result of their work
is an extensive study using FBI crime statistics for all 3,054
U.S. counties from 1977 through 1992, which demonstrates that
when states pass "Shall Issue" laws allowing law-abiding
citizens to carry concealed weapons, violent crime drops off
significantly.
The study stated that if all states adopted the so-called
"right-to-carry" laws, more than 1,500 murders, 4,000 rapes and
60,000 aggravated assaults "would have been avoided yearly."
And it said "the estimated annual gain from allowing concealed
handguns is at least $6.214 billion."
This totally contradicts the position of Gun-Control
Advocates who have, for years, insisted that the ONLY way to
stop violent crime is to disarm the populace.
Since the STATED aim of all Gun-Control lobbies is to
reduce/eliminate violent, gun-related crime and accidents,
reason would suggest that the Lott/Mustard study showing that
armed, law abiding citizens can help to reduce violent crime
would have been received as welcome news by both sides of the
gun control issue, but that has not been the case.
(MSNBC, 8/09/96 ) --- Sue Glick, a spokeswoman for the
Violence Policy Center, stated "This can't be", and "the
study is flawed". She suggested that "its funding from
the Olin Foundation is tainted because of the Foundation's
original ties to the Olin Corporation."
Kathryn Behan, a spokeswoman for the University of Chicago said:
"The Olin Foundation has no connections to the Olin Corp., and Olin
Fellowships are highly prestigious. The foundation is looking for
good scholarship and research, not a certain outcome." Ms. Glick
did not offer any facts to substantiate her allegations, nor did
she offer any refutation of the actual content of the Lott/Mustard
study, nor gave any indication that she had even read it.
(The Washington Post, 8/09/96) --- Douglas Weil, of the
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, said "We really do not
believe Dr. Lott's results." Mr. Weil complained that "it
failed to take into account gun control laws and other
crime-prevention steps that affect the crime rate".
The Lott/Mustard statistical analyses of the FBI crime data was
very specifically tuned to check the effectiveness of concealed
carry laws and, contrary to Mr. Wiel's assertions, did consider and
account for numerous other influences. Mr. Wiel, obviously either
did not read the Lott/Mustard study or, did not understand what he
read.
(Newsday, NY, 8/9/96) --- Stephen Teret, director for the
Center for Gun Policy and Research said "claims by Lott and
Mustard that such laws deter violent crimes are
"unsubstantiated," adding: "Their study contains factual and
methodological flaws and reaches conclusions that are
implausible based on criminologic research and theory."
Stephen Teret's statements [and those of the other Gun-Control
Advocates] were made within hours of the Lott/Mustard study being
released. Dr. Teret seems to have drawn some interesting conclusions
without having the time to do any research into the basis of his
statements.
(Newsday, NY, 8/9/96) --- Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., one
of Congress' leading gun control advocates, said the study made
"pie-in-the-sky claims with only flawed science and a
questionable agenda to back it up."
Mr. Schumer represents Brooklyn, N.Y., which is part of New York City.
New York City has some of the toughest gun laws in the United States.
New York City has one of the largest police forces of any U.S. city,
with over 40,000 men/women in uniform. New York City has one of the
highest rates of violent crime of all of the cities in the U.S. Again,
note that Mr. Schumer, as with all of the other Gun-Control Advocates,
has not had the time to read and/or review the facts of the Lott/Mustard
study before making his statements.
On 8/9/96, I semt an e-mail message to Phoenix Publications, the
publisher of "Firearms Policy Journal" in which I asked "Could you tell me
if Phoenix Publications has responded to the recently released study of
concealed weapons laws done by professor J. Lott of Chicago, IL?", and "If
so when will a copy be available to read?".
In response, Mr. G. E. Ernst replied:
"I saw for the first time mention of the study you inquire about
in an article in the Washington Post today, Aug 9, p. A4. The
findings were made public by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think
tank.",
and;
"Without having seen the study I would instinctively distrust it.",
and;
"The issue is irrelevant.",
and;
"Registration of ownership does not exclude carrying concealed weapons,
but carrying concealed weapons does not provide security. If all
citizens are carrying concealed weapons for self-defense and there are
no rules and regulations to remove guns from the lawless and the
disloyal, the insecurity becomes absolute. The armed predators will
simply ambush their victims."
It's clear that Mr. Ernst has decided that since the Lott/Mustard study does
not support his magazine's (Firearms Policy Journal) position of advocating
Gun-Control, it doesn't matter whether the study is factual, or not. He
condemns it, based solely on his personal bias'.
There is a common thread that should be obvious to anyone. All of the
Gun-Control Advocates quoted above had NOT reviewed the Lott/Mustard study and
do not supply ANY facts to substantiate there strident claims. Why?
If a very real possibility of reducing violent crime in this nation exists,
even though the method may contradict those promoted by Gun-Control Advocates,
why do they condemn it out of hand? Wouldn't a reasoning individual who was
actually concerned about reducing violent crime in this country give this study
careful consideration before making the statements quoted above?
If Gun-Control Advocates were sincerely interested in reducing violent crime,
the answer would HAVE to be yes! But...;
Their reactions to the Lott/Mustard study demonstrate that Gun-Control Advocates
are NOT interested in reducing violent crime. The high rates of violent crime in
this nation work in the Gun-Control Advocates favor and they use it as a tool to
promote their actual agenda. It works in their favor because it gives them a weapon
to beat everyone over the head with, guilt. Using guilt, they bludgeon us day after
day with the supposed fact that the cause of violent crime is our law abiding
citizen's refusal to give up their firearms. They plead with us, producing
heart-rending pictures of death and injury perpetrated by violent criminals, then
tell us that it is all our fault because we haven't turned in our guns.
There can be no mistake, the Gun-Control Lobby is only interested in taking away
the firearms of law abiding citizens and because of this agenda they are, in effect,
helping violent criminals avoid coming into (possibly fatal) contact with armed,
law-abiding citizens and, preventing law abiding citizens from having the means to
defend themselves when a violent criminal accosts them.
Gun-Control Advocates are going to have a serious problem in dealing with the
Lott/Mustard study, and that's trying to explain to America why they continue to
oppose laws that could have prevented the deaths of the 5,626 citizens who have
been Murdered, the injuries of the 14,967 citizens who have been Raped, and the
injuries of the 214,998 citizens who have been the victims of Aggravated Assault
since January 1, 1973.
Gun-Control Advocates would do well to consider the words of Attorney General
Janet Reno, who, when asked about the Lott/Mustard study at her weekly news
conference on 8/8/96 said, that she "hadn't read it", and "I try to be
open-minded.... When a report like that has come out, I think it's important that
I look at it before yakking about it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission to reprint granted as long as this commentary is reproduced in its
entirety and proper credits/quotes are noted. J.L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------