Violent Crime in UK outpaces that of U.S. -- take it up with John Lott

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Violent Crime Increases Despite Stringent Gun Control

In this article, Lott makes the observation that the most stringent gun control in the world has failed to decrease violent crime, with guns or without.

When guns are outright banned, it becomes difficult for gun control proponents to argue, "Well, gun control failed because we didn't take it far enough."

It turns out that the truism "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is biting England on its 'arse.'

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html

Fixed link.

He says:

Quote

England's more centralized 45-agency police did a better job fighting gangs, but, over time, the gangs have become more violent, sophisticated and apt at acquiring guns. This has led to rising gun crime.

This is my argument on causation, which he does touch on. As I have said before, studies are not going to be able to isolate one factor from the other. As they are partisan they always forget to investigate causality. It is always assumed that because we have legislation, that automatically means the outcome is linked to that legislation.

My contention continues to be that it is the rise of gang culture through migration into this country that has led to increased gun violence, and not simply our recent gun legislation. This article touches on that point and acknowledges it but fails to account for it in its reasoning.

He also fails to cite any of the figures he claims, although I suspect this is merely a failure in his drafting as opposed to an attempt to mislead.

[rushmc 23]

Can you tell what the 1st reply said??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html

Fixed link.

He says:

Quote

England's more centralized 45-agency police did a better job fighting gangs, but, over time, the gangs have become more violent, sophisticated and apt at acquiring guns. This has led to rising gun crime.

This is my argument on causation, which he does touch on. As I have said before, studies are not going to be able to isolate one factor from the other. As they are partisan they always forget to investigate causality. It is always assumed that because we have legislation, that automatically means the outcome is linked to that legislation.

My contention continues to be that it is the rise of gang culture through migration into this country that has led to increased gun violence, and not simply our recent gun legislation. This article touches on that point and acknowledges it but fails to account for it in its reasoning.

He also fails to cite any of the figures he claims, although I suspect this is merely a failure in his drafting as opposed to an attempt to mislead.

I think that the gangs know that there are less guns to fight them so they get more violent! Gun control only remove guns from those that could have the legaly.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Ah, John Lott...
"In his bestselling classic, More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., proved that guns make us safer. Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth."

Okay, now I know a little of his background, and his interest in the subject.

I wonder what Michael Moore might have to say on the subject, hmmm?

Joking aside, I'd like to refer you to an article by Colin Greenwood, a leading UK proponent for relaxing our gun control... I was pointed to Mr Greenwood's text by Jonrich, in a previous discussion on the applicability of crime stats to gun control.

""It seems to be assumed that producing comparable time series or cross sectional figures for gun deaths is a simple matter. In fact truly comparable statistics are almost impossible to produce."
http://www.wfsa.net/adobe_documents/Cross_Sectional_Study.PDF

His study concludes that applying national statistics from differing cultures is like comparing apples with oranges.
Or put it this way, gun control in Scotland, and a 5% reduction in crime. The two facts are linked only by my use of them in a sentence.

And to give you a clue as to how volatile this subject is over here, I'd urge you to examine the manifestos of our leading political parties, and see where gun control rests in the big picture of our political issues.....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

Nac, I normally understand your posts, at least, if I don't agree with them. But this I don't understand. John Lott was an economics professor. He looked at the lack of usable statistics and decided he could do better. The man didn't have a position to protect at that point. He did a study, was surprised buy the results, made sure they were right, and published.

People also look at Gary Kleck, see the titles to his works, and decide "Oh he's just another NRA mouthpiece," all without even glancing at the work itself. Nevermind that he won the 1993 Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, awarded to the book of the previous several years which "made the most outstanding contribution to criminology;" or that he is actually a professor at FSU (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/ccjfaculty/kleck.htm), or that the only criticisms of him are coming from VPC and Brady paid "researchers."

Yup, we should ignore each of them as a sham.

ps - I don't recall the BATFE ever putting out press releases to specifically invalidate their claims, to clarify that what they're claiming is not what the BATFE study showed.
edit: as the BATFE has done to VPC and Brady "researchers."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

People also look at Gary Kleck, see the titles to his works, and decide "Oh he's just another NRA mouthpiece," all without even glancing at the work itself. Nevermind that he won the 1993 Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, awarded to the book of the previous several years which "made the most outstanding contribution to criminology;" or that he is actually a professor at FSU, or that the only criticisms of him are coming from VPC and Brady paid "researchers."

Professor Kleck has included an "Author's Voluntary Disclosure Notice" in his book ("Point Blank. Guns and Violence in America"):

"The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union,Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic political candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc., or any other advocacy group on either side of the gun control issue, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization."

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Ah, John Lott...
"In his bestselling classic, More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., proved that guns make us safer. Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth."

Okay, now I know a little of his background, and his interest in the subject.

Facetiousness aside, Lott was neutral on the subject until he did research on it.

Is it impossible to believe that someone could be on the fence about an issue, find out some things about it, and become convinced of one side or the other? Or is it only plausible if he had found ample reason to support gun control?

They guy's research is PUBLISHED and PEER REVIEWED and his RESULTS HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. You can't say that about any ANTI-gun research. Oh, wait, there's Michael Bellesiles... Oh, no, wait, he was thoroughly debunked, his Bancroft Prize for history revoked, and he lost his professorship at Emory University.

Come on, please, if you feel the need to ridicule John Lott, why not trot out one of your favorite anti-gun champions?

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I normally understand your posts, at least, if I don't agree with them."

Likewise, its good to talk, exchange opinions, develop our own views, and understand one another better.
"But this I don't understand."
All right, John Lott's name was unfamiliar to me, in my backwater on this misty Isle, so I googled him and lo, he is the author of two books which appear to make the case for relaxing gun control based on its positive effects on crime rate.
An argument I might support in some instances, even though instinct tells me this is not right. However I recently came across this Colin Greenwood guy, thanks to a similar discussion with JohnRich.
He (Greenwood) makes the assertion that the statistics gleaned from his investigations can not be tranferred from one cultural situation to another, there are too many other influencing factors.

So comparing the effects of gun control in rural Scotland may not be pertinent in examining the benefits offered to the good citizens of say Alabama.
Despite our similarities, our respective societies are still very much different.
Ergo, comparing the effects of gun control between two culturally diverse societies is simply not applicable. I'm all for you guys maintaining your status quo on gun control legislation, I'm also for us in the UK to maintain our level of gun control, because both appear to be working, from my point of view.


By the way, Colin Greenwood makes a pretty good case for relaxing gun control over here, in the document I linked to.He is an ex- police superintedent and is a recognised authority in the UK on the effects of gun control on crime rate.

To sum up, there is absolutely no point in comparing crime levels in London and New York and pinning the primary influencing factor on our differing approaches to gun legislation, the comparison simply isn't valid, regardless who is using national comparisons to make their case. This assertion is made by one of our leading advocates of private gun ownership, from a crime control standpoint.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Come on, please, if you feel the need to ridicule John Lott,"

No, no, no, thats not my point, I hope my response to Kennedy clarifies this.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mikkey 0]

Quote

To sum up, there is absolutely no point in comparing crime levels in London and New York and pinning the primary influencing factor on our differing approaches to gun legislation, the comparison simply isn't valid, regardless who is using national comparisons to make their case. This assertion is made by one of our leading advocates of private gun ownership, from a crime control standpoint.

I agree with this. A good example is to compare countries with very low gun crime rates. You will find a lot of these countries have strict gun laws but you also find Switzerland where guns are allowed and most people have some at home. The reasons are more complex then just gun laws. Socio-economics, traditions and demographics (urbanisation) play a role in this.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Kennedy 0]

Nac - Thank you, and I agree. I just wanted to be sure you didn't think of Lott as a mouthpiece. He is an honest-to-God researcher, as opposed to those who know their answer before beginning their work.
ps - I envy you your time in rural Scotland.

Mikkey - Inter-country statistics are very, very difficult to find and apply on an equal status. Distance and barriers make it more so.
(US and Canada are much easier to compare than the US and the UK)

I'd say the most universal cause of high crime is high turn over of population and low community ties. (e.g. - people constantly move into and out of inner cities, and don't give a damn about each other, so crime will flourish; where people make a home, and know their neighbors, crime does not)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"ps - I envy you your time in rural Scotland. "

Come visit, we'll have a beer and put the world to rights.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

I'd love to, but do you know what it costs to fly a 747 Air France from the states to the UK?

OK, I don't either, but it sure set me back a hell of a lot of frequent flier miles to fly business class O'Hare to Charles De Gaulle. Best meal I had in Europe was actually over Europe.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*