And the man whose academic stature fueled the crisis
About a month ago I read a Spokesman article that stuck with me. As I remember it, a woman driver in a hurry somewhere in north Spokane cut off a male driver, a chase ensued, middle fingers were raised, the two got out of their cars and, in less than a minute, two lives were ruined. The woman was dead of a gunshot wound and the man was likely destined for prison on a charge of murder. His excuse for shooting her? “I thought she was reaching for a gun.” (It was her cell phone. She was unarmed, but in our society with the ubiquity of guns, who could be sure?) Take his gun out of the equation along with his concern that she might be armed and they both might have gone on their own way after shouting match.
Why did this hothead have a pistol in his car, a weapon that, in an instant, would change his and this woman’s life forever (to say nothing of the lives of the passengers, bystanders, and relatives of the two)? When I follow the threads back they lead to a conservative academic, John Lott, who, based on his sociological claimed a counter-intuitive fact that he in 1998 immortalized in the title of his book, “More Guns, Less Crime”. The book is still available today (in its third print edition) as well as on Kindle and Audible—a remarkable run for a book by a writer with academic credentials discussing supposedly original research.
The title “More Guns, Less Crime” vividly expresses the intended takeaway of Lott’s book. It is a polemic seeking to justify broad ownership of guns. Like Jude Wanniski of “The Two Santas Theory”, Fred Singer of climate denial, and, locally, Chris Cargill of the Washington Policy Center, John Lott found an audience with an existing bias ready to hear and spread his convictions. (See P.S. below). One should know from the title of the book that this is not an academic paper. It isn’t titled “Statistical evidence that guns reduce crime”. The title is meant to catch the eye, sell books, and plant an idea. John Lott has made a career out of promoting his faith in the value of guns, possessing them and brandishing them—and firing them—when you deem it necessary.
If you have any doubt of Lott’s success in promoting his faith in gun ownership and carriage, I invite you to click and learn from a remarkable animated map that illustrates the progressive stripping away, U.S. state by U.S. state, of legal restrictions on the carriage of a concealed weapons. Between 1986 and 2022 the overwhelming majority of states have gone from concealed carry permit “No issue” or “May issue” laws (“may issue” depending on various attributes of the applicant and the issuing agency) to “Unrestricted”—no regulation at all—or “Shall issue”—which, depending on the state, might still restrict certain people, e.g. former felons, from carrying a concealed pistol. It is a fair bet that most Americans are unaware of this creeping legal cancer—unless they are current or former denizens of gun culture. (See P.P.S.)
John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” thesis rests on a critical piece of data: a telephone survey conducted over a three month period in 1997 allegedly demonstrating that a significant number of crimes are averted each year by a potential victim brandishing a gun to a potential assailant. To fearful Americans mentally beaten up every day with sensational crimes headlining the news, that is an appealing data. This is the “data” upon which a lot testimony and a lot of legislation has partly or wholly depended for the last twenty years. The trouble is that John Lott cannot now demonstrate that the survey was actually performed—a survey on the veracity and details of which so much opinion and legislation depends. Even if the survey had been performed, knowing what we know of the vagaries of human memory in recalling distant events and the human tendency to embellish stories, one has to wonder at the accuracy of the accounts—and meaning—of the numbers presented.
It is one thing to have a strong opinion. It is quite another, especially for an alleged academic, to conjure up data in support of your opinion, especially data you will use to influence the course of history.
I invite you to read reporter at large Mike Spies’ article in the New Yorker from November 3, 2022, entitled “The Shoddy Conclusions of the Man Shaping the Gun-Rights Debate” for details. The full wikipedia article on John Lott is another eye-opener. It paints a portrait of a man with strong right wing opinions, supported by a number of right wing institutions including the American Enterprise Institute and the John M. Olin Foundation (Mr. Olin made his money in munitions), a man diligently in search of data not to test a hypothesis but to justify his foregone conclusions. (Be sure to read the section titled “Disputed survey”.)
“More Guns, Less Crime” sparked a lot of academic debate—but, for a certain audience, there was no need to pay attention to such nuance. The conclusion was right there in the title… I will never read another commentator or researcher without paying attention to their background. I am thoroughly embarrassed that I was taken in by the man’s claims, if only for a time.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. Full disclosure: I bought the book—and I bought the argument. After all, as a physician and a scientist, I’m supposed to believe in reasoned arguments based on solid data. I failed to account for my own biases: I grew up in gun culture in Wisconsin. As a youth I raptly watched all the sanitized violence of American “Westerns” on TV. By the 1990s I had been involved in shooting sports off and on for much of my life. In the late 1990s I was a credible competitor in the regional scene of action pistol shooting (IPSC). I bought and read Lott’s book. It satisfied my bias in favor of responsible gun ownership and carriage. I could not—and did not want to—see beyond my bias. In the 1990s I had neither time nor interest in digging deeply into the research and academic controversy that around Lott’s book.
P.P.S. Be aware that “our” U.S. Congresswoman for eastern Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, as she offers “thoughts and prayers” after each mass shooting, quietly supports federal legislation that would force states that still have (mildly) restrictive concealed carry laws to accept concealed weapons carriage within their territory by a resident of another state with less or no restrictions. Proponents of concealed carry and gun proliferation find her support for this bill really exciting. Meanwhile, she is careful not to advertise her support for this bill to the majority of voters, people lulled into thinking their smiling Representative touting “Christian values” couldn’t possibly support the dismantling one of the few gun regulations this country still possesses.
Spread of the “right-to-carry”:
John Lott, the “elite intellectual” gun dissident. Also writes articles on excess votes for Biden in 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
Gary Kleck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck