Two of two

The second New York Post editorial by John Lott discusses the findings (or actually the lack thereof) of the National Academy of the Sciences in its study of the effects of gun control.

December 29, 2004 -- THIS month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun-control laws. The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let's study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want).

The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents...

James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy at UCLA, was the one dissenting panelist and the only member whose views were known in advance to not be entirely pro-gun control. His dissent focused on the right-to-carry issue, and the fact that emphasizing results that could not withstand peer-reviewed studies called into question the panel's contention that right-to-carry laws had not for sure had a positive effect.

Wilson also said that that conclusion was specious given that the panel's own reanalysis confirmed that right-to-carry laws reduced crime. The panel's findings to the contrary he called "quite puzzling."

The true effect of gun control can  be measured in Great Britain.

Comments

[Scott]

A few points. I am against all restrictive gun laws aside from the now-expired assault weapons ban. I am for the ban because assault weapons heavily endanger the lives of law enforcement officers and provide no enhanced self-defense or deterrent, above non-assault weapons, by an ordinary citizen against an intruder or attacker. I was proud to see a professor at my alma mater calling out the panelists and their findings. UCLA is a world-class institution but thankfully has many "contrarian" professors who point out specious logic when they see it, with considerable damage to their "intellectual reputations" in academic parlors in the northeast.

The rest of the story: my father is a retired 22-year FBI veteran, a former SWAT team member and firearms instructor. He is also a hunter but an occasional one. Eventually I'm going to join him on one of his turkey hunts but as yet have never been hunting myself. On the other hand, he is a Democrat and would even describe himself as a liberal but has no real interest in shooting guns anymore. Perhaps this and foreign policy explain why I'm an Independent--the Democrats as a voting group simply don't "get it" on many issues, whereas Republicans as a group are dogmatic on social issues, i.e. not libertarian enough.

[Tom Bowler]

My understanding of the assault weapon ban was that it was purely cosmetic. There could be two rifles with the same capacity and power, one was be banned because it had a pistol grip on it, and the other not. I find it hard to imagine that any of our poitical leaders really thought it would reduce crime, and I believe the intent was only to disarm Americans.

I agree that the Republicans are not libertarian enough, but I'm working on them. I continue to urge Libertarians to become Republicans and thereby drag the Republican party a little more to the right (greater individual freedom). I see little hope for any coherence out of the Democrats for at least another four years, and if they develop any it will be because they've found another really good liar. In either case they're a lousy bet for the growth of freedom.

[Scott]

Hmm. If the assault weapons ban was cosmetic, there does frankly need to be a real one with teeth. My reasoning stands regardless of the old bill's effect. Unfortunately, I believe the media gun bias is very real.

The Democrats are in serious trouble. I was having a discussion with a fellow on the imdb (movies) site of all places and he mentioned how the political pendulum swings back and forth every generation. My counter-argument was when did it swing back for the Whigs and Federalists? There is a lot of merit to joining a political party in order to shape it but I'm afraid Christian conservatives, while well-intentioned and patriotic, are having a tsunami-like effect on the Republican party today, also with dire consequences. Pataki and Giuliani are going to have heaps of trouble winning the nomination in '08. Even a McCain may be seen as too much of a kowtower and not conservative enough which frankly disgusts me.

[Tom Bowler]

I'm not a big fan of McCain. True he stood up for the President at the convention and he really came up big there, but he's closer to liberal than conservative. I once heard him on Imus in the Morning attribute the Enron collapse to "unbridled capitalism". Sorry John, it's called corruption. Campaign finance reform is another joke, and I was hugely disappointed in Bush for failing to veto it. It's nothing more than an attempt to remove all but the "approved" voices from political discussion. You don't have to be religious to dislike McCain's politics. Personally, I think he's elitist.

[Scott]

I certainly don't think McCain is great, but you agree then moderate conservatives have little to no chance of getting nominated for Pres. I rest my case for why I'll remain Independent. Quite honestly I believe the primary process is terrible.

[Tom Bowler]

I wouldn't agree that a moderate has no chance. In fact I'd say Bush is a moderate. He gets the "right wing" tag because he admits to believing in God. He also has backbone - something obviously lacking in the other gentlemen who so yearned for his job. That's probably his greatest sin - backbone. Hard to forgive him that.

[Scott]

Bush has backbone but isn't a moderate. His faith has little to do with this perceived lack of moderation. I suppose this could start another debate but, really, you can't argue McCain is more conservative than Bush.

[Scott]

A McCain-Bush race would sort of be like a Lieberman-Kerry race. I don't see Bush and McCain as two moderates left standing who duked it out toward the end.

All other quibbles about George Bush aside, I think you'll more than agree that multiple federal tax cuts coupled with heavily increased homeland security spending, two wars is conservative on a new level. The argument that Bush needed to get in tax cuts while Repubs had control of Congress and the WH doesn't hold water in light of the massive and critical expenditures for national defense. That Bush pushed through expensive new federal programs while not scaling back many of the existing ones isn't a sign of moderation or liberal tendencies; coupled with tax cuts, it's plain stupid policy.

I'm proud that we have a President who has great fortitude and backbone. This doesn't exempt him from forming bad policy. He's no moderate. I don't buy it.

Sorry I guess I couldn't resist. I've said it before, I think the man and his team are in over their heads.

[Scott]

Sorry about the occasional grammer lapses--I type 70 wpm and tend to get lazy about revising posts.

[Scott]

jeez--grammar!

[Tom Bowler]

It would be an interesting exercise to calculate federal revenue if Clinton hadn't retroactively raised taxes so the rich would pay their "fair share". Democrats like to take credit for the budget surpluses of the late 90's but I'd be willing to bet my last dollar the surpluses would have come anyway, maybe even bigger. The budget surpluses of the 90's were built on the tax cuts that were part of Reagan's voodoo economics. He also was faced with the need to ramp up defense spending - in the Cold War's final confrontation - at the same time he wanted to cut taxes.

His theory was that he would grow the economy to the point that tax revenues outpaced spending. It happened, only not in his terms of office. It will be the same. we'll have budget surpluses that will come after Bush leaves office, because of the growth policies he's putting in place.

Bruce Bartlett wrote a great paper on Supply Side economics. I'll try to locate it for you.

[Scott]

"He also was faced with the need to ramp up defense spending - in the Cold War's final confrontation - at the same time he wanted to cut taxes."

The difference between Reagan's spending and funding two *wars*, increasing homeland security and defense spending, and creating entirely new federal programs, is simply not comparable. I stand by my conclusion: cutting taxes during a period of very sharply increased spending needs, while not scaling back existing federal programs in any meaningful way, is very bad policy.

I am fully aware of supply side economics; my point here is different.