Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
I did not say I wouldn't, didn't, or hadn't looked at it, I said it didn't matter.
|
So, getting back to my original question; have you viewed the debate?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Almost any library can get almost any book or joiurnal through inter-library loan.
|
Almost is not every.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
suggesting one read the literature about a subject if they want to seriously discuss it is not subjective.
|
Yes it is and so I suggest that anyone who is serious about the subject watch the debate I posted.
Nevertheless, I have downloaded and read Mr. Donohue's 2003 paper.
A couple of thoughts.
First this is not research but a brief commentary about research that
someone else did. Mostly,
Kovandzic and Marvell who according to Donohue criticized Lott's work.
Second, Donohue clearly shows his anti-gun bias by agreeing with and praising
Kovandzic and Marvell when their findings suit his views but is nonplussed and critical when they conclude;
Quote:
|
the (CCW) laws might still prove beneficial
|
which he doesn't like.
He then goes on to make some strange comments about how much it costs law enforcement to have CCW and it is easier to enforce a law where no carry is permitted versus one where some are licensed. That statement makes no sense and he offers no explanation.
Now he goes on to tell a story about the movie Actor Sean Penn (who is a flake and probably should not be allowed to CCW) who had a rare CA permit (probably because of his star status a la The Robert Deniro Rule) and stupidly left his gun unsecured in his car while he "did lunch" and it was stolen along with his car and they found the car but not the gun. Not sure what that had to do with Lott's research about law abiding citizens CCW but there it was.
In footnote 21 he quotes a historian Randy Roth who blatantly misquotes Kleck's study by saying that DGUs mean shooting someone and that if Kleck and Gertz's studies were true then "American gun owners shot 100,000 criminals in 1994 in self-defense – a preposterous number.” Since Kleck didn't say all DGUs meant someone was shot, and meremly drawing the weapons stopped the crime I agree it is preposterous and Roth needs to read Kleck's study.
Conclusions; Mr. Donohue offers little to the debate and doesn't nearly go into the depth that my link provides about guns and crime.
However, during the debate I posted Donohue, who is participating, keeps bringing up some panel or board that he claimed refuted Lott's work. Kleck and Lott descend on him with swiftness and adroitly refute and rebuff his claim and even the
moderator is forced to agree with Lott and Kleck that the board or group really did a "Ponitus Pilate" and washed their hands concerning a conclusion. Donohue is speechless. But I don't want to ruin it for you.
Does more guns mean less crime? I don't know, but neither does Mr. Donohue. All he knows is that he doesn't like guns.
After you have viewed the link I provided I would be happy to discuss it more. I think those who are progun rights will like how the audience (a hostile NY crowd) changed a good bit after hearing both sides.