|
Name:
|
copperline
-
|
Subject:
|
Dr. John Lott's research
|
Date:
|
1/11/2013 10:41:10 AM
|
|
Well, i haven’t read the book but i did look into some of
Lott’s work. He has an impressive set of
academic credentials and makes his case strongly. No doubt about it.
i found some of his conclusions to be either incredibly
different from what you would expect, so much so that i have to wonder about
how he reached them. But he is a whiz
with statistical analysis, far beyond my ability to break down and undermine
his assessments with my own flimsy knowledge of mathematical techniques. i did find a number of published experts who
disputed his methods and conclusions.
A couple of things stand out to me though. 1) He has concluded that gun user training
has little to no effect on gun safety and crime. To me, this suggests that an armed person with
no training could be just as effective as a policeman. How could that be true? 2) He concludes that criminals will be deterred
by a sure and certain knowledge that their victim is armed. This may apply to criminals who contemplate
their actions, but probably wouldn’t have the same effect on the large number
of impulsive criminal acts or violent reprisals over perceived slights,
certainly no effect on someone who is psychotic.
i have tried to imagine what the theatre in Aurora Colorado
would have been like if several people in the audience had been armed. in the darkness & confusion, shots fired
would be impossible to distinguish from the real shooter….likely resulting in
people ‘returning fire’ in any direction they heard or saw gunfire coming
from. it would have created a free for
all with multiple shooters firing at each other.
But OK, let’s assume that Lott is right in all his
conclusions about gun ownership reducing crime.
Does it follow then that the larger the weapon, the more lethal, the
higher rate of fire & velocity, large magazines, etc proportionately
increase the positive effects he is describing? is there no limit to this reasoning at
all? is there any point where a reasonable
person would conclude ‘you just don’t need a gun like that one’?
|