Happiness Just Might Be a Warm Cup of Coffee

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.

More Guns Less Crime
More Guns Less Crime

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.


14 thoughts on “Happiness Just Might Be a Warm Cup of Coffee

  1. 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.

  2. 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.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *