Lott's Premise is True

M

Mike in VA

New member
I was sitting by my neighbor's pool enjoying a margarita yesterday after geting the chores done, and it struck me - there ARE more guns and less crime. I don't want to sound simple, but gun sales are up, the number of guns per capita in the US is up, and crime (per FBI crime stats) is down. While I can't say this is a cause and effect, it does seem to be working. Is there something wrong with my happy little epiphany? M2
 
What you have described is a correlation. The fact that two things are varying together does not mean that one caused the other. I would agree that increased gun owenership MAY have had some effect but one does not prove the other. Hope this helps!

------------------
A Life Well Lived Is The Best Revenge!
http://home.earthlink.net/~mzanghe/index.html
 
True.

But the antis tell us over and over again that more guns equals more crime. It does disprove that cute notion, no?

Rick
 
True. It does disprove the anti's thesis. But I doubt if that will bother them.
Make the point and it might affect fence sitters, though.
 
I think Lott's book goes beyond presenting a mere correlation by controlling for variables other than the prevalence of legally concealed weapons. But I agree that the anti argument that crime is caused by the prevalence and availability of guns is debunked by the stats you reference.
 
Well, I think most of the decrease in crime is being explained as a function of demographics (fewer young males).

However, the trend still does seem, shall we say, 'awkward' for the anti's?

I put it to people like this ... we have politicians and media telling us we have an 'epidemic' of firearms violence. Really? According to FBI stat's, violent crime is the lowest it has been in 30 years. What would people think of our Surgeon General if he / she told us we were in the midst of a measles epidemic, even though the incidence of measles was at a 30 year low? Right ... they would think the Surgeon General was a moron.

You can't have an 'epidemic' when the problem is going down each year. The 'firearms violence epidemic' is simply more media and political BS.

My 8-year-old asked me about this thread as I was responding. Regarding Lott's argument, and some peoples' resistance to his logic / findings, he said 'That's silly. What do those people think is better ... for the honest person and the criminal to have guns, or just for the criminal to have a gun?'. Smart boy.

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited June 26, 2000).]
 
Lott does time series looking for discrete changes in crime rate after introduction of the new CCW law for instance. He supposedly controls for other confounds.

But Kleck also argues that simple univariate times series are inadequate.

Correlation doesn't prove causality so that's why you have to look for natural experiments like an introduction of a law in localities and match them against similar localities with no such law.

Take multivariate stats and live in the n-space of variables!! I had to.
 
Jeff -
Your son can't possibly be attending government schools - they would have driven that tendency toward common sense right out of him by now...

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
"True. It does disprove the anti's thesis. But I doubt if that will bother them."

Make no mistake. It bothers them no end. :)

"Lott does time series looking for discrete changes in crime rate after introduction of the new CCW law for instance. He supposedly controls for other confounds."

Supposedly? When I first read his June 1996 abstract he was up to 800 variables including changes in the cost of street drugs. He was up above 1,000 by the time he wrote his book and was pushing 2,000 the last time I heard him mention it.

Lott was VERY thorough. I can't recall if he did multi-variate analyses on age demographics, but I'd bet he did.

Rick
 
It's been a while since I had to deal with multivarate time series analysis, and Glen, I can sympathize with you (my wife graduated as a UCR Primate Psyhologist - which could explain why she was attracted to me :)) and I have a bit more than a passing acquaintance with SAS, SPSS, and a bunch of other stat pkgs, but I was just sharing a brain fart. It was a moment when I had a dazzling command of the obvious, and it made me happy.

It was just one of those what is, IS, moments. There a tons of factors that influence crime rates, not the least of which is a good economy, lots of young males in the slammer, etc. But there are many interesting correlations, including the fact that crime is lower in 'shall-issues' states than it is in dicretionary issue or non-ccw states. At some point, all these positive correlations DO start to substantiate the premise that armed citizens do deter crime. The hard part is articulating it so the 'average' Jane or Joe can get it and get it right.

What tickled me, though, was that Lott's premise, when backed up with gun sales and crime stats IS prima facie evidence that the anti's are flat-assed wrong when they say that the simple availability of guns causes crime. The thing that said it all to me was a sign at the SAA-AIIM march in DC - "Self Control, not Gun Control". Of course that's hard & requires self-discipline , and the MMM whiners can't be bothered to expect people to be accountable/responsible, so they'd hobble the competent to accommodate the idiots, lest someone's 'self-esteem' suffer. But then again, facts have never meant much to that bunch, and I'm losing the buzz. Merde. M2
 
I believe the anti's have decided that certain "control groups", such as WDC, Chicago, etc have provided them with stats to show that guns=crime. Of course, the entire Social crime/guns/criminals/available police/courts/lawyers equation is too complex and is ever morphing to plant an equation on it that will asnwer all the problems.
The simplest answer is to have the public charged with their won protection from harm, or criminal intent, until such time as LEO can be introduced as a parameter in the dynamics of the situation being analyzed. Because it's different in every case. Most criminal situations don't require firing a shot. Some do, and see the eventuality of death as the course of the event closes.

I believe Dr. Lott's hypothesis, that more Guns=Less Crime. IN the context that the guns are in the hands of responsible, adult, resonably intelligent individuals.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR
 
Once again TFL demonstrates the caliber of its members. Yes, Mike in VA is referring to a correlation (study). And yes, correlation does not demonstrate causality. But technicalities such as cause and effect have not to this point bothered the anti-2's. Let's just say the pro Second Amendment position comes closer to "proof" than that of the anti-2's.

Great observation based on common sense and situational awareness.



------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
One way to look at CCW is to think about columbine. If the two killers had to face teachers, or other adults, I don't believe students should posses weapons, do you honestly think they would have been as bold? I think that if we didn't have the Gun-Free School Zones, and adults were allowed to have weapons that there would be less risk. I guess people see it the same way as a Drug-Free School Zone, works great, no teenagers are doing drugs, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top