Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Do guns reduce crime? Watch this debate and hear both sides

This debate is in 13 parts, featuring the two of the best proponents of legal firearm ownership – John Lott and Gary Kleck. The real sparks fly during the Q&A, so don’t miss that. (If you can’t watch the debate, then you can read this post and this post instead).

Here’s part 1, which contains the introduction.

Here are the remaining speeches:

Pro-firearm: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: John R. Lott (2 of 13)

Anti-firearm: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: R Gil Kerlikowske (3 of 13)

Pro-firearm: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: Stephen Halbrooke (4 of 13)

Anti-firearm: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: John J Donohue III (5 of 13)

Pro-firearm: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: Gary Kleck (6 of 13)

Anti-firearm: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: Paul Helmke (7 of 13)

Q&A Part 1: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: Q&A Part 1 (8 of 13)

Q&A Part 2: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: Q&A Part 2 (9 of 13)

Q&A Part 3: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: Q&A Part 3 (10 of 13)

Q&A Part 4: Guns Reduce Crime Debate: Q&A Part 4 (11 of 13)

Conclusions Part 1: Guns Reduce Crime Debate Closing Arguments Part 1 (12 of 13)

Conclusions Part 2: Guns Reduce Crime Debate Closing Arguments Part 2 (12 of 13)

This is everything you need to know about whether legal ownership of firearms reduce crime.

Debate is how conservatives decide what to believe about the world. We listen to both sides. We are extremely suspicious of one side trying to demonize the other side with name-calling and intimidation. If you start to ascribe nasty motives to your opponent on any issue, prior to showing that they are wrong, on the merits, then you’ve lost the debate. Before you can show WHY someone is wrong, you first have to show THAT someone is wrong.

You will never see a formal debate like this in the mainstream media, in Hollywood movies, in the public schools, or anywhere else where the left is in control. But hearing both sides is the only way to really know if something is true. You have to be able to sit through listening to the other side.

UPDATE: Ooops, even MSNBC admits that firearm ownership reduces crime rates. I stand corrected.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses

  1. Marshall Art says:

    Thanks for posting this. What I found most telling about the anti-gun side was pointed out by one of the audience members regarding matching apples to apples. I’ve been going through this at my blog on a different topic. The anti-gun side seemed to bring up a lot of things that weren’t related to the topic. Stories of unstable people abusing their concealed carry privileges and such. Yet, unstable people have been among those most consider unworthy of maintaining those privileges. And though some may abuse them without being mental, the issue is really about self-defense and the protection of property that is currently at risk. The stats show that where this is addressed by a pro-carry stance, the rate of those crimes goes down.

    Another point was a comment regarding the NRA being deceptive regarding the full measure of the 2nd Amendment. This is ludicrous. I doubt there is a more comprehensive understanding of the founder’s intent regarding this amendment anywhere. I’m not a member, but hope to be even if I never buy a gun. They’re doing good work defending that amendment. What the other side prefers to ignore is that of those against whom the 2nd protects our right to defend against, the government is one. Yet that Indiana mayor seems to support the government against us as far as dictating who can own and carry, how many guns can be bought, what type, etc.

    Frankly, as much as I feel that those like Lott have made the best case for whether concealed carry reduces crime, I feel it’s a non-issue compared to our right to defend ourselves, against which the crime rate is irrelevant.

  2. Great debate! John Lott and Gary Kleck are the best statisticians on the issue. John Lott has presented a convincing case in conceal carry, in his book and amongst his allies. 18 studies find CCW lowers crime, 10 show no effect, and 1 finds an increase. Non refereed publications, 3 find lower crime, one no effect, and two find an increase.

    Now, in the debate the side saying it reduces crine provide more robust evidence. However, I have a question. Has Kleck changed positions? Last time I checked he holds the position that guns have no net effect, and that studies saying it lowers crine are missing some variables. Although the studues use regressions to account for other factors. So did the new studies change his views? Has he endorsed Lott? Please respond, I’m confused.

    P.S. two new studies find CCW lowers crime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 5,144,574 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,814 other followers



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,814 other followers

%d bloggers like this: