You would be hard pressed to find a more extensive collection of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. But you might as well read it to learn the off beat logic used to justify the pro-gun position. It's a good mental exercise to try to keep up with his errors in logic as he spins his position. It's difficult to tell whether he really doesn't understand the rules of logic or he is intentionally deceptive. ( )

Lott does a great job at both explaining his work (the most comprehensive done so far) and conveying the ridiculous, irrational criticism supplied by the media and liberal "scientists." Using classic OLS, Lott accounts for every factor available to him across all 3,054 counties between 1977 and 1992. The conclusions indicate that handguns are not dispersed at an economically efficient rate, that the gains far outweigh the costs, and that violent crime against persons would be reduced if more states would adopt conceal carry laws. Furthermore, waiting periods and Brady-type laws do not seem to have a noticable effect. Lott makes the point early in his work that accidental firearm deaths are much less frequent than the press suggests. In 1995, there were about 1400 accidental firearm deaths, only 200 of which involved children age 14 or less. In contrast, there were 2,900 children killed in auto accidents and 950 drowned during the same year. Lott is also able to show that carrying a weapon increases the defense effectiveness most for women and minorities, the former because of a greater equalization effect. The gains for the latter are due to several factors: blacks are least able to carry them illegally since they are most likely to be stopped and searched, blacks are more likely to live in crime-prone areas and more likley to be victims of violent crime. (In fact, the original gun control laws in many states were intended to keep Black from being able to defend themselves.) Evidence in proof of the subsitution effect includes that comparable states with more stringent gun control, Canada and the UK see about 50% of their burglaries while the victims are home, vs 13% being "hot burglaries" in the US. Interviews with criminals show that those in the US are more likely to "case out" a target before sneaking in and less likely to go when the residence is occupied. Perhaps the most enlightening point involves the famous "in 60% of murders, the victim knew the killer" - seeming to imply that murder usually occur between family and friends. In actuality, of the 58% of such cases, 18% involve a relative and 40% involve a friend or acquaintance (including cab fares, gang members, and prostitutes). The statistics clearly cover a broad range of incidence, with the DOJ claiming around 80,000 defensive uses per year and other surveys ranging between 760,000 and 3.6 million. People are less likely to report to the DOJ, especially when unauthorized to carry a weapon. In the major states that allow concealed carry permits, there are only a handful of cases where the permit holders became criminals themselves, misused the weapon, or hurt someone unintentionally. Another of his most valuable points is that the concealed carry participation and gun ownership split fairly evenly across party lines. In fact, Texas is not even the state with the most prevalent gun ownership. A number of liberal politicians, including Diane Feinstein, and celebrities carry a handgun.

Bottom line, Lott demonstrates that an increase in gun ownersip and concealed carry cause criminals to turn to less "costly" property crimes, that those who do defend themselves create a positive externality for others, and that the advantages vary with population density, race, and gender. One other point: accidental deaths form handguns occur much less frequently in states that permit concealed carry (no implication of causality). ( )