John Lott on Bloomberg's Lies

John Lott has been a great warrior in the fight for gun rights.  His books, such as More Guns, Less Crime takes an exhaustive look at county by county statistics to show that as concealed guns have become more prevalent, violent crime has dropped. And this is what many in the gun rights community said would happen, though their predictions were based not on granulated statistical studies, but on knowledge of psychology. After all, if a criminal has to weigh in the fact that a victim may have a gun and use it, the act of robbing him or her becomes more risky. Even criminals don't like to be shot.

I have read More Guns, Less Crime and I appreciated what Lott did. I suspect that he did not start out to prove the practicality gun rights argument, but he was honest in seeing the data, and reported it honestly. In other words, Lott followed the evidence, and his conclusions were based on that.

Note though, that Lott's statistical studies are utilitarian arguments.  To the degree that the anti-gun movement is based in large part on utilitarian arguments and emotions, Lott's studies would seem to be the ideal thing to counter the anti-gun screeds.  So, I am often of two minds when confronting a John Lott article at Townhall.com because I believe that gun rights are an implied part of the principle of natural rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

As an example of what I mean, let us take the most recent article, which can be found at Townhall.com today at Bloomberg Is Running Two Misleading Gun Control Ads During Super Bowl While the fact that the ads are misleading is true, whether we are talking about 2,900 children killed with guns, or "only" 1,900 seems a little beside the point. Even one child is too many, and the tragedy is beyond measure.  This is a fundamental problem with utilitarianism.  The idea is that there is some level of, for example, crime with guns, that then says that no one can have them because there are being misused.  But what is that level?  The gun grabbers either won't say or don't know.

But if I feel the way I do, how can I support allowing guns to exist in the United States, much less having as many people as are willing carrying concealed at all times?  The answer to that is the other half of the equation.  The principled argument for guns.

First, most of the children killed with guns are killed because of gang violence.  Most gangs get money by selling illegal drugs.  Drug gang members carry guns to protect their valuable property because, being illegal, they can not ask the police to protect it.  Furthermore, note that it is illegal for drug gang members to have guns, yet they do. Illegal drugs are smuggled into the country.  So, if cocaine and heroin can be smuggled into the country, don't you think that guns can be as well?  Thus the argument for banning any sort of gun breaks down right there.  If there is a demand for something, someone will be willing to supply that demand.

Second, as a Christian, I believe there is no such thing as a "good person."  People who say they believe most people are basically good are virtue signalling.  They think by saying that others are good, that they will themselves be perceived as good.  But Jesus said that no one is good but God.  Look around!  If people were "basically good" there would be no need for the police, or services like LifeLock, Simply Safe, or what have you.  The fact is that we need to be ready and able to protect ourselves at all times.  Yes, most of the ways you will protect yourself do not involve guns, but sometimes there is no other solution.

Third is the nature of government itself.  The Left sees government as an unalloyed good.  But the truth is that, as George Washington noted,"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force!  Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  Government is at best a necessary evil, one that should be held in chains and guarded carefully.  The people can not trust anyone to guard their interests but themselves, which of course is the why of the Second Amendment.  As a last resort, you may be required to take up arms against your own government, as our Founders finally did.  In the meantime, the fact that there are so many guns in the hands of so many citizens may give some otherwise tyrants pause.

Please go read Lott's article today, but remember that arguing statistics is a losing cause.  It is like wrestling with the proverbial pig:  you get muddy and the pig loves it.  However, there is an excellent book on the principles behind gun rights.  That book, if you can find it in print is A Nation Of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control by Jeff Snyder. It is a book worth having and rereading from time to time.