Another One From the Gun-Controllers' Playbook: Science Doesn't Back Us? Ignore It or Lie about It!

Here's an article about the recently-released study of gun control laws and their effects from the National Academy of Sciences, which generated countless headlines about right-to-carry laws not reducing crime.

There's only two problems: the headlines covered a lie in the report, and the report was about a whole lot more that shoots the gun-banners down (pun intended).

John Lott Jr. has an excellent op-ed about it here -- it's worth reading the whole thing. But here's the relevant passage about right-to-carry:

James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy at UCLA, was the one dissenting panelist and the only member whose views were known in advance not to 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 conclusion was inaccurate given that ''virtually every reanalysis done by the committee'' confirmed right-to-carry laws reduced crime. He found the committee's only results that didn't confirm the drop in crime ''quite puzzling.'' They accounted for ''no control variables'' -- nothing on any of the social, demographic and public policies that might affect crime -- and he didn't understand how evidence that wouldn't get published in a peer-reviewed journal would be given such weight.

Of course, numerous studies by others have already proven the point: right-to-carry laws reduce crime. Florida led the way with such a law, and a follow-up study showing its effectiveness, some ten years ago.

Of course, all the other errors of omission and commission are bad, too. Read the whole article.

UPDATE 1/9/05 -- Fixed missing links.