Timehost: This week, TIME returned to a cover story topic it first looked at 30 years ago...Guns in America. Tonight we have with us a man who is the subject of one of the stories in the package -- John Lott of the University of Chicago, whose book
More Guns, Less Crime argues that allowing citizens to carry concealed
weapons actually lowers crime rates. We
are also joined by someone who is in direct opposition to Mr. Lott's
theory. He is Douglas Weil, director of research for Handgun Control, Inc.
and the Center To Prevent Handgun Violence. Mr. Lott, perhaps you could first outline what your book has to
say about concealed weapons. We've had a lot of questions about it already.
John Lott: I find that just as
criminals can be deterred by higher arrest or conviction rates, they can
also be deterred by the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves with a gun. Criminals are less likely to
commit a crime as the probability that a victim is going to be able to
defend themselves increases.
Timehost: Mr. Weil, your response?
Douglas Weil First, there's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim. Most important, when Lott's research was
published, a number of academic researchers looked at this methods and his
conclusions and determined his research was fundamentally flawed. The criticism was so convincing that even Gary Kleck, a
criminologist whose work is often cited by John Lott and the NRA, has
dismissed Lott's conclusions. Kleck wrote in his book, Targeting Guns, that "more
likely the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were
largely attributable to other factors not controlled for in the Lott Mustard
analysis."
John Lott: First, there is a very
close relationship between the number of permits issued in a state and the
decline in violent crime rates. Those states that issue the most permits
have had the largest drops in violent crime, and over time as more permits
are issued there is a continued drop in violent crime. As to Mr. Weil's second point, I have provided my data to
researchers at 36 different universities. I believe that the vast majority would support the
findings that I have provided, but if Mr. Weil has specific criticisms, I would be happy to
address them. This is by far the largest study that has been done on crime,
and I have tried to control for as many variables as it has been possible to
control for.
Alliezach_98 asks: Mr. Lott, If more guns bring less crime, how come
virtually every other nation has less guns and less violent crime, and have
taken steps to reduce guns?
Lott: In fact, there's no relationship internationally between gun
ownership and murder rates. There are many countries with gun ownership rates similar
to or higher than what we have in the US, and they have very low murder rates.
The reverse is also true. There are many countries like Finland,
Switzerland, and New Zealand that have virtually identical gun ownership
rates to what we have in the US, and their murder rates are
significantly lower than those of surrounding countries. Israel, with one of
the highest gun ownership rates in the world, has a murder rate 40% below
Canada's. In my book, I find that the states that have had the
highest growth in gun ownership have in fact had the biggest drops in violent
crime rates.
Douglas Weil: John said he found
that states with the highest growth in gun ownership have the biggest drop in
violent crime. John reached the conclusion using two voter exit polls
in applying a made-up formula which concluded that the percentage of adults who own a firearm increased by 50% from 1988 to
1996. But we know that's wrong. According the General Social Survey, gun ownership has
remained essentially unchanged since at least 1990. But the most important
information is that the Voters News Service, which conducted the 1996 poll
has said the poll cannot be used in the manner Dr. Lott used it. It cannot be used to say anything about gun ownership in
any state, and it cannot be used to compare gun ownership to the earlier
1988 voter poll. I'd also like to respond to an earlier point. Earlier
John said that he believes that other researchers would support his
conclusions. Dan Black Dan Nagin are two researchers are two researchers he
gave his data to. They concluded, after re-analyzing the data, that "it
would be a mistake to formulate policy based on the findings of Dr. Lott's
study." In the Journal of Legal Studies, January 1988, they used
a well-known statistical test which proved that John failed to control for
other factors that affect crime rates. Again, I repeat, the analysis was so convincing that Gary
Kleck has dismissed Lott's findings.
John Lott: Mr. Weil is simply wrong
about the polls. There has been a large increase in gun
ownership in the last decade. This increase occurred especially around the
introduction of the Brady Law in 1994. My empirical work accounts for
differences in polling standards over time. And it tries to account for
other changes that could affect changing crime rates over time. To get to
his second point, the debate among economists using the data I've put
together ranges from people who find very large drops in violent crime after concealed handgun laws are adopted, to those who find a small amount
of evidence that crime has fallen slightly. The vast majority of studies
support my findings. The Black and Nagin study that Mr. Weil refers to
eliminated all counties with fewer than 100,000 people, 86% of all counties
in the US. Even at that point they were only able to weaken my results when
they also threw out the data from Florida from the sample. Mr. Weil says that I haven't accounted for factors that
could affect the crime rate. If he could suggest what they are, I would be
interested in hearing them.
Douglas Weil: As far as my
misreading polls, let's cite the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology: "The facts of gun ownership by women are dramatically
different from that described by pro-gun groups and the media. According to the best available data, the ownership of
firearms among women is not increasing. The gender gap is not closing, and the level of ownership is much smaller than commonly
stated." This is from analysis of the General Social Survey.
Timehost: We have two related questions for Mr. Weil now: We have a
lot of questions, so it would be great if you can keep your answers a little
shorter. Thanks.
Redcloak_98 asks: How does HCI explain Mexico's high violent crime
rate and low gun ownership rate?
FireMedic291 asks: I have seen stupid acts of violence occur more
with knives and impact weapons...than just with guns...criminals are
criminals -- they will use whatever TOOLS they can find. Why not outlaw
knives and baseball bats?
Douglas Weil: First, if I have a
choice of being chased by someone with a baseball bat or someone with a gun,
I would rather be chased by someone with a baseball bat. Now there is a growing body of scientific studies which
show an association between gun ownership rates and murder and suicide, when
you compare across countries. Most recently, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention reported that the gun death rate for children in the United States was many times higher
than the combined rate for 25 other high income countries. The difference:
we have guns at much higher rates. What's important to know is that, while our rates of
violence are not significantly different than many other countries, our death rate, our fatal violence rate, is much higher,
and the reason is that we have far greater access to guns.
John Lott: Bad things obviously
happen with guns. And guns make it easier for those things to happen, but
guns also prevent bad things from happening, and make it easier for people
to defend themselves. The ability to defend oneself with a gun is
particularly important for those people who are relatively weak physically,
such as women and the elderly. Women who behave passively when they are confronted by a
criminal are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who
defend themselves with a gun. There's no evidence that murder rates are
higher in those countries with higher levels of gun ownership. The only way
that people have been able to show such relationships is to selectively pick
just a few countries to make a comparison between. When one looks at all
countries, there is in fact a negative relationship between suicide rates
and gun ownership.
Timehost: These next two for Mr. Lott:
Robtboyd asks: Do you think children should be trained in school to
use guns?
Dick_Brudzynski asks: ? for JL: Should teachers be equipped with guns
so they can protect their students?
John Lott: I think that educating
children about gun safety is very important, and would reduce accidental gun
deaths. Accidental gun deaths are probably much smaller than most people
would believe. In 1996, children ages 5 and under were involved in 30
accidental gun deaths. For ages 6-14, there were 170. If one compares that
to other ways that children die accidentally, these numbers are relatively
small. For ages 6-14, 950 children drowned in pools, and 15 times
more children die in automobile accidents. With regard to teachers, I have
four school age children, and I teach. And so I don't take my answer to this
question very lightly. I think the 1995 law that banned guns within 1000 feet of
a school was well-intentioned, but has had unintended consequences. Rather than making schools safe for children, these laws
have made it relatively safer for bad people to threaten our children. I don't think that all or even a significant number of
teachers or administrators need to be allowed to carry concealed handguns, but my research has indicated that allowing citizens to
carry concealed handguns has a huge deterrent effect on multiple victim
public shootings. Looking at multiple victim public shootings from 1977
through 1995 indicates that the passage of right-to-carry concealed handgun
laws is associated with an 84% drop in the rate at which these multiple
victim public shootings occur. To the extent that shootings still occur in those states
with concealed handgun laws, they tend to overwhelmingly occur in those
parts of the state where concealed handguns are not allowed. No other factors, like the death penalty, arrest rates for
murder, waiting periods, or background checks have any affect on reducing
these multiple victim shootings.
Douglas Weil: First, John's
research has been dismissed by people on both sides of the gun issue, including Gary Kleck, and, the organization that
produced the most recent poll that you used to determine more guns equals
less crime, said that you misused the data. So, let's not pretend that your research shows anything
about effects of allowing people to carry concealed handguns on mass
shootings. Now, while Dr. Lott says that there are few accidental
deaths by firearms among young children, what's clear is that they are both
predictable and preventable. We know that as designed, virtually every
handgun can be fired by children as young as three and four years of age.
This is a design flaw in firearms and it is information available to the gun
industry. There is no reason that guns should be designed so that
children who are only three and four years old can fire them. Furthermore, we know that one third of gun owning
parents keep their guns unlocked and half those parents keep their guns
loaded. There is no reason for gun owners to keep their guns stored, loaded,
unlocked and accessible to children. Lyn Bates,
contributing editor to Women and Guns magazine, wrote that guns, kept for
self-defense, should be kept in a locked box and that children should not be
allowed to see the gun owner open the box. Dr. Lott refers to educating children. So does the NRA
which touts its Eddie Eagle program. The problem with both Dr. Lott's and the NRA's position
is that it puts the responsibility for gun safety on children and not on gun
owners who keep their guns improperly stored and gun makers who continue to
design guns that can be fired by any child as well as by any unauthorized user
who steals the guns, which are not properly locked away.
Jemonaly asks: Mr. Weil: Why does HCI and other gun control groups
seek to ban ownership of firearms (or seriously control it) rather than
focusing on holding people accountable for their actions?
Douglas Weil: First, HCI and the
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence do not support a ban on the ownership of
firearms, including handguns. We do seek reasonable gun laws. We know that limiting handgun purchases to one gun per
month and requiring background checks on all handgun purchases has a
significant impact on stopping illegal gun trafficking. I would like to know
if John Lott supports limiting handgun purchases to something like one gun a
month and supports mandatory background checks and waiting periods which
have been shown to stop gun trafficking. Neither law impinges on an
individual's privilege of owning a firearm or using that gun for self
protection. Those are the types of laws supported by Handgun Control.
John Lott: Unfortunately, while
laws such as the Brady Law are well intentioned, my book provides evidence
that their effect is actually counter-productive. The waiting period portion of the Brady Law has no effect
on murder rates or robbery rates but is actually associated with a few
percent increase in rape and aggravated assault rates. There are a few cases, particularly for women, who have
noticed that they may be being stalked, where the delay in obtaining a gun
caused by the waiting period has serious consequences for their safety. My
book provides the first systematic study that's been done on the Brady Law
and state waiting periods. My research on background checks indicates that they have
no effect in preventing criminals from obtaining guns. My concern with the many rules that Handgun Controls
proposes is that they will significantly raise the price of guns, and hurt
the ability of poor, law-abiding citizens to obtain guns to protect
themselves. My research indicates that it is the poor who live in high
crime, urban areas who benefit the most from increased gun ownership. In response to Mr. Weil's continued references to Gary
Kleck, I would like to quote what Mr. Kleck actually says about my book: "John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough and
sophisticated study we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws."
Timehost: All right, we're going to run a bit over here. We have one
comment that I'd be interested in getting both your reactions to:
LUCKY77_ asks: I think that it is people that kill people and not
guns.. if everybody was informed and taught about guns there would be less
crime.. people also have less respect for life and it is in the people that
lies the problem
Douglas Weil: First, John only
partially quoted Gary Kleck from the back flap of John's book. Nowhere does
Gary say that John has proved anything. And again, I refer you directly to page 372 of Gary
Kleck's book, Targeting Guns. Second, since John's data does not cover the years
following implementation of the Brady Act, it's hard to know how he can
claim to have studied the impact of the Brady law on crime rates or criminal
access to guns. We know from a study of data maintained by the Bureau of
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms that implementation of the Brady Act cut gun
trafficking from Ohio to Michigan. 66% of guns recovered in Michigan, bought before Brady
and traced to other states by the police, were traced to Ohio. After Ohio started conducting background checks, the
percentage fell by two-thirds to 22%.
Timehost: OK, let's get back to the comment already presented for a
moment....The premise is that it's people that cause violence, not guns, and
that the problem of our crime-ridden society lies in people, not the weapons
they use. Your reactions?
Douglas Weil: As for the question, people kill people with guns. Some
of those deaths are accident and suicides. And they can be prevented by
designing guns that cannot be fired by children. Some of those killing occur
when criminals use guns. We can reduce the demand for guns by criminals as
evidenced in Boston, where law enforcement applied severe pressure to youth
gangs. And we can reduce the supply of guns available to criminals with
background checks, waiting periods, one gun a month laws, and by requiring that guns be
stored in a locked box.
John Lott: Evidently, Mr. Weil has
not read my book. The data that I study goes from the end of 1977 through
the end of 1994, which thus includes the first year that the Brady Law was
in effect. Mr. Weil cites recent federal government evidence of the
effectiveness of the Brady Law. Unfortunately, in the last couple of weeks, serious
questions have arisen concerning the Clinton Administration's biasing of data
to show benefits from the Brady Law. Last week, the Indianapolis Star reported that the Justice
Department's study overstated by more than 1300% the number of handgun sales
that were blocked in Indiana. The numbers of for Arizona were also off by at
least 30 percent. Similar misstatements of numbers have been found for many
other states. In every case the numbers were biased to support the Clinton
Administration's position on the Brady Law. With regard to the second point,
reducing gun ownership by criminals would be great, unfortunately, the rules that groups such as Handgun
Control propose have a greater impact on gun ownership by law abiding
citizens. Rules that reduce gun ownership more by law abiding citizens
increase violent crime rates.
Timehost: And with that, I'm afraid we'll have to end since we're out
of time. Thanks to both of our guests for joining us. We've enjoyed having
you.
Timehost: Any closing comments? Very brief, please....
John Lott: The question that I have
tried to answer in my book is whether guns on net save lives or cost lives, and what impact guns have on the threats that people face
every day from crimes like rape, robbery and aggravated assault. I find that police are extremely important in reducing
crime rates, but police virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the
crime has already been committed. The question is what is the best course of
action for would be victims when they are confronted by a criminal. My research indicates that gun ownership is the most
effective means for people to defend themselves, particularly for women and
poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas.
Timehost: Thank you, Mr. Lott. Now, Mr. Weil:
Douglas Weil: Since August 1996
John's research has been harshly criticized by any number of academic
researchers. Earlier this year, I joined Dr. Lott at the annual
meeting of the American Economics Association in Chicago, and criticized John for his continued failure to address
the many problems identified with his work. Now, without having made any
significant changes to his work which would justify bringing his conclusions
to a larger audience, Lott is restating his claims, in his book and
on the op-ed pages of a number of nationally important newspapers. At some point it becomes irresponsible to continue to
promote a study shown to have no credibility with those qualified to
evaluate its scientific merit. It is a point that John passed some time ago. Finally, John, in his book and in the National Review,
has accused gun control advocates including Handgun Control, of failing to
address his study on the merits. He knows this is untrue. In August of 1996, he thanked me for comments on his
paper that I made before he presented his findings at the Cato Institute. In December, Dr. Lott participated in a nationally
televised symposium, sponsored by Handgun Control. John was allotted half the
time available to all researchers to give him ample time to respond to his
critics. It isn't often that an advocacy group pays to put its opponent on
national TV. We did it. His study fails on the merits. Thank you for your
time.
John Lott: Thank you, but let me just say that that is a misrepresentation of my research and of the discussions we have had.
Timehost: Thanks to both of our guests and good night. And a gigantic
thank you to the audience for its terrific questions! We're very sorry that
we didn't have the time to submit them all to our guests.
NOTE: We had unusual difficulty bringing this online debate to a close, but we hope that the arguments and discussion will continue with John Lott, Douglas Weil, and our online readers on our bulletin boards. To join the debate, go to our America Under the Gun board.
