In this interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C6Wkkabcbs, Lott is questioned by a CNN reporter. Many liberal blogs claim she is defeating Lott's points. This is untrue, Lott makes valid points and she does not (the blog post saying Lott was defeated was by evolutionistrue.com -- I agree, evolution is true, by the way). The blogger called Lott stupid, and the comments also had ad hominem towards Lott. Instead of attacking Lott's points, they merely called him a moron, having a room temperature IQ, etc. I would bet money that Lott is much more intelligent then that blogger and those comenters are. He likely scores higher IQ scores and practicality scores. Regardless, Lott is brilliant, Ph.D.'s are not morons, even scholars I disagree with on the issue (Example: David Hemingway) are not "stupid", merely wrong. I will go down the points she makes, and expand on Lott's (it's hard to expand on TV under limited time. Watch the video, Lott actually makes real points).
1. How does getting rid of gun laws after these shootings make sense?
In these attacks, the victims are helpless. This point, I presume, is arguing they would be lass helpless if they were armed. It would make sense, as a Kleck and Gertz study finds DGU's are fairly common and gun defense is an effective way to prevent injury. Lott then shows all of these shootings happen on gun free zones, not NRA meetings. A study by David Kopel shows school shootings were almost unknown, until the Gun Free Zone Act of 1990 was passed. Showing that less guns in these areas is a magnet for criminals, as Lott said.
2. There is another thing in common: criminals have weapons
Only a few areas are gun free zones, the vast majority of them allow concealed carry holders or open carry holders onto the premise. Shootings always occur in these gun free zones, indicating criminals fear a victim that can shoot back. When victims can shoot back, the amount of these tragedies decrease. In aurora, there were 7 movie theaters. Only one banned guns. The shooter didn't go to the closest one to his house nor the largest theater, he went to the only one that banned guns. Allowing victims to have guns deters criminals.
3. How do you know he went to that theater that banned guns on purpose? Have you talked to him?
Lott essentially says he does not know for 100%, but it is a logical conclusion. A shooter would usually opt for a larger theater, more victims, or one closer to his home, he would be familiar with the area and could escape. However, he didn't go to either, he went to one that banned guns. This is a logical conclusion she overlooks because she refuses to listen to the other side. Lott shows the majority of the shootings happen on these gun free zones. He then cites columbine, the shooters lobbied against the conceal handgun law, especially the part that allows guns on schools. And here is where Lott hits home: the shooting occurred on the day they were going to pass the law, indicating he was trying to avoid armed victims.
4. Shouldn't we ban high velocity semi-automatic "assault" weapons?
2/3 worst school shootings occurred in Germany (prior to CT). Germany has extremely strict gun laws. Gun laws don't prevent crime. All studies (Lott 2001, Lott 2010, and the Clinton researchers) have noted one thing: the bans on "assault" weapons always fail, and have not lowered US crime rates.
5. OMG OMG OMG OMG A RATIONAL PERSON WOULD SAY WE DON'T NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS
These guns are just like any other firearm. They work the same and have the same parts: they fire one shot per trigger. The ONLY difference is the look.
6. People in this town disagree
My response: bandwagon fallacy.
Lott: semi-auto guns are very common, semi-auto hunting rifles are the exact same as these "assault" weapons, and are great for self defense.
*******
REAL FACTS:
"Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Yeah, they are not "high powered".
"The classification of "assault weapons" is not based on differences that are real in fact. The banned firearms do not fire faster than many guns that are not banned. The banned firearms do not have a larger ammunition capacity than many guns that are not banned. In fact, the number of rounds a semiautomatic can fire without reloading has nothing to do with the gun. Rather, that capacity is determined solely by the magazine, a separate, detachable, and interchangeable part. All the other physical characteristics of "assault weapons" which might form a rational basis for prohibiting them are simply not valid (such as claims about ammunition lethality), are trivial (such as bayonet lugs), or make the gun more accurate (such as a muzzle brakes). Official statistics prove that so-called "assault weapons" are rarely involved in criminal activity, and hence the use of "assault weapons" in crime is insufficiently demonstrated to pass the rational basis test." (written during the AS ban).
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html
Gary Kleck in Targeting guns: firearms and their control noted that AW are actually used less than other firearms in most mass shootings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=
^ watch this, it proved AW are the exact same as hunting rifles.
1. How does getting rid of gun laws after these shootings make sense?
In these attacks, the victims are helpless. This point, I presume, is arguing they would be lass helpless if they were armed. It would make sense, as a Kleck and Gertz study finds DGU's are fairly common and gun defense is an effective way to prevent injury. Lott then shows all of these shootings happen on gun free zones, not NRA meetings. A study by David Kopel shows school shootings were almost unknown, until the Gun Free Zone Act of 1990 was passed. Showing that less guns in these areas is a magnet for criminals, as Lott said.
2. There is another thing in common: criminals have weapons
Only a few areas are gun free zones, the vast majority of them allow concealed carry holders or open carry holders onto the premise. Shootings always occur in these gun free zones, indicating criminals fear a victim that can shoot back. When victims can shoot back, the amount of these tragedies decrease. In aurora, there were 7 movie theaters. Only one banned guns. The shooter didn't go to the closest one to his house nor the largest theater, he went to the only one that banned guns. Allowing victims to have guns deters criminals.
3. How do you know he went to that theater that banned guns on purpose? Have you talked to him?
Lott essentially says he does not know for 100%, but it is a logical conclusion. A shooter would usually opt for a larger theater, more victims, or one closer to his home, he would be familiar with the area and could escape. However, he didn't go to either, he went to one that banned guns. This is a logical conclusion she overlooks because she refuses to listen to the other side. Lott shows the majority of the shootings happen on these gun free zones. He then cites columbine, the shooters lobbied against the conceal handgun law, especially the part that allows guns on schools. And here is where Lott hits home: the shooting occurred on the day they were going to pass the law, indicating he was trying to avoid armed victims.
4. Shouldn't we ban high velocity semi-automatic "assault" weapons?
2/3 worst school shootings occurred in Germany (prior to CT). Germany has extremely strict gun laws. Gun laws don't prevent crime. All studies (Lott 2001, Lott 2010, and the Clinton researchers) have noted one thing: the bans on "assault" weapons always fail, and have not lowered US crime rates.
5. OMG OMG OMG OMG A RATIONAL PERSON WOULD SAY WE DON'T NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS
These guns are just like any other firearm. They work the same and have the same parts: they fire one shot per trigger. The ONLY difference is the look.
6. People in this town disagree
My response: bandwagon fallacy.
Lott: semi-auto guns are very common, semi-auto hunting rifles are the exact same as these "assault" weapons, and are great for self defense.
*******
REAL FACTS:
"Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Yeah, they are not "high powered".
"The classification of "assault weapons" is not based on differences that are real in fact. The banned firearms do not fire faster than many guns that are not banned. The banned firearms do not have a larger ammunition capacity than many guns that are not banned. In fact, the number of rounds a semiautomatic can fire without reloading has nothing to do with the gun. Rather, that capacity is determined solely by the magazine, a separate, detachable, and interchangeable part. All the other physical characteristics of "assault weapons" which might form a rational basis for prohibiting them are simply not valid (such as claims about ammunition lethality), are trivial (such as bayonet lugs), or make the gun more accurate (such as a muzzle brakes). Official statistics prove that so-called "assault weapons" are rarely involved in criminal activity, and hence the use of "assault weapons" in crime is insufficiently demonstrated to pass the rational basis test." (written during the AS ban).
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html
Gary Kleck in Targeting guns: firearms and their control noted that AW are actually used less than other firearms in most mass shootings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=
^ watch this, it proved AW are the exact same as hunting rifles.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete