So if John Lott's book " More Guns, Less Crime" is not credible, and Wayne LaPierre's two book's are not credible, "Guns, Crime, and Freedom" and "Guns, Terrorism, and Freedom", what is? Surely you have to say that all the crap that Sarah Brady puts out is not credible?? Valid arguments are based on statistics and fact, not emotion, hype, and hysteria = the gun control movement, in my opinion. Seems to me that many of the so called facts put out by the brady bunch have been discredited, while those from Lott and LaPierre have gained credibility. John Lott took a ton of heat for his book and his research from the media and the sheeple crowd, however he steadfastly stuck to his research and even wrote a second edition of his book. I for one put a lot of faith in his work, much more so than the brady bunch.
Taking statistics from a few select cities concerning guns and crime hardly proves a point in my book. The cities which you cite as gun ownership having no effect on crime, there are other's that have seen crime drop as lawful gun ownership increases. Its widely known and reported that the four U.S cities with the highest homicide rate, Detroit, Chicago, D.C, and NYC, also have the most restrictive gun laws. I know this is only one factor in the crime rate, but their is a correlation.
Here is a direct quote from John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime". " Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%" These percentages mean approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented. You argue that statistics such as these are not credible, give a good reason as to why??
