More Guns Less Crime John Jr (accelerated reader books .txt) 📖

Others bring up the topic only to point out that while others believe it to be important, they do not personally believe that it is relevant. 52

Gun-control groups have repeatedly attacked me rather than my findings and distorted the research I have done in other areas. State legislators in Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, and Maryland have begun calling me up to ask whether it is true that I don't think that police departments should hire black or female police officers. Handgun Control and the Violence Policy Center spread claims such as "Lott has argued that the hiring of more women and minorities in law enforcement has actually increased crime rates." 53 They have made this claim on their Web sites, in debates, and on radio programs. 54 In fact, I had stated that this would be the wrong conclusion to reach. The paper argued: "But it would be a serious mistake not to realize that this simple relationship is masking that the new rules reduce the quality of new hires from other groups." 55 The affirmative action rules which changed the testing standards lowered the quality of new police hires across the board, and that was showing itself in the simple relationship between minority hires and crime. 56

On the upside, many have come to my defense. One academic review of my book noted, "The personal (and, to those who know him, completely unfounded) attacks on John Lott's integrity were made with such ferocity and in so many media outlets nationwide that one can only conclude that Lott was, with apologies to our gracious First Lady, the target of a vast left-wing conspiracy to discredit his politically incorrect findings." 57 Another academic review wrote: "the ease with which gun-control advocates could get misleading and even false claims published by the press raises important public choice questions. Many of these claims were

highly personal and vicious, including outright lies about alleged funding of Lott's research by the firearms industry ... , about the outlet for his then forthcoming work ... , about Lott's fringe ideas ... , and about his lack of qualifications Most academics probably would have withdrawn back into the sheltered halls of their universities rather than expose themselves to the vicious public attacks that John Lott faced." 58 Other academics have written that "gun control groups attempted to discredit his work by smearing him with accusations that they had to know were patently false" 59 and about the "vicious campaign of lies and distortions." 60 Publications for police officer associations have also been very supportive. 61

Once in a while, I have come to feel that there is a well-organized campaign to impugn my findings, especially on days when I have done radio talk shows for stations based in different parts of the country and callers state word for word the exact same charge that I have been paid to do my research by gun makers. Originally, I had thought that these personal attacks would fade away after a year or so, but they have now continued for three years, so unfortunately they will probably continue. The most disconcerting aspect of this, especially for my family, has been the numerous physical threats, including an instance of a note on our apartment door. 62

Yet the gun-control organizations still realized that they had to do more to counter my work. In December 1996, Handgun Control had organized a debate that was broadcast on C-SPAN between myself and three critics: Dan Black, Dan Nagin, and Jens Ludwig. However, none of the researchers that they invited were able to claim that concealed-handgun laws increased crime. I can only imagine that this put Handgun Control in a bind. It is hard to oppose legislation or a referendum by arguing that concealed-handgun laws do no harm. Not being able to find support from the researchers that they work closely with, Handgun Control finally came out with its own numbers in a press release on January 18, 1999, arguing that between 1992 and 1997 violent-crime rates were falling more quickly in the states that most restricted concealed handguns than in the states with more liberal rules.

Their claim was widely and uncritically reported in publications from Newsweek to USA Today, as well as during the spring 1999 campaign to pass a concealed-handgun law in Missouri. 63 Press coverage and Handgun Control itself usually referred to this contention as coming from the FBI. 64

Handgun Control examined the change in violent crime between only two years, 1992 and 1997, and strangely enough they chose to classify states according to what their laws were in 1997, at the end of the period. This odd classification makes a considerable difference, for some states'

right-to-carry laws did not even go into effect until late 1996, with few permits issued until 1997. It makes no sense to attribute the increase in crime to a law for the five years before the law goes into effect. A third of the states with right-to-carry laws did not enact them until after late 1995. Of course, the way any trained researcher would approach the question is to separate the change in crime rates before and after the different states changed their laws. That is only common sense. Only changes in crime after the law goes into effect can be attributed to the passage of the law.

Given the evidence in this book, I would also argue that since one is examining the change in crime rates it is important to separate out those states that have had changes in permits and those that have not. If a state has had its right-to-carry law in place for decades, it is extremely unlikely that it will be experiencing any additional growth in permits and thus it should not be expecting any additional changes in its crime rates from this law. Handgun Control also did not account for any other factors that could have influenced crime.