Rocky Raccoon may have been satisfied reading that book placed by the Gideons in his hotel room, but I have something better for your reading list. I read this book a while back and am just now reminded to say something about it with all this hubbub about Starbucks and guns.
The book (by John R. Lott, Jr.) is called More Guns Less Crime (Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws). It is the most comprehensive analysis of crime statistics I have ever seen.
The gist of his argument is that when a certain kind of liberal concealed carry law is implemented there will be an associated reduction in the rates of violent crimes (both locally and in neighboring areas). The statistics seem to uphold this theory and provide especial insight into the relationships between these same laws and the protections afforded to women and minorities.
I think folks on either side of this issue (as well as anyone on the fence) will benefit from reading this book. I make no bones: he is writing (even if from the compulsion of reason) in support of the laws he finds protect us best. Whether you are swayed by the power of reason is up to you, but you will find much within the pages to respect.
Of course the Starbucks issue is really a non-issue. It is both opposing groups attempting to get a corporation to sponsor their petty debate. This is not an issue for a corporate board room decision. This is an issue for legislation.
I think we have great legislation in Washington state (very much in line with what Lott suggests provides the safest social sphere), so I’m not going to get all up in arms (what?) if cowboys start spinning their spurs while waiting on their capuccini.
I’d rather see Starbucks fix their grammar in whatever language they are under the impression they use.
Lock and load, baby-doll.
Here is an good opinion piece concerning the recent shooting in Aurora. He needs to read Lott’s book, but he’s at least not being reactionary as are so many.
Michael Moore has written a decent article concerning the Aurora shooting. I think he makes certain mistakes (for instance, he appears to look only at gun murders rather than at violent crime in general for his gauge), but the article is worth reading:
It’s the Guns – But We All Know, It’s Not Really the Guns
And in response to more recent events Michael Moore has reversed his position to the point of absurdity:
Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns – Huffington Post
Here is an excellent and moderate opinion piece looking to find balance between the extreme reactions by each side of the gun-control fence to recent the Adam Lanza (Connecticut) shooting:
Guns, Risk, and Safety – The Conservative American
Here is another moderate analysis of mass-shootings in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident:
A Broader-Based Response to Shootings – Chris Uggen’s Blog
Finally someone is talking about mass-shootings as I have thought of them: as acts of domestic terrorism:
What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers
One YouTuber trying to articulate a larger problem:
Here are a couple of articles discussing the effects of banning guns and current (Jan 2013) events:
Worldwide – U.S. Ranks 1st in Gun Ownership and 28th in Gun Homicide, Ron Paul says Resent and Resist @ SpreadLibertyNews
More ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Large’ Magazines, Less Crime @ GunBanFacts
Here is an article discussing the recent decrease in violent crime rates in Chicago since the ban on carrying was overturned by the courts. (There is now a concealed carry law in place.)
Guess What Happened to Chicago’s Crime Rate Since Allowing Concealed Carry @ MadWorldNews
Here is an interesting read which includes a list of thwarted shootings.
Do Civilians with Guns Ever Stop Mass Shootings
This guy is mostly wrong but I wanted to point out one disturbing item about his article:
America’s Gun Problem Explained
I have said it many times that the public debate over guns in this country is a pair of oppositions each knocking the stuffing out of the straw-man each has created for the other side. In this case the author puts forward that “Critics respond with concerns that the government — and usually Obama in particular — is trying to take away their guns” attributing the “comin’ fer meh gunz” straw-man to those who advocate for ownership. He then goes on to build an argument for reducing the guns in America. So, he is advocating that we take away guns. Really?
I am not going to go into details over where we disagree but it is a decent (if wrongheaded) article and worthy of a read.
I also followed his link to a judge discussing certain court rulings. Also of interest and also a bit wrongheaded; worthy if you have the time. The link is in the above linked article.
One other mention I wanted to make was Australia, two important points.
First, the gun murder rate in that country prior to and after the buy back (alternative reading: confiscation for money) was on the same downward trend (you can see this in the chart the author includes near the bottom of the article), so it’s questionable whether that rate was in fact reduced by the change.
Second, the total murder rate in Australia has remained approximately flat since the change, so they are still killing each other just less with guns.
The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control
While I am sympathetic to the concerns over suicide, I am not yet prepared to limit the rights of everyone under the pretext of suicide prevention. And I have said it many times: I do not have the right to tell you that your life is so valuable to me that you do not have the right to end it. Just do so privately and respectfully.
Another interesting perspective, this one on school shootings.
The Real Cultural Explanations for School Shootings
This article advocates for an evidence-based approach to laws concerning gun safety.
Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals
What I especially like about this article is that the author points out something I have been saying for a long time: both sides create straw-man caricatures of their opponents and debate against that instead of engaging in real debate about real facts.
While I agree that the approach the author advocates is the best approach (evidence-based) I think the author chooses a bad example in limiting gun access for those who are the subjects of restraining orders. There will be a due-process challenge in stripping one’s Second Amendment rights based on an accusation.
(Also, the title is a bit misleading. Liberals are clearly the author’s target audience, but the facts would be inconvenient for both liberals and conservatives.)
A paradigm shift for violence.