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’?