| Proof: Gun Control Increases Violent Crime |
The National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS) conducted by Florida State University
criminologist Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in 1993 revealed that between 1988-1993
civilians used guns in self-defense between 2.2 to 2.5 million times per
year, saving between 240,000 to 400,000 lives per year. Based on their results,
Kleck and Gertz estimated that the number of defensive gun uses is three to
four times that of illegal gun uses. However, rarely is a gun that is used in
self-defense actually fired. The sight of the gun is usually enough to send
the criminal running. Only 1% of the thugs are ever shot, and only 0.1% killed.
See Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, (New York: Walter de
Gruyter, Inc. 1997) See also: The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms
& Violence, Gary Kleck et al/Paperback/Published 1997.
The most extensive and exhaustive study ever conducted on crime and gun control was by economist John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard. Their landmark study used the FBI's county-level crime data from all 3054 counties in the U.S. from 1977-1992 (= 16 years). (The next largest study covered 170 cities for one year.) It concluded that concealed handguns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter violent crime while producing no significant increase in gun related accidents. See, More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr. (Studies in Law and Economics) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998). This book which was published after the original study also has the benefit of more recently available FBI data from 1993 and 1994 to confirm the original results. Here are some excerpts:
"The effect of gun ownership by women deserves special comment. Despite the relatively small number of women who obtain concealed-handgun permits, the concealed-handgun coefficient for explaining rapes in the first three sets of results is consistently similar in size to the effect that this variable has on other violent crime. January 1996 data for Washington and Oregon reveal that women constituted 18.6 and 22.9 percent, respectively, of those with concealed-handgun permits…. The preceding results show that rapists are particularly deterred by handguns. As mentioned earlier, the National Crime Victimization Survey data show that providing a woman with a gun has a much greater effect on her ability to defend herself against a crime than providing a gun to a man." (p. 62)
"While many blacks want to make guns harder to get, the irony is that blacks benefit more than other groups from concealed-handgun laws. Allowing potential victims a means for self-defense is more important in crime-prone neighborhoods. Even more strikingly, the history of gun control in the United States has often been a series of attempts to disarm blacks." (p. 68)
"With 186 million people living in states without concealed-handgun laws in 1992, the third specification implies that implementing such laws across those remaining states would have resulted in about nine more accidental handgun deaths. Combining this finding with earlier estimates from table 4.1, we find that if the rest of the country had adopted concealed-handgun laws in 1992, the net reduction in total deaths would have been approximately 1,405 to 1,583." (p. 112)
"Hence it is reasonable to conclude that no relationship exists between concealed-handgun laws and suicide rates." (p. 112)
"As in other countries, people who engage in mass public shootings are deterred by the possibility that law-abiding citizens may be carrying guns. Such people may be deranged, but they still appear to care whether they will themselves be shot as they attempt to kill others. The results presented here are dramatic: states that adopted nondiscretionary laws [= "shall issue" Concealed Carry Permit laws] during the 1977-1992 period virtually eliminated mass public shootings after four or five years. These results raise serious concerns over state and federal laws banning all guns from schools and the surrounding area. At least permitting school employees access to guns would seem to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings." (p. 115)
"The evidence implies that concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime that has been analyzed by economists; they provide a higher return than increased law enforcement or incarceration, other private security devices, or social programs like early educational intervention." "These preliminary estimates are quite dramatic, indicating that, nationwide, each 1 percent increase in the number of people owning guns reduces victim costs by over 3 billion dollars." (p. 115)
"No statistically significant evidence has appeared that the Brady law has reduced crime, and there is some statistically significant evidence that rates for rape and aggravated assault have actually risen by about 4 percent relative to what they would have been without the law." (p. 162)
"The large stock of guns in the United States, as well as the ease with which illegal items such as drugs find their way across borders implies that not only might the transition to a gun-free world be costly (if not impossible), but the transition might also take a long time… Further, not everyone will benefit equally from the abolition of guns. For example, criminals will still maintain a large strength advantage over many of their victims (such as women and the elderly). To the extent that guns are an equalizer, their elimination will strengthen criminals relative to physically weak victims. As we have seen in discussing international crime data, eliminating guns alters criminals' behavior in other ways, such as reducing their fear of breaking into homes while the residents are there." (p. 164)
"How much confidence do I have in these results? The largest previous study on gun control produced findings similar to those reported here but examined only 170 cities within a single year. This book has examined over 54,000 observations (across 3,000 counties for eighteen years) and has controlled for a range of other factors never accounted for in previous crime studies." (p. 164)
"Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns does not end violence; it merely makes victims more vulnerable to attack. While people have strong views on either side of this debate, and one study is unlikely to end this discussion, the size and strength of my deterrence results and the lack of evidence that holders of permits for concealed handguns commit crimes should at least give pause to those who oppose concealed handguns. In the final analysis, one concern unites us all: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives? The answer is yes, it will." (Bold added) (p. 164 & 165)
Note: John R. Lott, Jr., is a professor of law and economics at the University of Chicago Law School. He is an academic. Academics typically send copies of their studies to other academics for review and critique. They welcome criticism in order that they may revise or otherwise improve their research in their continuing quest for truth and knowledge. Professor Lott was not aware of the political sensitivity of the topic of this particular research when he embarked on it. And, he certainly did not understand the drastic difference between academic protocol and the "political process." In academia, truth is at least allegedly the Holy Grail. In politics, the truth is dispensable, and only the acquisition of power matters. These last excerpts are enlightening:
"When my original study was released, many commentators were ready to attack it. Anyone who had shown any interest in looking at the article was given a copy while I was in the process of revising it for the Journal of Legal Studies, although I quickly learned that it was not common practice to circulate studies to groups on both sides of the gun debate. Few comments were offered privately, but once the paper began to receive national press coverage, the attacks came very quickly.
"Before the press coverage started, it was extremely difficult to get even a proponent of gun control to provide critical comments on the paper when I presented it at the Cato Institute in early August 1996. I approached twenty-two pro-control people before Jens Ludwig, a young assistant professor at Georgetown University, accepted my request to comment on the paper.
"One of the more interesting experiences occurred when I asked Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center, to participate. Glick, whom I called during June 1996, was one of the last people that I approached. She was unwilling to comment on my talk at Cato because she didn't want to 'help give any publicity to the paper.' Glick said that her appearance might help bring media attention to the paper that it wouldn't otherwise have gotten. When I pointed out that C-SPAN was likely to cover the event, she said she didn't care because "we can get good media whenever we want." When I asked her if I could at least send her a copy of the paper because I would appreciate any comments that she might have, she said, 'Forget it, there is no way that I am going to look at it. Don't send it.'
"However, when the publicity broke on the story with an article in USA Today on August 2, she was among the many people who left telephone messages immediately asking for a copy of the paper. In her case, the media were calling, and she 'need[ed] [my] paper to be able to criticize it.' Because of all the commotion that day, I was unable to get back to her right away. ABC National Television News was doing a story on my study for that day, and when at around 3:00 P.M. the ABC reporter doing the story, Barry Serafin, called saying that certain objections had been raised about my paper, he mentioned that one of those who had criticized it was Ms. Glick. After talking to Mr. Serafin, I gave Glick a call to ask her if she still wanted a copy of my paper. She said that she wanted it sent to her right away and wondered if I could fax it to her. I then noted that her request seemed strange because I had just gotten off the telephone with Mr. Serafin at ABC News, who had told me that she had been very critical of the study, saying that it was 'flawed.' I asked how she could have said that there were flaws in the paper without even having looked at it yet. At that point Ms. Glick hung up the telephone." (p. 122-123)
"The aversion to honest public debate has been demonstrated to me over and over again since my study first received attention." (p. 126)
"Before I did my original study, I would never have expected it to receive the attention that it did. None of the refereed journal articles that I have produced has received so much attention. Many people have told me that it was politically naïve. That may be, but this much is clear: I never would have guessed how much people fear discussion of these issues. I never would have known how much effort goes into deliberately ignoring certain findings in order to deny them news coverage. Nor would I have seen, after news coverage did occur, how much energy goes into attacking the integrity of those who present such findings, with such slight reference -or no reference at all- to the actual merits of the research. I was also surprised by the absolute confidence shown by gun-control advocates that they could garner extensive news coverage whenever they wanted." (p. 128)