The Fantasy World of “More Guns = Less Crime”
By Dennis Henigan
The “gun rights” absolutists are continuing their campaign to ensure that guns are carried into every corner of American society, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signing legislation to allows guns in places of worship, Arizona allowing the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit, and Utah giving out concealed carry licenses like candy to folks who have never set foot in the state. The madness is driven by the “more guns=less crime” malarkey that has become the mantra of the gun lobby.
The “more guns” argument goes like this. The world is neatly divided into good guys and bad guys. The bad guys will always have guns and will attack the good guys who are unarmed, but not the good guys who may be able to shoot back. “Criminals still prefer to prey on the weak,” says former NRA President Sandy Froman, “and they don’t like armed victims.” According to this argument, the bad guys will be deterred from committing criminal acts by the fear that the good guys are carrying guns. In the fantasy world constructed by the “gun rights” crowd, this idea is taken as presumed truth. In the world we actually live in, it doesn’t work so well.
Proponents of the deterrence theory attempt to give it a quasi-scholarly veneer by citing the work of John Lott, who has made headline-grabbing claims that state laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons have caused sharp reductions in crime. Lott’s studies were long ago discredited by economists and public health scholars at a veritable Who’s Who of major research universities, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and Carnegie-Mellon.
The most recent critique of Lott’s work, by Ian Ayres and John Donahue of Yale Law School, finds that the “right to carry” laws not only have not reduced crime, they actually are associated with an increase in aggravated assault. Lott continues to peddle his pseudo-science, as he did in his two recent appearances with me on John Stossel’s show on FoxBusiness and on C-Span’s Washington Journal.
And then there is the self-inflicted damage to Lott’s credibility from his admission that he posed on the internet as a fictional former student named “Mary Rosh.” Mary was a passionate defender of Lott’s work and gushing admirer of his teaching ability. The strange story of John Lott as “Mary Rosh” is set out in my book, Lethal Logic. Lott recently landed a job as a commentator on Fox News, which tells us as much as we need to know about his objectivity.
Apart from the statistics, the deterrence theory poses an interesting conundrum. If criminals are deterred by the prospect that their victim may be armed, how can we account for attacks by armed criminals against other armed criminals? Why do armed drug dealers have anything to fear from other armed drug dealers? Why do armed gangs have anything to fear from other armed gangs? Pro-gun researcher Gary Kleck of Florida State University reports that street gang members are over eight times more likely to own handguns than other youths, and nineteen times more likely to be homicide victims. Drug dealers are almost four times more likely to own a handgun and six times more likely to be homicide victims. Why doesn’t their gun possession deter attacks on these criminals? Surely it can’t be true that bad guys fear only armed good guys, but not other armed bad guys.
The real problem with the deterrence theory is that it little to do with the real world. It has a tough time explaining, for example, what happened last Saturday in Lake Sammamish State Park near Seattle. A fistfight broke out between two groups of people with apparent gang affiliations, and ended in a gun battle in which two were killed and three others were wounded. It seems safe to assume that when the fistfight began, those present had reason to believe that some in the two groups were armed with guns. Yet the likely presence of guns did nothing to deter violence. The guns simply made the violence more lethal. What started as a fistfight ended up with two dead and three wounded (with the attendant public cost of treating the wounded).
More guns means less crime only in the imaginary world of the “gun rights” movement as it tries to push us toward an America where there is nowhere to go to escape the guns – even into churches. The real world was last Saturday in that state park near Seattle.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009).
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Carl Rowan was what we today call a pundit, a presumably educated and worldy-wise journalist. He hated guns and demanded that they be removed from society on may occasions.
Fast forward a few years.
A man is swimming in Rowan's back-yard swimming pool at night, trespassing. Rowan confronts and shoots him, with an inregistered pistol for which he has no license, in the District of Columbia.
Do as I say, not as I do, because I'm much more important than you.
Commenter Pat H. on www.sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com and Western Rifle Shooters Association makes the excellent point that RIGHTS exist separately from the needs of petty minds to find a solution, no matter how draconian, to people MISUSING their rights. Not subject to a vote of mob rule.
Keeping guns from people who intend evil is impossible even with laws that totally prevent the law-obeying from getting them. It has been shown over and over again throughout the world. What if the government itself caes nothing for right, and has all the guns?
It might start with "reasonable restrictions" on actual military weapons, which were suddenly severely regulated in the 1930s because of the alcohol gang wars resulting from Prohibition. About the same time the government confiscated all the gold, if I recall correctly.
It might continue like this:
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/project-gunwalker-sources-talking-to-senate-staffers
People listened to your propaganda that the Second Amendment was only about the Militia. Some of us read the founding documents for ourselves and learned the truth. Once you lost in Heller and McDonald a lot of the people who swallowed your lies began to think maybe just maybe you were wrong . More are learning the truth. As they do they are becoming angry at you and your ilk for spreading lies.
Now that you have lost the Militia vs. individual debate, you continue on with your propaganda campaign. Unfortunately for you, there are too many of us who remember all of the bogus studies you had paid for. Your only hope now is to try and discredit the studies that show the good side of the argument. We did not believe your lies about the Militia and we certainly don’t believe your lies regarding personal protection. Hey what happened to your 43 times more likely to be shot in your own home? LOL Yes the Brady bunch is dead. Caught in so many lies no one believes a word you say.
By the way, over my 60 years I have used a gun for self-defense three times without a shot ever being fired . And as a young kid our neighbor used his to hold an escape prisoner until the police arrived after he had broken into our home while we were off camping. One of those three times I know for a fact that the gun saved my life.
thank you Mr. pierce.
RKM is right. The Brady Bunch is losing their voice. Take a good look at the history of this group. Shortly after founding they were led for years by Pete Shields. Shields had a son who was murdered in San Francisco back in 1974 by a killer with a .32 Berretta. Shields decided to focus on gun control instead of why his son was killed .
In truth, Nick Shields was one of 14 murder victims (and another seven wounded) of radical Muslims set on killing random white people. Their victims were shot or hacked to death with machetes and meat cleavers. Perhaps if Pete Shields and Henigan had focused on the the threat rather than the method we may have been spared three thousand dead by 19 radical Muslims using box cutters.
Instead they focus on gun laws that have little or no impact on criminals. They act as if "one gun per month" laws stop trafficking while never mentioning that the BATFE is notified whenever a person buys two or more guns at a time. They rail against .50 caliber rifles despite the zero crime rate for these guns. Goodby Brady. You are irrelevant.
E Zach Lee-Wright
Mr. Henigan wants us to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." - from 'The Wizard of Oz'. When we cut through Mr. Henigan's B.S. and we realize it's our safety and that of our loved ones that's at stake, the question remains: Exactly who is responsible for my safety? Well, brace yourself, boys and girls ; because you ain't gonna like the answer.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the police are not responsible for my safety (or yours). You fence sitters might just want to read that sentence again...and again. Scary, huh?...but true!
So if it ain't the cops, and Mr. Henigan certainly ain't gonna take a bullet for you (or me), just who is responsible? Well, Gomer, it's you...and me...alone. So, if you're the one has to do all this protecting when a couple of armed, drugged-out, teenage societal predators kick down your door in the middle of the night, you might want to wrap your hand around more of an attention getter than that high-tech cellphone. Let's be real here: if that's your only option, get ready to "Dial 911 and die!"
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity." - Clint Smith. Sadly, such a statement will offend the delicate sensibilitiesmany of many of opposingviews' readers, but that don't make it any less true. Deal with it.
"When they have a question about guns , losts of reporters call the Brady people, which is like calling the Klan for information on the N.A.A.C.P." - Michael Bane
The bad guys are in it to make money .
When its a gangster against an unknown victim, they stand a chance to gain a bit of profit, or loosing their lives or liberty. If there are more guns the second is more likely so they don't go on that business venture. If there are less guns then they are more likely to gain that profit.
Now gang vs gang is a different ball game. They are competitors, If they DON'T get rid of them then they will loose money. If they confront them they might loose and they might win, gaining more territory.
We just have to make costs of operation too expensive and they'll go under. Part of that is making every gangster who steps out of line eat lead.
Gangs are in all aspects para millatary groups. the carry fire arms to protect what is theirs ( IE> DRUGS) and the mentality is to kill you if you get in the way. their is a lot of talk about dissarming america and what is proposed is a police type of country.
do you want our government to protect you then you really live in a dream world. I stidied martial arts as a kid so I would not be a victom to any one now I study to defend against the cops who would abuse their authority with me gangs are the least of your worries open your eyes and look around the cops are worse than the criminals. we have the right to defend against any one who would try to take our lives from us.
Because gangs shoot each other and are not deterred by other bad guys with guns is not a good reason for lawful citizens who are properly trained not to caryy a gun. I have been carrying a firearm for years and once got into a physical altercation while armed and never drew my weapon because I didn't feel my life was in danger. Do bad guys fear goodguys with guns? They fear the cops! Will a criminal favor a victim whom they think is armed or unarmed? All of the churches where there were massacres would have faired better if there was some good citizen in that church who was armed who could have taken out the shooter and saved lives. Has crime gone down in places where the citizens were forbidden to arm themselves? America is a gun country, live with it and leave my rights alone!
COOL