FREE ESSAY ON GUN LAWS

GUN LAWS

States from Michigan to Nebraska to California, as well as the federal government, are
considering new rules on letting law-abiding citizens carry guns. Does allowing citizens
to carry concealed handguns deter violent crimes? Or does this cause otherwise
law-abiding citizens to harm each other? Thirty-one states now have guaranteed their
citizens the right to carry concealed handguns if applicants do not have a criminal
record or a history of significant mental illness. So what have the results been? 
The numbers tell the story 
Using the FBI's crime-rate data for all 3,054 U.S. counties by year from 1977 to 1992, I
co-authored a study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies. We found that concealed
handguns deter violent crimes and produce no significant increase in accidental handgun
deaths. The accompanying figures show how dramatic this drop is by illustrating how
different violent crime rates change before and after the adoption of these laws. The
size and timing of the decline coincide closely with the number of concealed-handgun
permits issued. Counties issuing the most new permits had the greatest drops in crimes. 
The study considered arrest and conviction rates, prison-sentence lengths and changes in
many other handgun laws such as waiting periods, as well as income, poverty, unemployment
and changing demographics. Thousands of observations made it possible to control for a
whole range of other factors never included in any previous crime study. 
The estimated benefits indicate that if those states without right-to-carry concealed
handgun provisions had adopted them in 1992, at least 1,500 murders would have been
avoided yearly. Similarly, rapes would have declined by more than 4,000, robbery by more
than 11,000 and aggravated assault by more than 60,000. 
Benefits all around 
Surprisingly, the largest drops in violent crimes occurred in the most urban counties
with the highest crime rates. Further, the benefits of concealed handguns were not
limited to those who carry the weapons. By the nature of these guns being concealed,
criminals cannot tell whether a potential victim is armed, thus making crime less
attractive when it involves direct contact with people. Citizens who have no intention of
carrying a concealed handgun benefit from the crime-fighting efforts of their fellow
citizens. 
While allowing either men or women to carry concealed handguns deters murder, the impact
is particularly dramatic for women. The findings imply that for each additional woman
carrying a concealed handgun the murder rate for women falls by three to four times more
having an additional man carrying a concealed handgun lowers the murder rate for men.
With women typically being weaker physically, providing a woman with a gun has a much
bigger effect on her ability to defend herself. 
People willing to go through the permitting process also tend to be law abiding. In
Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have
lost their licenses for using a firearm in a felony. Most cases appear to have involved
accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas like airports or schools. 
During Texas' first two years of issuing permits in 1996 and 1997, permit holders were
arrested for violent crimes at less than one-sixth the rate of other adult Texans, and
these arrests rarely involved guns. Likewise, in Virginia, not a single permit holder has
been involved in a violent crime. Similar results have been observed in states such as
Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. 
Listen to the men in blue 
While most police have supported concealed-handgun laws, many opponents have changed
their minds after adoption. For example, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police
Association, recently summarized his change of heart: I lobbied against the law in 1993
and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't
happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman.
I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have
permits. I'm a convert. 
Permit holders are unusually law-abiding citizens who fear for their personal safety. The
police are simply not able to protect everyone all the time. As a former opponent of
concealed handgun laws, Campbell County, Ky. Sheriff John Dunn says: I have changed my
opinion ... These are all just everyday citizens who feel they need some protection. 
The evidence clearly indicates that we are all better off when law-abiding citizens are
given a chance to defend themselves. 
This article is too stupid to comment on. As already stated, America has a disgusting
homicide rate, the result of the gun mentality. Back to the Third World again, eh??!!
Inner-city Detroit looks like some two-bit dictatorship that Americans here about on TV
and pity. Pity indeed : ( 
3/26/98 AllenM
Funny, David, that Detroit got to be in such sad shape with some of the toughest gun laws
in the Nation. 
3/26/98 Christopher
Clearly Mr. Lott is right on the money with his article. No matter where you are in the
world, if you want to move large quantities of gold or cash, you arm your guards. This
holds true even in countries with TOTAL bans on guns. Driving gold through Ireland or
Japan will find the same armed guards. Why do they need to arm their guards? Because
criminals will ALWAYS obtain weapons and resort to violence. This brings up the question:
If gold is valuable enough to protect, aren't the lives of individuals worth that or
more? If most people value life more than gold, then it would stand to reason that they
should have the right to protect themselves with the very finest means available.
Certainly the 500,000 slaughtered in Rwanda would have been better off had they been
armed...instead, their attackers found only unarmed, defenseless people. The results were
too predictable. In the LA Riots, again it was the defenseless, unarmed citizens who
suffered the most cruelly. Such extremes are mere examples, by the way. Violence against
law-abiding citizens is to be condemned even when it is conducted by a lone unarmed
criminal...and it too is worthy of being armed to defend against. 
3/26/98 Bob Bailey
Seems like those in power forget 2 things. A law, any law is a limitation on our freedom.
Although many laws are nessesary, many are not. A law is only good for LAWABIDING people.
No amount of law will prevent sensless acts. Criminals respect armed people.Why is it
that our lawmakers do not? Why are you blaming guns for violence ? Seems to me that it's
a morality problem.For those that do not obey the law, and for those like yourself that
don't have the spine to stand up for what is right. 
3/26/98 R. Clarke
Excellent article. I only take issue with one statement: The police are simply not able
to protect everyone all the time. This furthers the myth that the function of the police
is to protect individuals. In reality, their job is much different. They are charged with
investigating violations of the law, writing reports, and arresting suspects. There is a
good deal of case law backing this up. Your local police department has *no obligation*
to protect you from those who would harm you. For those who doubt this, or just want more
info, read The Value of Civilian Arms Possession As Deterrent To Crime Or Defense Against
Crime By Don B. Kates Jr. (Originaly published in AMERICAN J. OF CRIM. LAW (1991)). A
quick search of the title at Yahoo should bring this right up. 
3/26/98 Muad'Dib usul@thepoint.net_nospam
Mr. Lenan's probing commentary notwithstanding, guns are curative, not causal as regards
violence. The Justice Dept just finished a study, but haven't released it publicly. It
seems that, despite operational assumptions specifically designed to minimize the
positive effect of guns on crime rates, they still found over 1.5 million defensive uses
of firearms a year - which is in line with similar studies (i.e., Gary Kleck). Our
disgusting homicide rate has been dropping steadily since 1980, in lockstep with a
decline in the population's percentage of 14-24 y.o. males - but coincident with a marked
_increase_ in the passage of concealed-carry laws and permits issued, and an increase of
over 40% in the number of guns in private hands. Were guns the cause of crime, the rate
would be increasing. Ipso facto, the passage  too stupid to comment on is not the
article.... 
3/26/98 
Has anyone done a study of the effects of open carry? Why weren't any fo the teachers
involved in the Jonesboro incident armed? Or even some of the children? 
3/26/98 Christopher
Jonesboro and similar tragedies will naturally continue as Public Schools mimic their
government sibling known as Public Housing. Both prove that government should be quite
limited in what it is permitted to operate, unless you want the violence associated with
public housing and public schools to continue unabated. 
3/26/98 Ron Lewenberg rml33@columbia.edu
Whether right-to-carry laws promote or detter violence is irrellevant to the law. The
true debate is about the fundamental right of citizens to protect themselves from
criminals and against the state. There is a reason why the loudest pro-confiscator here
is from France. That reason is the relationship of the individual to the state. In Europe
power is found in the state and lent to the people as a privelege. In America our rights
are UNALIENABLE and we lend power to the state. The government has no morall or legal
authority to disarm citizens. To do so is to through out our reason d'etre. For the
people to promote such an action is an admission that freedom has failed. Gun control
advocates don't want to control guns, they want the government to controll us. 
3/26/98 Bob
re:Ron Lewenberg Amen to that brother ! Best thing Ive heard yet. 
3/26/98 Non-Ideologue
So Mr. Lewenburg, don't you think that Palestinians also should have the right to carry
guns and defend themselves as human beings , just like Israelis? I take your comments to
be universally applicable principles, not just for Americans, but also for Jewish
settlers in Israel (and Arabs in the occupied territories) where religious fanatics and
economically motivated families already have the right to carry guns and shoot Arabs
whose families have always been there and get away with it. Right now the Palestinians, a
decent percentage of whom are Christian, only can use stones to try to throw off the
cruel oppressor who breaks its Oslo treaty commitments and scorns the world community. If
Israel could not control the Palestinians before allowing Arafat to return (and turning
over a few small pieces of land), then how can the Palestinians do it? Is gun control
doomed to fail? Which is it? 
3/26/98 anonymous
Was anybody else just a little suspicious of the statistics presented in this article?
Were the graphs shown for just one state each, presented as an example, or are they
somehow a composite of all available data? Were there any states that did not show a
dramatic plunge after the legalization of concealed weapons? Also, I'd like to see a
side-by-side comparison of, say, a state that adopted the measure and a nearby state that
didn't, for the same time period. The author makes some good points, but I'd like to know
a little more about the data. Maybe I'm just a skeptic... 
3/26/98 David Lenan
Muad'Dib: My original comment was as probing as was needed given the intelligence of the
article. America's homicide rate is disgusting, to most people at least, mabe not to
someone with your character. Guns ARE the cause of these horrible crimes, the decrease in
the homicide rates is almost entirely due to the fact that the baby boomers are at a
point in their aging where their getting too old to commit crimes. Again, no one will
look at the international evidence. Your post was JUST not too stupid to comment on. 
3/26/98 mowgli
Seems like John Lott is on to something. We should do some serious studies on this
matter. However David Lenan and others of his ilk would probably not believe those
results either. Why is it that some refuse to seek the truth? They are so sure of their
convictions that they reject truth and scoff at attempts to reach the truth. Give us a
break David! We have to find out what will work. Or shouldn't we? Ill grant you there is
no panacea but nothings working now as you point out. What would you have us do? Wring
our hands and admit there is no solution? 
3/26/98 Bob
To David Lenan: Get a clue. If you took every gun in this country and destroyed it, are
you silly enough to believe that that would be the end of violence ? As for international
results, I could really care less. This is still the greatest country in the world and
your article smacks of socialism. Do you own a gun ? Have you ever had to protect
youself, or are you living in Utopia? Are you jealous of common men that own guns ? Where
do you live ?Are you allowed by the authorities to even own guns , or is that just for
the ruling elite ? Tell me please. I'm trying to figure out how someone can even think
like this. 
3/26/98 John Anderson
David Lenan: Guns ARE the cause of these crimes? Don't know if you actually meant this,
but if you did, you're are excusing the people (criminals) who commit these crimes. A
criminal is not responsible because they are victims of society, right? It's these
criminal-tolerant views, adopted so much by our legal system, that have been a
significant contributor to higher violent crime rates. Does your view also extend to
butcher knives, baseball bats, arsenic, automobiles, rocks, rope, bare hands, and other
tools of intentional murders? Crime is an act of a person, and the rights of law-abiding
people need not be stripped in a misguided attempt to exonerate the criminal and place
blame on inanimate objects. 
3/26/98 David Lenan
Bob: Your post is so full of self-righteouss I don't even know what you think of reality.
Taking the guns away wouldn't end violence, but it would temper it down a great deal. I
KNOW YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL RESULTS, THAT'S PART OF THE GODDAMN PROBLEM WITH
AMERICANS, SO CONCEITED!!!!! If you are an America Bob, YOU are the one being ruled by
the elites. Your post smacks of ignorance, check out an atlas, discover there are other
countries, discover that the smart ones banned guns, discover everyone isn't killing
everyone in these countries. 
3/26/98 David Lenan
John Anderson: I don't believe criminals are the victims of society. I would like to see
those two boys be executed, they took the lives of innocent children before they could
live, therefore the boys should lose thier lives. All the examples you give me are
objects, but guns are the only ones that are there just to KILL!! Taking the guns away
would make that a lot harder, which would be a good start in attempting to get things in
order. 
3/26/98 Allen VanCleve
David Lenan: Why are so terrified of freedom and self determination. When are you going
to realize that your disgust in personal freedom will eventually lead to a police state.
Having spent the majority of my childhood under the care of the state.(foster care) Ihave
seen first hand what it is like to live in a nanny state. I wouldn't wish that even on
you even though it seems to be what you want. 
3/26/98 David Lenan
Allen VanCleve: Banning guns doesn't take away freedom. LOOK AT CANADA!! Canada is MORE
free. While Americans were enslaving niggers Canadians were risking war with America to
sneak blacks into Canada and FREEDOM. Canadians can walk down an inner-city street
without being killed, Toronto and Vancouver are a hundred times safer than L.A. and New
York. Canadians are warned when travelling to American that it's a whole different ball
game, stay alert or violence will consume you alive. The freedom argument is
justification to keep the weapons, explain the examples of the other nations, other
countries like Canada (a country without guns which NO other country has ANY right to
criticize about freedom). 
3/26/98 Christopher
David: Your passion is appreciated, and certainly the struggle for freedom is the most
noble of all battles. You are incorrect, however, to allude to Canada as having no guns.
It has millions. It has handguns, rifles, and even automatic weapons. Eskimo children
take rifles with them on school field trips to protect themselves from bears. Gun safety
classes proliferate. These are good things. It also has a low crime rate. That's all very
nice. Canada does not have my brand of freedom, however. Banks are *Required* to get the
government's permission to purchase other banks (you don't have much freedom without that
permission). Motorists are prohibited from using radar detectors. Doctors are assigned
low pay-levels (which is why so many great Canadian doctors immigrate to the US to help
give us the best healthcare on the planet). These are anectdotal, of course, but they
help illustrate that freedom is not the same as tranquility. Sure, a diehard Socialist
can always claim that it is reasonable for governments to limit what doctors make (or
lawyers or businessmen), but in no way is that FREEDOM! Freedom is found where people are
willing to fight for their rights. This means that things can get quite violent, in fact
wars are often fought over freedom. Freedom requires that you stand up to every bully and
never back down. Whether you choose to do this with a particular weapon or not is
immaterial (so long as you have the choice). 
3/26/98 Jim Block jimblock@cei.net
Allen. It is a people problem not a gun problem. Switzerland households are REQUIRED to
keep assult rifles and ammunition available. You can walk down Swiss streets even more
securely that Canadian streets. IT IS A PEOPLE PROBLEM, NOT A GUN PROBLEM. 
3/26/98 Muad'Dib usul@thepoint.net_nospam
I see a trend emerging: Any comments whicb do not conform perfectly to Mr. Lenan's views
are too stupid to comment on (yet the urge to say so overwhelms, I guess). An easy,
predictable debating technique, but hardly convincing, I'm afraid. What exactly was too
stupid about my post, Mr. Lenan? Was there something wrong with my data? Was my analysis
of that data flawed in some way? These are certainly a legitimate points of contention, a
fact I have in no way disregarded. A debate would entail your pointing out my errors and
providing alternative data and/or analysis. I, at least, have provided these - you have
not. Anecdotes, repetition, allusion to international data you don't provide, and
SHOUTING do not make your point more acute, nor your lack of supporting evidence less
apparent. Calling those who disagree with you stupid enhances neither your position nor
your status as a person whose views should be given any weight. Quite the contrary. Guns
are an emotional issue, but not immune to reasonable, methodical debate. I challenge you
to step up a level from polemics to actual intellectual discourse. I, and others here,
have presented our viewpoints with supporting evidence. If you disagree with me,
_support_ your position rather than belittling yourself (not me, I assure you) by
namecalling. 
3/27/98 Fremling fremling@earthlink.net
See John Lott's op-ed piece on page A14 in the Friday, March 27th, Wall Street Journal.
He has an excellent analysis of the Arkansas school shooting. 
3/27/98 bmp bmp@geocities.com
Dear Lenin (uh, I mean, Lenan... David Lenan): If guns are the reason for the relatively
high homicide rates in the U.S., please explain why two other countries, that have less
gun control than the U.S., have violent crime rates as low as any other European
countries? These countries are Switzerland and Israel. If guns cause crime and gun
control reduces it, why is it that there was much less crime in the good old days (you
know, before you socialists came to power in the 60s), when guns were commonplace and gun
control was nonexistent? Hmmmmm?? Speaking of violent crime, do you know how many
millions of innocent people were slaughtered by Hitler and Stalin after they disarmed the
people, comrade? B. 
3/27/98 David Lenan
Muad'Dib: You don't agree that having a nation full of guns is probably the real cause of
a culture that is obsessed with death? You don't agree that getting rid of the guns would
make people think twice about killing because the actual act would be harder (e.g.
stabbing with a knife). Often pointless argument arises because it seems some people
answer arguments about EVERY issue with the Consitution, the Declaration of Independence,
Mom and apple pie. You think that's educated argument, an issue comes up and half (not
all) the people post messages that sound like something William Wallace would say in
Braveheart?? Some have said everything on the gun debate except the NRA fought like
warrior poets, and won their freedom, forever... 
3/27/98 Steve Koege
I totally agree with Professor Lott on the merits of concealed weapons. Just the
perception that an individual is armed would make a violent person think twice about
committing an act of violence against another person. Considering this, crime would
typically go down if you weren't sure if you were going to be shot and killed for your
troubles. 
3/27/98 Steve
To the previous Steve - One thing that criminals consider is the risk involved in doing
their business - crime. If that risk is too great (ie to their own cowardly lives), they
will not do it. My father (a liberal BTW) has a sign on his rural property warning
would-be criminals that they will be shot at. He hasn't had a single problem while his
neighbors are getting items stolen from their garages. In my town, an older man got fed
up and did the same thing. Both my father and this other man raised the price to these
criminals, and that's a price they don't want to pay. 
3/27/98 FredE
Dave Lenan: the post immediately preceeding your last conclusively answers your first two
questions in the negative. The historical and statistical data devastate the gun grabber
position. And, gee, sorry Dave if we hick Americans keep referring to that pesky
constitution. As long as the 2nd Amendment remains, this IS a constitutional issue. 
3/27/98 Bob
TO all that respond: As an American I am proud of my country. Sure, we've got our faults
and some dark history, but the fact of the matter remains that this country has done more
for individual rights and freedoms than any country in the world. How can anyone argue
with Foreigners, that are totally alien to our ways and thought processes? David, I tend
to think of americans as the William Wallace types. People that would draw the line and
stand for what we believe.Paris France, we are unlike the french, that would be speaking
German now, if it wasn't for Americans. You guys have no idea,no concept of our ideas of
freedom. So before you argue, make sure you understand the concepts. 
3/27/98 Mark Wilson
I love David's response. Don't confuse me with facts, I already know what the right
answer should be. 
3/27/98 Mark Wilson
Lenan: The US has always been a country awash in guns, yet this culture of death is a
very recent phenomena. As usual, you would rather use emotion, and insult everyone who
has the audacity to disagree with your ignorant opinions than even try to deal with the
facts. 
3/27/98 Wm Bach
David Lenan, I love the reference to William Wallace. Did you even understand what the
character was talking about? Criminals and governments (often the same thing) respect
only one thing - an armed populace. They do not respect your right to free speech, they
do not respect your right to secure papers, they do not respect your right to a fair and
impartial trial of your peers. Sixty million Americans understand this and will become
very angry if you try to foist your commie crap upon them. Sleep well. 
3/27/98 anonymous
Guns do not cause crimes people do. We have to take responsibility at some time for our
society and culture and look at ourselves. Not at the drugs, guns, cars, booze etc. Are
we going to ban driving because of the car accidents? The decline of our morals and
ethics is to blame. In the 50s with fewer gun control laws we had fewer crimes. Parents
have to take responsibility for their children, teachers for their students, bosses for
their employees. You can not fire anyone anymore because you may get shot. You can not
discipline any student at school because you will get sued, you cannot discipline your
child because it will be taken away from you. We respect opinions and freedom of speech
for criminals and restrict religious expressions. We glorify and make excuses for the
criminals and forget about the victims and the people who do good. As long as you are
successful and have money it is ok to be amoral and to be a crook? We have to look at
ourselves and our values and make the changes. Do not mess with the Constitution that got
us this far. We do not want to lose our freedoms, we should want to protect them. The 2nd
amendment will guarantee the 1st and we can be around for another 200 yrs at least. 
3/27/98 logos
Lenan..Are you seriouly contending the government should confiscate or otherwise make
illegl the ownership of the over 200 million guns in this country? If so you are living
in a dream world. The gun crime problem will not be solved by any such sweeping
destruction of the Constitutional rights of US citizens. Nor will it be solved by one
sweepin solution. More likely a series of solutions such as tougher sentencing, allowing
citizens easier concealed carry permits, attempts to shore up the Juvenile Justice System
to allow jailing offenders and later putting them in adult facilities when the come of
age etc. Your comparisons of the US with other countries won't fetch! Compare NY City and
Wash. DC who have handgun control laws to other US cities which don't. After that say
something realistic please! 
3/27/98 Will Briggs wsb@cs.unt.edu
Mr Lott shows a trend I want to see more of in journalism: actually including references.
I get frustrated when I read that studies show... or a bill recently passed into law
requires... (My only complaint about the data is I would like to have seen a measure of
the statistical significance of the results.) When contrasted with the opposing
editorial, this one really shines. 
3/27/98 Bob
TO Paris France; I have to admit that you are right about me, or Americans in general
being superior to any other country. I rekon that ANY armed male is SUPERIOR to one that
is not. I suppose that I could make you a slave and you would have to like it because you
sure could'nt do anything about it. I'll bet that there are a lot more people immigrating
here than anywhere else, in the quest to become superior. Any way, Im glad you've finnaly
realized that yes, it's true, we are superior. As long as we retain the right to bear
arms, we will stay superior. 
3/27/98 John Guy jguy@disc.dla.mil
{Where is the MODERATOR of this discussion? If personal attacks and lewd remarks are
considered appropriate in a debate, then just drop the claim to a moderated debate.} One
would hope that no one is so tunnel-visioned as to think that to have or not to have guns
are the only variables in the equation. To compare today (with many gun laws) to the
1950s (with fewer gun laws) ignore the vast differences in the societies of past and
present that inspired the increase in laws. The article ASSUMES a lot more than seems
reasonable in a scientific study. 
3/27/98 Samuel Colt
Everybody relax! The U.S. has more guns due to our frontier heritage. Also, we chose to
allow gun ownership as a foil to government tyranny. Gun ownership as defined by the
Second Amendment is not for personal protection from crime, but a more important element
of freedom, protection from our government should it cease to be an agent of the people.
It is but one of the unique things that has made the United States the greatest country
in the history of Earth. Justly deserved conceit, thank you. I DO have an atlas, by the
way, and I am aware of other countries which have elitist ideas about human nature
(unwashed masses, etc.) and the effects of a populace free to take responsibility for
their own personal safety(The peasants have guns! Save the Queen!). Alas, the tolerant
ideas that have created this prosperity also create a class of people who prey on those
who follow the law. That is why I have a permit. Now if my state would follow Louisiana's
lead with car-jackers. 
3/27/98 Julie Cochrane julie.cochrane@success.gatech.edu
200 or so years ago, we fought a war. At the beginning of it, we wrote down why we fought
it. At the end of it we wrote down what we expected to be respected by our new government
or we would throw it back out on its ear. The world may have changed a lot since then,
but we have not. Fundamentally, Americans still just want to be left alone. We're out in
the world as a Superpower because our economic system works well, we need good trade
routes to buy critical resources (like titanium) from abroad, and we learned from WWI and
WWII that the rest of the world will not leave us alone to run our own country the way we
like, mind our own business, and trade in peace. The only real argument against
isolationism over here is that we have to enforce Pax Americana on you buggers to keep
world economies and trade routes stable for what few critical resources we don't have
internally. And, of course, we're glad to buy and sell nonessentials with you at the same
time. We refer back to 200 year old documents because we meant the sentiments in them
enough to fight wars over them when we said them, and we still mean them strongly enough
to fight wars over them now. We refer back just to show we're being consistent. 
3/27/98 Andy Alogusz@aol.com
I'm from Detroit. We are getting casinos soon. We'll probably have an increase in crime
too. I pray that the state gov. passes the CCW reform soon. Criminals dont care what the
laws are. http://www.jpfo.org 
3/27/98 AllenM
D. Lenan, I think that you have an unspoken emotional context that overrides any logic
you could bring to this subject. People are the problem, not the implement they use to
act out. Or are we going to ban frying pans and ball point pens next? 
3/27/98 Frank
On 3/26/98, David Lenan wrote: # America's homicide rate is disgusting, to most # people
at least, mabe not to someone with your character. # Guns ARE the cause of these horrible
crimes, One article on this site mentioned that violent crime rates in other western
countries are 10-20 times lower than ours. David, something like 50-60% of the murders
are commited with firearms. Even if guns disappeared and ALL of the people that killed
with guns turned into good people and did not kill with other means, we'd still have a
violent crime rate five to ten times higher than other countries! Of course, it would be
worse than this, since most of the people that murdered with guns would STILL be amoral
sociopaths... they'd find a different weapon. Guns are used in a lot of murders not
because guns cause crime, but because they are convenient to use for that purpose. They
would remain convenient even if guns were banned. If you could cast a magic spell that
caused all guns to cease to exist, these crooks would use something else. We have a
culture of violence in America. This, unlike widespread gun ownership, is a recent
development. We, as a group, have decided to forsake morality. Life has little meaning
now! The only surprise is that there is not MORE violence. Combined with loose, revolving
door justice, we've set ourselves up for what we've got. I'm glad that I now live in a
state that allows me my Constitutional right to bear arms. Frank 
3/27/98 Muad'Dib usul@thepoint.net
Mr. Lenan: of course I don't think that a nation full of guns is the cause of a culture
of death. Even if we were a culture of death, guns would be a symptom. Smoking is not an
effect of cancer. But that analogy is ir-releavent because I don't live in a culture of
death. I live in a life-affirming culture that affords and respects the sacrosanct rights
(and responsibilities) of free individual human beings. One of those rights is the
absolute right to defense of my person, my loved ones, and my freedom. Largely because my
ancestors - and quite a few millions of others along the way - agreed that this was a
sacrosanct right and acted accordingly, I live in the freest country on Earth. I know
there are other cultures and other countries; I have even a visited a few (Canada
included, which I liked very much). I prefer to be where I am. Proliferation of violence
is not an effect of the availability of guns - has the clear cut example of Switzerland
(since you adore international examples so much) really failed to penetrate your
prejudices? violence is and has been steadily decreasing since 1980. AK was tragic but it
was newsworthy precisely because it was a rare event. 
3/27/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
Paris (France) -- The article is too technical. As everybody knows in politics a good
politicians can give every sense he wish to polls and numbers and statistics. But this is
_not_ a political article, nor meant to be one. It is a rather high level discussion of
logical findings from an analysis of available data. My word, if the article itself is
too technical, what would have to say about the Lott-Mustard study that has been
published? There are some things in the world (most?) that are not amenable to
understanding through emotion or introspection but require a level of conscious cognition
to understand. 
3/28/98 Dave Workman oeppubs@mail.nwlink.com
Bravo for John Lott's revealing research on the impact that concealed carry laws are
having on crime. That such laws have been passed in 31 states, coinciding with passage of
Three Strikes and Hard Time for Armed Crime legislation, is the real reason we are seeing
a decline in reported violent crime. Those who have advocated restrictive gun control
over the years, and other intrusions on the rights of individual citizens, are now being
shown as the liars they've always been. In the wake of the Arkansas tragedy, I remain
more firmly convinced than ever that gun control advocates are glad such shooting
rampages to occur, simply in order to further their own agenda. The veneer is wearing
thin, however, as from your own USA Today polling, the majority of respondents support
gun ownership, and are now rejecting arguments that restrictions on our Constitutional
rights will control crime. 
3/28/98 Gary Stift gstift@misn.com
Thank God we do NOT have a world government! Those of you, not American - I do not care
what your opinion is! This is America - and our rights and our laws are OUR business. If
you want to be without guns and at the mercy of tyrants, that is fine - you can have
whatever laws you want - in your country. The Lott article is a valid study of the
situation in the U.S. David Lenan - whoever and wherever you are - stay there and keep
your nose out of our business. 
3/28/98 Ken Barnes ken@SPAMBLOCKcc.memphis.edu
While the con article's discussion thread appears to be moderated, this one really
debases the term intellectual capital. To the point, Dr. Lott's paper, which I read and
commented upon in the talk.politics.guns pro-gun FAQ (see text at
http://www.rkba.org/research/ ) is far and away the most methodical and comprehensive
study of its kind in the professional criminology literature. If there has been any
serious criticism of Lott's methodology in the literature (other than editorials) I'd be
interested to see it. The folks at Handgun Control, Inc. have no case, thus far. 
3/28/98 amurphy amurphy@seark.net
Professor Lott,s article was on the money. I read the complete study and it was very
thourough. Not like the surveys and studies by HCI and CDC. You may not like what he
says, but is is factual. And that is what gripes the gun control crowd. 
3/28/98 Ken kenyee@leftbank.com
Mr. Lott forgot to mention that in cities with total bans against carrying by citizens,
there is more violence compared to cities with licensed carry. A case in point is our own
capitol, Washington DC where guns are totally banned, but the gun homicide rate is still
very high. Ditto for cities like NY, Chicago, LA. Other countries' cultures are probably
different, but I still remember traveling to Rome and noticing that on a lot of
streetcorners, there were police with submachine guns. I also had two incidents where
people were bold enough to come up to me and try pickpocketing me (one actually stuck his
hand into one of my front pockets!). Pretty bold if you ask me... 
3/29/98 John jstoufer@flash.net
To Paris France: I am an American and after spending several years in Europe and visiting
several countries (including France) I still choose the United States over ALL others.
There isn't space here to tell you all the reasons. Whether you want to believe it or
not, gun control does not work here and never will for a variety of reasons. I carry a
concealed weapon (legally) and have never had to use it. Armed law abiding citizens are
not a threat to anyone except criminals. I enjoy visiting other countries. The only
country that I and my family only visited once was France. We found the people to be rude
and obnoxious. And you prove we were right... 
3/29/98 Christopher
I've noticed that there are cities in this world that have total bans on civilians
carrying guns, yet which still have reasonably low violent crime rates (e.g., Innsbrook
and Tokyo). On the other hand, I have also seen cities that actively encourage civilians
to carry weapons (e.g., Tel Aviv and Zurich), yet they also have reasonably low violent
crime rates. These anecdotal, unscientific examples encourage me to disbelieve any claims
that gun bans have any large effect on violent crime rates. What I have noticed, however,
is that the cities with gun bans (and low violent crime rates) keep large numbers of
armed police on duty at night (Innsbrook stationed soldiers on street corners when I was
there last). Martial law is hardly freedom, and should be discouraged whenever possible
(even if it works in reducing crime). So I'm left to conclude that trusting the common
man to protect himself (in the best way available) is a better answer to crime than the
passing fad of banning guns from civilians (I'm not aware of any nation that bans weapons
from government employees such as police and soldiers). However, if a nation were to
propose banning guns from its police, security personnel, and soldiers, then I might at
least be inclined to view the dying breed of anti-gun politicians as unhypocritical. 
3/29/98 Ron Boe ronsueboe@sprintmail.com
I believe concealed carry of firearms is much better than open carry (which I think is
like carrying a big sign sayingI dare Ya!) but question the need in MOST areas of the
county. What I would like to see is a study that conpares investment of money and
enforcement of automotive laws vs gun laws. Where would todays' society benifit the most
from? I think lack of enforcement of common motor vehicle laws causes more grief and
death than any firearm related problems. A study made by the goverement after the 1968
rash of gun laws showed that gun related deaths and injury was a small sliver of the
total death and injury pie while car related death & injury was a huge majority. This was
while the Vietnam war was going pretty good! We really need to step back and look at the
bigger picture; this article hopefully points this out in a back handed way. 
3/29/98 Steven Poor pjfire@spiritone.com
A few have voiced their suspicions about the the graphs and statistics quoted. These
people probably did not click on the blue-colored word study at the top of the article,
which leads you to the full study done by Lott and Mustard. If they had, they could see
how in-depth this study really is. Remember, if an author writes an article, they must be
as brief as possible. Listing the graphs for every state would not have been allowed by
the editor, in the interests of readability. 
3/29/98 mark herber markh@cts.com
Daid Lenan: The fact that Americans rightfully claim their right to selfdefense
apparently upsets you very much. I have a suggestion. Why don't you move to one of those
gun control countries which you are so fond of? Nobody here will stop you. They speak
english in Canada, Ireland, England and Australia. So the language barrier is no excuse.
No? Then will you admit that socialism and its consequent restrictions of citizens rights
are evil? Or on a pragamatic level, that socialism just doesn't work? After all,
inquiring minds want to know why you would consider living in such a violent place as
America when one of those peaceful socialist havens could be your home? If the
revolutionaries at Concord and Lexington didn't have guns you and I wouldn't have the
rights and liberties we now enjoy. 
3/29/98 Brad3000 brad3000@ix.netcom.com
Gentlemen, I am Australian, shot IPSC there for many, many years. I was not that great at
it but enjoyed it none the less. I have lived in the US for 10yrs now and my wife & I are
active target shooters. GunSafety begins in the head and my old club was very strict
about screening out the ones with records and drug abuse. Any club with a sporting
interest in firearms cannot afford to be brought-down by members that have a cavalier
attittude about serious gun usage and safe handling. What has happened recently to
gun-ownership in Australia is a political hype/knee jerk reaction using the sad event
that happened in Tasmmania as justification, it will not have much impact on crime as
evidenced by many surveys done in the US. We have been mugged 2 times in Australia & CT
and shot at in Quebec but survived all. I am for a well screened Carry system that
permits ANYONE the CHOICE of carrying. Where we live it is impossible to get one
currently and this also means that we cannot use ranges in other states that we used to
go to with other collegues. Each States Laws are a legal mindfield often without
reciprocity. Thanks for the Bandwidth. BRAD3000. 
3/29/98 John R. Lott, Jr. john_lott@law.uchicago.edu
Paris (France): Our study accounts for many possible reasons for why crime is changing
over time: arrest and conviction rates, prison sentence lengths, income, poverty,
unemployment, drug prices, the most extensive demographic information used in any crime
study, many different types of gun control, etc.. There are obviously many reasons why
crime is changing over time, but one thing that we also do is control for overall
national and state or county level trends in crime. For example, crime may have been
falling nationally between 1991 and 1992 but we found that those states who adopted
concealed handguns had even greater reductions in crime rates. The variables that include
can explain about 95 percent of the variation in crime rates across all American counties
from 1977 to 1992. By the way, the decline in murder rates nationally since 1991 can not
be explained only by the policies in New York city, nor is New York city somehow unique.
Many other large cities that did not adopt the particular programs followed in New York
and still had large drops in murder. As my new book shows using more recent data, the
continued drop in crime rates since 1992 can also be explained by the same variables that
I used earlier. 
3/29/98 Pete Smith petes@corollary.com
Likewise, in Virginia, not a single permit holder has been involved in a violent crime. I
wonder if this just means that they haven't been arrested yet? I've never visited here
before, have I been trolled? or is there a risk that some of the other statements of
compensating for poverty and demographics might also be as glowingly general? 
3/29/98 John R. Lott, Jr. john_lott@law.uchicago.edu
Paris (France): The reason why crime rates fell relatively more in largest cities is that
they are the most sensitive to changes in drug related crimes (i.e., gang battles over
drug turf). Since 1991 the U.S. government has greatly reduced its drug interdiction
efforts and as a result cocaine prices fell by 50 percent between 1991 and 1996. New York
with the heaviest concentration of drug usage has crime rates that are the most sensitive
to changes in drug prices. I am not sure what to make about your second message. It is
well known that the Mafia makes money by smuggling illegal items. The Mafia in the United
States was created by prohibition. It is not surprising to me that the Mafia in Europe
also thrives on providing items that are illegal there. Is the message that we should
legalize guns in Europe just as we ended prohibition in the U.S.? Or, is your point that
it is nearly impossible for governments to control the inflow of either drugs or guns? 
3/29/98 John R. Lott, Jr. john_lott@law.uchicago.edu
Pete Smith: The numbers for Texas involve arrest rates, but the numbers for most other
states involve the rates at which people are convicted. Licenses are suspended while
people's legal cases are pending but permanent revocation depends upon them being
convicted. The bottom line is that whether the numbers are in terms of arrest rates or
conviction rates, concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the
general adult population. When they are convicted it is for activities that rarely
involve threats to others (e.g., accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a
prohibited place). People who use a gun defensively are also frequently arrested when the
police arrive because it is difficult for the police to be completely sure who is telling
the truth. Permit holders who actually who fire their guns are almost always found to
have done so in self-defense. Compare that to arrests for most murders where the
conviction rate conditional on arrest is about 90 percent. It is thus very misleading to
look at the arrest rates for permit holders who are arrested for using their guns. 
3/29/98 Jeff jeff0097@flash.net
Thank you Mr. Lott for interjecting a comment to clear things up. I just wish to remind
the U.S. posters that it is extremely difficult for people from other cultures to
understand ours. The U.S was founded on violence. Early settlers killed native americans
to take their land. In 1776 we defeated the British and had to again in 1812. We fought a
bloody civil war in the 1860's, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, along with other countless
wars and conflicts over the last 222 years. Possibly survival of the fittest? Whether due
to tenacity or technology the strong will survive and thrive over the weak. Even today
our strength is being used as we have large contingent serving as U.N peacekeepers. The
U.S. is a violent group of people, like it or not, but because of this we won most of
those conflicts I listed. (CONTINUED)------ 
3/29/98 Jeff jeff0097@flash.net
(CONTINUATION)--------- Humans are predators, note our binocular vision for needed depth
perception when hunting prey (look at birds, an eagles eyes are in front, a parrott has
eyes on the side of its head). Please remember that were it not for the U.S the person
from France would be speaking German today and not be allowed on the internet to voice an
opinion anyway. The greatest French victory of late was the sinking of a Greenpeace ship
in a New Zealand harbor. This was done by their 'elite' special forces group and they got
caught. Other countries are not burdened with that pesky Bill of Rights either, and
remember it is not a bill of privledges. We all know why the second amendment was put
there, you cannot expect people from other countries to know our countries history as we
do not generally know theirs. (Plese pardon me for the length of this response) 
3/29/98 Bob Bailey bbailey@fia.net
To John Lott Jr.; We always hear that the police are anti-gun and support the Brady Bill.
In my hometown of 22,000, we have 19 police officers and I personally know 12 of them.
None of the 12 support the Brady Bill or any additional measures for gun control. All of
them support concealed carry laws. I wonder if that is typical of most police , or if it
is a southern thing. How about a survey of police and their own individual opinions? Not
the executive branch, just the common patrol officer, say, seargent and below ? I wonder
if we would get different stats than the ones that we are used to hearing. Any potential
there? 
3/29/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
Bob Bailey -- Please pardon me for adding my two cents worth relative to your question
because what I have to say is purely limited and has no validity statistically. I know
six uniformed police officers across four states, north and south, and not a single one
of them is opposed to CCW or have any desire to see more gun control laws. These police
officers span from sheriff departments, to highway patrol, to medium-sized city officers.
They are all, however, what one would call the rank and file. 
3/29/98 Dick Brudzynski hardcases@compuserve.com
Lott is a paid pimp of the right-wing Olin Foundation. His suggestion in the Wall Street
Journal that teachers carry concealed weapons is typical of the NRA mentality. 
3/29/98 Bob
To DICK ; Hey Dick, my wife is a teacher and teaches 9th grade civics. As a result of her
20 years of teaching , many of my friends are teachers and believe it or not, we have
talked about this very subject. I personally think that it would be a good idea if
teachers were armed. Not a mandantory thing, but a law that would allow them to do so if
it were their choice. Think about it. Who could respond in a more timley manner ? NO ONE.
Like Lotts' study points out, just knowing some teachers were armed would undoubtedly
prevent some violence. My wife has a CCW permit . I am a CCW range officer and you would
be suprised at the amount of teachers here in Arkansas that have permits. They are some
of the most responsible and respected people I know.Why don't you ask some teachers what
they think ? You may be suprised at the answers. 
3/29/98 Bob Bailey
TO Stan Watson : Your 2 cents worth was good to hear. The Sherrif here in Pope county is
a personal friend of mine , and I have picked his brain a time or two on gun related
issues. As sherrif, he sees all the gun applications for this county before he sends them
to the state police for approval. He has stated to me and to many CCW classes that he
attends that the people that apply for the permits are not part of the problem, and he
personally likes the idea of concealed carry and actively supports it by teaching the law
enforcment parts of the classes-- on his own time . I can tell you this , he has got a
lot of votes doing that, the last election we had , a republic candidate made the
statement that only the police and military should have guns and after saying that, he
never had a chance. 
3/29/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
Bob Bailey -- I guess that some politicians really do commit political suicide when they
open their mouth. I wouldn't have voted for him either, and I am a life long Republican.
I wonder, was he endorsed by your local Republican organization or was he one of those
single candidate primary winners? 
3/29/98 Bob Bailey
Stan Watson: Yes , the candidate was endorsed by the Rep. party. He was a career Army
man, 20 years in the Military Police. He must have forgot that he was retired and talking
to civilians.As a matter of interest, the Rep. party refused to endorse him again, saying
that our current Sherrif was unbeatable. We are fotunate. Our sherrif has common sense,
great family values and believes in a much higher authority than himself (unlike most
democrats). He is the most conservative democrat I ever met. He has a clear
unnderstanding of right and wrong. (unlike most Democrats).He is a good dude. 
3/30/98 Christopher
To Dick Brudzynski: Dick, Mr. Lott's suggestion that people consider allowing teachers to
be armed was not unreasonable or unjustified. His editorial in Friday's Wall Street
Journal (one of the better days for editorials, I might add) pointed out that the killer
at the High School in Pearl, Mississippi was immobilized not by the police...but by a
teacher who ran to his car and retrieved his gun and SAVED the children at that school
from further bloodshed. The police didn't arrive for another four minutes or so (imagine
how many innocent, young children that killer would have killed had that teacher not been
armed - hence, Mr. Lott's suggestion for reasonable consideration of such).
-------------- Now, since you criticized Mr. Lott's affilliations, why you don't you
clear the record and reveal to the readers on this forum that you have been posting the
one-sided text of anti-gun court cases on Compuserve for years? Who are you affilliated
with, Mr. Dick Brudzynski? If you think it is fair to carp about Mr. Lott's affiliations
(which has no bearing on the statistics in a peer-reviewed document, by the way), then
surely it is fair for you to be asked the same question. 
3/30/98 John R. Lott, Jr. john_lott@law.uchicago.edu
Dick Brudzynski: The gun control advocates like the Violence Policy Center and Handgun
Control have continually spread these claims about my funding that they know are false.
1) The endowment made by the Olin foundation was raised by the University of Chicago. I
had nothing to do with it and absolutely no contact with the foundation. There have been
Olin fellows at the University of Chicago since the 1960's and I did not arrive here
until the mid-1990's. 2) I was given the fellowship as a reward for my past research,
none of which has had anything to do with guns. The University of Chicago Law School
faculty, which voted to give me the position, never asked what future research I intended
to pursue. 3) Of the several hundred Olin fellows at Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Cornell,
Stanford, etc. since the 1960's, I am the only one to do any research on gun control. 4)
It is my understanding that the Olin Corporation gets something like one percent of its
profits from Winchester ammunition, and that there is no connection between the Olin
Corporation and the Olin Foundation. 5) For those interested in a more indepth discussion
on this issue please see my new book More Guns, Less Crime. I found how gun control
groups attack those with whom they disagree very interesting. 
3/30/98 Jeff jeff0097@flash.net
To Dick Brudzynski - First I applaud the fact that you list your e-mail address. This
lends a great deal of credibility to your response. Many anonymous posters are just
mouthing off and one does not know if they are truely making an arguement or just trying
to cause controversy. I must point out that in a recent school shooting, the shooter was
held at gunpoint by his vice principal for 4.5 min. until police arrived. Yes the VP was
breaking the law by having a firearm on school property but the little psycho was only
able to kill 2 classmates until the VP apprehended him. This is not popular so was, of
course, usually left out of media reports. 
3/30/98 Robert Preston
There were only two things wrong with Mr. Lott's article. As noted by another, the role
of police in America is not as protectors. Secondly, Mr. Lott stated, these states gave
the right to carry guns to citizens. No sir! The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right
to carry..... openly, concealed or otherwise! None of the right to carry laws would be
necessary if government would simply obey the law of the land, the Constitution! Each of
these states recognize in their constitutions, that the U.S. Constitution is supreme, is
the law of the land; and guarantee in their constitutions, the right to keep and bear
arms. More laws=more government control! David Lenan sounds more like Vladimir Lenin.
Need he be reminded that if not for an armed, gun-toting America, he wouldn't have the
right to spew out his stupity here? He contradicts himself, saying GUNS kill people, then
says that falling homicide rates is due to baby-boomers getting too old to commit crimes.
The 14 - 24 yr olds have always been our biggest criminal element. Homicide rates are
falling because baby-boomers are the ones arming themselves and the youngsters fear armed
citizens. We're not too old to shoot street hoodlums! Komrade Lenan also praises gun free
societies, ignoring their per capita crime rates being higher than America's, using
alternative weapons . . . and have tax rates of 50-68%, and few freedoms. Is that what
this moron wants for us? GUNS=FREEDOM! (I'm a retired cop). 
3/30/98 Garret Waddel
Right on Chief Preston and John Lott! America is only free because of honest citizens
standing up and telling the truth. Paris, France can cite all of the propaganda agents it
wants to, but the fact remains, the names they give you are people involved with
gun-control/gun-banning politics and organizations. These people in any other decade
would have been called what they are: Communist Socialists! If anyone thinks Communism is
dead, they're only ignorantly fooling themselves. The New World Order is all about
Socialism (remember Kruchev said in 1961, that Socialists would take over the world
without firing a shot). What stands in their way is free, armed societies! Anti-gunners
are nothing more than propaganda agents of the New World Order. It's not a peaceful they
want, it's an un-armed and imprisoned society, incapable of fighting back! Go to hell
Paris! America shall remain the land of the free! We're keeping our guns, for people like
you! 
3/30/98 
V 
3/30/98 Kaarlo Elonen
I find it interesting that everyone will admit that drunk drivers kill people but no one
says that Dodge or Ford or GMC or Nissan or Toyota or (insert your favorite vehicle)
kills people. It's too easy to blame the gun and not the person using it. However with
drunk drivers they will instead put the blame where it belongs and that is with the
driver and not with the car. Even the criminals will say that they fear breaking into a
house where they know the person has a gun because they don't want to get shot. If that
fear can extend out to the street because they don't know who is carrying a gun then I'm
all for it. The Second Admendment and concealed carry laws are needed just as much today
as they were needed 200 years ago. Does anyone really believe that the criminals will
turn in their guns if a law was passed that forbide ownership of guns ?? 
3/30/98 Stan Wojteck
Lott has right. More guns, less crime. I like this book. I am American and a patriot. I
dislike peole who comes here argue with us andthat are totally alien to our way and
tought process. I am a gun owner and I will never let Socialists and Communists take me
off. I have a bill of right and I will take my gun in an airplane. All this immigrants
who comes across in my country and steal my job and my house. 
3/31/98 F. Lassen Frank57@hotmail.com
I can't belive the amount of people who want the honest Citizen disarmed. I live in a
rural area and it takes the Sheriffs department 40 minutes to get a deputy here when a
crime is commited. The place I live is beside a state hwy. leading into another state and
when the sheriff is called the criminal goes acrossed the state line. I have called the
sheriffs office many times because many drug deals go down here on the Hwy. There
response is horrible. I have to keep a loaded gun here as I have had people drive into my
yard at 1AM and 2 AM and want directions and they were on drugs or had been drinking a
lot. The police and sheriffs jobs is not to protect, it is to apprehend criminals after a
crime has been commited. With over 390 million Acres in the United States and only about
one percent of the population of approxmately 262 million people in the US on some type
of law enforcement jobs, it is easy to see they can't help you if they are called and you
have only seconds to take care of your family during a crime. Require the anti gun crowd
to be sign up at police dept. and sheriffs offices saying they don't believe in guns so
the criminals will leave me and my family alone. Gun Control will lead to People Control.
Thank You 
3/31/98 Rob Waterson rob(at)mindspring(dot)com
I am a proud American and I do not give a damn about how they do things in Europe; we
have a different attitude towards government here. I have carried a concealed weapon for
several years now and never even had to draw it. I do indeed have a carry permit, but I
also know that I do not NEED one; what part of keep and bear does the government not
understand? HERE IS MY MAIN POINT: Those of you (and it warms my heart to see how many)
who firmly believe in the right to keep and bear have to abandon the republicrats and the
demopublicans; they have both abandoned freedom and individual rights. I find it
interesting that even though they were at odds with one another at the time, both the
Federalist and the Anti-Federalist would be considered Libertarians by today's standards.
Take the plunge, vote for freedom! 
3/31/98 Mark Wilson
Bob Bailey: You have to differentiate Police Chiefs from Police officers. Every poll that
I have read shows that police officers support the rights of citizens to be armed. Police
Chiefs, especially those in big cities, are usually political appointees, and as such,
usually care more about the policies of the current administration, than they do about
the concerns of the citizens. 
3/31/98 P (F)
You absolutely right ! 
3/31/98 Dr. Bill dr.bill@coolsite.net
As a person who has spent many decades dealing with measurements, I have to agree that
Mr. Lott's charts are simply too smooth to be remotely possible. He is clearly
misrepresenting some real data that may or may not actually have the trends he presents;
there is no statistical validation to back up what he claims with those figures. In
addition, we know that violent crime has generally dropped throughout the country, so
drops in murder rates etc. that center on the anti-crime implementation of gun-toting
laws or any other local public policy initiatives of the past decade are likely just
coincidental. These compelling scientific arguments having been made, there is still a
vague suspicion that Mr. Lott may be correct, even to a staunch anti-gun person such as
myself (I grew up in Houston TX when it was the murder capital of the civilized world and
always saw stories on the evening news about petty disputes that grew to deadly
confrontations given the ready access to guns, or childhood buddies killed during
innocent play). Criminals have to think twice about an attack on a potential target who
just might have a gun up their sleeve. However, I can't imagine that such policies would
work well in a crowded Manhattan subway, or that they could reduce our murder rates to
merely several times that of European countries which don't even necessarily arm their
police. 
3/31/98 P (F)
Dr. Bill: You absolutly right Sir ! 
4/1/98 John R. Lott, Jr. john_lott@law.uchicago.edu
Dr. Bill: The graphs shown in my piece trace out the quadratic regression lines for the
periods before and after the concealed handgun law goes into effect. (These were the
graphs discussed in the published version of January 1997 study in the Journal of Legal
Studies. The version on the web does not contain this information.) If you are interested
in the actual year to year variation in crime rates before and after the imposition of
the laws, please see pages 136 to 138 of my forthcoming book. However, the bottom line is
that for both ways the results look remarkable similar. As to you concerns about how
these laws would work in New York city, I have a couple thoughts. The largest cities that
I have studied who have changed their laws are Houston and Philadelphia, which why they
are not as large as New York are still fairly sizable. The results also strongly indicate
that concealed handgun laws reduce crime the most in the most densely populated counties.
However, it is possible that the relationship be the passage of these laws and crime
rates may change for the city populations above those which I have been able to study.
One can only test this by actually changing the law. New York City does currently issue
about 8,000 permits, but if one believes that the impact in New York would be different
than it has been in other cities, it is possible to change the law gradually in stages. 
4/1/98 TomC tcamp@princeton.edu
Benjamin Disraeli once said There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and
statistics. I got that quote out of a great little book called 'How to Lie With
Statistics'. For years it has been a little hobby of mine to look at the conclusions of
various published studies and surveys, and find the little lies, the outright
misrepresentations, the (mis) manipulation of data, etc. Little of the original data is
provided, typically, yet often it is sufficient to debunk the conclusions. This tendency
to lie with statistics is especially common in studies involving public policy issues
where political philosophy usually trumps academic detachment (does that even exist any
more?). I have no respect for anyone who intentionally misuses data and statistics to
reach conclusions not supported by that data. John Lott: pass. Douglas Weil: fail. 
4/1/98 Jack Carnwell
75% of those polled don't care what TomC thinks of statistics. 69% thinks he's currently
ingesting some sort of narcotic. 92% thinks he is paranoid to the point of needing
prozac. 54% believe he doesn't trust his mother. 99.9% think Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, M.D.,
is pretty wrong. 
4/1/98 Wm Bach
Dr. Bill/TomC, At least Dr. Lott has made an honest attempt to study the subject, and let
the data take him where it may. Perhaps you should do the same. Just go in with no
preconcieved results, analyze the data and let it take you where it leads. The truth
shall set you free...and a good Springfield M1 will ensure that you remain so. 
4/1/98 daniel
Okay, I have a few things to add. 1. The Canadian Freedom argument is garbage. To think a
Canadian is as free as we are is bull. SOcialist HealthCare, Permits needed to transport
weapons, come on. Canada screams socialism. They are damn fine humanitarians, however, as
is indicated by the fight to end several different forms of oppression and hostage
taking, and kidnapping. 2. To those questioning the statistics. Buy the book. Determining
causality is nearly impossible in the social sciences. Period. However, being able to
explain, or at least recognize other variables is important to the conclusion. Lott seems
to have a good graps on the variables involved, and the methodology, but was hamstrung in
this case by space. Guess I got baited into buying the book when it comes out. My
personal .02. I live in a great country that is occaisionally interrupted by some lowlife
criminal, many of whom are WELL armed. It is the responsibility of the government to see
to our protection, that is the primary purpose of any government. SO, when the government
can not protect me, it had better not interfere with my ability to protect myself, lest
it is oppressing me, and I will fall back to the teachings of T.J. a little revolution is
a good thing. There was one in '94 with the Republican sweep, and there will be many more
of the same nature. With thought on the part of our elected leadership, our revolutions
will all be peaceful. do 
4/1/98 TomC above
Wm. Bach: Good heavens! I passed Mr. Lott and failed Mr. Weil I may have been tedious,
but my point was that typically data and statistics are misused to support a position. In
Mr. Lott's case any such misuse is certainly not apparent. In Mr. Weil's case, it is. 
4/1/98 Joshua Amos info@olyarms.com
This study reflects what most of us have know for years. I am glad that the truth is
finally coming out. Thanks to the authors for doing the reaserch using the facts, instead
of lies from a political group's agenda. Compareing legal gun ownership to what happended
in Arkanas is like comparing the act of a husband and wife making love to a gang rape. 
4/1/98 Fred
Only the weak carry a handgun. That applies to criminals and to regular citizens. Handgun
ownership gives people a false sense of security. Sure there a rare cases where carry a
handgun actually saved someone. But the net effect of gun ownership has definitely been
negative in our society. How many children accidently shoot themselves while playing with
their daddy's gun?? How many handguns are stolen from law abiding citizens only to be
used in crimes?? How many drunken arguments end up deadly because someone decided to use
a gun?? Let's use common sense and end the gun menace NOW. The best way to end this crime
madness is to attack the root causes of violence and poverty. Not by handing out guns to
everybody. 
4/1/98 FredE everf1@mailexcite.com
I take it my namesake, Fred (above), either didn't bother to read the above article, or
having read it, chose to completely ignore its findings. How about asking, how many
children were saved from uncertain futures because their parent stopped a carjacking by
being armed? How many burglaries or robberies were aborted by an armed citizen? How many
women prevented a rape or sexual assault because they brandished their pistol? Statistics
vary (as they must because so few of these incidents are ever reported to the police) but
I've heard anywhere from 250,000 to 1,000,000 such incidents per year. The gun control
fetishists refuse to deal with the facts as evidenced by their posts to this board. That
doesn't make their emotional appeals any more convincing. It just makes them appear
juvenile: standing there with hands over ears chanting la la la la...I can't hear you!! 
4/1/98 
Sorry, Fred, but your simplistic answer, while noble, is far off the mark. Violence the
problem. Attacking guns is a easy out for people who don't want to really deal with the
problem. It makes it look like you are doing something. Yur statements are similar in
content to I believe in peace or motherhood or justice. It is a tired song of liberals
who are afraid to live up to their principles and see the anti-gun attack for what it is,
an attack on personal freedom and rights. Liberals who wouldn't stand up for the Japanese
-Americans, who as US citizens were imprisoned during WWII, and now are letting gun
owners becoem the whipping boys (and girls) for society's failings. Guns have been a part
of this country from the beginning, for good or bad, but the even greater access to guns
permitted in the past didn't lead most people to kill thier schoolmates, and guns don't
do that now. Picking on guns is a treasured addiction of the politically-correct. The
truth is you are more wrong than right, and you are an impediment to both the discussion
and the solution of the problem of violence in America. 
4/1/98 Mike Orick brokenarrow@earthling.net
How many kids killed playing with daddy's gun? A lot less than killed playing with the
bicycle daddy gave them or the pool daddy put in the backyard or the cleaners mommy keeps
under the sink! During the time the number of guns in America quadrupled, the accident
rate was cut by more than half. The safest counties in California are the ones with the
most CCW permits issued. The most dangerous county has the least. 
4/1/98 Toll Booth Willy
Guns are made JUST to kill people, how many times must this be said?? Okay, that's fair,
yep, erasers kill people. Guns are just to kill da peeple. 
4/1/98 daniel
Toll Booth Willy, you are absolutely ignorant on this issue. 1. Intent is not made into
any tool. 2. Ever heard of shooting sports? Skeet, Trap, IPSC, Bowling Pin Matches,
Hunting (You Know, FOOD) 3. The issue is freedom, not safety. The reason the Second
AMendment exists is to kill off oppresive regimes. 4. SO do knives only have one use? So,
what is your argument anyway? Ban guns because with my gun I can protect my rights from
someone like you who doesn't respect them? 
4/1/98 Julie julie.cochrane@success
You believe more kids are killed with a parent's gun than drown in the parent's swimming
pool? I'd like to play poker with you. Bring lots of cash. You can teach me how to play.

4/1/98 Muad'Dib usul@thepoint.net_nospam
Fred: Only the weak carry a handgun. That applies to criminals and to regular citizens.
That's right. I am absolutely and unmistakably weaker than an armed agressor - _if I am
unarmed_. Thank you for making the point for me.... Sure there a rare cases where carry a
handgun actually saved someone. Research indicates the number of such rare cases ranges
from 850,000 to as many as 2.5 million a year - the vast majority of which (some 98%) do
not result in an injury or a death. Kolasky cites some of these stats in the accompanying
article. Didn't you read it? .... How many children accidently shoot themselves while
playing with their daddy's gun? Not very many, and the number's been steadily dropping
for the last decade, since the NRA started it's Eddie Eagle Gun Safety classes in schools
(US$100 million they've spent so far. What have you done besides howl for my freedom to
be limited?). Also, this figure is an order of magnitude lower than the number of
children killed in auto accidents. If I give up my gun, will you give up your car? 
4/1/98 BOB
FRED; If only the weak carry a handgun , why are liberals and governments so danged
scared of them ? Why is it that criminals prefer to victimize the unarmed ? Your
statements reflect those of a paranoid that believes eveything he hears without ever
bothering to reasearch the facts. Tell me the truth now, is it the gun that you fear, or
is it the mental state of the owner ? Why is it that you refuse to accept the fact that
not ALL people are wimps ? Some of us WILL take the responsiblity of family and personal
protection. There are some of us that WOULD stand against an oppresive government if need
be . So tell me. Is it really the GUN, or is it the ATTITUDE that you're scared of ?
Please enlighten me . 
4/1/98 Toll Booth Willy
daniel: Get off the crack!! How many people have guns that don't use them for anything
else except killing? The 2nd amendment wasn't for what you say so, read my other posts
you idiot. Okay there, tissue please, just honk here, good boy. Okay, now.... 
4/1/98 daniel
Okay Willy. I quit smoking crack because it screwed up my aim, and interfered with my
ability to cause mass destruction with my target weapons. Make an argument. I couldn't
find a SINGLE post from you in which you make an argument as to the actual existence of
the 2nd amendment. AND you failed to continue your explanation. MOST OF THE GUNS IN THIS
COUNTRY ARE NOT USED FOR KILLING. Fact. Live with it. If they were there would be
hundreds of millions deaths per year in this country. Many of us own guns that are used
for shooting sports that involve no bloodshed. If you made an argument I would respect
you, but you are making ad homs, so I destest you. grow up, blow your nose, and deal with
me, my attitude, and my guns.... So, in your informed opinion, what IS the purpose of the
2nd amendment? 
4/1/98 Toll Booth Willy
The 2nd amendment was another way to allow the American to be self-sufficient. Therefore
much of the 2nd amendment is based in colonial times; when hunting and fishing was often
key to survival, therefore guns were needed. This isn't so anymore. Also, a gun culture
evolved in the south, as whites had to keep control over the slaves. This culture, which
glorifies guns, continues to this day (e.g. westerns). Often the 2nd amendment is used to
justify these other reasons, such as the culture of keeping slaves from escaping, and
what better way for rebels to brainwash people than pulling out the Consitution? Tissue?

4/1/98 TOB TLOBrien@source-recovery.com
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. --Sigmund Freud,
General Introduction to Psychoanalysis 
4/1/98 Jason Ayers
Criminals don't abide by the law, period. If a criminal wants to assault, rob, rape, or
murder someone, I feel pretty confident that he would prefer his victim to be unarmed and
defenseless. If you were a criminal would you choose to victimize someone in a state,
city, or county where your intended victim might be carrying a legally concealed handgun
that might send you to the morgue? I doubt it. Whether you ban handguns or not, there
already on the street. The criminals will get their hands on weapons one way or another.
The police are spread to thin to protect you. The justice system is a revolving door. Who
is going to protect you from the criminals? Not members of the anti-gun movement. It all
comes down to the law-abiding tax-paying citizen versus the law-disregarding criminal,
and I'm positive that he would prefer for you to be unarmed. 
4/1/98 Fred
So what kind of world do you want to live in?? One in which things are so out of control
that everybody has to carry a gun because of a REAL threat of physical harm. Or a world
in which gun violence was nonexistant. It seems to me that we are in an escalating arms
race to destruction. Giving everybody a gun is not the answer!! 
4/1/98 Fred
Is it posssible that pro-gun people use self defense as a smoke screen?? Maybe the truth
is they are addicted to the feeling of power derived from shooting a gun. Like I said,
guns are for the weak. Shooting and owning a gun makes the weak and insecure feel
powerful. 
4/2/98 Norman Potts npotts6138@aol.com
Willy: The Second Amendment was not written with hunting in mind. It was about colonial
opposition to a standing national army. After the British military occupation, the
colonists wanted to ensure that the army of the new nation could not be used against
them, but to only protect them from OUTSIDE aggression. The Founding Fathers wrote many
commentaries in favor of the common people to own firearms and keep them in their homes,
not to hunt, but to be ready to defend liberty from an internal threat. Yes, it can
happen here. A state of martial law can be declared by the president (not necessarily
Clinton) and the constitutional rights of citizens can be suspended. What if the person
in power decides he or she likes it that way? That's why the military cannot be used in
law enforcement operations (although they sometimes are.) The prospect of defending one's
home and family is also present. Here in Dalla'Fort Worth, home-invasion robberies are
becoming more common. It is often a tactic used by Asian Gangs, in particular. I don't
think 911 will help you very much in such a situation. 
4/2/98 Norman Potts npotts6138@aol.com
Fred-- I would like to see how strong you would be while watching your wife get raped by
some punks as their friends hold you back and wait their turns (or maybe even rape you.)
Sure, it likely won't happen to you, will it? But it HAS happened to SOMEBODY. I bet they
never thought it would happen, either. During the course of my law enforcement career, I
once worked as an officer in a federal prison. Fed prison officers are not allowed to
carry guns, either, unless they do so with a concealed-carry license. One night around
midnight I was on my way home from work and I stopped by Kroger to get a few groceries.
As I was standing in line a couple of teens were in front of me and one was obviously
high. They asked me about my uniform and I told them where I worked. As I tried to make
small talk with them, I said something that set the bigger of the two off. He satrted to
come at me, cursing and with clenched fists. All I had was a pocket knife. His buddy
eventually pulled him out of the store before anything happened. After standing around
outside a couple of minutes, they finally drove away. If that kid had wanted to shoot me
right then, he could have. Although I had my knife in hand (he was high and there WERE
two of them) he could have easily killed me. He could have just as easily come back
inside and shot me. I got lucky that night. 
4/2/98 Norman Potts npotts6138@aol.com
The point is, I didn't expect any of that to happen when I pulled up to that store, as I
had many times before. I could have been taken, and I wouldn't have even been able to
run. Now I'm in an agency that issues me a pistol, and you bet I carry it every time I
walk out the door. No, I'm not afraid, and I'm not paranoid, but I am ready. Criminals
will ALWAYS be with us. They have been since the cavemen. They will do anything in their
power to get what they want, and resort to methods most people would never even think of,
and someday they may just want YOUR stuff. Or maybe they might just want to see what it
feels like to pop somebody. Happens every day, friend. Be safe. 
4/2/98 Joe silfam4@popd.ix.netcom.com
Fred we don't want to hand out guns to everyone! If people wish not own arms for
recreation or defense that is their right to choose. Just don't take my right away from
me! You never have and never will be able to legislate human behavior. As far as firearms
being for the weak, well I sincerely hope you never find out how mistaken you are.
because a weak person would not have the strength of character to defend themselves
regardless of how they were armed. 
4/2/98 Wade Wyss wawyss@flash.net
As has been stated - the possiblility of the average citizen being the possessor of a
firearm or other lethal weapon will always be a deterrent for criminals. Also remember
that there are firearms out there for the criminal that we as law abiding citizens cannot
or willnot get due to our respect of the law. It is time to quit focusing on the
lawabiding and focus on the criminal. They have forfetted their rights when they step
outside the law and do not need protection from the average lawabiding citizen. 
Why should you worry about more people carrying concealed handguns? 
On Sept. 10, 1997, five men licensed to carry concealed handguns got into a fight outside
a Pittsburgh saloon after exchanging hostile looks. All of the men fired their weapons
and ended up in the hospital. 
Earlier this year in Indianapolis, two women were unintentionally shot when a concealed
handgun fell out of a man's pocket at a crowded Planet Hollywood restaurant. 
In February 1997, two Tulsa men were arguing over who would take their four-year-old
granddaughter home from day care. One of the men, who had a permit to carry a concealed
weapon, shot the other man in front of 250 school children. 
A background check of what? 
Why were these dangerous and poorly-trained people allowed to carry concealed handguns?
They live in states that recently weakened carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws. 
This legislation -- a favorite of the gun lobby -- takes discretion away from law
enforcement in determining who receives a concealed weapons license and requires the
state to allow virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon to carry a loaded handgun.
Under this system, the background check required of applicants for CCW licenses is
supposed to screen out people with violent criminal histories, but it cannot screen out
all criminals or people with bad tempers or bad judgment -- and no one should think
otherwise. 
Daniel Blackman is one example of a dangerous man who was allowed to carry a concealed
weapon despite prior criminal behavior. In February 1996, the former candidate for judge
in Broward County, Fla., threatened to put three bullets in the head of a meter maid who
had written him a ticket -- behavior that should have prevented him from carrying a
concealed handgun but did not. Though he was arrested, Blackman was not convicted of a
crime because he agreed to seek psychological treatment. A year later, Blackman was
arrested again, this time for pulling a gun on an emergency-room doctor who refused to
write him a prescription. Only then was his CCW license revoked. 
In states with lax CCW laws, hundreds of licensees have committed crimes both before and
after their licensure. For example, in Texas, which weakened its CCW law in 1996, the
Department of Public Safety reported that felony and misdemeanor cases involving CCW
permit holders rose 54.4% between 1996 and 1997. Charges filed against Texas CCW holders
included kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, illegal
drug possession and sales, drunken driving and impersonating a police officer. Clearly,
the Texas background check does not ensure that everyone who receives a CCW license is a
responsible or upstanding citizen. 
From Texas to Illinois and California to Delaware, law-enforcement officials have led the
charge against this dangerous liberalization because they know that more guns will only
lead to more violence. Thanks to the efforts of our men and women in blue and concerned
citizens, the gun lobby has not passed any new concealed-weapons legislation in more than
a year. Despite the opposition of most voters, the gun lobby currently is trying to pass
these senseless laws in Michigan and Nebraska, and also has set its sights on Kansas,
Ohio and Missouri. 
A Lott of nothing 
The gun lobby attempts to justify this dangerous political agenda by citing research
conducted by Dr. John Lott. Lott's study concludes that making it easier for citizens to
carry concealed weapons reduces violent crime rates. What the gun lobby and Lott do not
say is that this study has been totally discredited by many well-respected, independent
researchers. 
In fact, in a nationally-televised symposium at which Lott's work was critiqued, Dr.
Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Daniel Black of the University of
Kentucky, and Dr. Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University agreed that Lott's study is so
flawed that nothing can be learned of it and that it cannot be used responsibly to
formulate policy. Since then, no credible evidence has been produced to rebut the
conclusions of Black, Nagin and Ludwig, or other researchers who have identified
additional flaws with Lott's work. 
Contrary to the gun lobby's claim, no evidence exists to suggest that an armed society is
a polite society. In reality, the United States already has more guns in civilian hands
than any other industrialized nation, and not surprisingly, we also have one of the
world's highest rates of gun crime. As the casualties of weak concealed-weapons laws
begin to mount, it is unconscionable that Lott and the gun lobby continue to use this
flawed data to put more guns on the street. 
Fortunately, the American people and law enforcement know better. They deserve primary
consideration from their state representatives, not the special-interest gun lobby. It is
truly a matter of life and death. 
Why should you worry about more people carrying concealed handguns? 
On Sept. 10, 1997, five men licensed to carry concealed handguns got into a fight outside
a Pittsburgh saloon after exchanging hostile looks. All of the men fired their weapons
and ended up in the hospital. 
Earlier this year in Indianapolis, two women were unintentionally shot when a concealed
handgun fell out of a man's pocket at a crowded Planet Hollywood restaurant. 
In February 1997, two Tulsa men were arguing over who would take their four-year-old
granddaughter home from day care. One of the men, who had a permit to carry a concealed
weapon, shot the other man in front of 250 school children. 
A background check of what? 
Why were these dangerous and poorly-trained people allowed to carry concealed handguns?
They live in states that recently weakened carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws. 
This legislation -- a favorite of the gun lobby -- takes discretion away from law
enforcement in determining who receives a concealed weapons license and requires the
state to allow virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon to carry a loaded handgun.
Under this system, the background check required of applicants for CCW licenses is
supposed to screen out people with violent criminal histories, but it cannot screen out
all criminals or people with bad tempers or bad judgment -- and no one should think
otherwise. 
Daniel Blackman is one example of a dangerous man who was allowed to carry a concealed
weapon despite prior criminal behavior. In February 1996, the former candidate for judge
in Broward County, Fla., threatened to put three bullets in the head of a meter maid who
had written him a ticket -- behavior that should have prevented him from carrying a
concealed handgun but did not. Though he was arrested, Blackman was not convicted of a
crime because he agreed to seek psychological treatment. A year later, Blackman was
arrested again, this time for pulling a gun on an emergency-room doctor who refused to
write him a prescription. Only then was his CCW license revoked. 
In states with lax CCW laws, hundreds of licensees have committed crimes both before and
after their licensure. For example, in Texas, which weakened its CCW law in 1996, the
Department of Public Safety reported that felony and misdemeanor cases involving CCW
permit holders rose 54.4% between 1996 and 1997. Charges filed against Texas CCW holders
included kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, illegal
drug possession and sales, drunken driving and impersonating a police officer. Clearly,
the Texas background check does not ensure that everyone who receives a CCW license is a
responsible or upstanding citizen. 
From Texas to Illinois and California to Delaware, law-enforcement officials have led the
charge against this dangerous liberalization because they know that more guns will only
lead to more violence. Thanks to the efforts of our men and women in blue and concerned
citizens, the gun lobby has not passed any new concealed-weapons legislation in more than
a year. Despite the opposition of most voters, the gun lobby currently is trying to pass
these senseless laws in Michigan and Nebraska, and also has set its sights on Kansas,
Ohio and Missouri. 
A Lott of nothing 
The gun lobby attempts to justify this dangerous political agenda by citing research
conducted by Dr. John Lott. Lott's study concludes that making it easier for citizens to
carry concealed weapons reduces violent crime rates. What the gun lobby and Lott do not
say is that this study has been totally discredited by many well-respected, independent
researchers. 
In fact, in a nationally-televised symposium at which Lott's work was critiqued, Dr.
Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Daniel Black of the University of
Kentucky, and Dr. Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University agreed that Lott's study is so
flawed that nothing can be learned of it and that it cannot be used responsibly to
formulate policy. Since then, no credible evidence has been produced to rebut the
conclusions of Black, Nagin and Ludwig, or other researchers who have identified
additional flaws with Lott's work. 
Contrary to the gun lobby's claim, no evidence exists to suggest that an armed society is
a polite society. In reality, the United States already has more guns in civilian hands
than any other industrialized nation, and not surprisingly, we also have one of the
world's highest rates of gun crime. As the casualties of weak concealed-weapons laws
begin to mount, it is unconscionable that Lott and the gun lobby continue to use this
flawed data to put more guns on the street. 
Fortunately, the American people and law enforcement know better. They deserve primary
consideration from their state representatives, not the special-interest gun lobby. It is
truly a matter of life and death. 
/icpassiton.asp/icpassiton.asp
Douglas Weil is the research director at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. The
Center, affiliated with Handgun Control Inc., is chaired by Sarah Brady, and was founded
in 1983 to reduce gun violence through education, legal advocacy, research, and outreach
to the entertainment community. 
For Related Information on the Web, Click Here 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/issues.intellectualcapital.com/;sz=468x60;ord=73396?http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/issues.intellectualcapital.com/;sz=468x60;ord=73396?
3/26/98 Paul Austin paustin@digital.net
Boy, are you gonna get letters... HCI predictably hates shall issue concealed carry laws.
They hate them for one reason: the experience to date in the thirty states that have such
laws is that contrary to the picture painted by Weil, that holders of CCW are much more
law abiding than the populations of the states in question. Weil and HCI have attempted
to refute Lott & Mustard's study by selective data analysis (both temporal and
geographical) compared to L&M's method of using _all_ the data available from _all_
counties in the US. L&M determined that the presence of large numbers of unknown, armed
citizens acted to decrease crimes of personal violence. They reported that states with
shall issue CCW laws experienced consequent decreased in murder, assault, robbery and
rape and that if all states had such laws in place that more crimes would be prevented.
HCI disputes L&M as they must to stay credible but they cannot refute the extraordinarily
low rate at which CCW holders misuse their priviledge. The example of Daniel Blackman ...
the former candidate for judge in Broward County, Fla is particularly risible since
Blackman is _precisely_ the type that gets a carry permit in jurisdictions where Law
enforcement has discretion in determining who receives a concealed weapons license. The
experience of Florida and other states is that citizens can be trusted. HCI doesn't
understand that. 
3/26/98 Les Seago lseago@adlan.memphis.edu
I find it interesting that Dr. Weil relies on anecdotal evidence to support his argument
that private citizens should not be permitted to carry firearms. Meanwhile, Dr. Lott
offers solid statistics that show violent crime has decreased in states where concealed
carry permits are granted citizens who have no record of criminal conviction or mental
illness. It is also interesting that Weil is a staff member of an organization dedicated
to the disarming of American citizens. Lott holds a fellowship at the University of
Chicago, and the study he cites was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Not everyone
should carry a weapon, but no law should prevent an honest citizen from going armed if he
or she wants to do so. Punish those who use firearms irresponsibly, but do not disarm
those who have committed no crime. We have to answer this question: Do we trust a
government that does not trust its citizens to go armed? 
3/26/98 Pseudonymless
Let's put aside our ideologies and faiths for a minute, and just think about something:
Why do we accept so easily a world where people feel the need to carry concealed weapons?
Why doesn't anyone try to make the need obsolete? I'm sorry, but I didn't grow up on
Gunsmoke, so I can't relate to the Wild West fantasy. Would anyone really want to live
there? Why doens't anybody care? If things have gotten this bad, why aren't there
demonstrations in the streets? Are the Russians who stopped the tanks in 1991 or the
Chinese in Tiananmen Square more courageous than us or just more concerned about their
countries? It takes a lot more courage to organize to drive criminals out like what's
going on in a lot of inner-city neighborhoods than carry a Glock under your coat. 
3/26/98 AllenM
Things have always been this bad. Crime has been a fact of urban life in America for over
a two centuries, with concealed gun laws for as long. Guess what, with people you get
crime, with crime you get guns. In Russia, they really do have the Wild East with regular
shootouts. Just like Chicago in the 20's. Nothing Changes. Unless society really wants to
get rid of the gangsters, they just keep proliferating. Look at the culture of the inner
city and see how they glorify and perpetuate the sterotypes. Machine guns have long been
highly regulated in the US (since the 20's! thanks to J. Edgar Hoover), but one could
readily buy illegally imported uzis in Detroit in the early 80's. After all, if you are
going to move a ton of coke into the US, shoving a ton of guns onto the same plane won't
really affect you prison sentence- just scare off the competition. Switzerland manages to
have a civilian militia with access to weapons with a murder rate far below the US- it's
the people who are stupid here. 
3/26/98 Christopher
Psuedonymless: If what you say is true, then police officers should be disarmed (that
would make them care more for their country, you say, and that would also make them more
courageous). But that's Rubbish! On top of that, the police have proven inneffective at
preventing violence against citizens, so it is hardly surprising that state after state
is passing concealed carry laws so that all of their law-abiding citizens can protect
themselves. And funny, but EVERY state that has passed a concealed carry law has seen its
violent crime decrease! 
3/26/98 Christopher
Douglas Weil deliberately misleads his audience when he states that felony and
misdemeanor cases involving CCW permit holders rose 54.4% between 1996 and 1997 in Texas.
------- Although when examined in a reasoned light, this statistic actually destroys his
own argument when one considers that Texas had almost no CCW permit holders before 1996
(so the few who held them committed a few crimes, while the MASSES who earned CCW permits
committed only 54.4% more TOTAL crimes in 1997 than the tiny earlier population in 1996
or before). He also neglects to point out that Texas requires gun-safety courses to earn
the CCW permit, and being anti-gun-safety further undermines his already weak
credibility. 
3/26/98 Jim Switz
So, where are the anecdotes of people *defending* themselves with concealed weapons? The
NRA's American Rifleman publishes documented self-defense reports every month in The
Armed Citizen, but for some mysterious reason the mass media never seems to ferret
*these* stories out. Whether fired or not (usually not), handguns, rifles and shotguns
have defended peaceable people millions of times. So let the lefties just TRY to disarm
the American people. As George Bush has been parodied numerous times: Wouldn't be
prudent. Not gonna do it. 
3/26/98 Bob Bailey
Lets forget about all the hype for a minute. I personally would 'nt give a cent for what
the educated idiots have to say about Gun Control. I have a concealed weapons permit. I
had to prove to the FBI that I was innocent of crime by submiting my fingerprints. Once
they decided it was ok. I got my weapon permit. Remember the R .Gene Simmons murders here
in Arkansas ? A good friend of mine was killed by that jerk. If he had a gun at least he
MAY have had a chance. He liked to hunt and was knowledgable about guns. Because he
obeyed the law, he did not have a chance against someone that did not. I personally feel
safer when I tote. It gives the common man a chance against aggression. Unlike many
liberals, I feel that it is my responsibilty to protect my loved ones, if necessary ,
with force. Wake up people ! 
3/26/98 Pseudonymless
You know, I never said a word about gun control laws. I just questioned why people are
far more willing to carry weapons than work to change society so it wouldn't be
necessary. Do you carry weapons because you want to, or because you feel a need for
protection? Maybe it's because people are too busy watching Sunday football to try to
make their environment better. That's the real problem with America. Nobody cares. About
their country, about their neighbors, and especially about their children. I'd much
rather do something for my children's welfare than wall myself off from the world, as
most people here seem to want to do. It would be far easier for me to pat myself on the
back and carry my little pistol around than to actually go and participate in my
community. People will always kill, and crime will always be with us, but it's sad that
so many people have bought into carrying concealed weapons as a substitute for working to
make their community better. Every man for himself, right? Law of the jungle. Kill or be
killed. That's not freedom, that's savagery. 
3/26/98 Pseudonymless
Oh, and by the way, I think gun control laws are pretty useless. But some gun-control
opponents are so fanatical that even suggesting that the way to make America safer is by
community involvement and spending time with your children rather than carry guns to
school is equivalent to publishing Das Kapital. People, that's why most Americans get
really sick and tired of the NRA. 
3/26/98 Pseudonymless
Hey Christopher - why don't you try responding to what I say rather than what you wish I
said? I said it took more courage to actually do something rather than carry a weapon and
make myself an island unto the world. I never argued against the object called a gun. I
questioned the motives of those who place that object above all other people and things
in the world. In your first philosophy course in college you should have learned about
the straw man fallacy. 
3/26/98 David Reavis Lord-Tas@worldnet.att.net
ummm interesting... a counter argument with out a single study to provide any support to
his argument other than 4 individual cases out of the thousands of permits issued. Do the
math- if you assumed only 1000 permits being issued, then you get a 0.4% percent rate of
crimes by all the holders of CCW permits.... Then compare that to the overall of society
and I think that concealed carry is not the cause of crime. As for as Psuedo's comment on
Russian and China, where ther e is no civilian gun control, the Goverments are able to
run over their people with tanks and have no fear of revolution. If the US Goverment
tried the same, I think the results would have been a lot different... And Why wont the
goverment of America try something like this? Its because of the 2 million plus guns in
the hands of the people. A goverment of the people, by the people. for the people only
exists as long as the body politic is in fear of the people's power to upsur them. 
3/26/98 Christopher
Psuedonymless: You claim that you never argued against the object called a gun. Fine. No
problem. Noted. Then you claimed that you merely questioned the motives of those who
place that object above all other people and things in the world. Forgive me. Somehow I
didn't manage to pull that philosophical position from your earlier post. I will say,
however, that carrying a weapon for protection is something that civilized humanity does
to PRESERVE society and PROTECT innocent lives and property. If you look at areas devoid
of decent people carrying guns such as the slums in Rio or Central Africa, you will see
that law, order, and civilization have ceased to exist. Certainly the 500,000 innocent,
unarmed civilians slaughtered in Rwanda didn't see a civilized society that you or I
would recognize. The rampant crime in Congo and Brazil is also endemic and typical of
areas without large numbers of armed law-abiding citizens (witness Haiti and Puerto Rico
closer to home). So I must disagree with any possible point that you could have dreamed
of in your earlier post simply because it is the ACT of carrying weapons by law-abiding
citizens that proves that there are people who will do what is needed to preserve liberty
and society. In contrast to your point, it is those who denigrate arming such law-abiding
citizens who cause harm to befall on order, freedom, and civilization. 
3/26/98 Muad'Dib usul@thepoint.net_nospam
In 1987, when Florida passed its CCW law, the media and control-freaks like Weil
predicted that the street would run red with blood. Instead, violent crime has decreased;
except for one group of victims: Shortly after Florida's was passed, foreign tourists
started getting robbed and killed at a startling rate. Why? Perhaps because they were
more easily identified by _criminals_ as being people who were unlikely to be armed.
Survey data of convicted criminals resoundingly supports the notion that criminals try to
avoid armed victims and outside data further supports this conclusion. For instance,
Great Britain has a hot burglary (victim in the home) rate that far exceeds ours. Why?
Well, according to American convicts, breaking into a home when somebone's home is a good
way to get shot. So, Weil and his ilk persist in their anti-gun prejudice in spite of
masses of evidence (and let's face it, the vast majority of studies support
gun-ownership). There must be a reason. Let's get beyond his anecdote-driven diatribe for
a moment and get to his agenda. Since he is affiliated with HCI, he can be presumed to
share HCI's agenda. That agenda was made very clear in the following statement, printed
in the _National Educator_: Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed
when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. - Sara Brady (Chairman,
Handgun Control, Inc.) Telling. 
3/26/98 C Halsey
Pseudonymless asks the question Why do we accept so easily a world where people feel the
need to carry concealed weapons? I think that maybe the answer may be that people are
scared. There is a subculture in America today that is totally amoral. They do not care
about you, your family, or your possessions...in fact they delight in harming or killing.
They ENJOY it!! Check out ABC News Nightline tonight. It is the second part of a prison
report. Last night they were showing some of these people. Even the old time prisoners
are scared of these people, not to mention the guards. Until society can determine how
these cretins are made and more importantly, what to do with them, people will want the
option of using a gun for personal protection. As another poster pointed out, the police
can not protect you from a violent crime, but do a pretty good job after the fact...that
is if you are around to notice. 
3/26/98 Bob Bailey
Pseudnymless:You really crack me up. I don't think that you are as silly as you come
across.I agree with you on several points.Yes it is true that most people are apathetic
and could care less. Most kids do not grow up with the same parents that they started out
with. Many male children grow up with No male influence. I coach basketball and baseball
with both of my children (11 & 14) so I get to see up close how it affects young boys to
only grow up with a moma. I get to see how a lack of parental guidance affects them. My
wife teaches ninth graders, and most of them simply need a hug every now and then and
many of them are absolutley screaming for attention. As for society being a jungle, you
had better believe it. I don't like it, but it is fact. So if the tiger comes to eat,
whattaya gonna do, call the cops? Or hope that someone like me is close by? 
3/26/98 John Doe doe . john @ earthling . net
Sometimes I wonder if Intellectual Capital doesn't use creative editing to make leftist
contributors seem dumber than they really are. The author provides, what, 4 or 5 examples
of people with guns going nuts? Does he imagine that other people could not come up with
4 or 5 counterexamples? Or are a few anecdotes supposed, in our minds, to taint the 2nd
Amendment and millions of law-abiding gun owners? It may surprise this author, but such
tactics do not work with most intelligent readers. The author doesn't even do the bare
minimum of listing the specifics of Mr Lott's work which he believes faulty in reasoning
or fact. I could use this author's same tactics to condemn chairs. Joe Blow of
Pigknuckle, Arkansas lost a hand of euchre, freaked out, and bashed 3 old ladies over the
head with a chair. Big deal. 
3/26/98 Bob
To John Doe: I've wondered about the same points that you do. But I have come to the
conclusion that leftists' don't need any help sounding dumb or uneducated because they
really are ! They are usaully ignorant of the facts, and most of them don't even realize
it. True Ignorance. 
3/26/98 
C. Halsey, how dare you call Conservatives a sub-class just because they don't care about
others or their possessions, but only themselves and get thier kicks out of others'
suffering. Self interest is the driver of human achievement, just ask any billionaire who
cheated, cut corners, and rampaged his way to success. I admire the self made ones; the
real wimps are the trust fund/inheritors of wealth who don't even have a notion of what
it takes to succeed, or a notion of how little they themselves have achieved given the
huge head start they had. 
3/26/98 BT,DT
Violent crime is decreasing because employment is increasing. People with something to
lose don't act like people with nothing to lose. And I'm glad this article confirms what
should be obvious from Lott's graphs. Lott's data is cracked, cooked, and unusable for
determining the cause of any social change. 
3/26/98 Bob
To BT,DT : Yeah it's true that anybody can come up with a survey to say anything that
they want. So really we are just taking someones word that what they have to say is based
on accurate measures. But employment? If everybody is working then who is breaking into
homes during the day ? What about the people that will Not work ? I fail to see the
corelation between ownership of guns and unemployment. Please enlighten me. 
3/26/98 John Anderson
I couldn't tell if David Weil was proposing prohibition of all gun possession, elmination
of CCW laws, or just strengthening CCW laws, but I assume he mostly supports elimination
of CCW laws. To justify this, he cites the examples of irresponsible folks. I take this
to mean that the 2nd amendment rights of all Americans, most of whom are very
responsible, should be stripped away to accommodate the irresponsible few. Seems like
this is the reasoning of most liberal and totalitarian views. I'd like to say thank
goodness we live in America where individual liberties and the Constitution takes
precedence, but I know better. Chances are very good that the tragedy in Arkansas will be
used to further strip us of our rights. Clinton is right now thinking of ways to do this.
How many of you who read IC are willing to let this happen? Now, how many of you who
answered no are going to vote for a Repub-ocrat for congress/president and ask for the
same gov't we now have? 
3/26/98 John Boch xcaliber@net66.com
I saw the televised debate on C-SPAN with Lott and the other researchers and Lott
thoroughly discredited their arguments. The good doctor here cites a few cases of either
accidents or alleged crimes by permit-to-carry holders, yet he ignores the tens of
thousands of crimes these permits effectively prevent. Bad guys don't like running up
against a potentially (and lawfully) armed victims. Come visit the ILLINOIS DEATH CLOCK
at www.chambana.com/~CCG to see how many lives in Illinois have been lost because a few
politicians have blocked permit-to-carry here. 
3/26/98 Allen VanCleve
As usual the case for restricting freedom is based solely on an emotional appeal not
based on verifiable facts. This only makes me distrust the hidden motives. The question
that I have to ask of the author of this article is simple. Why are you more afraid of
law-abiding citizens than you are of predatory criminals that have proven thier lack of
respect for your property, your family and your very life. 
3/26/98 Bees beesindy@worldnet.att.net
Clinton's on safari so he puts Reno on the guns & kids problem. Reno reports after the
first week that her troops have accidentally incinerated Jonesboro so Louis Freeh's
troops move in. But there's not much going on and pretty soon his snipers are passing the
hours picking off pregnant women across the Mississippi. I know a lot of irresponsible
drunks have killed thousands with their cars (and I have anecdotal proof!), therefore
tomorrow I think we can start talking about taking people's cars from them. Until
everyone can sit up straight and show some manners, the Nanny State will keep you from
exercising ANY judgement. The Nanny State knows what's good for you. The Nanny State
likes to come through your door late at night when the local SWAT team gets the wrong
address (Sorry about your grandmother, did she have a weak heart?) Go ahead, make
yourself an island unto the world, but don't be surprised if someone shoots you in the
lagoon. 
3/26/98 Christopher
BT,DT: You say that you are glad this article confirms what should be obvious from Lott's
graphs. Lott's data is cracked, cooked, and unusable for determining the cause of any
social change. ----------- Man, I must have missed that confirmation in this article.
Please point out the statistics and sources used by Weil to discredit Lott. ---------- I
must warn you, however, that to do so will be also discrediting the FBI's own statistics
(which MR. Weil's organization previously relied on when they showed a more violent
America). --------- Then again, I read Weil's article, and no such statistics were cited.
Nor was anything more substantive than anectdotal evidence presented to support his
intellectually weak argument. Well, of course he did say that three college professors
agreed with him! -------- If mere baseless propaganda can sway you, I suggest that you
give up interaction on the internet and return to being fed your daily dose of TV
entertainment. ----------- On the other hand, if you are open-minded enough to
objectively examine multiple sources or facts and statistics prior to drawing
conclusions, then please rejoin this debate! In fact, why don't you cite your own
statistics as your intro back into this debate! 
3/26/98 Muad'Dib usul@thepoint.net_nospam
But, Christopher! Of course Lott's data is cracked and cooked - isn't it obvious?!? It
does not support Weil's (and BT,DT's) views, so it must be, obviously is, unusable for
determining the cause of any social change. Now, if Lott had used the same methodology to
determine that CCW permitees were unstable sociopaths who are prone to random acts of
violence and don't brush their teeth oten enough, then we'd not only have heard about it
on the news, Weil (and BT,DT) would be citing it form here to eternity. I am a
Sociologist and have concentrated on statistical technique in my studies. I read Lott's
entire study but found no methodological grounds for dismissing it. I admit that because
I agree with his findings my opinion is suspect, but I offer it nevertheless. Weil fails
to give such grounds. I humbly suggest that is because he didn't find any either, just a
few anecdotes. This is, of course, the standard liberal technique: When the data don't
support your desire to take away somebody's freedom, dredge up an handful of examples
that you can bundle together to take the place of data (maybe no-one will notice). It
seems to me that, somewhere along the way to his doctorate, someone should have told Weil
that anecdotal evidence is not statistically valid. 
3/27/98 John R. Lott, Jr. john_lott@law.uchicago.edu
Doug Weil is wrong to assert that there is a positive relationship between a country's
level of gun ownership and murder or other crimes. Such results are only possible when a
very selective set of comparison countries is used. In many countries, such as Finland,
New Zealand, Switzerland, and Israel, citizens own guns as frequently as Americans, yet
in 1995 Switzerland's murder rate was 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand's
was lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very similar murder rates but very
different gun ownership rates. Israel, with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the
world, has a murder rate 40 percent lower than Canada's. When one studies all countries
rather than just a select few, there is no relationship between gun ownership and murder.
The televised debate that Weil refers to was sponsored by Handgun Control, they picked
the participants, and they insisted that I be the only academic allowed to defend my
study at that forum. He apparently forgets about the independent academics who flew to
Washington at their own expense to support the integrity of my research. My data set has
been made available to academics at 36 universities. No one has had any trouble
replicating my results. Anyone who would like to see what Black and Nagin did (e.g.,
selectively throwing away 86 percent of the sample) should look at the January 1998
Journal of Legal Studies or see my soon to be published book (More Guns, Less Crime). 
3/27/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
Dr. Weil is engaging in the typical liberal trick of pulling the most negative events out
of a universe, as statistically insignificant as they are, relating these abnormalities
in an emotional, anecdotal manner, and then concluding that public policy should be
formulated to deal with the abnormalities. He has done the same thing with the Lott
study; relating someone's objections just as though those objections were themselves
valid. In other words, he concludes exactly what his preconceived notions lead him to
conclude. (This, by the way, is called prejudice and is hardly a foundation for
scholarship or even intellectual honesty.) To date, there has not been a single
scientific study conducted that refutes either the data or the conclusions of the
Lott-Mustard paper; and I have no doubt but what Dr. Weil is perfectly aware of that. And
yet we listen to these people just as though they had something to say worth hearing.
Well, Dr. Weil, I say that you tread periously close to charlatanism if, in fact, you
have not engaged in it. 
3/27/98 One More Anonymous
Mr. Lott. The graphs in your commentary are very powerful. However, being able to
replicate your results from the same data is not necessarily an argument for the
completeness of your analysis. Nor is my statement a refutation of the accuracy and
integrity of your study. I am only suspicious of the completeness of your analysis
because of the lack of references to other possible causes. What confuses me is that
those who accept without critical thinking that Concealed Guns Laws are to be fully
credited for the reduction of crime rates, argue also that crime is highly complex and
involve much more than gun laws. By the same token, one must argue that factors such as
the unemployment rates, state of economy, and (I may be lynched for this) minimum wage
levels, must be eliminated before reaching such a powerful conclusion. Assume for the
sake of argument that trends similar to those shown in your graphs are obtained when you
plot the relationship between years since the adoption of concealed gun laws and the
reduction of unemployment rates. Would you be more inclined to say that these laws are
the reason for the reduction of unemployment or that the latter is somehow responsible
for reduced crime rate. In science, we do not reach conclusions as affirmative as yours
without proving, at least with certain confidence levels that other factors are
definitely excluded as possible causes. Even then, correlation is not equal to causation.

3/27/98 One More Anonymous
Similarly, and even more critically, I find Dr. Weil's anecdotal arguments even weaker
than Mr. Lott's. At least Mr. Lott has some data on his side of the argument, and there
seems to be some merit to his hypothesis which still needs further testing. Dr. Weil as
many of the discussants have mentioned, relie's on isolated cases which prove nothing but
the stupidity of those involved in them (not the victims of course). And last time I
checked, stupidity is not a felony that prevents one from getting a license until it
acts-up and causes problems. I would like to point also, that most of the folks who
responded in favor of unlimited gun access, argued in response to the first commentary
that the main objective of the 2nd amendment is to protect the citizens from potential
government tyranny. Herein, however, their argument completely shifts to the concept of
self-defense against criminals !!!! 
3/27/98 Commentator
A key point that gets lost in refuting the logically limited arguments of HCI types: The
founding fathers (you know, those DWEM's - Dead White European Males) saw the bill of
rights as enumerating pre-existing intrinsic rights. These are not granted or removed by
pieces of paper! You can't repeal the Second Amendment - not without fundamentally
changing the charter that the People granted government in this country. We fundamentally
alter that charter by trying to remove these intrinsic rights (all of them!) at our
peril. In the 20th century, government run amuck has done most of the killing of
innocents. The Turks in Armenia, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia come
easily to mind. All of these governments believed in gun control. It can't happen here!
I'd like to believe that, too, but I keep my powder dry. And protect myself and my family
from predators with the same right, tools, and abilities. 
3/27/98 Pseudonymless
Firstly, I'd like to say that I'm honored to be the subject of such derision. Secondly,
I'm going to try very hard to put my ideas into a (somewhat) coherent summary. People in
the U.S. don't seem to care about anything outside of their own little worlds. Nobody
cares that we have no choice at the ballot box except for two sides of the same coin.
People chant Waco, Waco, while not realizing that the true threats to freedom comes from
initiatives to monitor nearly all communications on national security grounds, and
surveillance from our employers (many now circumscribe legal behavior outside of work).
Increasingly, we leave our gated communities with our Star Trek-home alarm systems, drive
in our LoJacked(?) cars, go to work under incredible surveillance from our employers, and
go home again, afraid to venture out at night for fear of crime, unless we're armed to
the teeth. What scares me is that while we become more and more alienated from our
communities and each other, we grow more and more dependent on guns as psychological
security blankets, rather than actual protection. 
3/27/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
One More Anonymous -- As I understand the Lott-Mustard results, crime rates are not
necessarily reduced. It indicates that the rates of _violent_ crimes such as rape and
robbery are reduced. Other types of crimes that are not so likely to be directly
confrontational, such as car theft and burglary, actually showed an increase. This seems
to me to indicate that criminals have a tendency to shift their modes of operations from
those that could result in a direct confrontation with an armed citizen to those
activities less likely to have such a result. Economic activity _might_ have an influence
upon the overall crime rate, but I do not see it as having an influence upon the shift in
criminal activity. 
3/27/98 
When does it end? How much are you willing to sacrifice to your fear? I choose not to
carry a gun because I will not live in fear. If something happens, it happens. But so
many others have been whipped into a frenzy by relentless TV coverage of shootings that
everyone is afraid of everyone else. It has to stop somewhere. The arms race only
intensifies, as we all know from the past 50 years. But these aren't the evil nasty
Communists. These are our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans that we're living in fear
of. The Constitution is absolutely worthless if it is not founded on a social contract
between citizens. That contract is fast fraying, and it won't be fixed by walking around
with pistols. 
3/27/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
Pseudonymless -- I don't know where you live or work, but I suggest that you quit
whatever GESTAPO agency you work for and leave the concentration camp you think is a
neighborhood and move out somewhere into the real world. 
3/27/98 Pseudonymless
Yikes - I forgot to put my name on my last comment. Don't want to ascribe my comments to
people who might disagree. 
3/27/98 
Stan Watson - Like I said, I'm honored to be so hated. Bring it on... :) Oh, and I was
wondering how long it would take somebody to call me a Nazi or a Communist. Guess you
showed me, huh? 
3/27/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
That contract is fast fraying, and it won't be fixed by walking around with pistols. Even
if your hypothesis is correct, which I doubt, it won't be fixed by being sheep amongst
the wolf pack either. 
3/27/98 Pseudonymless
And to think - I never said a word against gun ownership... Funny - the so-called
defenders of our liberties sound like a bunch of Communists, split into Trotskyites and
Leninists and Maoists... 
3/27/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
Pseudonymless -- I don't hate you. What gives you the idea that I do? And I didn't call
you a NAZI or a communist. One can live and work within an oppressive environment as a
victim of that oppression. All that I suggested is that if you find yourself in such an
environment, as obviously you do or think you do, then leave it. Now how is that
displaying hatred toward you? 
3/27/98 Pseudonymless
Stan - But I have left it. The sad thing is that so many people don't realize what
environment they're creating. And by the way, you did use the word Gestapo, which was the
(suprisingly inefficient, according to recent scholarship) Nazi secret police. I
shouldn't have used the word hatred for you - you're just disagreeing strongly (and well,
I might add - you have some points). But there's been some things here that have led me
to wonder if my pseudonym is going into a shoebox somewhere... :) 
3/27/98 FredE
Stan: Obviously you weren't displaying any hatred towards pseudo. The temptation and
inclination to believe you were, however, is far too strong for liberals to resist since
they preconceive anyone who forcefully articulates a somewhat right-of-center position as
being mean spirited, spiteful, hateful...blah, blah, blah. They reserve the right to
vigorous debate without fear of being labeled as hateful unto themselves alone, for they
truly care! 
3/27/98 Bob
Pseudo: Why is it that liberals think that just because someone chooses to bear arms that
they are living in fear? I choose to bear arms and I can assure you that I do not live in
fear. I happen to believe that is the mans responsiblity to to protect himself and his
family and if need be his friends. I will admit it does make me feel a little more secure
to know that I have the means to resist and I don't have to wait on someone like the cops
to protect me. If you like to think the cops will be there , that's fine with me. But
know this, if you are being victimized and I am able to prevent it, I will do my best to
help you ! So see, even liberals or those that do not agree with me , benefit. 
3/27/98 Mark Wilson
What's the difference between refusing to live in fear, and prefering to ignore reality?
Secondly, Psuedonomless errs when he claims that those who carry guns have given up on
changing society. It's just that unlike he, they feel that it is easier to change society
while still alive. 
3/27/98 Mark Wilson
BT, RT: Would either of you care to document your claim that crime rates, especially the
rates for murder and rape, are strongly affected by the unemployment rate? In Lott's
article, he states that he controlled his numbers for all of the standard variables.
Secondly his article was published in a peer reviewed journal. If you seek to discredit
his numbers or his findings, you will have to do a lot better than that. 
3/27/98 R. Clarke
Pseudonymless: you equate taking precaution against a perceived risk as living in fear. I
disagree with this philosophy. Do you practice the same ideology with respect to locks,
insurance, or seatbelts? Are people who buckle up paranoid in your opinion? Furthermore,
you rightly point out how many non-gun crime prevention policies invade privacy and
jeopardize freedom. Guns, on the other hand do neither. 
3/27/98 Bob Bailey
To John Lott JR: I find your work on statical data on gun control to be very informative.
A few questions for you. What prompted you to begin this study when there seens to be
mountains of information ? What was your opinon on gun control before the research ?
Lastly, in light of your observations has your opinion on gun control changed ? I would
like to thank you for your efforts. Your info may possibly save some lives that may have
been lost . 
3/27/98 john_lott@law.uchicago.edu John R. Lott, Jr.
I started this project because I had decided to assign some gun control papers to a class
that I was teaching on criminal deterrence when I was at the University of Pennsylvania.
After looking at the existing work, I thought that papers on both sides of the debate
were pretty bad and I thought that I could do a better job. As to my opinions prior to
doing the research, I would say that I didn't expect to find much of anything. I have
definitely changed my mind after doing this research. 
3/27/98 Wm Bach
Dr. Weil, An appeal to emotion is not an argument. You have not convinced me as to what
fundamental change in human behavior has occurred that now prevents these particular
animals from preying on others or forming gangs to accrue power and then use that power
to subjugate or kill those that are outside of the group. Until I see evidence to the
contrary, I will continue to carry my great equalizer. 
3/27/98 Will Briggs wsb@cs.unt.edu
Mr Weil, I wonder if there is a non-flawed study that addresses the same as Mr Lott's,
and what its conclusions were? Sorry to be harsh, but it couldn't possibly be as flawed
as the use of anecdotal evidence to form policy. Also, what was flawed about Mr Lott's
study? -------------------------------------- BTW, a programming class I teach did a
project to determine if states with tighter gun control had less or more violent crime;
it was clearly more. Unfortunately this doesn't tell us what caused what.
----------------- Pseudonymless, regardless of the flame war, I'd say you raise an
interesting question. I wish I knew why America is so violent, and so angry. 
3/27/98 Joe Gartrell southernskies@mcione.com
Why carry a concealed weapon? When I go to an isolated ATM machine (or any other similar
situation), I carry my gun in my hand, albeit holstered. I don't think I'm going to be a
victim in that situation, but if my gun was concealed, the criminal doesn't know I am
armed and will act agressively absent of that knowledge. This is dangerous for me. It
would take a very stupid criminal to try to rob an armed man! My wife carries her gun in
plain view when she is in the parking lot of a store. Concealed weapons can, in some
situations, escalate the violence needlessly. This is not to say that people who carry
concealed weapons have not protected themselves and their families, but the attempted act
of violence probably wouldn't happen in the fisrt place if the criminal knew his intended
victim was armed. Just a thought to chew on. 
3/27/98 Dillon Pyron
When I see someone present a way to guarantee me near total personal security, then I
will consider eliminating CCW. After all, the police have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect
me as an individual. CCW is about personal responsibility. 
3/27/98 Julie Cochrane julie.cochrane@success.gatech.edu
I work as a programmer, but when I got a BS in Psych from Georgia Tech the goal of the
program was to train researchers and industrial type psychologists. They taught us how to
read a study critically, and the nuts and bolts of statistics, including how to guard
against being misled by their misuse or inadvertently misusing them. I've read Lott's
study--which he references in his editorial. Don't gripe about the abbreviated version of
his numbers in his opinion piece, go read the study where the full numbers are. Weil is
appealing to emotion and authority, Lott is appealing to statistics. From what they
taught me in school, Lott appears to be using the statistics in a legitimate fashion, and
the numbers appear to say what he says they say and the conclusions he draws from them
appear to be justified. It is by far the most comprehensive and thorough study in the
field, with the best methodology. If you have a background in social science, read it
yourself. It's obvious who's being straight forward and who's dissembling. If you don't
have a background in social science, go find someone who does who doesn't know a thing
about the gun issue and doesn't care, and ask them to read it for you and tell you if
it's good science, the methods are sound, the numbers are done right, and the conclusions
follow from the data. I'm fairly confident of what that disinterested social science
researcher at your local major university will tell you. 
3/27/98 Mitch Berg mitch@humanwaredesign.com
Mr. Weil: I thought I'd advise you of the error of some of your reasoning. First: you
cite virtually nothing but anectodal evidence, the worst of which was the case of Mr.
Blackman. Any rational gun-rights proponent will be the first to tell you that Mr.
Blackman should never have been issued a permit - but that's a flaw in the
law-enforcement system, not in the logic of concealed carry reform. You also cite the
Georgetown study which purported to refute Lott/Mustard. Have you read the study, Mr. W?
I have. What we have is a bit of academic/statistical nitpicking, dressed up with a lot
of wishful rhetoric by academics who've cast their lot with the gun-grabbers. Finally -
you subvert whatever credibility you have by saying that the US is the most heavily-armed
industrial nation. This is demonstrably false. Switzerland, Israel and New Zealand have
almost equally-high rates of private gun ownership, and vastly lower crime rates than
ours. Further - Israel, Switzerland and Norway require military reservists to keep
fully-autojmatic military weapons in the home. The conclusion? It's not the guns that are
the problem, as much as you may wish to demonize them. It's the criminals. Please email
me with any responses. 
3/27/98 Mitch Berg mitch@humanwaredesign.com
Interesting statistical evidence: as I mention in my previous post, Switzerland, New
Zealand and Israel have as much private gun ownership as the US, and lower crime rates.
What's more - Taiwan, Jamaica and Indonesia have bans on private gun ownership - and much
HIGHER crime rates than ours. And what about Europe? Germany, England and many other
nations ban most gun ownership - but crime rates in each of these countries ROSE after
the bans were instituted. What scares me, Mr. Weil, is that your baseless attacks on our
Second Amendment rights gain credibility, not from any merit, but from the fact that you
are an academic. This, truly, is scary. 
3/27/98 Arthur Phillips phillips@prsym.net
Douglas Weilds comments are not above suspect. He works for an organization who's unique
reason for existence is insuring the removal of guns now possessed legally by American
Citizens. He is a member of a most dedicated and obsessed clique who fear, not only guns,
but the American People who own weapons. He states his premise, not in facts supported by
research, but distortions, citing some failures. However, to bolster his negative report
he omits any facts readily available, that moderates, and dismisses his examples as
anomalies. In other words his article is solely based, on emotional rhetoric that
borders, on propaganda. 
3/27/98 Arthur Phillips phillips@prysm.netOne More Anonymous,
One More Anonymous, If your theory of poverty, low minimum wage, racism coupled with
limited educational opportunities are correct than please explain, to this poor old
country boy, the 1930's. 
3/27/98 Eric Williams wd6cmu@netcom.com
Douglas Weil's argument seems to be that you can't trust anybody with a gun. Well, what
about the police? Why are they exempt? The thousands of legally-armed citizens in the
state of Florida commit crimes at a rate ONE-TWELVETH that of the officers of the New
York Police Department. Which of the two should we be disarming? As for Mr. Lott's study,
the absolute worst Mr. Weil's biased criticisms can conclude is that it doesn't prove CCW
laws are useful. Notice the very careful omission of whether or not keeping people from
being able to defend themselves is in any way helpful in fighting crime. The Lott &
Mustard study is light-years ahead in detail and precision compared to the studies that
are used to prove having a gun is dangerous. If Mr. Weil's opinion is that that study is
flawed, then the ones supporting his position in favor of further restrictions on guns
are a complete joke, and should be treated as such. 
3/27/98 The Real Commentator
First, I used this handle way before the nitwit a couple message above (just check the
archive). Second, he is way wrong about China's gun ownership policy. Way wrong. In China
(the mainland, the policy in Taiwan province is different), you can own automatic assault
rifles if you lived in a rural area. It's more difficult in urban area, you'll have to be
a member of a gun club - which is easy to do. In Taiwan province, there is NO private gun
ownership unless you are member of the provincial shooting team. Using gun to commit a
felony will get you the death penalty in both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan province.
There is however no death penalty in Hong Kong SAR. 
3/28/98 Robert Waterson bobw(at)Mindspring(dot)com
I didn't know Mr. Weil's affiliation while reading his article. I did know while reading
it, however, that it was unconvincing, anecdotal and not well reasoned. And then at the
end I saw the HGI affiliation and could at least understand how such low-level thinking
could be put down on paper. 
3/28/98 Christopher
I think that when the dust settles what is truly disturbing is that no major traditional
media outlet (e.g., TV / newspapers) will publish editorials that outline the low quality
of research and sources cited by HCI, even though HCI press releases and staged
conferences are so often quoted by reporters at these institutions. Thankfully at least
the Internet provides both sides the *opportunity* to present their views (and their
sources)...and perhaps that is one of the more exciting developments of this interest in
the new technological medium. After all, free people only stand to benefit from free and
full discussions. 
3/28/98 Norman Potts npotts6138@aol.com
I happen to be one of those men in blue and I am FOR concealed carry licenses, and I am
AGAINST both the Brady Law and the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. I would like to point
out that there has been virtually NO statistical evidence that prohibitive gun laws have
reduced crime in this country. In fact, gun laws are even more strict now than they were
when gun deaths were lower. Many of the charges against CCW permit holdersin the article
have also been made against police officers. Should we disarm our cops? Don't think so,
friend. Actually, these incidents illustrate that the laws work as they should. The
permit holders had their licenses revoked and can no longer legally carry concealed
weapons. Also, the number of violators is miniscule compared to the number of those who
respect the CCW laws and never have any problems. 
3/28/98 Dave Workman handgnr@nwlink.com
Oh, please. Your assertion that Jens Ludwig has refuted and debunked Dr. Lott's data is,
at best, preposterous. And I mean, at best. I witnessed the debate between Lott and
Ludwig on C-SPAN some time ago. Neither is very camera-friendly, but Ludwig's arguments
against concealed carry laws boiled down to little more than personal opinion, with
virtually no hard data to back them up. Dr. Lott's painstaking study was a
ground-breaker. Despite Handgun Control's weak attempts to reject Lott's conclusions
through emotionalism and anecdotes, the evidence is irrefutable. Handgun ownership sas,
the solid evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable, regardless what HCI claims. I know
concealed handguns save lives. I know from personal experience. That's the most
compelling proof there is. Have a nice day. 
3/28/98 Gary Stift
Weil and Brady will not be persuaded to be logical and rational -- that would be directly
in oppostion to their position which is entirely emotional. 
3/28/98 John Kavanagh Drassemblo@aol.com
I could never understand why anyone would defend the right of a private citizen to own
anything other than, perhaps, a hunting rifle. Then the anti-smoking frenzy picked up
velocity and the United States went from being a nation where cigarette smoking is
regarded as a minor vice to a nation where state and federal governments practice
legalized extortion and gut the First Amendment on the grounds that cigarettes are a
health hazard. So, until the Anointed (thank you, Dr. Sowell) in this country tone down
their zeal and their rhetoric A LOT - and that'll be the day! - you can count me in with
the gun owners. Incidentally - doesn't the Second Amendment have something to say about
all of this, or are we getting ready to throw it on the scrap heap with the First? 
3/28/98 Bees beesindy@worldnet.att.net
The libertarian world advocated by our Founding Fathers was predictably messy. Government
was to do little other than enforce the law, provide for a common defense, keep people
from hurting one another, limit fraud and deception in business and civil proceedings.
This is way too much freedom for the socialist utopian. Kids break into their parents'
gun cabinets and mow down their classmates. Guns kept in the home ostensibly for defense
are used for suicide and crimes of passion. Still, the concept of freedom allows us to
fail, fall hard and perhaps not get up. This flies in the face of the ordered world of
the socialists. Better you should not have the choice than to make the wrong one. We are
all fallible and flawed human beings who must rely on the much more intelligent
socialists among us to protect us from ourselves. (How do I know they're more
intelligent? They've told me!) While they're at it, they'd also like to collectivize
child care, health care and education. Oh yeah. Bring on that 5-year plan baby! We are
putty in your sanctimoniously superior hands! 
3/28/98 Jason DeBoni jasond@ite.net
The saying is true, there is nothing more frightening than seeing ignorance at work. I
don't know what police officers Douglas Weil has been speaking to, but the vast majority
of street cops are actually against gun control. The officers that actually support gun
control are the desk jockeys and political suck-ups that are looking to further their
career. States that make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for
self-defense have seen a subsequent drop in violent crimes. Florida, for example, saw
rapes, assaults and muders drop by almost a third. On the flip side, Washington, D.C.
banned the private ownership of handguns by lawful citizens back in 1979, and the results
were horrid in the extreme. After the ban, the only people that were armed were the
criminals and the over-worked police force. It became so bad that for several years in
the 1980's, Washington was named the murder capital of the nation. Such are the results
when you deny law-abiding citizens their God-given right to defend themselves and their
families. As far as Dr. John Lott's study is concerned, the reason that Douglas Weil and
his narrow-minded counterparts have been scrambling to find ways to discredit Dr. Lott is
that the results of his study do are so damaging to their cause. Tthey truly hate it when
the general public is well-informed, because an intelligent public is more likely to see
through the web of lies fabricated of HCI. 
3/28/98 Chris Sorry, flamers!
He wrote above: Charges filed against Texas CCW holders Charges aren't convictions, which
is why he didn't say convictions, the numbers are actually far less. Mr. Lott's study as
accurate & thorough, unlike the fake guns=death articles funded by those who wish to ban
all guns from the law-abiding and leave the scum armed. 
3/28/98 R.E. Hafner rewerewolf@msn.com
It appears that Douglas Weil is another hot air specialist eating out of Sarah Brady's
hands. He has no facts, just hysteria. It Weil took the time to properly research the
subject, he would have discovered that the areas with the most armed citizens have the
lowest crime rates. If Weil has any doubts, he can check with the National Center for
Health. One fact is the deaths from medical error account for more fatalities than
accidential deaths from firearsm. Would Weil advocate the banning of doctors to eliminate
the problem of medical blunders? 
3/29/98 John jstoufer@flash.net
Joe Gartrell: You have some valid points. I don't know wher you live, but here in
Arkansas, if you flash a weapon it is grounds to lose your permit to carry. AS for the
above article, instead of using opinions to refute Lott how about you doing a valid
study? Bet you can't. 
3/29/98 jim JBra742525@aol.com
when it comes to issues like this you can forget about statistics and studies. i do not
want to live in a country where everyone walking down the street has a gun on them. to me
that is not freedom, it is a sign of a sick and fearful people i do not believe a gun is
going to protect you from being taken over by a nother country. if you must hunt then
keep your rifle locked up otherwise a accident will occur soonewr or later. 
3/29/98 Steven Poor pjfire@spiritone.com
HCI maintains that guns should be outlawed. Even if getting rid of all the guns saves
just one life, it is worth it. Unfortunately they also agree that guns are used by
citizens 60,000 times every year (by their own estimate) to save innocent lives. Hmmm,
maybe they should change their slogan to ...even if it kills 60,000 more people, it's
worth it. 
3/29/98 John R. Lott, Jr. john_lott@law.uchicago.edu
The 60,000 defensive gun uses per year is a quite old estimate from the National Crime
Victimization Survey is from many years ago. The most recently available number indicates
108,000 defensive uses per year. There are many problems with this survey (e.g., the
survey does not directly inquire about defensive gun uses), but I agree that 108,000 is
still a large number. In any case, estimates from 15 private surveys conducted by
organizations such as the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart and Associates imply
at least 760,000 defensive uses per year and possibly as many as 3.6 million. Kleck's
number of 2.5 million seems like the most accurate estimate. 
3/29/98 Darrin Ziliak glock19@evansville.net
The debate can also turn on the State constitutions. Indiana's specifically guarantees
the right to bear arms for the defense of oneself in as many words. This was affirmed by
the Indiana Supreme Court was said that it is both a liberty right and a property right
to be able to bear arms. The Founding Fathers never intended for the Federal government
to intrude in every aspect of our daily lives, but I guess Mr. Weil thinks that the Feds
know what's best for all of us unwashed rabble who are just too stupid to be trusted with
anything. 
3/29/98 Martin Cook cookma@ece.orst.edu
Many people think that the police will always be there to protect them. How long does an
armed confrontation take? How long does it take for a criminal to shoot you in the back
and take your wallet? Do you think you'll have time to step aside and call 911 on your
cell phone? Is there a police officer on every block watching your back? I would feel
100% safer if every honest citizen in America was carrying concealed. 
3/29/98 William D. Grazier TrueGrit@cp.duluth.mn.us
Evidently, we have not learned a thing about the danger of firearms. As an expert
marksman in the army, we were trained in the handling of weapons. We learned that live
ammo is always issued only before use; the rest of the time it is under lock and key. We
also learned that we kill and injure more FRIENDLIES than the ENEMY during wartime
because of accidents. The safest place to be in war is in the military because most of
those killed are women and children. 
3/29/98 Stan Watson sewatso@ibm.net
William D. Grazier -- Interesting observations. If this is the case, I suggest that we
don't arm the soldiers at all and let the enemy kill themselves off shooting at us. Do
you really believe the nonsense you posted? 
3/29/98 D. Falconer dlf7@texoma.net
Another man with an emotional message, this man does not even present statistical data to
support him. Dr. Black, Dr. Ludwig and Dr.. Nagin have impressive credentials, but the
statement is they agreed he had no basis for his analysis. They did not disprove him.
Like many college professionals they misunderstand that the gun control issue is not a
debate. Their learned opinion means relatively nothing to me without the statistics to
back it up. Mr. Lott uses that well known gun owner support group the FBI and their data
(heavy sarcasm intended). I am tired of listening-to/reading newspapers who speak from
emotion rather than facts or men who claim to be educated from their own lofty podiums of
denial to the facts. 
3/29/98 Ken kenyee@leftbank.com
Hmm..a gun-control w/ anecdots and *zero* citations. Seems like a typical pro-gun-control
article to me :-) Compare this to typical pro-gun articles that cite studies so *you can
look yourself*. Compare the made up statistics on the handguncontrol.org web site with
the nra.org site where all the articles have cited references. He also uses the increased
Texas *charges* number instead of the *gun-related convictions* number to justify his
stand. This is flawed already, so the rest of this article should be questioned for
validity. 
3/30/98 dr killjoy
It's rather refreshing to see such a rekindling of the 60s love, peace, and happiness
thing. A warm fuzzy fairytale of Making the World a *Safe* Place For All, indeed. The
earth is a violent place, please observe the current round of volcanoes and other
catastrophies then wake up, drink some coffee, and face reality. Since creation, big fish
eats little fish, and it is most likely to remain so for the rest of the current period
between ice ages. In nature there are preditors and preys, this is a natural order in
LIFE, nobody is going to change that regardless of how much regulation and good wills
they dishes out. And what will you do when the wolves come ? I, for one, am keeping my
fangs. 
3/30/98 JBD, ScD. (Initials used @ employers request)
I read a great many of the responses to Douglas Weil's spiel on CCW and his attack on
John Lott. Perhaps some might find it interesting, that first of all, Douglas Weil's
degree ScD (doctorate of science) is only an honorary degree, and not earned. In my case,
i earned my degree, in a field I pioneered: Analytical Investigative Science. I know Doug
Weil, I know what he is and I know how he does things. If he can't get the numbers he
wants, he takes somebody elses numbers and plays with them, to make them say what he
wants. If numbers aren't available, he invents them. Doug Weil is 100% committed to Hand
Gun Control,Inc. and the disarming of America. To characterize him as anything less than
totally Socialist minded, would be to honor him. The numbers he used in this article were
twisted and misused. The question was raised as to why America is so violent. The answer
is simple, if one simply understands human nature. No creature takes pleasure in being
caged, especially the human creature. The more you take freedom and liberty away from any
creature, the more tense that creature becomes, and the more they resist! The anti-gun
crowd would have everyone believe that repressive laws have been passed, in response to
anti-social behavior. (cont'd) 
3/30/98 JBD, ScD (continued from above)
But you don't have to be a rocket scientist or historian to research some facts. The
anti-gunners would have us believe that restrictive laws (such as the Gun Control Act of
1968) have been passed in response to criminal behavior, but it simply isn't true. Crime
immediately escalates after passing restrictive laws, not before (Gun Control Act of 1968
is a great example). Restrictive laws get passed, because the Socialists see an area of
society where people are not under their control, and decide to rectify the situation.
They invent incidents, stage incidents, and create media frenzies, in order to sway
public and political opinion to their cause. Consider this: In two of the three attack
incidents in 1993 involving the White House, there were accidental tourists who just
happened by with camcoders to record the incidents. However, it turned out that these
tourists were HCI staff members.....waiting along side the street in their car. It was
later learned that in at least one incident, an HCI owned car was used to drop off the
shooter! *****People are always making reference to America's Wild West. Would it startle
anyone to learn that there was NO wild west? Hollywood has continued to purvey the myth
originally created in the dime novel. (continued below) 
3/30/98 JBD, ScD (continued)
Hollywood's portrayal of the American West, would lead us to believe that hundreds, if
not thousands, were murdered every year, but that simply isn't true! Historians featured
in the American West series on Discovery Channel, have frequently supported and
documented what I am about to say. From 1824 to 1888 (Indian wars/hostilities
exclude)there were only 63 people murdered west of the Missippi River. That was a 64 year
period! Of all the Wild West gunmen who were reputed to have killed scores and dozens,
less than six of these figures can be accurately proven to have killed more than four
five people in their lifetimes. During this same period of time, where control measures
were already being enacted in such places as New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia and
others, murder was rampant, with at least one murder per week in each of these civilized
cities!*****Doug Weil disputed that an Armed Society is a Polite Society. But it is!
People don't screw around with other people who are armed. Criminals don't try robbing
armed citizens. Bank robbers don't usually try to rob banks with several armed guards.
Instead, they chose banks with don't resist policies, staffed by unarmed women. Since CCW
came into practice, at least 15 bank robberies have been thwarted by armed customers!
More than four-dozen hold-ups of grocery/convenience stores have been prevented by armed
customers. (continued below) 
3/30/98 JBD, ScD (continued from above)
Dozens of rapes, assaults, burglaries and thefts are prevented every day by armed
citizens.**Each year, there are more criminal shooting/gun incidents involving police
officers than incidents involving people with CCW permits, by far! So who should we
really be afraid of? Since 1980, cities and counties around America that began passing
local ordinaces requiring home owners to own a gun or allowed for packing guns on your
hip, there has not been a single incident of wrongful use of a firearm by any of these
citizens in any of these communities. ** Why are so many kids becoming violent? Twenty
years ago, laws began to be passed, declaring the rights of children, which a lot people
fought. The essance of these laws: Kids became instant adults, and no longer had to
listen to their parents. They had rights, they could make their own decisions, they could
do what they wanted. Then comes Slick Willie, and for the past 6 years, kids have been
under assault. Kids were suddenly told that they couldn't smoke cigarettes. It's a
federal crime if they do! With parental discretion, kids could use/own firearms. But
today, kids are being told from Washington, that they are criminals if they own or use
firearms. Kids are feeling the pressure too! Freedom must be restored! 
3/30/98 Abhijit Mandal
Just imagine, if the girls who were shot were carrying guns, they may not have been shot.
What's the point I am trying to make? In American society, it should be made compulsory
to either carry guns or stay close to somebody who carries guns. The experience of
European societies where they have lower gun ownership rates and low crime rates is
irrelevant. 
3/30/98 Sergio DiMartino sergiod@pacbell.net
The gun-grabbers just don't seem to get it. Criminals, by virtue of the fact that they
are criminals, DO NOT OBEY LAWS. Therefore they will not obey stricter CCW laws. This is
not a difficult concept, people. Criminals who want to carry handguns with the specific
intent of hurting others will do so regardless of how lax or restrictive CCW laws are.
Stricter CCW laws do not restrict criminals from carrying handguns with the specific
intent of harming others. They do, however, restrict law-abiding citizens from carrying
handguns with the specific intent of protecting themselves and their loved ones. What's
wrong with this picture? The criminals already carry concealed weapons. Laxing CCW laws
just levels the playing field in favor of the law-abiding citizens. 
3/31/98 Paul Apfelbeck redpoll@alaska.net
Dr. Weil: Your article appeals to the emotion of the reader, making several anecdotal
instances seem indicative of the whole. Let me balance the scales of emotion: last fall a
thug armed with twin hunting knives knocked down a female clerk at the store where I
work, threatening her with death. My boss, who carries a concealed weapon, was working in
the back of the store. He confronted the thug, who ran away, but not before he was able
to shoot out the thug's car window, thereby allowing police to quickly identify and
capture the criminal. I would guess Mr Weil would be happier seeing a dead woman in a
pool of blood on the floor, and the feel the anguish of a man unable to defend his
employees. How's that for emotion? 
3/31/98 Bill dragon13@pacbell.net
Apparently I'm late to the fray here, so I'll try to be brief. Thank you Mr. Lott for
undertaking your study in a professional manner, even if the results don't fit in with
much of what the media wants us to believe. To the writer who didn't understand why
someone would want to go about armed, or own anything but a hunting rifle, all I can give
you are two points. Criminals are cowards and will most often attack targets which cannot
effectively fight or resist, such as older (out of shape) adults, lone women, or those
inattentive to their surroundings. Secondly, when you, an out-of-shape office worker, are
attacked out of the blue by an athletic criminal half your age, the mere presence of a
firearm often halts the act immediately! In those cases where it does not, it offers the
elderly, the middle-aged, the petite, or someone with the flu to defend themselves
decisively. Please visit my web page on gun-control for more information at:
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/guninfo.html 
3/31/98 Mark Wilson
Jim: You are free to your opinion. As for me, it wouldn't bother me one bit if everybody
walking down the street were armed? Why does other people being armed bother you so much?
Do you have so little faith in your fellow man??? As to guns in private hands detering
invasions. The Japanese disagreed with you. During WWII, the Japanese were considering a
raid on the Northwest US, in order to force the US to divert resources to defend this
area. They decided against it precisely because they knew how well armed and trained the
citizens were. This is not theory or conjecture, the minutes of the meetings were
captured when Japan surrendered. During WWII, civilian patrols were quite influential in
protecting British shores against sabuetors. 
3/31/98 Mark Wilson
Julie Cochrane: I think I'm in love (with my wife of course). I graduated from Tech in
'85 with a BSEE. Your name sounds familiar, what year did you graduate? 
3/31/98 Alexander S. Koczur Alexander_Koczur@bstz.com
One thing I find interesting about the people who believe that guns are the problem is
that they are strong advocates of double standards and hypocrisy. First, the double
standards are glaring in the two main areas surrounding this issue. First, the city where
I live (San Jos, Calif.) has, in addition to Federal and State laws against assault
weapons and high-capacity magazines, also implemented a ban on junk guns (i.e., pistols
less than $500). At the same time, to combat bank robbers from LA, they now issue assault
weapons with high-capacity magazines to the police. The local news told us that these
officers must pass a 20 hr basic training and monthly time on the range. My training (US
Army Ranger / Special Forces) is vastly superior to anything these cops will receive, but
I am not allowed to own these guns, let alone carry them in the trunk of my car. Double
standard no. 1 is in effect, the enforcement officials are above the law that it is their
job to enforce against me. These sorts of double standards are unacceptable to anybody
who wishes to be, and stay, free. Double standard No. 2 is the belief that the exception
should be the rule. Look for my next post... 
3/31/98 Alexander S. Koczur Alexander_Koczur@bstz.com
Double standard no. 2 is the belief that the execption should be the rule. It is a small
number of criminals that are responsible for most gun crime, the other people cited as
examples by HCI and their ilk can only be called crazy. These are not representative of
the 98% of gun owners (or 99.9% of everybody in the US) who do not misuse firearms. What
is not discussed is that if we wish to use such examples as the basis for policy, then
they clearly come down on the side of disarming the gov't (police & military). With a few
rogue states and crazies like Hitler, Stalin and others killing MILLIONS of people
(instead of the few thousands killed by criminals), I think we should take guns away from
the various gov't gang members... 
3/31/98 Jerry Cote jcote@neighbors.com
Spoken like a true TV journalist. Take a few isolated facts and ignore everything else.
200,000 crimes prevented by handguns per year, 99.9%+ of registered guns are never used
in a felony (read: most owners are responsible persons). For years I thought that media
liberals knew the facts, but deliberately left them out to support their view. Silly me.
That would assume that they bothered to track down many facts, including those that their
immature little hearts wouldn't want to know. If ever there was a shooting danger in
America, it's know-nothing-by-choice reporters shooting off their mouths to the millions
(or should I say, for the million$$$) 
3/31/98 Winsor Naugler III dogyks@ix.netcom.com
It is a given that there would be a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy in Arkansas, since
HCI and their ilk have naught but fear and ignorance in their favor. Were the malefactors
in this incident to have used gasoline or a station wagon to effect their mayhem, there
would be no hue and cry to further restrict their instruments of destruction, since this
sentiment would be viewed as patently stupid. It is no less stupid to wish firearms to be
as restricted and difficult for miscreants to obtain as, say, cocaine and heroin. It is
axiomatic that one should seek to arm their allies and disarm their avowed enemies, and
it is disturbing that Dr. Weil has thus shown his enmity toward the citizenry of the US.
Since the Government of a Democracy is, by definition, The People, gun control is by
nature seditious. Socrates observed that a man sees in others what he knows of himself. I
contend that one who cannot be trusted with a loaded firearm cannot be trusted, and is
unfit to populate a free society. That Dr. Weil and his ilk at HCI see the world as being
populated with terminally irresponsible people says more about them than it does about
those they accuse. For such timerous souls as Dr. Weil to feel their fears warrant
serious consideration is disquieting. The sheer mediocrity of the sentiments thus voiced
is shameful, and the lack of character whereby this is not apparent is appalling. 
3/31/98 Steve Fischer sdfischer@mindspring.com
This article is typical of the emotional baloney that routinely passes for scholarship in
the hoplophobic community. The author pulls out a few - and I do mean *FEW* examples of
some CCW owners (out of the hundreds of thousands who don't misuse them) who act like
idiots and then tars the whole community with their misdeeds. Most revocations of permits
are for technical violations and virtually none involves a violent crime. Then the
author, who has probably never even read the study by Lott and Mustard (I have, by the
way!), drags out the names of some people whose only claim to fame, as nearly as I can
tell, is that they criticized Lott in a public arena. No reason is given for us to
believe that they have any special expertise in this subject. The author neglects to
mention that Lott has substantially answered their criticisms with plausible
explanations. It seems the only irrefutable research to these persons is anti-gun
research. The current vogue is to think of guns as germs, yet none of these doctors has
explained why, when 50 million people are exposed to the virus, so few people actually
catch the infection of gun violence. Most of those who do, have long criminal records!
Facts are so inconvenient. 
3/31/98 Chris Boaro chrisab@microsoft.com
Douglas Weil makes the statement that CCW laws ...takes discretion away from law
enforcement in determining who receives a concealed weapons license.... It's time that
the anti-guners dropped this argument.Do you want the local police department to decide
if you can own a gun? If you can drive? If you can vote? If you can read a newspaper?
Where you should go to church? How would they decide? Would they care if you were black
or white, jew or christian, poor or rich? A society where law enforcement is allowed to
make arbitrary decisions about which rights and privilages a person may exercise is a
POLICE STATE, not a free country. Is that what you're asking for, HCI? 
4/1/98 Reed Hanson
This article is insipid drivel. I have legally, and responsibly carried a concealed
defensive handgun as a private citizen for almost 12 years. The mere presence of that
weapon has saved my life on more than one occasion; without a shot ever being fired! In
my home state, the local sheriff's dept. completes the necessary background check for
issuance of a ccw permit, just as the dept. of motor vehicles determines the fitness of
an individual for a driver's license. Firearms enthusiasts, as a whole, exercise great
responsibility in the pursuit of their sport; something I wish I could say of most
drivers. The law is put in place to weed out ,if you will, the irresponsible individuals
in either case. Recently having become physically handicapped, my leagally carried weapon
is an even greater consolation, now that I am not able to physically fend off an
attacker. Dr. Weil, if you wish to remain unarmed, so be it; but don't presume to tell me
that because you don't wish to exercise that right, I should'nt be able to. It is
painfully evident that you have never had to defend yourself, or anyone else, from an
attack. Otherwise, I can virtually guarantee that you would see this matter in a
completely different light. Good Day, Sir! 
4/1/98 Wm Bach
Dr. Weil, Two simple questions: : Who kills more of a given nations citizens/subjects -
the government or fellow citizens/subjects? Who is killed more often by the above prime
killers - armed citizens or unarmed subjects? I think you know the answer to the
question, but do not care since you hope to be on the side of the ones accruing all of
the power - and the lumpen be damned. Heil Clinton! 
4/1/98 Christopher
Weil and his affiliates at HCI are engaging in their last-ditch strategy of post-and-run,
whereby they post an article in a public forum and then run from any valid questions
raised against their contents. This strategy has as its goal the lone hope that a few
uninformed, easily-persuadable souls will read their articles and be swayed to their
viewpoint. ---------------- But this strategy can hardly prove effective to a free,
informed, and inquisitive populace (hence their efforts will merely serve the useful
purpose of reminding those defenders of liberty to remain vigilant). --------------
Certainly Mr. Weil did not respond to questions regarding his lack of sources and
statistics in his article, nor did he explain what specific part of Lott's study was
flawed (and under what reasoning), nor did he inform readers of his desire to see police
departments (and hence a police state) with the authority and discretion to annoint
certain chosen citizens with certain civil-rights, nor at any time did Mr. Weil explain
why he based his persuasive article on anecdotal examples rather than readily available
statistics. Perhaps Mr. Weil understands that he can only post-and-run, since his
position seems undefendable at this point. Therefore I suspect to see more of Mr. Weil's
writing...if only briefly! 
4/1/98 Joshua Amos info@olyarms.com
I find it amusing that you are excercising your rights under the 1st amend, and yet you
want to take away my rights under the 2nd amend. What hypocracy! Have you been highly
trained in the use of the Engilsh language? Did you wait fifteen days and cool off before
you wrote this article? As for you claims that the gun studies are bunk here is a website
complied by two university professors using Law enforcement data. Take a close look, this
is the truth, not a study done by your allies a Hand Gun Control. Not only will these
gentlemen show you where they got thier info, they will tell you how it was compiled. We
have nothing to hide Can you say the same?
http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html I will gladly debate and refute any
argument that you have. If you do not like the laws and freedoms of this county please
leave immediatley. 
4/1/98 Mike Copeland
Interesting to note the CDC graphs showing the number of firearms related deaths(which
include all legitimate shootings i.e. self defense and police) rise in proportion to the
number of gun control laws. Recently, as more states allow their citizens to exercise
their right to carry a weapon the number of firearms related deaths go down. This
destroys HCI propoganda. Like most liberals, they can't bear to admit being wrong. They
will not take responsibility for their own actions. For the few bad examples posted there
are thousands of examples of guns used to save lives. Given the fact that there are over
thirty states that allow CCW and he only came up with 5 bad examples, that's a ratio I
can accept. 
4/1/98 Brian Mooney bmooney@scescape.net
The few examples cited in this anti-gun diatribe are about the only ones they could dig
up - the fact is, gun owners as a whole, and especially those who hold concealed weapons
permits, are more law-abiding than the average citizen. I do not argue that carrying a
concealed weapon should be an automatic right for everyone - I think competency and
fitness have to be judged. Contrary to what is written above, the laws and background
checks ARE thorough. Basically, this argument comes from those who want a governmental
answer and who are willing to whittle away at indivdual rights in return for more control
of people. It is based on an inability to trust the average citizen to act responsibly.
We need to amke up their minds for them, is what this says. Maybe we'd get more
individual responsibility (it's on the decline) if we expected it of people, and allowed
them to exercise it. But that would mean relinquishing control. That is what the above
article is rerally about - the public is a bunch of idiots who can't be trusted to run
their lives in an enlightened fashion. Ohnyes - I'm a liberal, Democratic voter, who
belongs to the ACLU and Amnesty International. And the NRA. He is part of a failed
approach to the problem of violence. We don't need another noble experiment like that the
endured during alcohol prohibition. 
4/1/98 Laszlo Markos lmarkos@texas.net
Wow!!! For a while there I could not figure out weather this Dr. Weil was being serious
in his posting or merely being funny. I guess since I can come up with anecdotal
references of government agency personnel abusing their firearm rights we should disarm
all police and gov. personnel. Does that make any rational sense??? For those that are
considering gun control as an answer to today's societal problems, specifically crime,
please think rationally for a moment. We live in a time when firearms are under probably
the strictest control they have ever been and yet the crime rate is still the high. If
your arguments regarding firearms were true then how do you explain the 30's, 40's and
50's? Continued... 
4/1/98 Mike Orick brokenarrow@earthling.net
Dr. W sees what he want to see, not what is. The evidence is overwhelming that
shall-issue is working, and working well. He pulls isolated, and very rare, incidents out
of his biased hat. There are over two million CCW holders in the US now, and they are
definitely NOT a problem. CCW has a better documented history of lessening violent crime
than gun banning. What about all the other states that have had zero problems with
license holders? Many LE officials who were opposed have admitted they were wrong, Dr. W
won't. I would rather live where everybody carries and there is less crime, than where
nobody carries but criminals. Thanks to shall-issue CCW, we are moving in that direction.

4/1/98 Laszlo Markos lmarkos@texas.net
Aside from that think of what effect bans have had in our society. Way back when people
felt that outlawing alcohol woule help solve a lot of problems. Did it? My opinion is
that it did not. In actuality it made things worse without having any effect on alcohol
consumption. People went to Speak Easies(sp?) and got their gin. Meanwhile we created a
market which made violent criminals rather wealthy and powerful. Well that couldn't
happen today, you say. How about the war on drugs. Various drugs have been illegal in
most countries around the world for decades. Our federal gov. probably spends billions
each year in foreign aid, interdiction programs, we even have an agency whose goal is to
enforce drug laws. Aside from the feds, each and every state, county, and city law
enforcement agency probably has a narcotics division. How much does that cost us and how
effective has it been? Do thousands upon thousands of people still obtain, use and abuse
drugs? Have we eliminated the lucrative business of dealing/importing/growing controlled
substances? What makes you think that the same thing will not happen with gun control
laws? Passing Laws to help control the actions of lawless individulas is as effective as
trying to bale water with a pasta strainer. It gets you nowhere fast. 
4/1/98 BigBossMan bigbossman@rocketmail.com
Two brief points: 1. The good Dr Weil's silence to the follow-on discussion involving his
article is, ummmmm.....deafening. He has chosen not to enter the discussion to clarify
his position on the article points that have come into question....I wonder why?? 2. Go
to HCI's, VPC's. or any other gun control organization's web page, and look around. then
go to the NRA's or any other pro RKBA web page and look around. Compare and contrast.
Notice a difference? The gun-control organizations invariably have no links inviting
comments and email. The RKBA sites invariably do....Again, I wonder why?? 
4/1/98 Fred mobyk@aol.com
Everybody knows that the sources quoted by the Mr. Weil are at best misrepresenting the
facts. You'll notice that the author describes no flaws in Lott's statistical methods
just emotional invectives hurled against the Lott study.. Time and again we see HCI and
the like deliberately misleading the American people. I know, for close to 4 decades I
was on their side. Then one day I looked behind the propaganda and to the facts. The
result was that now I stand with the gun lobby - the fault lies not in the firearms but
in ourselves. The gun banners are a continuance of a long tradition: their predecessors
burned witches at the stake, cowered in their homes when the moon eclipsed the sun and
believed the earth to be flat. I will no longer be party to that thinking. 
4/1/98 Jason Ayers jaayers@nmsu.edu
Weil, please! You say that Lott is incorrect. Give me a little more than four examples.
Data proves points. I'm an engineering student, and I couldn't publish any findings based
on several stories that I heard. The fact is that a criminal prefers to target those that
are unarmed. Try to dispute that. Lott has the data to back up his points, you on the
other hand site several incidents. You have not persuaded the majority of your readers
based on the comments posted here. 
4/1/98 petersalt llsdjs@yahoo.com
So _cases_ investigated 'involving' concealed carry permit holders in Texas increased by
a huge percentage from 1996 to 1997. Well, duuuhhhhh!!! The number of concealed carry
permit holders in Texas went from essentially zero in 1996 to several hundred thousand by
the end of 1997. [The Department of Public Safety was slow initiating the process, and
very few permits were issued in 1996 after the passage of the law.] As most of the
inferences from the statistics in Dr. Weil's article, this is the logical equivalent of
saying nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded. A bit too partisan for objective and
clear-cut analysis. 
The recent controversial gun control bill marks yet another in a long list of social and
criminal justice issues that have been prostituted for political purposes. The highly
publicized debate on the relationship between guns and public safety, and the partisan
strategizing on implications of gun control measures for the upcoming presidential race
have taken precedence over the pragmatic prospects of the bill itself--making the gun
issue a platform for political posturing. But what of the bill itself - would it have
effectively regulated guns toward the end of a safer, less violent society? We do not
think so for the following reasons.
Proposals that sales at gun shows by private individuals be subject to the same
background checks currently required of sales by licensed gun dealers (at gun shows, or
at gun stores) are based on two beliefs. First, that there are good gun owners and bad
gun owners. And second, the present level of gun-related violence in society dictates
serious regulatory efforts to keep guns out of the hands of these bad owners. These two
beliefs have led some to the conclusion that any infringement upon the rights of good gun
owners are justified by the greater social interest in preventing criminals, the mentally
insane and juveniles from acquiring guns. These two beliefs are the logical underpinnings
of the recently debated, and sure to return, proposals requiring background checks on gun
show sales by private individuals. (Again, checks are already required when firearms
dealers sell guns at gun shows.)
Several key points have been ignored, however, in the heated and emotional debate over
the wisdom and effectiveness of federal regulations on gun show sales. Many states
already regulate private gun sales in such a manner that federal requirements would
simply be redundant. In California, Maryland and Rhode Island, for example, state
statutes subject all private gun sales---including those that take place at gun shows--to
criminal history background checks. In many other states, both private sellers and buyers
must first obtain a permit from a local or state authority.
Even more troubling is the unintended but unavoidable problem of displacement. No one
knows exactly how many private gun sales take place in a year but experts estimate that
thirty to fifty percent of all gun sales are between private individuals. In states that
do not regulate the private gun market, private gun sales are essentially cash-and-carry
no questions asked transactions. And as long as both the seller and the buyer are not
prohibited from owning firearms, such transactions are legal.
What would federally mandated background checks on gun show sales by private individuals
accomplish? Quite simply, since gun shows comprise only a fraction of the unregulated
private gun market, proposed restrictions would displace many sales into other segments
of the private gun market (e.g., classified ads, garage sales, and, most importantly,
personal contacts). Anyone desiring to purchase a gun without a background check might
simply locate a seller in such informal markets. The truth, then, is that the proposed
restrictions will not effect the desired outcome.
Given that criminals can easily circumvent these token background checks, the question
becomes, what do the restrictions accomplish in terms of the gun policy-social
violence-constitutional rights interrelationship? The answer: empty political symbolism.
Once it is understood that the unregulated private gun market is a viable alternative to
licensed and regulated sources, the entire national instant background check system is
called into question. It achieves little more than deterring stupid criminals from buying
weapons from licensed dealers, while the savvy simply utilize the private market.
The heart of the issue is this: As long as an unregulated private gun market exists,
mandatory criminal history background checks are a waste of time and money. The
government should either regulate all gun sales or accept the realities of the gun
market. To do so, of course, would be concession of the notion that certain spheres of
American life are, and should remain, beyond legislative control. And that is unlikely in
our identify-legislate-regulate approach to social violence wherein guns serve as
scapegoat. It is easier for almost everyone (parents, school authorities, and, especially
politicians) to focus on guns instead of our many and often overlapping sources of
violence (e.g., weakened social bonds, familial disruption, and the increasing isolating
nature of modern life) for which we as a society are all responsible.
A Message to All Gun Owners from the Prime Minister of Australia
To help make Australia safer you need
to know how gun control will affect you.
Recent horrific events have caused all Australians to consider what sort of firearms are
acceptable in our community. You will have seen a lot of information recently about gun
control and not all of it has been accurate.
The following information is the agreed view of all Australian governments made at the
special meeting of Police Ministers in May 1996.
John Howard Prime Minister
For more information contact your local police station or the office of your Federal
member or senator, after Tuesday 18 June, for a copy of the free pamphlet, Gun Use. How
it Affects You.
The following types of firearms will be available to owners who have a genuine reason for
such a firearm: 
-  air rifle
-  rimfire rifle (excluding self loading) 
-  single barrel shotgun 
-  double barrel shotgun 
For the following types of firearms, owners may also have to prove a genuine need for
such a firearm: 
-  single shot centre fire rifle 
-  double barrel centre fire rifle 
-  repeating action centre fire rifle 
-  break action shotgun/rifle combination 
A genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm will include: 
-  sporting shooters using lawful firearms with valid membership of an approved club; 
-  recreational shooters/hunters who produce proof of permission from a public or private
landowner; 
-  people with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes,
security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes; 
-  bona fide collectors of firearms; and 
-  people with other limited purposes authorized by legislation (e.g. firearms use in
film production). 
The following types of firearms will remain restricted subject to the tightest possible
controls: 
-  handgun 
-  air pistol 
The following types of firearms will be restricted to persons such as primary producers
who have a genuine occupational need for the gun: 
-  self loading rimfire rifle 
-  self loading shotgun 
-  pump action shotgun 
The following types of firearms will be banned throughout Australia except for official
purposes and professional shooters: 
-  self loading centre fire rifle 
-  self loading shotguns 
-  pump action shotguns 
-  self loading rimfire rifle 
Gun Control as Crime Control
by William G. Dennis
Newsweek magazine's article The Media's Message (January 9, 1995) described an
unprecedented public hostility toward the national media. To a great degree, the
hostility arises from the presses preference for the cheap shot and an addiction to
negative stories peopled by villains. What was lost in the press was that there were good
people on all sides that differed philosophically about what should be done. Those of us
that want to encourage a rational informed debate about armed crime in America can
certainly relate to that article.
In spite of her obvious good intentions, Ann Landers' columns provide abundant examples
of cheap shots, shrill attacks, and just plain misinformation. Once she wrote that a
crime victim was better off not to resist an armed assailant. This seemed odd to me for
reasons that will become clear below.
I wrote and asked where she had gotten her information, and after some prodding, she
cavalierly responded that I should do as she had done and ask a policeman. The ones I had
already asked had certainly not agreed with her. But more important, we have all read any
number of her columns where she makes a major point out of the source of her information.
Her unwillingness to specify which officer in what department she had consulted seemed
more than a little odd.
I could fill this article with examples from her column because her zealous pursuit of
crime control through gun control seems to accept truth as an unimportant casualty.
Ann Landers is by no means atypical. In the April 1994 Bar News, I described a 90-day
summary of the stories about shootings that had appeared in the Longview Daily News.
Pieces about misuse of firearms by criminals and crazies
predominated over stories about legitimate self-defense, in spite of the fact that many
criminological studies have shown at least a rough correspondence between the numbers of
firearm abuses and legitimate self-defense uses. More telling, the stories about abuse
were from locations that averaged 26 times further away from Longview than the incidents
involving self-defense. The paper, or more properly the wire services from which the
paper drew, would print an article from anywhere in the world about firearms abuse, but
not articles about self-defense. So unless the events described in those stories had
occurred so close to Longview that the reader could learn about the incident from other
sources of information, he wasn't going to learn about it from the Daily News.
In the fall of 1994, there was spectacularly successful example of self-defense near
Portland that ended with the armed citizen driving the wounded would be carjacker to the
hospital. That incident was not reported here, even though it occurred only a few miles
away. This prompted me to repeat my Daily News study, and the lack of balance was even
more pronounced. In 13 weeks there were 92 stories about abuse and not a single one about
self-defense. Incidents involving successful self-defense occurred in the Northwest
during the study, but they were not reported either.
The zeal we see in Landers'- columns seems to permeate the whole industry. If you take
nothing else away from this article, realize that someone cannot be well-informed on this
subject simply by casualty reading a few newspapers and weekly magazines. [1]
But in fairness to the media, much of the information to support the views advanced in
this article is there for someone who wants to spend the time digging it out. The sources
cited herein are all well respected mainstream publications, and they are supplemented
only by material drawn from specialized professional periodicals.
This article provides some balance on this subject by presenting information that has
failed to get the exposure it deserves, such as the substantial body of scholarship that
holds that gun control, as it has been pursued in this country, has failed to be a
significant deterrent. (See Nelson Polsby of Northwestern University School of Law, The
False Promise of Gun Control, Atlantic Monthly, page 57, March 1994). That is not a point
of view that gets much exposure from the media.
The main point that Polsby's article makes is, Guns don't increase national rates of
crime and violence, but the continued proliferation of gun control laws almost certainly
does. The bulk of the homicide in this country does not involve stressed-out madmen or
domestic violence, but rather organized crime (drug dealers' turf wars, etc.) and petty
crime that escalates into violence. Our worst nightmare of a dictatorship could not
collect all of the guns in this country. A great many will continue to be in circulation
no matter what we do. The main effect of gun laws is to drive up the price of firearms
and to encourage the stickup artist to believe that his victim will not be armed.
To see what Polsby is getting at, compare the experiences of the city of Chicago, which
has tightened its concealed carry law, with the state of Florida, which loosened its law.
Chicago's action followed a period of several years when the proportion of homicides
committed in the city with handguns had been failing, a trend which stopped immediately;
the proportion of homicides committed with handguns has increased substantially since.
(Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1991) By way of contrast, Florida has experienced a
phenomenal 29 percent decrease in its homicide rate since it eased its concealed-carry
law (Time, March 27, 1995), and only 19 of the permits granted since the easing have had
to be revoked because of the holders' criminal acts. (Christian Science Monitor, April 6,
1995).
One weakness in the case for gun control as crime control is that Americans use their
guns with startling frequency to defend themselves. Gary Kleck is a criminologist at
Florida State. Although gun prohibitionists summarily dismiss him as pro-gun, he began
studying civilian defensive use of firearms primarily because it was an open field, not
because he had a particular point of view he wanted to advance. He is a member of the
American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. A
self-characterized tree hugger,'' he is a lifelong registered Democrat.
He initially published an estimate that Americans make legitimate self-defense use of
firearms on the order of one million times a year. (Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
March 1993). It was based on 10 surveys done by other researchers that yield results of
the same order of magnitude. This was so startling that he conducted his own survey and
found, Each year there are at least 2.5 million defensive uses of guns by crime victims,
about four to five times the number of crimes committed with guns. (Citing Kleck and
Gertz in Social Pathology, January 1995).
Anyone who wants to deny Americans the opportunity to defend themselves has to deal with
the fact that Kleck's research encountered all too many cases like that of the Everett
couple who felt the need for an armed neighbor to be at their home when their son arrived
from school. When an intruder-who was later identified as a suspect in several sexual
assaults on children-tried to break into the house, the neighbor used his gun to drive
him off, and the would-be intruder was apprehended by police (The Herald, December 12,
1991).
In contrast, estimates of the criminal use of firearms range between 600,000 and
1,000,000 times a year (Longview Daily News, May 16, 1993). All this certainly gives one
a reason to be skeptical of Ann Landers.
Also, much of that criminal use takes place in areas like New York and Washington D.C.,
where the citizen is legally forbidden to be armed for self-defense, and which have the
highest crime rates in the country. Strip away the laws that disarm the citizen, and
criminal use of firearms in those areas might decrease to the lower levels that typically
exist where such laws are not in effect.
The weakness of the case for gun control is also masked by the fact that the mainstream
press normally presents statistics for the nation as a whole as if the level of armed
crime were the same everywhere. But that is not at all true. In an article that appeared
in The New England Journal of Medicine, November 10, 1989, the authors tried to make a
case for gun control as crime control by comparing homicide statistics from Seattle and
Vancouver, B.C.
But what came to light was that the homicide rate for Non-Hispanic Caucasians (about 75
percent of the population in both cities) was actually lower in Seattle, with all its
lack of gun control, than it was in Vancouver. The higher overall homicide rate in
Seattle was due to the fact that certain portions of Seattle's minority populations have
extremely high homicide rates compared to its 'Non-Hispanic Caucasian majority and to
similar communities in Vancouver.
The situation among African-Americans is typical. The homicide rate in the whole Seattle
African-American community is five times the rate among Seattle's Non-Hispanic Caucasian
rate. Nationally, the per capita homicide rate for African-Americans is 11 times that of
whites. (Newsweek August 25, 1994) Since there is no reason to believe that the rate
among African-Americans who live in suburbs is any different from that of their white
neighbors, the rate in the inner-city portions of the African-American community must be
actually much higher. Nationally, about a fifth of African-Americans live in poverty in
inner cities (Christian Science Monitor, August, 17, 1994), which suggests that the per
capita homicide rate among the part of the community that lives in those inner-city
neighborhoods must be on the order of 20 to 25 times the rate for the city as a whole.
[2]
These circumstances are not an argument for gun control. Guns are barely a symptom of our
problem, not a basic cause.
African-Americans have the highest rates among ethnic groups in Washington for aggravated
assault, rape and homicide. The category of race is a proxy for social and economic
status-factors directly linked to the incidence of violent crime. A Preliminary
Assessment Of Violent Crime in Washington State,  Washington State Department of Health,
1993
These facts call for efforts to deal with these underlying causes, not for more gun
control.
Actually, Vancouver's experience is one of many examples of a gun ban being followed by
an increase in the homicide rate. In the seven years following British Columbia's ban,
Vancouver's rate went up substantially (Evaluation of the Canadian Gun Control
Legislation. Elisabeth Scarff, Decision Dynamics Corporation).
This pattern was noted as far back as the passage of the Sullivan Act in New York. (The
Gun in America, Kennett and Anderson, page 185), as well as when Chicago effectively
banned the concealed carrying of pistols by refusing to license any more residents to
carry them (Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1991, page A 10). It was also noted both when
Washington D.C. banned handguns and when California banned certain assault weapons (FBI
uniform crime reports).
In some cases, there probably wasn't a cause-and-effect relationship. But the sheer
number of times the phenomenon has been noted means that it can't be ignored, especially
since a decrease in the crime rate has been noted when gun controls are loosened (A
Better and Safer Place to Live,  Washington State Bar News, April 1994).
What initially seemed to be a strong argument for gun restrictions was a study of
suicides and gun ownership done in Seattle by Gary Kellerman and his associates that
appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine, June 12, 1986. The authors found that a
gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to shoot a member of the family who
lives in the home than it was to be used to shoot an intruder. Most shootings were
self-inflicted. The authors argued that substantial numbers of lives might be saved if
people did not keep guns in their homes.
But this study turns out to be one of the best examples of why prohibitionists' claims
are worthy of very close scrutiny. The people I contacted who work in suicide prevention
indicated unanimously that suicide incidence is governed by drug and alcohol abuse and
personality disorders, and that controlling access to guns would not have a significant
effect.
I became even more skeptical when I realized that firearms are only marginally more
effective than hanging and other commonly used means of committing suicide. In order to
accept the authors' conclusion that gun control might significantly reduce suicides, we
must first accept the proposition that somehow having a gun in the home encourages
thoughts of suicide. This flies in the face of what I was told by the people I
contacted.
The study was heavily criticized (See The New England Journal of Medicine, December 24,
1992). The authors fell back on earlier work that suggested that guns kept in homes are
involved in unintentional deaths or injuries at least as often as they are fired in
self-defense. But if rough parity between legitimate (self-defense) shootings and
unintentional deaths or injuries is the best the authors can claim, they are on
exceedingly weak ground. Kleck and his associates found that there are several defensive
uses of a firearm where the gun is not fired for every time it is. Taken together, his
work and the authors' arguments suggest strongly that guns are used far more often for
self-defense than in instances where they create unintentional deaths or injuries.
These are just some of the reasons that gun control as crime control is viewed
skeptically by crime prevention experts. Politicians in police uniforms get considerable
publicity when they ask for gun control measures. But no policeman with whom I have ever
discussed the matter (perhaps a hundred over the years) has ever spoken in favor of gun
control as a crime control measure. The response that I got from a State Patrol sergeant
was typical. He felt that a gun law would keep an honest person honest, but a crook would
always get a weapon if he wanted it. Some police officers do favor gun control. But when
the Death Penalty Information Center polled police chiefs and sheriffs, only three
percent said that gun control was the most important thing we could do (Wall Street
Journal, March 10, 1995).
It appears that the popularity of the argument for gun control as crime control comes not
from some strong intellectual or factual basis, but from the tens of millions of dollars
of free publicity that the media give gun prohibitionist groups every year.
Most people who have not made a study of gun control have the impression that our
homicide rate is now far worse than it was at any time in the past, and that it is rising
rapidly. That impression comes from the constant drumbeat of crime stories appearing in
all segments of the media. But the truth is that the per capita homicide rate in this
country is no worse now than it was 20 years ago, and considerably below its all-time
high. Most experts see it currently trending slightly downward (Christian Science Monitor
February 19,1994; Longview Daily News, December 7, 1993, February 19, 1994; Money, June
6, 1994).
Press bias is especially evident and especially misleading in the coverage given to
opinion polls that purport to show a vast base of support for the prohibitionists.
Typically, the questions asked by the pollsters concentrate on traditional gun control
proposals (registration, confiscation and the like). They usually don't even give the
respondent the opportunity to express a preference for less gun control or for
alternatives, such as the restrictions that are designed to impact groups whose behavior
has suggested that they should not have the same access to firearms as the rest of the
population- convicted felons, juveniles and those with a history of mental disability.
This abuse of the media's discretion is so clear that Everett Carll Ladd, the head of the
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, used it as an example in his column in the
Christian Science Monitor, (June 18, 1993), Misreported Polling Data Fails an Informed
Citizenry. The article centered on a poll conducted by Lou Harris, no longer associated
with Louis Harris and Associates. It made the startling finding that a majority of
Americans now favor a total ban on the possession of handguns unless a court explicitly
grants an exception. Ladd notes that this result is enormously different from other poll
results. Harris got that response by asking the crucial question after a long series of
other questions designed to put the respondent in a mood to answer the way he wanted.
Ladd's conclusion was that Americans need to be skeptical, and the press needs to develop
more effective means for assessing accuracy.
Even if they had the money, the NRA and similar groups simply do not have the opportunity
to match the publicity that the media regularly hands anti-gun groups. It was only when
measures such as three-strikes-and-you're-out laws became popular that the fact that the
homicide rate is actually stable received wide dissemination as part of arguments that
such Draconian measures were unnecessary.
So far, this article has suggested that there is good reason to be skeptical about
traditional gun control measures as crime fighting tools, and that that skepticism is
shared by many people whose opinions ought to be heard. It suggests that those opinions
are not given the attention they deserve because the press often falls well below any
reasonable standard of objectivity on this subject. It has also presented reasons to
suspect that at least some of the scientific work that appears to favor traditional gun
control is subject to the same criticisms. But it is equally important that a good part
of the research that analyzes the gun crime link concludes that traditional gun control
is not a useful means of controlling crime.
The work of two of the most distinguished sociologists in contemporary America, James D.
Wright and Peter Rossi, is a case in point. Wright is a Professor of Human Relations at
Tulane and has received numerous professional honors. Initially there was a distinct
antigun bias in his published work. But as he and Rossi explored the subject, they became
increasingly disenchanted with that viewpoint. In their landmark study, Weapons Crime and
Violence in America (1981), they concluded,
There appears to be no strong causal connection between private gun ownership and the
crime rate .... There is no compelling evidence that private weaponry is an important
cause of, or a ,deterrent to, violent criminality.
Such a conclusion from someone who must contradict his own prejudice and previous
pronouncements does not come lightly and has a special credibility.
But Wright's later work moved him even further from advocating traditional gun control
measures. In his article in the March/April 1995 issue of Society Magazine, he concludes
that that type of anticrime measures are unlikely to impact our problems in any positive
way. He finds that evidence for this is so clear that he notes that it is difficult to
dismiss the theory that the measures are just a first step toward outright confiscation
of all firearms (as Senator Dianne Feinstein recently advocated).
For example, Wright found that almost all firearm purchases covered by the Brady five-day
waiting period were made by individuals who resided in households where there were
already one or more guns. How can a delay in selling an additional gun to someone who
already has access to one or more guns reduce crimes of passion?
Wright also notes that a detailed examination of instances where large-magazine capacity
assault weapons were used in crimes found that large magazine capacity was almost never a
factor in how much damage was done. However, there was at least some evidence that
substitution of hunting rifles, whose rounds are normally far more lethal than the low-
or medium-power cartridges used in assault weapons, substantially increased the
seriousness of wounds that were inflicted and the number of deaths that resulted.
More importantly, he has moved away from his original conclusion that there is no
compelling evidence that guns are a valuable deterrent against violent criminality. He
cites Gary Kleck's work, which was not available when he made that statement, and asks,
Does a society that is manifestly incapable of protecting its citizens from crime and
predation really have the moral authority to tell people what they may and may not do to
protect themselves?
This article has examined the proposition that we can control crime by limiting the
access of all Americans to firearms. The historical evidence and the scholarship cited
here show that that is a very dubious proposition indeed. Allowing people to be free to
defend themselves and concentrating gun control on those that abuse guns might be much
more productive.
None of this can be read as an argument that gun control is illegal or necessarily
unproductive. Neither is it an argument that our homicide rate 20 years ago, or now, is
anything to brag about. But it does suggest that we would not be wise to institute most
of the gun controls that are currently being advocated.
Notes
[1] Alas, the legal profession, which is often criticized for emphasizing its advocacy
role at the expense of scholarship, is not immune to the news media's problems. In the
July Bar News, I described an advertisement, signed by a number of law school deans, that
advances the theory that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right. But
none of the signatories had published on the topic, and the vast preponderance of those
scholars who had published had come to the conclusion that we do have such a right.
Another example is the interview with Nadine Strossen of the ACLU that was published in
Reason magazine in October 1994 and contained the comment, The plain language of the
Second Amendment in no way, shape, or form, can be construed as giving an absolute right
to unregulated gun ownership. The comment is accurate, but it implies that some major
player in the debate, such as the NRA, thinks that there is such a right. Anyone who has
read NRA material on this topic knows that it doesn't take such a position, and to the
best of my knowledge, neither does any other major player. The debate is about the shape
or extent of that right.
[2] Anyone who thinks that I am being unfair to the authors is obliged to read the
devastating criticisms of their work that appeared in the May 4, 1989 issue of The New
England Journal of Medicine. My favorite comment remains that of John Gryder of Johns
Hopkins University, who identified himself as politically in favor of gun control and
then went on to explain why this work is flawed science.
More on Gun Control (September 95)
Editor:
I feel the need to respond to William G. Dennis' article, A Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
The State of the Debate in the July Bar News.
Let me start off by saying that the logic that Professor Glen Reynolds uses in response
to a New York Times advertisement is simply, in my view, his own opinion, based on people
who write articles for law reviews, which of course is only their opinion, none of which
is based on any kind of law. Mr. Dennis then would have us believe that both the National
Rifle Association and Handgun Control Inc. favor some form of gun control. This is just
not correct. The NRA has never! I repeat, never! been in any kind of favor of gun
control, and this includes the semi-automatic. the NRA never saw a weapon it didn't love.
The fact of the matter is that the NRA has poured millions of dollars to fight groups
such as Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) to defeat any kind of gun control in this country.
Mr. Dennis then goes on to try to explain how the two groups go about getting their
information. I would suggest that Mr. Dennis gives more credibility to the NRA staff on
where it obtains its information on the Second Amendment issue than he does HCI. He goes
on to say that HCI is dependent on paid staffers to argue its position. I say, so what!
Are we to assume that Mr. Dennis is challenging the credibility of HCI staff members? If,
in fact, that is the case, why doesn't Mr. Dennis lay a foundation as to that claim? The
main thrust I would submit is that HCI has the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation on its
side, and I might add that on more than one occasion the Supreme Court ruled, giving the
Second Amendment a militia interpretation; and when last checked is still the final
authority when it comes to the law of the land. Like it or not, it doesn't matter at this
stage what the lower courts have decided, or how one goes about obtaining his
information, or even who the scholar is.
Another point I would take grave issue with is the statement, most of the available
statistics, however, do not demonstrate that local gun control laws reduce crime. That
statement is just plain ludicrous. On the contrary, according to The Washington Post, in
the first month of operation the Brady Bill Law prevented at least! 1,605 buyers from
purchasing handguns, including fugitives and felons convicted of armed robbery, murder
and manslaughter, this according to preliminary statistics from fifteen cities.
Forty-four fugitives or persons facing outstanding warrants were denied guns, including
one South Carolina man wanted for sexual assault who was arrested in the gun store.
So once again I would challenge Mr. Dennis to produce evidence to show that local gun
control laws do not reduce crime. Let me just state again that the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling on the Second Amendment was well thought out. Remember! that whenever the NRA
quotes the Second Amendment it always quotes the second half. The first half is less
convenient because it undermines the lobby's propaganda for universal weaponry. Nowhere
does the Constitution say the right to keep and bear arms means the right to bear any or
all arms.
Even the late Chief Justice Warren Burger called the NRA's distortion of the Second
Amendment a fraud on the American public.
In conclusion, let me quote from former American Bar Association president R. William
Ide, 3d: I am saying to the NRA and the gun lobby, to put their convictions where their
rhetoric is. The ABA challenges them to bring suit against the Brady Law on Second
Amendment grounds. They should either put up or admit there is no Second amendment
guarantee.
Finally, the next time you hear the NRA proclaim itself as the Great Protector of some
imagined right to be armed, ask yourself: If this right is so precious, why is it not
worth defending in court?
JOHN S. MUELLER
Spokane
More on Gun Rights (November 95)
Editor:
John S. Mueller's letter about A Right to Keep and Bear Arms? illustrates the weakness of
the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right so well that a
review of his comments is appropriate.
His first point is that those who do see an individual right lean heavily on the
published works of scholars. He would prefer to dismiss their work as mere opinion even
though courts regularly cite such sources themselves. More importantly gun
prohibitionists cite them, whenever and to whatever extent they can. So it is not at all
clear why we should not do so also. I suspect that gun prohibitionist advance this
argument because the scholars who have no ideological commitment support our side of the
question almost unanimously.
Mr. Mueller would prefer to emphasize court decisions. But the only thing that we know
unequivocally from the high court is that we don't have a right to weapons that do not
have a potential militia use (See U.S. v. Miller 1939). Since that decision the high
court has twice stated that the Second Amendment provides an individual right-but without
elaborating on the subject.
Professor Van Alstyne ably summed up how little is to be learned from high court
decisions. He compared guidance about the Second Amendment to that which was available
about the First Amendment at the turn of the century. Someone depending only on court
rulings at that time would have concluded that freedom of speech was not very important
or to be construed broadly. It was only after the scholars had developed their arguments
for a broad construction that the courts began to agree.
Mr. Mueller also took grave issue with the statement that most of the available
statistics do not demonstrate that local gun control laws reduce crime. He went on to a
discussion of how the Brady Bill, which of course is not a local law at all, has
interfered with handgun sales. This is not crime reduction as it was defined when its
proponents were selling the Brady Bill.
More important, I wrote in the July issue that that statement was a quote from an article
that is relied on by HCI and was included in the bibliography that organization sent me.
While I suspect that its author is correct, I made it clear that I included the quote to
advance the proposition that HCI has grave difficulty in finding work by independent
scholars that supports their positions.
It was asserted that I had dismissed the writings of HCI's paid staff without
establishing a proper foundation for doing so. Actually I rejected them, which they
deserved, after I analyzed Mr. Henigan's comment that The Second Amendment poses no
threat to laws effecting the private possession of firearms, (and this) may well be the
most settled proposition in constitutional law, (Legal Times 5/22/ 91).
In the five years before his comment there were at least ten bar review articles
published that disagreed with him. In addition the high court stated a year earlier that
it found the same sort of individual right in the Second Amendment as it did in the First
Amendment (see Verdugo-Urquidez 1990). Mr. Henigan's comment is startlingly at variance
with the available evidence.
Actually what appears to be without foundation is the statement by Mr. Mueller that the
NRA opposes all gun control measures. When I read that I picked up the NRA publication
that happened to be lying nearest me and found this description of the NRA's efforts to
unite victims, criminologists and police to close the loopholes in America's catch and
release criminal justice system through tough mandatory sentences for armed and violent
crime. Almost any issue of the American Rifleman contains material on the NRA's gun
control proposals and the efforts that organization is making to see them implemented.
More important, the lack of sure and certain punishment for criminals has become such a
problem that in recent years as many as one-third of the murders in this country were
committed by people who are out on bail (U.S. Attorney General William Barr.)
The material quoted above from the August 1995 American Rifleman documents that it is
inaccurate to say that the NRA opposes all gun control. It is also clear that controlling
armed crime by controlling armed criminals is an approach that has considerable merit.
I suspect that what is causing the NRA to be subjected to such unwarranted attacks by gun
prohibitionists is that the prohibitionists arguments rarely survive close scrutiny.
Take the cherished myth that the main reason that we have a high homicide rate is because
we have an armed populace. This was spelled out in unusual detail in Scientific American
(11/9 1) in an article which was subtitled More guns means more deaths from crime and
accidents. It was filled with graphics that showed our homicide rate advancing in lock
step with the number of guns in the hands of our citizens.
The problem is that during the last three years there has been a tremendous reduction in
our homicide rate at a time that Americans have been adding briskly to their personal
arsenals. Florida's astounding 29 percent decrease in its homicide rate is no longer
entirely unusual but almost any gun store operator will tell you that sales remain
vigorous indeed.
There were allegations that the author of the article cooked the books to support his
argument and the last three years data adds to this suspicion.
The weakness of the theory that the availability of guns is a root cause of our crime
problem is also shown by the Canadian experience. In the period when our rate had been
declining, that country, which has extremely tight gun laws, has had serious growth in
its homicide problem (The Oregonian, August 27, 1995.)
The argument that we would be better off if we disarmed potential crime victims doesn't
have any more credibility than the argument that the best way to protect the Bosnian
Muslims from their Serbian neighbors is to embargo their arms supplies. We all know how
well that has worked out.
I suspect that most arguments for gun control measures that have a blanket effect instead
of targeting, likely firearms abusers are similarly vulnerable to scrutiny and this is
why there is so much rancor from some of their proponents.
WILLIAM G. DENNIS
Kelso 
Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health 
NCPA Policy Report No. 223 
March 1999 
Introduction1 In early 1998, Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell proposed that local
officials sue gun manufacturers to recover costs related to firearms violence in their
cities.2 Although Rendell later put his plans for a lawsuit on hold, Mayor Marc Morial of
New Orleans and Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago have filed suits.3 Other cities have since
filed and still more seem likely to.4 In addition, two similar lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of private citizens. In one case, which resulted in a mixed verdict [discussed
in Appendix II], attorney Elisa Barnes sued gun manufacturers on behalf of six families
who had lost loved ones to criminal gun use and one man injured by gunfire.5 And on June
9, 1998, the MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Chicago Law School filed suit
on behalf of three Chicago families, each of which had lost young family members in
gang-related shootings.6 The second suit is now moving through the courts. 
The Chicago suit and the two private suits contend that (1) guns are a public nuisance
and (2) gun manufacturers knowingly flood cities with more guns than they expect to sell
to law-abiding citizens, thus aiding and abetting criminals in obtaining firearms. [The
New Orleans lawsuit, which takes a different tack, is examined in Appendix I.] The mayors
argue that the firearms industry should reimburse their cities for the public health and
safety costs associated with treating and preventing firearms injuries. The two private
suits seek compensation from the firearms industry for the plaintiffs' suffering plus
punitive damages to discourage the industry from allowing its guns to end up on the black
market. 
The demand that the gun industry pay the costs associated with gun violence parallels the
demands in suits brought against the tobacco industry. However, there is convincing
evidence that the benefits to society from the use of guns in self-defense and crime
prevention outweigh the costs. 
The lawsuits discussed in this study all seek redress from the firearms industry for the
cost of criminal violence to the plaintiffs (i.e., in the private suit the plaintiffs are
individuals who have suffered from criminal gun violence and in the cities' suits the
plaintiffs are seeking recompense for the medical and policing costs related to criminal
gun use). There are costs associated with gun use other than those related to criminal
activities, however. For instance, in 1995 1,225 people died as a result of fatal firearm
accidents.7 In addition, approximately 30,000 people commit suicide in the U.S. each year
and guns are used in approximately half of these deaths.8 On the benefit side, more than
20 million Americans participate in various shooting sports each year, accounting for
more than $30 billion in economic activity.9 A full accounting of the relative costs and
benefits of firearms to society would include all of these factors as well as others.
However, since the lawsuits at issue limit their claims for redress to the costs
associated with instances of criminal gun misuse, this study limits its inquiry to the
costs associated with criminal gun violence and the benefits associated with firearms
used in defense against criminal activities.10 
After outlining the cases brought against the firearms industry, this study analyzes how
guns prevent crime and compares the societal costs and benefits. It also examines the
unintended ill effects on law and public safety of the restrictions on the firearms
industry sought by the plaintiffs. 
Suits against the gun industry contend (1) guns are a public nuisance and (2)
manufacturers flood cities with guns. 
Suing Gun Makers When Mayor Rendell was considering whether Philadelphia should sue gun
makers, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) collected information and
shared it with Pennsylvania's state police in an unprecedented fashion.11 The data showed
that of the 38,000 handguns legally purchased in Philadelphia in 1996, 17 percent, or
approximately 6,460, were sold to just over 700 individuals - each of whom bought more
than five handguns that year.12 David Kairys, a lawyer originally consulted by the mayor,
concluded that either many of these purchasers were buying guns on behalf of criminals or
unlicensed black-market gun dealers were reselling legitimately purchased handguns to
ineligible persons.13 
The Chicago Lawsuit. Both overall serious crime and murder rates have dropped in Illinois
in general and Chicago in particular, but not as fast or as far as in the nation as a
whole. While the national murder rate declined 9 percent in 1997, Chicago saw less than a
4 percent decline.14 The Illinois murder rate has fallen only 19 percent since 1993,
compared to 30 percent nationally.15 Nearly 500 people die in Chicago each year from
gunshot wounds. 
Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Handgun sales and the private
ownership of any handgun not registered before March 30, 1982, are illegal. However,
handgun sales are still legal in the suburbs and, according to the lawsuit, suburban
sales are the source of Chicago's problems. 
Chicago sued gun manufacturers and others on November 12, 1998, for $433 million the city
claims it spent in the previous five years on police, emergency medical care and other
costs associated with gun violence. The lawsuit, building on the work that David Kairys
did for Philadelphia, alleges that the gun industry oversupplies suburban gun shops,
knowing the guns will be sold unlawfully to Chicago residents. This oversupply of guns is
a public nuisance analogous to noxious factory emissions, the lawsuit alleges. It also
claims that manufacturers advertise gun characteristics that appeal to gang members and
other criminals. Among these characteristics are concealability, affordability,
fingerprint resistance and the capacity to fire highly destructive ammunition.16 
In addition to gun manufacturers and wholesalers, the suit names 12 licensed gun dealers
as codefendants. These dealers had sold guns to undercover Chicago police who, the city
claims, made clear to the sellers that the guns were being purchased for criminal
purposes, by one person on behalf of another or for resale to criminals. 
The Hamilton Suit. The lead plaintiff in Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, the lawsuit filed by tort
attorney Elisa Barnes, was Freddie Hamilton, a New York mother who lost her teenage son,
Nunzi Ray, to a bullet intended for another teenager.17 The accused shooter in the Nunzi
Ray killing was acquitted in a criminal trial. 
Ms. Barnes claimed gun manufacturers distribute a dangerous product in a negligent manner
in that they do not track firearms from production to final destination in criminal
hands. Various gun control advocacy groups (e.g., the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
and Handgun Control Inc.) declined to join with Ms. Barnes in the suit because, in
contrast to traditional negligence cases, she was not going after a particular gun,
traced from a particular crime back to a specific manufacturer.18 She responded that this
had been tried and had failed in previous negligence cases against gun makers. 
A more important reason why Ms. Barnes did not sue just the gun manufacturers is that the
police identified the gun involved in only one of her plaintiffs' cases. None of the
manufacturers Ms. Barnes sued had guns tied to these cases. Indeed, Ms. Barnes could not
even show whether the guns used against her clients' loved ones were bought from
gunrunners by criminals or bought over the counter by lawful gun buyers, then stolen by
criminals. Ms. Barnes relied on three critical factors to make her case: a sympathetic
judge, testimony from a gun company insider and data on gun sales. 
She successfully fought to have the case assigned to semiretired judge Jack Weinstein
because he is widely known for his pro-plaintiff solutions to mass injury lawsuits and
his penchant for judicial lawmaking. In fact, he presided over an earlier birth defects
suit Ms. Barnes brought against manufacturers of the antimiscarriage drug DES. In that
case, Judge Weinstein pioneered the theory that in rare circumstances, when consumers
were unable to identify the particular makers of a product which had caused harm,
manufacturers' liability could be based on their market share. 
Her faith in Judge Weinstein's willingness to make new law was vindicated early. In a
preliminary ruling, Judge Weinstein declared, [There may] come a point that the market is
so flooded with handguns sold without adequate concern over the channels of distribution
and possession that they become a generic hazard to the community as a whole because of
the high probability that these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals and
minors.19 Judge Weinstein also allowed Ms. Barnes to expand her plaintiff group to 11
from two. 
Ms. Barnes hoped that testimony from Robert Hass, a former senior vice president for
marketing at Smith & Wesson Corp., would prove that the industry knows many of its guns
end up in the hands of criminals via black market sales from federally licensed but
largely unsupervised firearms dealers. Hass and the BATF both acknowledge that
manufacturers do cooperate with the BATF when responding to a request to trace a specific
gun. However, Hass claims that the industry, using internal records, could do more to
track suspiciously high-volume gun sales to specific retailers - especially when evidence
emerges that guns sold by a particular retailer are regularly linked to violent crime.
When this occurs, Hass claims, the companies could halt sales to the suspicious dealers.
[See the sidebar: The Structure of the Firearms Industry.] 
Third, Ms. Barnes hired corporate consultants National Economic Research Associates
(NERA) to search government statistics and reports on guns for evidence of trends. NERA
found a pattern of gun smuggling from states like Florida with relatively lax laws to
states like New York with relatively strict laws concerning gun purchases. In addition,
NERA concluded that more handguns were sold in less restrictive states than could be
expected given the levels of legitimate gun ownership, supporting Ms. Barnes' claim that
gun makers knowingly oversupply gun markets with low regulations. 
The MacArthur Suit. The MacArthur Justice Center's suit (Young v. Bryco Arms, Inc.) was
brought on behalf of the families of three victims of handgun violence in Chicago.20 This
suit was more focused than the ones brought by the mayors or Ms. Barnes, since it aimed
only at the manufacturers of the guns actually used to commit the crimes cited - Smith &
Wesson Corp., Navegar, Inc. and Bryco Arms, Inc. - rather than the gun industry as a
whole. The victims had two things in common: they were young and they died as the result
of gang shootings:
-  Andrew Young, 19, was killed by two gang members who mistook him for a member of a
rival gang. 
-  Salada Smith, 24, was the innocent victim of a drive-by shooting (she was several
months pregnant at the time). 
-  Robert Owens, 15, was killed by a 12-year-old white with orders to kill a couple of
black people. 
The arguments made in Young are similar to those made in the Chicago lawsuit and in
Hamilton. The plaintiffs in Young argue that the manufacturers should be held financially
responsible for gang violence because [the defendants] creat[e] and suppl[y] a vast,
illicit, underground market in handguns in order to meet the demand for weapons of gang
members and juveniles.21 As in the Chicago suit, the plaintiffs' claim that the
manufacturers design guns for and market them to gang members is based on the
characteristics claimed for the guns. 
Chicago claims it spent $433 million in the previous five years on police, emergency
medical care and other costs associated with guns violence. 
A previous suit pioneered the theory that manufacturers' liability could be based on
market share. 
The plaintiffs funded a study that found a pattern of gun smuggling from states with lax
gun purchase laws to states with relatively strict laws. 
Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health 
NCPA Policy Report No. 223 
March 1999 
Guns: Criminal Misuse and Self-Protection According to the 1997 Bureau of Justice
Statistics figures, 483,000 firearm crimes were reported to the police in 1996. We can
derive an upper bound to the number of firearm crimes, 915,000, by multiplying the number
of rapes/sexual assaults, robberies and aggravated assaults reported in the 1997 National
Crime Victimization Survey, which estimates crimes both reported and not reported to the
police, by the percentage of these crimes committed with firearms from the 1997 BJS
Sourcebook.22 [See Table I and Figure I.] 
More than 15 studies have shown that citizens use guns in self-defense between 764,000
and 3.6 million times annually.23 Criminologist Gary Kleck has estimated there are more
than 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.24 A study sponsored by the National
Institute of Justice and carried out by the Police Foundation found an even greater
number of defensive gun uses - approximately 2.73 million a year.25 Either figure is
larger than the number of crimes committed with firearms. 
The only survey that ever found fewer than 700,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year is
the National Crime Victimization Survey, which estimated that guns were used defensively
approximately 80,000 times annually.26 Not surprisingly, supporters of more restrictive
firearms laws cite this survey as evidence of the relative infrequency of defensive gun
use versus gun crime. The clearest evidence that the NCVS data on defensive gun uses is
seriously flawed is that it is radically different from the results of every other
survey. Near unanimity is relatively rare in crime studies but, except for the one
outlier, it seems to be the case on the issue of DGUs. Among the notable problems with
the NCVS are: (1) the respondents were not anonymous, (2) respondents were not directly
asked if they had ever used a firearm for self-defense but rather simply whether they had
done anything for self-protection and (3) most violent crimes reported to the NCVS were
committed away from home but relatively few people have concealed carry permits. A
respondent admitting defensive use would have been admitting - to a government agency -
illegal or legally questionable behavior. 
Other studies show that criminals fear armed citizens far more than they fear the
police.27 Their fear is reasonable. Approximately 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed
each year by armed civilians - more th