Showing posts with label newyorktimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newyorktimes. Show all posts
Letter published in today's New York Times, responding Nicholas D. Kristof's op-ed on the Arizona shooting

Letter published in today's New York Times, responding Nicholas D. Kristof's op-ed on the Arizona shooting

With all the recent articles and editorials calling for gun control, the New York Times ran letters responding to their pieces today. Of the five letters, four supported more gun control and mine took the other side (that is 503 words versus 162). Mine was the fourth in the list. It is strange that the New York Times has set this up so that Google searches don't show people the page when they search on (Kristof John Lott gun) (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/opinion/l22guns.html).

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof attacked my research in his Jan. 13 column. While conceding that “concealed weapons didn’t lead to the bloodbath that liberals had forecast,” Mr. Kristof asserted that “many studies have now debunked” my finding that more guns lead to less crime.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of studies support my results. Among peer-reviewed studies in academic journals by criminologists and economists, 18 studies examining national data find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 indicate no discernible effect and none find a bad effect from the law. Among non-refereed studies, three find drops in crime and two say either no effect or possibly small temporary increases in crime.

Mr. Kristof cites a public health professor’s suggestions for one-gun-a-month sales limits, gun safes and further background checks, but I know of no academic criminologists or economists who have found that these laws reduce any type of violent crime. No gun ban has reduced murder rates.

John R. Lott Jr.
Alexandria, Va., Jan. 17, 2011

The writer is the author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”
My piece at The New York Times: The Case for Arming Yourself

My piece at The New York Times: The Case for Arming Yourself

My piece starts this way:

One can only hope that Saturday’s horrible attack in Tucson encourages more citizens to carry concealed handguns. Fortunately, one shopper in the Walgreen’s near Representative Giffords’ event was Joseph Zamudio. When he heard the shots he ran toward them because his legally carried 9 mm semiautomatic offered him protection. Joe helped tackle the killer before more harm occurred. Too bad someone like him wasn’t even closer to the crime.

But Joe showed that law-abiding citizens with concealed handguns can exercise excellent judgment in when is the right time to use their guns. When it made more sense for him to tackle the attacker, he did that rather than use his gun. Everything from public school shootings to church shootings has been stopped by citizens with concealed handguns. . . .
Columnist for New York Times and their statistical expert describes Republicans as "hooligans."

Columnist for New York Times and their statistical expert describes Republicans as "hooligans."

Charles W. Blow of the New York Times describes Republicans as "hooligans." I hesitate to provide a link to this piece because I really don't want to reward this guy who writes the numbers column for the New York Times.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released on Wednesday, nearly 8 in 10 Democrats said that they favor “Barack Obama’s plan to reform health care,” compared with just 19 percent of Republicans.

Yet, according to a Gallup poll released last week, only 47 percent of Democrats said that they had a good understanding of the issues involved in the current health care debate. Fifty-eight percent of the Republicans polled said that they understood.

Furthermore, a Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday found that Democrats were the least likely to say that they were following the debate over health care reform “very closely.” Only 42 percent of Democrats said that they were, compared with 45 percent of the independents and 56 percent of the Republicans polled.

And while Democrats are sitting it out, Republicans are storming in. . . . .

Democrats should be leading this discussion. Instead, they’re losing control of it. That’s unfortunate because the debate is too important to be hijacked by hooligans.