Firearms key to crime control
WND talks to ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ author, Prof. John Lott Jr.

—————————————————–

Editor’s note: September’s edition of WND’s popular Whistleblower magazine
focuses on “Guns in America.” Subtitled, “Myth-busting research says
firearms in more hands result in less crime,” it asks this question: Which
vision for America ? that of Second Amendment supporters (unfettered access
to firearms for law-abiding citizens) or that of gun-control proponents
(severely limited access to firearms, or an outright ban) ? actually results
in a safer and more civilized nation?
Yale law professor John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., author of ?More Guns, Less
Crime,? which examined FBI crime statistics from 1977 through 1994, answers
the question conclusively: Less restrictive gun laws definitely lower crime.
Lott was interviewed recently by WorldNetDaily reporter Jon Dougherty.

By Jon Dougherty
? 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

WND: A recent report by the Center for Defense Studies by King?s College in
London, England, found that since 1997 ? the year the British parliament
passed a near-total ban on handgun ownership ? gun crime in the UK has risen
40 percent. Did that surprise you?

Lott: No. When you pass such laws, you basically have law-abiding citizens
who obey these laws ? not those who the law is actually being passed for. In
fact, such laws actually produce an increase in crime. I?m not sure one can
blame the increase just because of the law there, but it is surely not
surprising that they did not see a drop in violent crime as a result of it.

WND: You?ve done the most exhaustive study ever, looking at the correlation
between restrictive gun-control laws and crime. Are you still finding
similar results as you initially found ? that areas of the country with
fewer gun-control laws also seem to have less crime?

Lott: That?s exactly right. What you have happening is that a lot of these
[gun control] laws either have no effect on crime or are actually
responsible for an increase in crime. If you can disarm law-abiding citizens
relative to criminals, then you actually increase the return for criminals.
You’ve increased crime rather than reduced it. You see that not only in
terms of waiting periods like the Brady Act, but also you find increases
with other gun-control laws.

WND: One of the most frequently used reasons given by gun-control advocates
about why a state should not pass laws allowing citizens to carry a
concealed weapon is that after passing them, there will be an increase in
gun-related crimes, killings in the streets, shootings because somebody cut
you off in traffic and so forth. In your research, have you found any
evidence that such claims are true?

Lott: First of all, you look at what the behavior is of the person who has a
permit, and what you find is that the type of person who is willing to go
through the process of getting a permit tends to be extremely law-abiding.
These people who lose their permits for any reason are just hundredths or
thousandths of one percentage point. Even when they do lose it, it is
usually for crimes that have no connection with using the permit
incorrectly. Also, overall, while there is a large drop in murder rates in
such states, there is a particular drop in gun crimes as well. What seems to
be happening is that criminals are much less likely to carry guns after the
passage of these right-to-carry laws. There are other advantages, too, such
as drops in police deaths. That?s a spill-over benefit.

WND: Would you say that people who don?t even like guns and don?t carry them
also get a residual benefit from the law in right-to-carry states?

Lott: Sure. You do see drops in violent crime rates across the board. For
each year that these laws are in place, you?ll see a 1.5 percent drop in
murder rates and almost 2 percent drops in rates ? robberies, aggravated
assaults and so forth ? over and above any national or regional declines in
crime rates.

WND: You?ve found that out since your original study, which led to your
book, ?More Guns, Less Crime”?

Lott: Yes. You do see some crime rates increasing, though. Property crime
rates, for example, have increased somewhat, but crimes where criminals have
to come into direct contact with victims, those crimes drop the most in
right-to-carry states.

WND: Crimes like auto theft?

Lott: Yes, and grand larceny, and others when criminals don?t have to worry
about the potential of facing an armed victim.

WND: Do you see any patterns emerging from right-to-carry laws?

Lott: Yes. Basically, there are three. One, some criminals stop committing
crimes. Some switch to crimes where there is no contact between victims and
criminals. And the third thing that happens is that you actually see some
criminals moving. In some of my recent work, I?ve looked at counties in
separate states that were adjacent to each other, to see what happened when
counties in states that adopted concealed-carry laws ? their own violent
crime rates and those rates of counties adjacent to those in other states.
What I found was that while crime rates were dropping in counties in states
that adopted these laws, adjacent counties in neighboring states that did
not have concealed-carry laws experienced slight increases in violent crime.
It wasn?t anywhere near as large as the drop in crime in the gun-carrying
county ? about 20 percent ? but there was a spillover, indicating that some
criminals were moving.

WND: Tell me more about the residual effects of right-to-carry laws.

Lott: There?s another aspect of this spillover, and that?s the fact that
within the areas where these right-to-carry laws were being passed, it
benefits more than just a drop in violent crime against those people who are
carrying concealed handguns ? it?s much too large to be explained solely by
that. What seems to be happening is, not only do people who carry guns
benefit by the fact that a person might be able to defend himself, but since
the criminals don?t know until they actually attack which persons can defend
themselves, that also protects other people who may never think of owning a
gun. Also, other studies ? including a recent one by Rand ? show that in
high-gun-ownership areas, criminals take more time casing a home before they
break in, to make sure nobody is home. The reason they give is because they
don?t want to be shot.