UPDATE: The audio of John Lott’s testimony is available here. The graphs presented to the committee are available in the link below providing the CPRC testimony. It was an honor for the CPRC to be invited to address the Australian Senate on this important topic.
Original Post: A notice of the public hearing before the Australian Senate later today (5:30 PM EDT US) is available here. A copy of our testimony is available here.
UPDATE: The number of people who owned guns increased from 1.2 million Australian adults in 1997 to 1.97 million in 2015. At the same time, the number of guns increased even more from 2.5 to 5.8 million. Both of these were much greater than the increase in the population from 18.52 to 23.79 million.
While my testimony was scheduled to last for 30 minutes, the chairwoman of the committee, a member of the Green Party, started late and used some of my time for general statements and was able to limit my testimony to 23:30 minutes.
Do you think those Senators in the committee were actually listening and absorbing the information from Dr Lott or do you think it was simply bouncing off of their thick skulls?
Where is the link to the charts presented with the testimony? Can’t find them on here. Thanks
If you look at the written testimony, you will see the graphs. Thanks.
But doesn’t the data that the graphs link to only refer to armed and non-armed robberies and does not include all deaths by fire-arms. Not that these figures alone mean anything anyway as they need to be linked to lifestyle and other data to get a real picture of what the real issues are. John it seems to be that you are a gun lobbyist and from what I can see CPRC looks like it is also basically a lobby group. However, last time I checked true research should be unbiased. So how can you be a lobbyist and be scientific and unbiased? I actually find it interesting is that the American gun lobby is lobbying Australia at all. Other than money via sales what does it matter to America? Add to that guns are not banned in Australia, the laws were made stronger but you can still get a gun so it isn’t really a gun ban is it? Not saying it will, but maybe a ban would make a difference as there would be fewer around to be stolen and used in crimes. If you want to look at the real impact and management of guns shouldn’t you be looking a little broader than just gun ownership. In most cases the changes in crime are more related to education and standards of living than guns. If we decrease either of those there is a high probability there will be more deaths with or without guns. But can you truly say hand on heart that guns don’t make it easier? Can you truly defend the number of children killed by fire-arms in the US? Are you also lobbying for all round better education and standards of living? I have looked on your site and don’t see any studies related to those topics, did I miss them, do you not think it is relevant to crime figures or is it just less important than the money that could be made from guns? You make comments about how poor people need more guns, why because there are gang members and drug dealers with guns. I wonder, do you see how that argument could be considered rather circular? Spending money on advertising to promote guns for the poor instead of increasing the standard of living seems very wrong to me. Why doesn’t everyone just get more and bigger guns right? Bugger trying to fix the actual problems that lead to those issues in the first place, right?
The testimony did discuss homicides in addition to armed robberies. If you are interested in a more recent update of the numbers on deaths, please see my new book, The War on Guns. The problem with gun bans is that they are primarily obeyed by law-abiding individuals. If you primarily disarm law-abiding citizens relative to criminals, you actually make it easier for criminals to go an commit crimes. There is a reason that gun bans consistently increase murder and homicide rates. See here http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
Groups of people who want to have a particular law advanced needs to have a way to communicate directly with lawmakers. That is the job of lobbyists. You use the term as if it is a pejorative for corruption. The size of an issue; i.e., how far-reaching is an issue, dictates the size and scope of the group doing the lobbying. Thee are plenty of anti-gun lobbies…or did you think that all of the efforts to abolish guns are put forth by grassroots organizations who have no legally-regulated relationships with lawmakers?
Here in the US, lobbyists have to be registered and arew regulated as to what they can and cannot do. There is nothng wrong with lobbying, per se. The problem lies with the issues supported and promulgated by lobbyists such as unrestricted abortions and also the amount and sources of money paid to the lobbyists pushing unpopular isssues.
I’m sure you are well-aware of the Progressive globalist, George Soros and his personal agenda to remake the world in his image. You will never hear our Progressive media discussing him because he has a controlling interest in most of them: something on the order of 33 news outlets.
Soros funds all of the issues and political platforms that are anathema to conservatives such as late-term abortion, doing away with all fossil fuels and repealing the 2nd Amendment that codifies our “right to keep and bear arms ” that protects all of our God-given rights from being usurped from a tyrannical government.
It also protects another, even more important, God-given right: the right to Life itself, meaning the right to preserve and protect our own lives and the lives of our family members.
Without that right, America would never have become a reality.