Speaking about the almost 2 million concealed carry permits issued in Florida, Lott trotted out this old nag.
For all those individuals across the more than 22 years of legal carry, there were only 167 cases where the permit was revoked for a firearms related violation, or about 0.01 percent of permit holders.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that those 167 cases do not represent a comprehensive number. In many cases in which the criminal turns out to have had a concealed carry permit, that information is mentioned as an after thought. It is usually not the focus of the investigation. In fact, no one is even interested except the gun control folks.
So, the old less-than-1-percent argument is misleading, at best. But, to get an idea of the kind of people who go for this argument, you just need to check out the picture featured in the John Lott article. I suppose he selected this picture himself, which must depict exactly the kind of thinking he engages in.
How's that for a realistic image of what the average gun owner can expect at any moment.
What's your opinion? Do you think John Lott really believes that only 167 Florida concealed carry permit holders out of 1.8 million have broken the law? Do you think this picture is a good example of what's in his mind?
Please leave a comment.
You accuse Breitbart/Lott of making things up, yet you don't provide any evidence.
ReplyDeleteIt seems this number comes from the state of Florida itself.
Did the State make that number up?
Of course Lott qualified it as firearm crime, wheras you expand distinction to the realm of all crime--about 5,000 revocations. Now who is being misleading?
John Lott, the Michael Bellesiles of the gun rights crowd.
ReplyDeleteThe big question is define firearms crime.
The other category is "Crime After Licensure": are we talking about assault? rape?
Does one want people running about commiting crimes and carrying weapons: especially people who commit violent crime.
I think not.
While Lott is nice enough to say firearms crime, the fact is that all crime is far more important than the little subset of "firearms crime"
Laci
Lott's not even trying anymore.
ReplyDeleteIt's really amazing and kind of sad watching his career trajectory spiral lower and lower.
Note: this is what happens when an academic (and Lott was acknowledged to be a very bright bulb) opts to place ideology ahead of honest research. You go from an endowed chair at U. of Chicago to working in some unspecified position at the U. of MD only because a buddy of yours was willing to hire you in a department where you have no expertise.
Laci: “While Lott is nice enough to say firearms crime, the fact is that all crime is far more important than the little subset of "firearms crime"”
ReplyDeleteThat is the first time I heard a gun control supporter acknowledge that. Thank you, Laci. Violence is the variable. Not “gun violence”.
The point TS desperately wishes to avoid, of course, is that gunloons don't want the public to know that the so-called "law-abiding" citizens that are getting CCW permits aren't so law-abiding.
ReplyDeleteHow should I know what gunloons want? They only exist in your head.
ReplyDelete“aren't so law-abiding” as what? Non-CCW holders?
Jadegold said, "Lott's not even trying anymore."
ReplyDeleteThat may be true. I suppose he could be getting sloppy because of the way his supporters keep blowing smoke up his ass.
Doesn't anyone step back enough to question if 167 out of 1.8 million makes sense or not?
The best part for me was the picture. Lott's selection of that particular picture is very telling. If I'd chosen it, the reason would be clear - to mock, to ridicule. What's could Prof. Lott have been thinking?
I'm not getting the panty-wetting over the picture. It is an ad for a holster. So what is the big deal with it?
ReplyDelete"What's a better example of sheep-like behavior than mindlessly repeating catchy one liners, regardless of their veracity?" -MikeB30200
ReplyDeleteFWM, The panty wetting is being done by you gun owners who actually picture in your minds an attacker like that.
ReplyDelete