John Lott Bets Gun-Control Experts on Outcome in Brazil

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Well... You can't say John Lott is willing to put his money where his mouth and his studies are.

Firearms expert taunts pro-gun control academics with bet on rising crime

A gun expert is asking academics to put their money where their mouths are and bet $1,000 on Brazil as a case study that stricter gun laws won't mean less crime.

No one has taken him up on the bet yet, but some have hit back by calling the challenge a "stunt" and saying they will put cash up if the terms meet their requirements.

Brazil took a hard turn away from gun ownership with a new left-wing presidential administration this year, sparking a debate on whether Brazil?s falling crime rate would increase or continue to fall as it did under former President Jair Bolsonaro.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was sworn into office in January, and his first order of business was working to reverse the previous administration?s pro-gun policies, including a decree that ordered citizens to register their firearms with the Federal Police, limiting the maximum number of guns a person can own from six to three, and suspending new firearm registrations...

Lott said he reached out to 12 academics in the U.S. earlier this year with a proposal: A $1,000 bet on whether the homicide rate would increase in Brazil under Lula and his administration?s gun ownership crackdown.

"Here is what I offer you. Let?s bet $1,000 and make it simple on whether the homicide rate in Brazil will go up or down during the first two years of Lula's presidency. If the homicide rate goes down from what it was in 2022, I will pay you $1,000. If it goes up, you will pay me $1,000," Lott wrote in his emails to fellow academics, which were provided to Fox News Digital.

"If you prefer, we can designate charities that we want the money to go to. Given the importance you put on gun control and the large percentage change in gun ownership that Lula is imposing, you should expect a substantial drop in homicides, but, as I say, let?s keep it simple on whether the homicide rate goes up or down."

Lott published an op-ed about the bet on The Federalist last week, noting that seven of the 12 academics didn?t respond to his offer while the other five did not take him up on the bet.

"These academics have no problem confidently making predictions for the press or legislative committees about the future effects of gun-control laws. But they aren?t willing to put their money where their mouths are in a way that would make people remember their bad predictions. Maybe that?s because they already know the crime-fighting benefits of private gun ownership," Lott wrote in the op-ed...

University of California, Davis, professor Garen Wintemute told Fox News Digital that not taking the bet was "not about Brazil," and he included a link to a 2022 New Yorker piece on Lott and conservatives' support of the Second Amendment. UCLA professor Adam Winkler said he was willing to take the bet, a wager he called "foolish" "but sought different terms" and that murder rates are caused by a handful of variables beyond just firearms...

Here's the John Lott piece from The Federalist... If Brazil?s Firearm Ban Is So Great, Why Won?t Gun-Control Activists Bet On It?

...Brazil provides a unique experiment because of how radical the changes in law are. In the U.S., the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C., provide the closest case studies. But many gun-control activists dismissed the post-ban increases in murder in those cities, arguing that the ban could only work if the entire country instituted the same rules. With Brazil, we have a country-wide case to examine...

Seven of the 12 didn't respond to my emails. Duke University?s Phil Cook wrote back a nice response, saying: "I like the idea of a bet, but am not going to take this one, since I have no confidence that guns and ammo will actually become scarcer in the neighborhoods with high rates of violence." Indiana University's Paul Helmke turned down the bet but wrote: "Happy to read/review any data and conclusions you come to." University of California at Berkeley?s Frank Zimring expressed some interest, but he stopped responding after asking me to sketch out the different theories for why the homicide rate fell.

Stanford's John Donohue insisted that we already had all the evidence we need to support gun control and that we should look at past data rather than making predictions. I pointed out that he hadn?t shied away from making many predictions in the past, even based on less dramatic changes in gun-control regulations...

UCLA's Adam Winkler wanted changes in the bet so I wouldn't have to pay him the money but would write an op-ed with him if I lost. However, Winkler wouldn't have to write up a similar op-ed if he lost. I noted that it might be hard for us to agree on an op-ed's content, but I suggested that we both agree to write an op-ed no matter who won. When I asked Winkler to explain the asymmetrical bet, instead, as an explanation, he offered a string of personal attacks saying he didn't take the discussion seriously. I responded by noting that I had "similar" feelings about his work, but I had hoped he "would view this offer as a chance to prove that you are right and show everyone I am wrong." He never responded...

So... Evidently... It's about the 'guns' unless pushed and put in a corner risking their money, their reputation as 'experts,' and their incomes then it's about a whole lot of factors; but, the guns need to go. Got it.

[fabularny]

Just proves deep down they know they're wrong. But that won't stop them from trying to implement utopia. Absolutely mental.

[jimmykan]

I didn't know Adam Winkler was "anti-gun"

I read his book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America and I thought it was pretty even-handed and rooted in history and reality.

[Barang]

easy money and will prove anti-guns are right once again.

[fabularny]

I didn't know Adam Winkler was "anti-gun"

I read his book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America and I thought it was pretty even-handed and rooted in history and reality.

Holding two conflicting views simultaneously while performing mental acrobatics to reconcile them is perfectly in line with how academics are trained/brainwashed to think. I wouldn't trust the opinions of anyone who is still deeply ingrained in the current academic institutions on anything as inviolable as constitutional rights. It's going to take maybe a decade or more after he leaves that system to re-learn how to think for himself.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I didn't know Adam Winkler was "anti-gun"

I read his book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America and I thought it was pretty even-handed and rooted in history and reality.

It depends on one's perspective... The Reasonable Right to Bear Arms...

Despite what extremists tell us, gun rights and gun control are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. Indeed, the story of guns in America is one of balancing gun rights with public safety, respecting both the right of individuals to have guns and the ability of lawmakers to impose reasonable restrictions on guns to enhance public safety.

Over the past forty years, we've lost sight of that balanced approach. America has become entangled in a debate about guns in which the terms are set by extremists on both sides. One side wants guns everywhere and sees any gun control proposal as both an infringement of the Second Amendment and a step down a slippery slope toward total civilian disarmament. The other side dismisses the long history and tradition of gun rights and proposes predictably ineffective reforms that do little to prevent crime but much to anger even law-abiding gun owners...

While that sounds remarkably similar to what I tend to post, Winkler and I draw our 'balance points' in notably different locations...

...Rather than give either side in the gun debate a total victory, the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v Heller validated a compromise position on guns. Individuals have a right to possess a gun for self-defense, but that right can and should be subject to some regulation in the interest of public safety. Private ownership of guns cannot be completely banned, and the civilian disarmament long desired by anti-gun people is now constitutionally impossible. No one can come and take away all the guns, even if many other forms of gun control remain permissible. Unlike the radical right to keep and bear arms envisioned by gun rights and gun control groups - in which the right to own guns cannot coexist with gun safety regulation - Heller stands as a symbol of a truly reasonable right to bear arms in which we can have both.

By making civilian disarmament impermissible, the Court's decision has the potential to restore some measure of reason to the gun debate. Extremists on both sides have obsessed over disarmament for too long. In truth, disarmament has never been a realistic option. There is no political will for it; even if there were, there are just too many guns in America and too many gun owners who would never comply with a law requiring them to turn in their guns...

For him, as long as bans are not complete, we have 'realistic' gun 'rights.'

For me, as long as 'limitations' are minimal, then some, limited 'gun control' is inevitable, historically justified, and necessary.

It's kinda like how one side quotes Heller by extolling the passage... "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." as a rationalization/support for virtually any gun control vs. emphasizing "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes..." Technically, both are part of the Heller decision. Technically, we now know that the former was a 'necessary compromise' Scalia had to make to get Heller on the books.

But, what those, like Winkler, tend to eschew (if not outright ignore at times) to one degree or another is that Scalia had 'plans' to effectively narrow what those limits were and how narrow those limits historically had been.

In an overly simplistic sense, Winkler is not 'anti-gun' so much as he opposes 'maximizing' gun rights and 'minimizing' limitations on guns. Such a stance can provide a lucrative career as an 'expert,' but it leaves a bit too much room for 'compromise' in a 'convenience of the moment/whichever way the wind is blowing' modus operandi for the taste of many.

[Epaphroditus]

$1000?

Why not $100,000!

[squeeze]

$1000?

Why not $100,000!

I agree but: it would then be seen "as a stunt"". These blow-hards are NOT interested if facts or the truth; just publicity! So an amount of #1000 to a charity points that out.

[Thrashard340]

Lott is an absolute BEAST! I have a bunch of his stuff bookmarked.

[jimmykan]

It depends on one's perspective... The Reasonable Right to Bear Arms...



While that sounds remarkably similar to what I tend to post, Winkler and I draw our 'balance points' in notably different locations...



For him, as long as bans are not complete, we have 'realistic' gun 'rights.'

For me, as long as 'limitations' are minimal, then some, limited 'gun control' is inevitable, historically justified, and necessary.

It's kinda like how one side quotes Heller by extolling the passage... "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." as a rationalization/support for virtually any gun control vs. emphasizing "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes..." Technically, both are part of the Heller decision. Technically, we now know that the former was a 'necessary compromise' Scalia had to make to get Heller on the books.

But, what those, like Winkler, tend to eschew (if not outright ignore at times) to one degree or another is that Scalia had 'plans' to effectively narrow what those limits were and how narrow those limits historically had been.

In an overly simplistic sense, Winkler is not 'anti-gun' so much as he opposes 'maximizing' gun rights and 'minimizing' limitations on guns. Such a stance can provide a lucrative career as an 'expert,' but it leaves a bit too much room for 'compromise' in a 'convenience of the moment/whichever way the wind is blowing' modus operandi for the taste of many.

I guess the real question is what specific gun control laws would be both constitutional AND effective at reducing misuse of firearms?

[k1dude]

I guess the real question is what specific gun control laws would be both constitutional AND effective at reducing misuse of firearms?

Banning democrats from owning guns. Ok, maybe not constitutional, but effective for sure.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I guess the real question is what specific gun control laws would be both constitutional AND effective at reducing misuse of firearms?

It's not necessarily about whether they are effective, but whether they are constitutional which is within the wheelhouse of SCOTUS. As an example, Scalia said...

...What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor.

So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation. There were certainly location limitations where - ...

My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons...

Remember, according to Bruen, it's not about 'effective,' it's about 'analogous.'

...To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right," these two metrics are " 'central' " considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).

To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to "longstanding" "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible...

Consider, for example, Heller?s discussion of "longstanding" "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." 554 U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century "sensitive places" where weapons were altogether prohibited - e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses - we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The "Sensitive Places" Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229?236, 244?247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Amicus Curiae 11?17. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were "sensitive places" where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment. And courts can use analogies to those historical regulations of "sensitive places" to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible...

Only after the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 did public-carry restrictions proliferate. Respondents rely heavily on these restrictions, which generally fell into three categories: common-law offenses, statutory prohibitions, and "surety" statutes. None of these restrictions imposed a substantial burden on public carry analogous to the burden created by New York's restrictive licensing regime.

Common-Law Offenses. As during the colonial and founding periods, the common-law offenses of "affray" or going armed "to the terror of the people" continued to impose some limits on firearm carry in the antebellum period. But as with the earlier periods, there is no evidence indicating that these common-law limitations impaired the right of the general population to peaceable public carry...

Now note the earlier opinions proffered by Alito, Thomas, and Scalia where we know that Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, one which Justice Thomas joined. Significantly, particularly in relation to so-called "assault weapons," Alito penned...

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun ?is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection? because it was ?not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment?s] enactment.? ... This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as ?bordering on the frivolous? the argument ?that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.? ...

The Supreme Judicial Court?s holding that stun guns may be banned as ?dangerous and unusual weapons? fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower court?s conclusion that stun guns are ?unusual,? it does not need to consider the lower court?s conclusion that they are also ?dangerous.?...

As to ?dangerous,? the court below held that a weapon is ?dangerous per se? if it is ? ?designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm? and ?for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.?? ... the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes... If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous...

As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today... The more relevant statistic is that ?[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,? who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States... While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts? categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

The lower court?s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand... ?Self-defense,? however, ?is a basic right.?... I am not prepared to say that a State may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her conscience, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the Nation... If the fundamental right of self defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

Now, couple this with Thomas' dissent of the denial of cert in Friedman v Highland Park, a dissent signed on to by Scalia...

...Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home... All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by ?the political process and scholarly debate.? ... But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that ?since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court?s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.? ... We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: ?Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.? ...

Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms ?were common at the time of ratification? in 1791.... But we said in Heller that ?the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.?...

The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ?to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.? ... The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ?states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.? ... But that ignores Heller?s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess... Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that ?Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,? not States... Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens?not state governments?it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered ?whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,?...

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose?regardless of whether alternatives exist... And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns... The City?s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles... The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting... Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons...

Beyond that, both Roberts and Gorsuch have produced articles which state, in Gorsuch's words...

...I suspect the real complaint of living constitutionalists isn't with old laws generally so much as it is with the particular terms of this old law. The Constitution is short - only about 7,500 words, including all its amendments. It doesn't dictate much about the burning social and political questions they care about. Instead, it leaves the resolution of those matters to elections and votes and the amendment process. And it seems this is the real problem for the critics. For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy...