John R. Lott
Resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Presented
at:
at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar
Seattle, Washington.
May 25, 2004
Abstract
While polls can provide us with important
insights about people's views, they can also
mislead in subtle ways. In the case of weapons,
poll questions are almost always phrased with
the assumption that gun control is either a good
thing or, at worst, merely ineffective. The
possibility that it could increase crime is
never acknowledged.
When crimes are committed with guns, there is a
somewhat natural inclination toward eliminating
all guns. While understandable, this reaction
actually endangers people's lives because it
ignores how important guns are in protecting
people from harm. Unbalanced media coverage
exaggerates this, leaving most Americans with a
glaringly incomplete picture of the dangers and
benefits of firearms. This is how the media bias
against guns hurts society and costs lives.
(Authors' abstract)
Inside or
outside the law?
Tightening legislation and the principles of
firearms ownership |
Jeannie
Baker and Samara McPhedran
Sporting Shooters Association (SA) Inc.
Presented
at:
Crime in Australia : international connections
Hilton on the Park, Melbourne
29-30 November 2004
Abstract
Legislation, whether national or
international, requires acceptance as being
'socially just'. In order to be effective,
legislation must have clearly defined outcomes and
procure a high level of compliance from the main
group it is directed against. This study examines
the effect of Australian firearms legislation and
its ramifications if the fundamental principles of
controlling illicit firearms are ignored. These
principles revolve around the assumption
that tighter legislation of private ownership
reduces firearms misuse and abuse and illicit
activities. The results of two surveys undertaken in
Australia, which focused on non-firearms- and
firearms-owners and their attitudes towards the
effectiveness of firearm legislation on prevention
of firearms misuse, are presented in relation to
perceived differences between the two groups,
existing firearm legislation, and private ownership.
This research addresses affirmative and negative
motivations for compliance with government
regulations that may be extrapolated to the wider
Pacific region. (Authors' abstract)
The impact of
firearm control legislation
on suicide in Queensland: preliminary
findings. |
Cantor CH,
Slater PJ.J
Suicide Research and
Prevention Program, Princess Alexandra Hospital,
Brisbane, QLD.
Abstract
To examine the effect of specific
firearm control legislation on firearm and overall
suicide rates. DESIGN: Retrospective survey of data
from the Register of the Suicide Research and
Prevention Program, Queensland Department of Health.
The hypothesis was tested that the legislation would
reduce firearm and overall suicides more in
metropolitan and provincial city areas than in rural
areas, where firearm ownership is higher. SETTING:
State of Queensland 1990-1993. OUTCOME MEASURES:
Suicide rates by age, sex and method for
metropolitan, provincial city and rural areas in the
two years before (1990-1991) and after (1992-1993)
legislation. RESULTS: Mean annual firearm suicide
rates declined significantly (P < 0.05) in
metropolitan and provincial city areas after
legislation (from 3.6 to 2.3 per 100,000 and from
5.2 to 3.1 per 100,000, respectively), with
significant declines among men and in the 15-29
years age group. Rates increased slightly in rural
areas (from 7.2 to 8.2 per 100,000). Overall suicide
rates declined in provincial areas only, with
minimal change in metropolitan areas and a slight
rise in rural areas. CONCLUSION: These results
provide preliminary evidence that firearm control
legislation, including a 28-day "cooling-off" period
before firearm purchase, reduces suicide rates,
especially among younger adult men.
Lawyers' Ethics and Criminal
Justice |
Richard H S
Tur
Presented
at:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0013/MTlectures9-10.htm
Abstract
Discussion of the struggle between "crime control"
and "due process" that in the view of some
commentators characterises anglo-american criminal
justice systems. Despite its avowed commitment to
the fundamental principle that any accused is to
be presumed innocent and the corollary that the
burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) lies
squarely on the prosecution, the English criminal
justice system appears altogether too likely to
prosecute and to convict the innocent.
In particular, the ethical quality of the primary
decision to prosecute calls for scrutiny.
In so far as that criminal process is indeed
based on a battle model with no quarter asked or
given, wherein the outcome is all and its moral
merits or demerits count for nothing, the decision
to prosecute assumes an even greater importance
because the impact even on an individual
eventually acquitted may be severe and at the very
least there is a moral duty not to visit avoidable
or unnecessary suffering on others. Prosecutors
have a duty to present matters fairly and in
particular must present all the relevant facts to
the court even where these facts suggest that the
accused is innocent. In practice, defence lawyers
and prosecutors alike can and do justify their
crossing the boundaries of fair play and ethical
conduct by reference to the other side's
misconduct. Thus zealous prosecutors may "come to
believe that any tactic is justified by the
pursuit of the holy grail - conviction." There is
more to law than the letter, or the reasoning,
however sophisticated. There is also ethical
sensitivity and judgment
COULD WE LOSE
THE WAR ON TERROR - LESSER EVILS |
Michael Ignatieff
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
The New
York Times Magazine,
2 May 2004
Abstract
Frightened Majorities
do reprehensible things.
Abiding disagreement about the trade-off between
liberty and security should be a characteristic of a
free society. An
examination of how the increase of Government Power
should be considered, were it not for the manner in
which
partisan politics and civil liberties ideology make
it hard to
take an unbiased look at what has actually occurred.
This is why terrorism's chief impact on democracy --
not just in the
United States but also in every other free society
and especially in Spain and Britain
-- has
been to strengthen the power of the executive at the
expense of the general public and the courts.
This is democracy's
dark secret -- the men and women who say they are
serving and protecting us
are doing so with a bodyguard of lies.
Consider the Port Arthur Massacre as Australia's own
September 11 - a valid enough reason used by
governments in the beginning, but now nothing but an
excuse to justify beyond rationality the theft of
civil liberties of all Australians, and not just
those of arms collectors.
|