There are very few unbiased sources out there. Reviewing Lott’s original and the flurry of papers which flew back and forth, in 2003 the National Academy of Sciences, in 2003, said that right to carry laws either way has very little measurable effect on homicide rate. The Chronicle of Higher Education, at around the same time, said that Lott’s model was flawed, but most researchers nevertheless either agreed with his ultimate conclusion, or didn’t think that expanded legal carry caused expanded violence. (Both citations are on Lott’s Wiki page.)
As for Lott’s status as a gun advocate, well, you’re already reading The Trace, whose article is the same thing, but on the other side. (For what it’s worth, I do read anti-gun sources, too.)[/quote]
The reality is, simply discounting data because you think the source may be biased doesn’t really do much to further the discussion. That essentially results in you only hearing data which supports your preconceptions.
Didn’t you just discount a source (Lott) because of the position he reached after reviewing the evidence? I never claimed that Lott was unbiased. I only claimed that his work is a counterpoint to sources like The Trace.
Aside: Here is a rebuttal to some frequent critiques of figuring out the incidence of defensive gun uses by survey, written by the authors of one of those surveys, which directly comments on some of the things The Trace writes on, though it was written more than a decade ago. (A more recent summary is here.) It also responds to the two David Hemenway surveys in the late 90s on which The Trace bases its claims which you quote below.
If someone reports a defensive gun use, where someone else isn’t even attacking them, I’m not certain this really counts. Do you agree? That seems like it is essentially the guy with the gun being the instigator of the problem, and more offensive than defensive.
That case is indeed something blurry between a defensive gun use and an assault, but Hemenway’s work likely overstates the incidence of those cases.
