http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8125

************************************************************
Concerning Gun Control, Let’s Have More Lott and Less Moore
Written by Mike S. Adams
Saturday, June 26, 2004

Last semester, one of my students told me that he was down
on America. In fact, he said that he was ashamed to be an
American. He didn?t keep me guessing as to the reason for
his shame and depression. He immediately disclosed that he
had seen ”Bowling for Columbine,” on one of the two
occasions the Women?s Center sponsored its showing last
year.

It is bad enough that the Women?s Center uses its budget as
an excuse to campaign against conservative public policies,
even when the policies have little to do with the women?s
movement. But in the case of promoting Michael Moore, it is
worse because the information Moore proffers is usually
irrelevant and often completely inaccurate.

The thesis of ”Bowling for Columbine” is sometimes
difficult to ascertain because Moore frequently contradicts
himself in the movie. Nonetheless, I think that he is
trying, above all else, to assert the following:

The United States has more crime than other countries (like
Canada).
The United States has more guns than other countries (like
Canada).
Therefore, guns cause crime and, of course, more gun control
is necessary.

I have encountered similar simplistic thinking from the
right in my eleven years as a college professor. For
example, some students have made the following argument,
usually in my introductory criminal justice course:

Saudi Arabia has less crime than the United States. Saudi
Arabia uses harsher punishment than the Unites States
(including public executions and amputation of hands for
thieves). Therefore, we should have public executions and
amputate the hands of thieves in the United States. (I
won?t even mention the penalty for adultery. Talk about a
harsh penal system!).

When confronted with such arguments from my most punitive
students, I usually begin by challenging the assertion that
we can readily ascertain the difference in crime rates
between various nations. National crime statistics are
simply too flawed to do that with any level of precision.

For example, in the United States, only about 35 to 40% of
the victims of crime bother to contact the police in the
first place. When they do, the police (usually local) are
not required to report the crime to the federal government,
although the feds ask them to do so in the form of the FBI
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). And the UCR totally exclude
federal crimes from their data set. And so on, and so on.

The end result is that the government has some ability to
assess changes in crime rates from year to year in the
United States because these flaws tend to be equally present
from year to year (roughly). But they have little ability
to compare crime rates between nations, because the
statistics of other nations are even less accurate than
ours.

But even if we were able to say with precision that the
United States had two times, or five times, or ten times as
much crime as Saudi Arabia, how could we conclude that the
system of punishment is the ”cause” of the lower crime
rate? Could it instead have something to do with climate?
Or could it have something to do with culture? Or could it
be something else we haven?t considered?

And speaking of causality, I know that the murder rate goes
up in the summer. I also know that ice cream sales go up in
the summer. But only a simpleton would assert that ice
cream ”causes” murder.

But, of course, Michael Moore is just such a simpleton.
And, not to be disrespectful, but simplemindedness is to be
occasionally expected of a college dropout. When we choose
people to teach our students, through lectures or films or
books, we should give some consideration to their
educational qualifications.

So my request to the Women?s Center is also very simple. In
the name of intellectual honesty (and diversity), let us
critique the reasoning of gun control advocates with the
same diligence that we use when critiquing those we consider
to advocate extreme methods of punishment.

And let me be a Lott Moore (pun intended) specific. In the
name of intellectual diversity, I am asking the Women?s
Center to invite John Lott to speak at UNC-Wilmington.

John Lott has taught at the University of Chicago and Yale
University and has authored what is perhaps the best
critique of gun control ever written, ”More Guns, Less
Crime.” Some of my colleagues disagree with his
recommendations for public policy but are completely unable
to specify any flaws in his research or in his logic. In
fact, one of them once told me that he was very disturbed by
data indicating that right-to-carry permits seemed to be
reducing the amount of crime in jurisdictions that had made
them available.

And that is where we find ourselves too often in academia.
We support policies that feel good and reject policies that
contradict our feelings, even when they actually save lives.
Clearly, the time has come for the academy to promote the
public interest, not a given political agenda that is in
line with certain feelings.

Recently, the second murder of a UNC-Wilmington student
occurred in the span of a single month. There has been
plenty of talk about the fact that the killer had a gun.
There has been little talk about the fact that the victim
did not.

Before the next unarmed student loses her life, let?s have a
real debate on gun control. Let?s do it in the name of
diversity.

About the Writer: Mike Adams is a professor at the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and the author
of the new book, “Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel.” His
website is at: http://www.DrAdams.org.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security!!!