I want to propose a study...how do I do it?

R

Red Bull

New member
Does anyone know how to get a hold of the likes of John Lott Jr.?

The reason is, I want to prompt a reputable statsitician to do a study on how much money the presence of guns in America SAVES every year.

I am tired of hearing about how much damage "guns do" and the cost of health care when compared to smioking. Guns, when used correctly, save lives. Cigarettes, when used corectly....do not. Guns are used correctly 99.8% of the time, so they must be doing a lot of good.

What I want to see is a study done that calculates the average amount of phycical damage done to a person in an a variety of assaults, how much it costs in health care, and then use records and estimates of how many of these crimes are stopped each year, and therefore how much money the presence of guns saves our health care industry every year. I realize there would be a lot of factors in this study, and it must be done by someone reputable and knowledgable. So, how do I go about suggesting that a study like this be done? Who do I email?

It would be a very easy study, and with the data together, I imagine that a skilled person in the field could whip it out pretty quickly. Then I want to paste it all over the place, mail it to all the media, and shut these people up that claim that guns do all these bad things and cost us so much in health, when we all know that the presence of guns stops many times more crimes than commited.
 
I second the Kopel suggestion. You might also drop a line to Clayton Cramer, he's a real down-to-earth guy who co-authored an earlier study with Kopel back in '94 or so, dropped a real bomb on everybody in '95 with "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" and was cited by Lott and Mustard in the original '97 Lott/Mustard study.

See also http://www.ggnra.org/cramer

He'll be an expert witness at my trial, I'll be meeting him this weekend and I'll try and remember this thread and bring it up with him. The original Lott/Mustard study already did part of what you want.

Jim
 
Red Bull,

I say great idea, but such a study may be really hard to pull off. I am sure that the scholars such as Lott and Kopel can pull someting together. The problem is the lack of statistical information. I doubt that the numbers are tracked very well when there is no direct cost impact, such as being a victim as opposed to being the victor in an armed conflict.

I have on several occassions been saved from a crime without pulling my firearm. Just the fact that the bad guy realized that I was carrying caused them to go the other way. I never reported this to the cops because no crime or attempted crime was committed. Guns indirectly prevent more crimes than they do directly. (my opinion)

The slant that could to be taken is to correlate the cost of health care to crime victims BEFORE CCW and then the drop in the costs AFTER CCW.



------------------
Joe Portale
Sonoran Sidewinder
Tucson, Arizona territory
 
Red Bull, actually, I'm working my way through Dr. Lott's book now, and ... voila! At the bottom of Page 54 in 'More Guns, Less Crime':

"By combining the estimated reduction in crime from table 4.1 with the National Institute of Justice's estimates of what these crimes would hav cost victims had they occurred, table 4.2 reports the gain from allowing concealed handguns to be $5.7 billion in 1992 dollars. The reduction in violent crimes represents a gain of $6.2 billion ($4.2 billion from murder, $1.4 billion from aggravated assault, $374 million from rape, and $98 million from robbery), while the increase in property crimes represents a loss of $417 million ($343 million from auto theft, $73 million from larceny, and $1.5 million from burglary). However, while $5.78 billion is substantial, to put it into perspective, it equals only about 1.23 percent of the total losses to victims from these crime categories. These estimates are probably most sensitive to the value of life used (in the National Institute of Justice Sudy this was set at $1.84 million in 1992 dollars [JT note - while seemingly macabre, statisticians must attempt to value life when they study accidents, crimes, etc.]). Higher estimated values of life would obviously increase the net gains from the passage of concealed-handgun laws, while lower values would reduce the gains. To the extent that people are taking greater risks regarding crime because of any increased sense of safety produced by concealed-handgun laws, the preceding number underestimate the total savings from allowing concealed handguns."

Now, this doesn't directly answer the assertion that, golly gee, if we didn't have any guns at all (in civilian hands, that is), then the net change would be a monetary gain to society, not to mention the other benefits of a more secure life. If I have phrased the CDC and municipalities argument reasonably, then I doubt anyone could ever scientifically address such an assertion - unless we look at other countries for guidance. Let's take Bosnia, for example ... ;)

I don't know if this helps you, but, there it is. I have the same curiosity as you - the anti-self defense movement can only see the costs of firearms, but (assuming for a moment we can ignore history, the Constitution and human rights) any logical discussion in this regard must take into account the costs and the benefits of private ownership of firearms. I find it uncommonly hard to get them to even admit any benefits ... what was that saying ... there are none so blind as he who will not see?

Regards from AZ


ps - Jim's got a good site there - the actual address is http://www.gunscholar.org - thanks Jim!

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited December 12, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top