|
||||||||||||||||
RELATED LINKSInternal LinksGrants to:
Profiles:
MORE LINKSBrady Campaign CONCEALED TRUTHConcealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the United States This study conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime.
|
PERSON PROFILEJohn R. LottWho Is John Lott and Why is He Claiming That More Guns Mean Less Crime?John R. Lott Jr. is (was--1998-99, ed.) the John M. Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School and an avid proponent of Chicago School theories on law and economics. He is also the author of a controversial new study purporting to show that allowing individuals to carry concealed handguns reduces crime. Lott shares a common heritage with former Judge Robert Bork and other prominent members of the Chicago School - the espousal of extreme points of view on the issues of crime, health and safety, and the environment. The following is a sampling of John Lott's views culled from his writings. ON SCHOOL VIOLENCEIn the wake of the March 1998 schoolyard ambush of children by children in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Lott voiced his strong support for arming teachers and other school personnel against gun-toting juveniles. Lott argues, "Allowing teachers and other law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns in schools would not only make it easier to stop shootings in progress, it could also help deter shootings from ever occurring." ---"The Real Lesson of the School Shootings," The Wall Street Journal, March 27, 1998. ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONAn abstract of one of Lott's studies details his findings that "increases in the percent of minority police officers increase crime rates" and that "racial and gender changes in the composition of police forces resulted in at least 2,000 more murders" in cities he studied. --"Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime," Abstract listing by Social Science Research Network Electronic Library, July 25, 1997. ON CRIMELott argues that wealthy criminals should be able to purchase legal representation that will allow them to escape conviction despite their guilt. Lott writes, "Preventing wealthy people from influencing the opinion of the court in their favor will lead to expected punishments that are too large for the wealthy...." Furthermore, Lott argues that "allowing wealthy people to do what on first glance may seem like 'subverting' the legal system can be efficient." Lott contends that a certain amount of crime is actually good for society. In Lott's view, the benefit of a crime to a criminal can outweigh the harm that a crime inflicts on society. Such crimes, according to Lott, should not be prevented. Or, as Lott puts it, "[A] nation's wealth [is maximized] if a crime is not deterred when the benefit to the criminal of a particular crime is greater than the total social cost of that crime." ---"Should the Wealthy Be Able to Buy Justice?" Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 95, no. 6, December 1987:163-175. ON AVIATION SAFETYLott refers to Federal Aviation Administration inspectors as "busybody bureaucrats looking over [the] shoulders" of the airline industry. He also scolds Ralph Nader—whom he labels a "proregulation fearmonger"—for wanting the flying public to travel in "bomb-resistant planes." ---"The Regulatory Quest for Safety at Any Cost" [A Book Review of Collision Course: The Truth About Airline Safety by Ralph Nader], Regulation, Vol. 17, No. 1, Winter 1994: 80-81. ON THE ENVIRONMENTLott labels global warming, ozone depletion, and the need for wetlands preservation "environmental myths." He dismisses any idea that the toxic chemical dioxin might represent a hazard to human health, despite the fact that the substance is rated as a "probable human carcinogen" by the Environmental Protection Agency. Lott states that "the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash." He goes on to deride the federal Superfund program to clean up toxic waste dumps as "infamous and amazingly costly." Lott further urges Americans to "stop worrying so much about the environment," characterizing health and safety concerns about pesticides as "scare stories." ---"Regulatory Common Sense vs. Environmental Nonsense," [A Book Review of Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo and Science Under Siege: Balancing Technology and the Environment by Michael Fumento], Regulation, Vol. 16, no. 1, Fall 1993: 80-82. ON SMOKINGLott says that any government regulation of indoor air quality—even smoking—is unwarranted. According to Lott, "The question of allowing smoking in a restaurant is no different than the question whether the restaurant provides music or other amenities." He also opposes regulation of smoking on airplanes with the rationale, "To force airlines to ban smoking on all flights thus makes smokers worse off by a greater amount than it benefits non-smokers." ---"Regulating Indoor Air Quality: The Economist's View," coauthored with Robert G. Hansen, The EPA Journal, Vol. 19, no. 4 (October-December, 1993): 30-31. In conclusion, Lott believes that teachers should go to school armed, that putting minority police officers on the beat causes murder rates to increase, that some crime is good for society, that FAA safety inspectors are "busybody bureaucrats," that dioxin and ozone depletion present no appreciable risk to humans or the environment, and that there should be no regulation of smoking in restaurants or on airplanes. Lott has a long and well-documented track record of zealously advocating an extreme anti-consumer, anti-public safety ideology. His view that arming the populace with concealed handguns will reduce crime is just one more extreme view to be added to the list. From the Violence Policy Center. © 1999 Violence Policy Center Letter to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 20, 2000US Gov Reports losing proposition: While 83,000 people defended themselves with their handguns, another 341,000 were being stolen! Readers opposing handgun control say that firearms are needed in order to repel criminals. No one is asking where criminals get their guns. In fact, to a large degree they steal them from law-abiding gun owners. You might consider the well-armed citizenry as a pool of weapons for the criminals. The U.S. Department of Justice did a study of handgun crimes over the period 1987-92. You can find it online at here. According to the report, about 83,000 crime victims a year used their guns to defend themselves against criminals. Yet there were an average of 341,000 incidents of firearm theft per year. The Department of Justice didn't count guns stolen, just incidences of theft. Therefore the number of guns stolen is almost certainly higher. But let's assume that only one gun was stolen in each of those 341,000 incidents. This means that if you own a gun, you are over four times more likely to have it stolen by a criminal than to use it to deter a crime. If your gun is stolen it will certainly have a more active career than the one you'd have given it. Your one incident of theft will make possible dozens, maybe hundreds, of violent crimes. Given those odds, the idea of arming the population seems like a losing proposition. -- Tom Nelson, Minneapolis.
|
MORE LINKSTim Lambert Lott libels DonahueOn his blog [John] Lott has a sequence of postings telling a story of how the University of Chicago Federalist Society tried to organize a debate between himself and John Donohue, but Donohue kept backing out. What really happened bears little relation to the story Lott tells. In fact, Lott’s account is so misleading that the Federalist Society cancelled a talk by Lott because he refused to correct his postings.
Who is Mary Rosh.com
Brad DeLong Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?(The New York Times Drops One of The Balls Edition) Ah. AEI hack John Lott surfaces once again, claiming left-wing bias in journalism. Eduardo Porter of the New York Times writes about it, but he drops one of the balls that he is juggling. Also see:Tim Lambert: Lott finds more bias
Chris Mooney Double Barreled Double StandardsFor years, John Lott has provided a vital scholarly basis to the pro-gun movement. But now his research and his integrity are drawing heavy fire
Tim Lambert John Lott's Mysterious Survey[A continuing exegesis of Lott's unethical conduct]
Atrios Lott Still Gets to LieJohn Lott is still pushing his fraudulent work on the Florida election fiasco...his election work makes his gun work look like brilliant airtight scholarship. His election work is full of deception that a first year econometrics student could spot.
Mark A. R. Kleiman LOTT, DONOHUE, AND LEVITTIf Lott were at a university, he would certainly be facing an inquiry into his professional ethics. The American Enterprise Institute needs to decide whether it is a scholarly institution or a propaganda mill, and act accordingly, and the rest of us need to adjust our attitude toward AEI activities and publications accordingly.
Michelle Malkin The other Lott controversy
Brian Linse Bottom line: Lott's book is bullshit junk science
Dr. Ted Goertzel / Rutgers University Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression
Tim Lambert Do more guns cause less crime?The main argument of a recent book by John Lott is summarized in the title: More Guns, Less Crime. There are three parts to this argument: 1) That there were more guns Lott's argument depends on all three parts being true. If any one of the parts is incorrect, the entire argument fails. In fact, as I will show in the next three sections of this document, all three parts are wrong: 1) There weren't significantly more guns Also see:
Violence Policy Center Funder of the Lott CCW Study Has Links to the Gun IndustryResearch conducted by John Lott, a John M. Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, purporting to show that relaxed concealed weapons laws reduce crime has been the subject of severe criticism not just for its methodological shortcomings, but also for its funding source. These questions have focused on the ties to the firearms industry of the funder of Mr. Lott's fellowship, the John M. Olin Foundation.
|
||||||||||||||
