>
> Second Amendment Project Newsletter, Dec. 20, 1999
> The Second Amendment Project is based at the Independence
> Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado.
> http://i2i.org
> =========================================================
> Table of Contents for this issue
> 1. New Research available on the Internet: Philosophy; National Center
for
> Policy Analysis; Guns and Public Health.
> 2. Book review of John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime.” By Dave Kopel
in
> Chronicles magazine.
> Report from the Channel Islands. What’s up with gun rights in the
islands
> between England and France
> 3. Channel Islands report.
> 4. George Washington
>
> ===========================================================
> 1. New Research Available on the Internet.
>
> a. Philosophy
>
> The Independence Institute is proud to announce the web premiere of
two
> important articles about philosophy and firearms:
>
> In “Arms as Insurance” University of Connecticut Philosophy Professor
Samuel
> Wheeler explores the ethical case for owning firearms as insurance
against
> unjust attack. http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/ArmsAsInsurance.htm
>
> In “Self-Defense: Rights and Coerced Risk-acceptance” Professor Samuel
> Wheeler examines the morality of self-defense.
> http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/CoercedRisk-acceptance.htm
>
> Both articles were originally published in Public Affairs Quarterly,
and are
> reprinted on the Web with the permission of Public Affairs Quarterly
and
> Professor Wheeler.
>
> ——————————————————-
> b. National Center for Policy Analysis
>
> The National Center For Policy Analysis, a think tank based in Dallas,
has
> been producing more and more fine research about firearms policy in
recent
> years, by NCPA senior analyst H. Sterling Burnett.
>
> For Burnett’s research on abusive lawsuits, and other topics, go to:
> http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/crime51.html
>
> ——————————————————————
> c. Firearms and Public Health
>
> Another think tank that has been investigating the firearms issue in
recent
> years is the Claremont Institute, in southern California. Claremont is
the
> home of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, which counters the
> misinformation spread by gun prohibitionists in the public health
community.
>
> DRGO’s latest publication is “Firearms: A Handbook for Health
> Professionals,” written by David C. Stolinsky, MD and Timothy W.
Wheeler,
> MD. Even if you’re not a health professional, you’ll find the
publication
> useful. To find out more about DRGO and its publications, go to
> http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm
>
> ==================================================================
> 2. Book Review of “More Guns, Less Crime”
>
> Damn Lies – or Statistics
> by David B. Kopel
>
> More Guns, Less Crime:
> Understanding Crime and
> Gun Control Laws
> by John R. Lott, Jr.
> Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 225 pp., $23.00
>
> The most important book ever published about firearms policy is John
Lott’s
> superb More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control
Laws. No
> other firearms book has reshaped the political debate so profoundly or
its
> author been subjected to such a determined campaign of lies and
libels. The
> intensity of the campaign against Lott is a powerful confirmation of
his
> book’s importance and one reason why it should be read by everyone who
cares
> about firearms policy, which is literally a matter of life or death:
> Lobbyists who are trying to prevent the public from discovering John
Lott’s
> research are indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
innocent
> people every year.
>
>
> Throughout the 19th century, “the right to keep and bear arms” meant
exactly
> what it said: The right to carry a gun was protected just as firmly as
the
> right to own a gun. Some states, particularly in the South, enforced
laws
> against carrying handguns concealed, but the right to open carry was
almost
> universally respected. By the 1970′s, however, the right to carry had
been
> restricted in most jurisdictions. America was well on the way to
treating
> guns like cigarettes: permissible in private but completely banned
from
> public spaces.
>
>
> In 1988, however, Florida-thanks to the energetic support of the
Florida
> Chiefs of Police Association and Unified Sportsmen of
Florida-initiated a
> national trend by enacting a “shall issue” handgun permit law,
allowing any
> adult who has a clean record and has taken safety training to obtain a
> permit to carry a concealed handgun for protection. Now, 29 states
have a
> law similar to Florida’s, while Vermont and Idaho (outside of Boise)
require
> no permit.
>
>
> Before John Lott came along, a few researchers (myself included) had
studied
> the effects of these laws. Clayton Cramer and I (in the Tennessee Law
> Review) had analyzed changes in murder rates in “shall issue” states
> compared to national trends and found tentative evidence that murder
rates
> fell after enactment of “shall issue” laws. David McDowall (in the
Journal
> of Criminal Law and Criminology) had analyzed murder rates in five
counties
> and reported that they rose. These efforts, nevertheless, proved far
> inferior to Lott’s.
>
>
> John Lott has blown all the previous research away: His work amounts
to the
> most thorough criminological study ever performed. Lott collected
data from
> every one of the 3,054 counties in the United States over an 18-year
period
> and, in contrast to the Kopel and McDowall homicide-only studies,
examined
> changes in the rates of nine different types of crime. He also
accounted
> for the effects of dozens of other variables, including variations in
arrest
> rates, in the age and racial composition of a county’s population, in
> national crime rates, and in changes made to gun-control laws,
including the
> adoption of waiting periods. Lott’s findings show that concealed
carry laws
> significantly reduce violent crime. On average, the murder rate falls
by
> ten percent, that of rape by three percent, and aggravated assault by
six
> percent.
>
>
> While crime begins to fall off immediately, the benefits of concealed
> handgun laws take about three years to make themselves fully felt.
This is
> not surprising: In most states, a flood of applications occurs in the
first
> few weeks the law is on the books, followed by a gradual rise in the
> percentage of the population which has acquired permits. The larger
the
> percentage of the population with permits, the greater the drop in
crime.
> (That percentage typically ranges from one to five percent.)
Interestingly,
> Lott also found a small but statistically significant increase in
> nonconfrontational property crimes such as larceny. Apparently, while
> concealed handgun laws do not reduce the appetite criminals have for
other
> people’s property, they do encourage the more rational subset to
acquire it
> in ways that do not put their own lives at risk. And everyone, not
just gun
> carriers, benefits from the reduced crime rate, since aggressors
cannot know
> which potential victims might have a concealed weapon. (The only
remaining
> safe zones for criminals are schools, thanks to laws in many states
which
> forbid gun-carrying on school property, even by licensed adults.)
>
>
> Despite the book’s high level of statistical sophistication, More
Guns, Less
> Crime makes for enjoyable reading. Lott lays out the data in an
accessible
> manner, building from simpler statistical models to more complex ones.
> Indeed, the book is a good antidote to the “innumeracy” which infects
even
> the best-educated Americans. Statistics are comprehensible if you pay
> attention, and More Guns, Less Crime is an excellent way to overcome
> numerophobia.
>
> The most interesting part of the book is the chapter in which Lott
addresses
> his critics. In marked contrast to the anti-gun number crunchers
funded by
> the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Lott
> has made his data readily available to any and all researchers, even
> supplying them with a computer disk so they needn’t key it in again.
Even
> so, certain critics have chosen to offer superficial talking points
rather
> than reanalyze the data.
>
>
> Lott’s most sophisticated critic is Prof. Daniel Nagin, who engages in
a
> form of research called “data torturing.” Turning data every which
way but
> loose, Nagin demonstrated (and Lott conceded) that concealed handgun
laws
> require several years to have their full effect. Nagin’s other
criticisms,
> however, such as the often-repeated assertion that all the benefits of
> concealed carrying vanish if one removes Florida from the equation,
turn out
> to be meaningless. The Florida factoid has partial validity-but only
if one
> throws out the data from all U.S. counties with a population of less
than
> 100,000. Under such conditions, concealed-carry laws do not appear to
> affect the incidence of murder or rape. Yet even if one looks only at
> counties outside of Florida with a population of over 100,000, the
data
> still show a large decrease in aggravated assault and robbery rates.
>
>
> While academic critics of Lott’s research have stuck to statistical
> analysis, the anti-gun lobbies have unleashed a furious and thoroughly
> dishonest public relations campaign against Lott himself, with the
most
> scurrilous attacks coming from the Violence Policy Center (an
organization
> which chides Handgun Control, Inc., for its timidity). The VPC claims
that
> Lott’s study was “in essence, funded by the firearms industry.” In
truth,
> Lott’s study wasn’t paid for by anybody: While at work on the book, he
drew
> his regular salary as a University of Chicago law professor. (Lott is
> presently a member of the Yale Law School faculty.) The University of
> Chicago, like many other high-ranking universities, was given an
endowed
> chair by the Olin Foundation. The Olin Foundation plays no role in
> selecting the holder of a chair or in determining his field of
research.
> Some of the Olin Foundation’s money came from the late John M. Olin,
who
> acquired part of his fortune in the firearms and ammunition business.
To
> claim that everything any Olin professor does is “paid for by the gun
> industry” is like claiming that everyone who gets a grant from the
Ford
> Foundation is subsidized by the automobile industry.
>
> The anti-Lott campaign continues to bear fruit in the form of opinion
> columns written by propagandists who are too lazy to read Lott’s book
and
> rely instead on bullet-points from groups like the VPC. For example,
Molly
> Ivins claimed that Lott “himself admits, he didn’t look at any other
> causative factors-no other variables, as they say.” Of course, anyone
who
> bothered to crack the book would see that Lott accounted for dozens of
other
> causal factors. These distortions show just how weak the case against
> concealed carry really is.
>
>
> The vicious campaign against Lott reveals the fundamental extremism of
the
> anti-gun movement. Concealed handgun laws are precisely the type of
> moderate, “reasonable” laws which the anti-gun groups claim to
support.
> Except in Vermont and rural Idaho, a person must go through a
licensing
> process and background check in order to get a permit, and many states
> require applicants to take safety training as well (though Lott found
that
> the safety training requirement had no statistically discernible
effect on
> crime rates or gun accident rates).
>
> So why the intense opposition to laws which encourage controlled gun
use?
> The answer is that the anti-gun movement’s greatest concern is not
that Lott
> might be making up his data, but that the data might be correct. In
their
> minds, armed self-defense by private citizens is immoral. As Sarah
Brady of
> Handgun Control, Inc., put it, “To me, the only reason for guns in
civilian
> hands is for sporting purposes.” Her husband, Jim Brady, identified
the
> circumstances in which he believes people should be allowed to possess
> handguns: “[F]or target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go
to the
> range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police
departments.”
> Mrs. Brady’s long-term goal, she told the New York Times, is a
“needs-based
> licensing” system. Under the Brady system, all guns would be
registered.
> The local police chief would decide if a person who wanted to buy a
gun had
> a legitimate “need.” Mrs. Brady listed hunters and security guards as
> persons having a legitimate need, but not regular people who wanted
guns for
> self-protection.
>
>
> Much of the anti-gun lobby’s agenda involves trying to restrict
self-defense
> by marketing gun restrictions as “reasonable.” For example, there is
> currently a push to require gun owners to lock up their guns, in the
name of
> preventing access by juvenile criminals. But if a gun has to be
locked up
> all the time, then it is much less readily available in an emergency,
such
> as a home invasion. And concealed handgun laws (which cost the
government
> nothing, the licensing system being paid for by user fees) are a far
more
> cost-effective way to reduce crime than prison construction, hiring
more
> police, subsidizing midnight basketball, or anything else that
government
> does.
>
>
> The longer the gun-prohibition lobby and its political allies delay
“shall
> issue” legislation in the 19 states which do not have such a law, the
more
> people will be murdered, assaulted, robbed, and raped. And the more
people
> who read More Guns, Less Crime, the sooner streets in every state will
> become safe zones for good citizens, rather than for predators.
>
>
> To buy a copy of Lott’s book, go to:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493636/independenceinstA/
> ==================================================================
>
> 3. Report from the Channel Islands
>
> The Channel Islands, which lie in-between England and France, in the
English
> Channel, are part of the United Kingdom, but they are not subject to
the
> British Parliament. They have their own Parliament, and make their own
> domestic laws. Below is a report on the firearms situation in the
Channel
> Islands, written by Derek Bernard, head of the Firearms Users Group in
the
> Channel Islands.
>
> F I R E A R M U S E R S G R O U P
> A BODY FORMED TO CO-ORDINATE FIREARM USERS’
> RESPONSES AND VIEWS ON LEGISLATION
>
> A Historical Perspective
>
> The passage of the new Firearms Law through the States on 17th
November 1999
> was clearly some sort of a watershed in FUG’s history – hence this
review.
> If all the amendments that were passed in the States debate, are
actually
> reflected in the new Law when it finally emerges, then there is no
doubt
> that, while the Law will certainly be a thoroughly bad Law, it will
also be,
> by a substantial margin, the least destructive of the 7 Firearms Laws
in the
> British Isles. That result is something that FUG and all those who
lobbied
> States Members so effectively, should feel quite proud of.
>
> Nevertheless it is a great deal less satisfactory than seemed
reasonably
> probable right up to October, when the Defence Committee suddenly
> discovered, 120 years after the Porte d’Armes Law was introduced, that
it
> was so badly written, that it unintentionally did not allow visitors
to
> shoot. Many States Members who had been intending to oppose the Law,
felt
> compelled to support it in the light of the perceived threat that,
without
> the new Law, Clay Target shooting was likely to be substantially
destroyed.
>
> The ability and readiness of our Government to use its own past
mistakes to
> distort the democratic process, crush reasoned opposition and ban
> traditional and entirely benign sporting activities is very
frightening.
>
> FUG became aware of this development in October, when Mo Gotel told
Derek
> Bernard that he was being forced to cancel the Open Clay Championship
event
> scheduled for the end of the month, with the loss of #6,000 in
sponsorship,
> because the authorities were refusing to issue Visitor’s Certificates.
Derek
> immediately spoke to both Senator Pierre Horsfall and the Attorney
General
> and managed to persuade the AG to exempt the Championship from the new
> interpretation, on the basis that it had been planned under the
previous
> interpretation. The AG so instructed the Police the same evening.
>
> To go back to FUG’s birth. In 1985 a draft new Firearms Law was
published.
> It was substantially based on the 1973 UK Green Paper No. 5297,
despite that
> Paper having been withdrawn because of the heavy criticism it
attracted. It
> is interesting to note that that Green Paper was in turn based on the
> still-unpublished McKay
> Report of 1972 and that that Report disclosed the true, long-term
agenda:
>
> “we consider that the number of firearms in private hands should be
kept to
> the absolute minimum.”
>
> Derek Bernard wrote to the then Attorney General, Vernon Tomes, in
October
> 1985, seeking clarification on and the reasoning behind, various
aspects of
> the draft Law. This started a long discussion process with Vernon,
which
> culminated in 1995 (see 10. below).
>
> More correspondence followed, with the President of Defence, Chief of
Police
> and others. The letters and replies were circulated to a widening
circle of
> interested parties in the shooting community. This process led to a
> well-attended, open meeting at the Quatre Bras Hotel on 5th December
1985,
> with further meetings in January and February ’86. It was agreed that
an ad
> hoc organisation called “The Jersey Group of Shooting Clubs and
> Associations” would be formed and an initial delegation of Derek
Bernard
> (Chairman), David Dorgan, Chris Le Boutillier and Mo Gotel was elected
to
> seek consultation meetings with the Constables, Defence and the
Police. The
> Group’s recommendations resulted in the formation of a Firearms
Advisory
> Council, initially under the Chairmanship of Deputy Edgar Bequet.
>
> Over the following years the Group made tremendous efforts to develop
a
> genuine consultative dialogue, based on serious research and analysis,
with
> the FAC and its successors. This proved to be a very uphill struggle
and
> remained so even after the States formally adopted a policy of strict
> cost/benefit analysis for all regulations. Somehow Defence has
remained
> totally immune from such reasonable requirements. Nevertheless, the
> established existence of the Group was of immeasurable value in being
able
> to respond promptly, knowledgeably and effectively after the
Hungerford
> murders of 1987 (and again after Dunblane in 1996).
>
> By 1992 the Committee of Derek Bernard, Richard Benest, George Arnold
and
> David Dorgan was well-established. That year the name changed to FUG
and a
> very useful and packed meeting in St. Mary was organised by Senator
Jean Le
> Maistre to see if New Zealand experience could be of use. Sadly,
Defence and
> the States Police denied that they had anything to learn, presumably
because
> the evidence from NZ clearly showed that the registration of firearm
serial
> numbers was an expensive and wholly counter-productive process.
>
> In 1995 Defence brought their new Law to the States. FUG mounted a
powerful
> campaign to expose the absence of any meaningful consultation, as well
as
> the serious flaws in the Law. Senator Vernon Tomes was by then wholly
> convinced that the Defence Committee’s position was fundamentally
unsound.
> He prepared a very powerful speech recommending that the Law be thrown
out,
> but even without using it, the Law was rejected by 37 to 13.
>
> In 1999, the Defence Committee’s secret weapon undermined both reason
and
> good government and forced a bad Law onto the Statute books. Sadly, it
is a
> fact that the new Law provides ample mechanisms for the authorities to
> damage, destroy, or simply crush with bureaucracy, any or all branches
of
> sport shooting, without the slightest realistic prospect of any social
> benefits. Thus, much as all the FUG Committee Members would like to
lay down
> their pens and focus on shooting and organising good competitions, the
need
> for a strong and united FUG remains as great as ever. To borrow and
modify a
> well-known saying, we are sadly confident that, if we do not hang
together,
> we are very likely to hang separately.
>
> ================================================================
> 4. George Washington
>
> As America’s most immoral President ever prepares to devote his final
year
> in office to destroying the Second Amendment, it is a good idea to
look back
> at America’s first President. Below is a commentary on George
Washington,
> written by Larry Arnn, President of the Claremont Institute.
>
> December 14 was the 200th anniversary of Washington’s death, and
Arnn’s
> commentary reminds us of the great example set by Washington, which
ought to
> still be imitated today. The commentary is reprinted with permission
of the
> Claremont Institute.
>
> If you would like to receive excellent commentary every weekday from
the
> Claremont Institute, you can subscribe for free at:
> http://www.claremont.org/subscrib.cfm
>
> And BTW, the long George Washington quote about firearms and liberty
which
> circulates on the Internet is bogus. George Washington did enough
great
> things in his life that we don’t need to invent good speeches for him.
>
>
> The Claremont Institute–PRECEPTS
|
> December 14, 1999
> Visit http://www.claremont.org
> No. 207
>
> As the century (not quite the millennium) comes to a close,
> we reflect upon the sweep of the past, and we look for its
> peaks and its valleys. Today is the 200th anniversary of
> the passing of one of the highest peaks of human excellence
> in all of time.
>
> In a more literate era, children learned that George
> Washington was the Father of Our Country, because he
> was “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts
> of his countrymen.” Today we forget the deeds that won him
> this appellation.
>
> In war, George Washington possessed that rare sort of
> courage that exhibited complete self-control in the face of
> menace. At the Battle of Princeton, for example, he rode
> his horse deliberately upon a line of British soldiers
> firing, it seemed to those standing near, all directly upon
> him. When the smoke cleared neither he nor his horse had
> been harmed or even diverted, and the British were in
> retreat. For such actions as these, he became known to
> brave men in that brutal and direct form of warfare as the
> bravest of them all.
>
> He began to prepare for peace before the war was over. Near
> the end of the war, the men Washington had commanded were
> transformed from a rabble to a warrior clan, victorious
> over the vast armies and mercenaries of the British. The
> politicians in the Continental Congress had not seen fit to
> pay them. And so talk began that they should demand their
> pay or quit the field to some unsettled place, which would
> leave the nation unarmed. It was only right. They were
> owed, and mighty men such as they need not beg anyone for
> what was theirs.
>
> At a meeting called to discuss this scheme, Washington
> surprised his officers by appearing in person and begging
> leave to speak. He reminded his comrades of the service
> they had done together and of the principles for which they
> had fought. And then he promised that they could “command
> his service” in the matter of their pay. And so these
> warriors were taught by precept and example the magic that
> lies at the bottom of freedom, namely that strong and weak
> alike — and especially the strong — must sacrifice
> interest on the altar of liberty. Only a man who had
> suffered with them, only a man who had served himself in
> refusal of pay, could have the stature to make that
> argument. But Washington was more than that: he was the
> best man on every battlefield he walked. And every soldier
> knew it.
>
> The King of England, George III, expected that Washington
> would become the King of America. We can forgive him this,
> if only we consider that this was the natural result of
> conquest, in all the experience of the world before
> Washington. King George rested hopes that Washington would
> prove a bad king, and the people would want back their
> rightful monarch. Said a Minister, “I understand that
> General Washington intends to resign his office and return
> home.” “If he does that,” replied the startled King, “he is
> the greatest man alive.” And so he did, and so he was.
>
> Events such as these, multiplied by every year and every
> month of the war, gave Washington the stature to make the
> constitutional convention possible to call, and the
> Constitution it wrote possible to pass. In all the fierce
> debates that raged over that greatest instrument of law
> ever conceived, one fact anchored support and moderated
> opposition. Washington was for it. And so of course not
> Hamilton nor Jefferson, not Adams nor Lee, not Madison nor
> Henry, nor any other could be considered for the first
> presidency. Of all the great men who lived in that day, and
> there were so very many of them in that day, for Washington
> alone was that office constructed.
>
> When one wonders at the success, the greatness and the
> goodness of this greatest of modern nations, he can find
> some explanation in the remarkable fact that we are the
> children of George Washington. About midway through the
> first speech a president ever gave, President Washington
> said: “there is no truth more thoroughly established than
> that there exists in the economy and course of nature an
> indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.”
>
> Had we not a better (if similar) one in the Declaration of
> Independence, this could be the creed of our nation. It
> gives us the terms by which we may safely call George
> Washington one of the happiest men who ever lived.
>
> Other great men have had great things to say about our
> First President. I invite you to read some of these
> reflections on our web site at
> http://www.claremont.org/publications/gw991213.cfm, or go to
> our home page at http://www.claremont.org.
>
> Sincerely,
> Larry P. Arnn
> President, The Claremont Institute
>
>
> Copyright (c) 1999 The Claremont Institute
> ===========================================================
>
> As always, the Independence Institute website contains
> extensive information on:
>
> Criminal Justice and the Second Amendment:
> http://i2i.org/crimjust.htm
> The Columbine High School murders:
> http://i2i.org/suptdocs/crime/columbine.htm and
> The Waco murders: http://i2i.org/Waco.htm
> The Independence Institute’s on-line bookstore. Start your
> browsing at the Second Amendment section:
> http://i2i.org/book.htm#Second
>
> This is the last issue for 1999. May Christmas and the New Year
refresh you
> for the epic struggle for truth, justice, and the American Way which
awaits
> us in 2000.
>
> Have a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!
>