I caught Prof. John Lott on C-SPAN over the weekend. CATO was having a discussion about his book "More Guns, Less Crime". His book is now available in a soft cover second edition with updated information from 1977 to 1996.

After Lott spoke, two economics professors commented on the book -- one con and one pro. The con speaker was Prof. William Vogt, Carnegie Mellon University. The pro speaker was Prof. Carl Moody, College of William and Mary. Both were lucid individuals. Gone were the incoherent dummies from HCI and CPHV who crawled outta their termite holes 2 years ago to claim Prof. Lott's parents were never married.

Prof. Lott's delivery is like a cruise missile quietly flying in at it's target and then detonating. He's lucid, coherent, concise, and his arguments are devastating.

In Prof. Vogt's commentary, at least one of his points was far off target, and Prof. Lott's rebuttal addressed it. Another point Prof. Vogt made was critical of Lott's statistical methods, but he conceded that Prof. Lott's incorrect handling of numbers actually reduced their effectiveness. Put another way, when Prof. Lott's data is presented with the appropriate methods, it becomes even MORE potent. Prof. Vogt did at least try, and he was very thoughtful and rational.

The most interesting comment by Prof. Vogt came at the end of his talk. He noted that in this forum he was wearing the hat of one who is skeptical of the findings. That was the task before him and he tried in earnest to accomplish it. However, if he removes that hat and is made to wager his home betting whether Prof. Lott's findings are correct or not, Prof. Vogt said he has to wager that Prof. Lott is correct, but he differs with the degree to which Prof. Lott is correct. The determined skeptic all but concedes he agrees with Prof. Lott that more guns means less crime. The debate was effectively how much less crime from how many more guns.

Prof. Lott noted that after police presence, concealed carry was the most effective means of deterring violent crime. Higher licensing fees and higher training requirements deter from getting a license the people who stand to benefit the most from concealed carry. The black man living in a high crime, low income urban section of town benefits far more by carrying concealed than the white yuppy in the suburbs. Prof. Lott said that a $10 plus increase in licensing fees means a .5% reduction in crime deterrence. A 5 hour plus training requirement creates a .65 reduction in crime deterrence.

Percents of the population with a license to carry in Shall Issue states range from less than 1% to about 6% (here in Washington) at a state level. However, some counties in Pennsylvania have a countywide rate of carry at upwards of 20%.

There is such a thing as too few permits. Prof. Lott said the empirical data thus far shows that as the number of permits increases, up to 6% of the population carrying, crimes rates continue to fall. Projections say were the rate of carry to continue increasing up to 23% of the population that crime would likewise continue to fall. But until everyone glued to Big Brother and Survivor applies for a permit and starts carrying, it's still a projection and thus speculative.

In studying all 3,000 plus counties in all 50 states, Prof. Lott has data on "border counties" -- two adjacent counties, one in a Shall Issue state and one not. When State A passes Shall Issue legislation while State B does not, County X in State A experiences a drop in crime while County Y in State B experiences a slight increase in crime. The increase does NOT match the drop. Conclusion? Concealed carry truly REDUCES crime. It does not simply push it into the next county or state without concealed carry.

I could not help but think during the presentation that Prof. Lott is making one of the strongest and most powerful cases for nationwide "Vermont Carry".

Ken Grubb
Lacey, WA -- Just outside Olympia