More Guns Equals Less Crime?
John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), wrote an op-ed for Fox News.com titled, “Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News.”
In his article, Lott blasted the media for prognosticating disaster after the Supreme Court ruled (District of Columbia v. Heller) that the possession of a firearm for self-defense within the home was a Constitutional right. Lott pointed to numerous articles and quotes from Chicago and Washington, D.C. politicians, he wrote:
Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.
Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."
The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."
Lott then goes on to point out how crime rates in Washington, D.C. and Chicago are down following the Supreme Court ruling:
But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.
Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.
But what Lott fails to recognize in his analysis is that correlation does not equal causation. In other words, one can’t assume that because gun bans have been lifted and gun ownership has increased that crime rates will automatically go down. It’s definitely more complicated than that as there are a multitude of variables that impact crime rates (police presence, socioeconomic factors, some even argue Roe V. Wade has had an impact, etc).
Therefore, it’s naïve to imply a causal relationship between gun ownership and crime rates without examining the larger picture.
For example, a few months ago guns.com ran a piece on Flint, MI, the deadliest city in the U.S. Michigan is a shall-issue state and as a result many of the law-abiding residents of Flint keep and bear arms for protection. Nevertheless, Flint led the nation in burglaries, arsons, aggravated assaults and murders. While the national murder rate per 100,000 people is around five, Flint alone had 66 murders last year. Flint’s population is 102,000.
It got so bad in Flint that some have suggested that the birthplace of General motors – “Vehicle City” – was beginning to look a lot more like “Dodge City.”
Is it fair to suggest, as former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley did, that “Guns and cities are a dangerous combination?”
No. It’s naïve to assert that Flint’s high crime rate is directly tied to gun ownership and its gun-friendly laws. Just as it’s naïve to claim or imply that more guns equals less crime.
As tempting as it is to make either one of those arguments, depending on one’s beliefs and/or agenda, one has to resist oversimplifying the facts. The truth is responsible gun ownership is just one variable in a very complex equation. And, it does a disservice to everyone when it’s isolated to make a point about crime statistics one way or the other.
We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms – that should be enough. We don’t need to complicate the picture by including crime statistics that do nothing but muddy the water.
(note: the graphs/charts are Chicago Statistics courtesy of Lott's website)
In his article, Lott blasted the media for prognosticating disaster after the Supreme Court ruled (District of Columbia v. Heller) that the possession of a firearm for self-defense within the home was a Constitutional right. Lott pointed to numerous articles and quotes from Chicago and Washington, D.C. politicians, he wrote:
Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.
Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."
The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."
Lott then goes on to point out how crime rates in Washington, D.C. and Chicago are down following the Supreme Court ruling:
But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.
Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.
One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.
But what Lott fails to recognize in his analysis is that correlation does not equal causation. In other words, one can’t assume that because gun bans have been lifted and gun ownership has increased that crime rates will automatically go down. It’s definitely more complicated than that as there are a multitude of variables that impact crime rates (police presence, socioeconomic factors, some even argue Roe V. Wade has had an impact, etc).
Therefore, it’s naïve to imply a causal relationship between gun ownership and crime rates without examining the larger picture.
For example, a few months ago guns.com ran a piece on Flint, MI, the deadliest city in the U.S. Michigan is a shall-issue state and as a result many of the law-abiding residents of Flint keep and bear arms for protection. Nevertheless, Flint led the nation in burglaries, arsons, aggravated assaults and murders. While the national murder rate per 100,000 people is around five, Flint alone had 66 murders last year. Flint’s population is 102,000.
It got so bad in Flint that some have suggested that the birthplace of General motors – “Vehicle City” – was beginning to look a lot more like “Dodge City.”
Is it fair to suggest, as former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley did, that “Guns and cities are a dangerous combination?”
No. It’s naïve to assert that Flint’s high crime rate is directly tied to gun ownership and its gun-friendly laws. Just as it’s naïve to claim or imply that more guns equals less crime.
As tempting as it is to make either one of those arguments, depending on one’s beliefs and/or agenda, one has to resist oversimplifying the facts. The truth is responsible gun ownership is just one variable in a very complex equation. And, it does a disservice to everyone when it’s isolated to make a point about crime statistics one way or the other.
We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms – that should be enough. We don’t need to complicate the picture by including crime statistics that do nothing but muddy the water.
(note: the graphs/charts are Chicago Statistics courtesy of Lott's website)
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
EDITOR'S PICKS
05.15.2012
News & Articles |
Affiliates
|
|
|
Statistics can be good or bad. You can't really rely on them because there are so many variables. The primary reason to uphold the right to own firearms is that they give victims a chance when they usually have no chance at all
Population density and poverty have more to do with crime that guns do.
As you pointed out, many places with looser gun control have less crime, but some have more crime.
I think those of us who are for gun rights should be chanting the mantra "Gun ownership has nothing to do with crime rates."
I disagree with a couple of statements made here. Flint, MI for example, is dangerous due to gang activity, much of which is the result of immigration, and has little to do with MI's not very well managed CCW law. The rest of the area around Flint and greater Detroit would make a great set for a civil disaster movie.
And I really disagree with the whole "poverty causes crime" argument. If this were the case, the highest crime areas in the country by far would be in the Appalachain and Ozark mountain ranges, parts of the "Deep South", and West Viginia. Population density is also something of a false arguement as well. It is worth noting that while the economy is in the tank with record high unemployment, and more people living ever closer together, crime is down almost everywhere!
One must also note that gun sales are at an all time high. I haven't seen buying like this since the Clinton ban! If the old memes were true; crime rates increase with population density and poverty, we should be in a high crime wave. Yet we're not.
Lastly, I would like to point out that Lott restricted the argument in his latest article to Washington DC and Chicago before and after the bans were lifted. The ONLY change in that period was the lifting of the gun ban. No major demographic changes, no major economic gains or losses, and no new law enforcement crime fighting techniques.
Lott has a very strong argument that has played out the same every time since his study started in FL.
Yes gun sales are up, violent crime with the exception of murder is down across the country. The U.S. still has an exceptionally high murder rate (almost double) 5-6 per 100,000 people, whereas most European nations have a murder rate sub-2 per 100,000 people. The U.S. also has more guns per 100,000 people than any other country in the world. One could therefore conclude (albeit fallaciously) that our high murder rate is a result of ubiquitous gun ownership.
Lott's data is limited. Look at the firearm murders (Chart 1) in 2005: 155, look at the firearm murders in 2011: 155. 2011 is not over yet.
Also look at chart 2. There's only a marginal change in crime: -3.7%.
I think it's premature (at least at this point) to assert that increased gun ownership reduces crime.
If Lott proves anything, it's this, there is no positive correlation between gun ownership and crime. In short, more guns does not equal more crime (which I accept to be the truth).
That is quite different than implying or stating that more guns equals less crime. I'd like to believe in this correlation, but I don't think there's enough evidence to substantiate it.