So, do you think lazs', or sorry Lott's, stats in this case are correct?
Three out of four school shootings are prevented by civilians?
Convincing people with false stats isn't hard. Particularly here.
I don't know the specific statistics on school shootings, how that breaks down relative to other nutter shootings etc. I don't think there are formal statistics. However, there are a number of regularly cited incidents that received limited total coverage and virtually no coverage of the shooter being stopped by an armed citizen. Such as:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0302.htmYou have to also consider that until relatively recently CCW was rare, and the ability for that to factor into a shooting was therefore rare. That is not the case anymore. You can find plenty of examples of self--defense here:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.htmlAs for Lott, he is hardly discredited. Some limited elements of his work have been questioned. For example, his research found that simply brandishing a weapons deters an attack 98 percent of the time. His critics claim some flawed methodology and cite other studies that show a result of 70 - 85 percent of the time. A big error academically if true, but it hardly refutes the common sense premise that showing an assailant a gun causes them to reconsider their course of action.
As for his other work, while the issue of CCW in reducing crime is debated, his position that CCW does not increase crime is not, broadly, and it has been confirmed by actual experience with states adopting CCW laws in recent years. No blood in the streets, cowboy land. All the fears, worries and "what if's" just haven't panned out.
Also, he has peer reviewed articles that have not been challenged.
The most embarrassing issue with Lott is that, apparently, he went on a message board to defend his work and pretended to be someone else in the process. Hardly unusual on the internet, and more of a personality issue than a scientific one, but something that makes him more of a secondary source for me. Fortunately, there are plenty of alternative sources to fill the void.
He is currently employed as a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, in fact after the critical attacks, so apparently they have no problem with his credibility. And, the mass media still uses him as a source when they decide to play fair, and when Ted Nugent isn't available to entertain.
Also, as Laz points out the darling of gun control research, Michael Bellesiles, winner of the prestigious Bancroft Prize awarded by Columbia University had his prize subsequently revoked and was fired by Emory University for what was blatant academic fraud. One of the links Lazs posted, The Nation (a solidly progressive news source, BTW) describes this. This researcher was lionized, but his errors were not subtle with just a bit of checking once independent parties in his field did just that. Too many peopl just wanted his position that guns were almost non existent in American life during he founding and until the Civil War to be true as it supported their biases .
Which brings us to you whole false stats argument. That's the problem with gun control, it doesn't really have stats on its side. An almost direct parallel to drug control, btw, where the restrictive laws only impact the law abiding. As was noted by the CDC recently (hardly an organization in the pocket of the NRA) there is no conclusive proof that gun control works.
You can point out clear FBI data that shows so called "assault rifles" (actually ANY kind of rifle) are used in about 2.5 percent of all homicides. Yet you still hear the emotional call to ban these dreadful devices.
You can point out clear stats showing the greater impact on society of alcohol, compared to guns.
You can cite clear statistics showing that, at least in the major urban crime spots, most of the "children" killed involve one career criminal (can't legally own a gun) gangbanger or urban thug killing another.
You can show just how rare the Columbines, and Virginia Techs and mall Shootings are, using gun control organizations' own figures, compared to the average number of people hit by lightning each year, the total US population and the number of people mass killed in notable arson and bombing events. Have we hit 200 this year yet? If not, then you are still more at risk stepping outside in a storm that being involved in a mall or school killing. Let's ban lightening.
You can see this play out in media editorials that reference few if any statistics while calling for a ban or supporting other restrictions.
The New York Times:
December 12, 2007
Editorial
Weapons of War at the Mall and Church
Barely touched on in the coverage of the two latest gun rampages is how the disturbed shooters could so easily obtain assault rifles — weapons designed for waging war. In separate random massacres, eight people were slain at an Omaha shopping mall last Wednesday and four were more shot dead Sunday at two Colorado churches. The Omaha killer took his stepfather’s rapid-fire rifle from a closet to pick off Christmas shoppers. In Colorado, the gunman, leaving behind an Internet screed referenced to the 1999 Columbine massacre, was equipped with two assault rifles, three handguns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
How could this happen? That’s the great American cliché attached to these ever-mounting tragedies. We all know the answer. Guns are ubiquitous in this country, and the gun lobby is so powerful that this year’s toll of 30,000 gun deaths makes barely a political ripple.
Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse. This was despite Mr. Bush’s campaign vow to renew the ban. It was especially frightening to see the ban expire in the very midst of politicians’ endless post-9/11 invoking of homeland security.
New presidential candidates are now wooing voters. Surely they can’t wait to address the latest slayings with a detailed plan of action at the very next televised debate. Surely moderators can hold off on immigration and finding out who believes more in the bible to bring up the latest rampages.
Instead of asking how could this happen, the country needs to know who is going to stop it.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Notice the total lack of statistics beyond the 30,000 figure, half of which are suicides and only 2.5 percent of the rest involved any type of rifle (the focus of the call to action). Here was my response, that I don't expect to ever run:
Your recent call to restrict so called "assault weapons" (real assault weapons, by definition, are capable of automatic fire) was both hysterical and hypocritical. It was hysterical in that while incidents using these weapons are highly publicized, they are rare. According to the FBI, rifles of any type are only used in about 2.5 percent of all killings. The editorial was hypocritical in your lack of interest in restricting the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd. Both the recent mall shootings and the Virginia Tech shootings were motivated by the killers' desire to gain infamy though the media. Cho, at Virginia Tech, even sent his own press kit in to NBC. So where's the call to limit the coverage of these criminals? To not use their names, or images or publish their manifestos? Well, that just might get in the way of selling a few newspapers.
I have not linked most of my previous statements here because I have heavily covered these in the past on this board. You probably saw it the first time and can easily search and refute these points as you might wish.
The problem with gun control is that it is emotion based, and centered around restricting the tool used in crime vs solving the problem that is encouraging the crime. We really want life to be as simple as banning this or that and having some magic solution to urban nacro street gangs, single parent teenaged families, failed inner city education and an inability of politicians and community activists to call for personal responsibility. Ain't going to happen.
Charon
