Billings, Facts - Laura Billings tries to chide the right about its grasp of the facts on gun control and sex education.

Perhaps the Pioneer Press should find someone who's qualified to lecture about facts, first.

One of the constant criticisms lobbed at liberals is that they base their politics on softheaded emotions rather than hard-nosed facts. So judging from two conservative initiatives introduced at the Capitol this week — a concealed carry weapons bill and another stressing abstinence-only sex ed — one has to wonder why Republican legislators have entirely overlooked all the empirical evidence against them.

One might wonder that. But one would not get any alternative from Ms. Billings, who cites no empirical evidence whatsoever.

The concealed carry weapons bill introduced on Monday by Sen. Pat Pariseau should be familiar to most of us, since it comes up nearly every session. Two years ago, it gained a bit of momentum, thanks in part to former Gov. Jesse Ventura's interest in firearms, the support of groups such as Minnesota Concealed Carry Reform Now, and letters to the editor citing the research of John Lott, author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime.''

Billings is mistaken. The bill has been gaining votes steadily for seven years, and it had very little to do with Ventura.

Lott even came to visit the members of MCCRN. You can see his picture on their Web site.

Lott's research suggesting that relaxed gun laws actually reduce crime has been a boon to the National Rifle Association and its efforts to pass "shall-issue" laws around the country, even though his methods have been called into question by criminologists from Georgetown, Emory, Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins universities.

What Ms. Billings ignores is that the "questions" from the "Criminologists" have themselves been pretty roundly trashed. Empirically.

For instance, critics of his have long wondered where he came across a "national survey" cited in his book claiming that "98 percent of the time people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.''

That's easy. It's a conclusion reached by Gary Kleck in his seminal "Point Blank", the biggest and most thorough survey of firearms use in the United States.

When Lott was asked to produce the survey, he said he'd done it himself. When Lott was asked to produce the data, he said he'd lost it in his hard drive. When critics began to question his entire methodology, confusing correlation with causation, a woman named "Mary Rosh" rose to his defense calling him "the best professor I ever had.'' Lott later revealed to the Washington Post, that Rosh was, in fact, his own alternate Internet ego.

The left's been crowing about this for the last two months, pretending that this invalidates the entire body of Lott's work.

Unfortunately for Ms. Billings' thesis, nobody's actually managed to attack Mr. Lott's conclusions, or any of the data that actually matter.

Since Lott has been largely discredited as a reliable source of information on gun policy, what do other studies say? Well, the FBI says the violent crime rate fell 25 percent between 1992 and 1998, but it dropped even more significantly — by 30 percent — in states with strict gun control laws. According to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, the violent crime rate fell by only 15 percent in states that relaxed gun control laws before 1992.

Which is true - but only because crime was already lower in "Shall Issue" states. Crime didn't have as far to fall.

And what about those claims that law-abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves from criminals? An analysis of the Texas Department of Public Safety records by the Violence Policy Center found concealed-carry permit holders were arrested for 3,370 crimes — including murder, rape, sexual assault and weapons-related charges — between January 1996 and April 2000. These "good guys" were arrested at rates 66 percent higher than the general population. But why let facts get in the way of firepower?

Indeed, Ms. Billings.

These figures are hogwash. For starters, it counts arrests, not convictions. In cases of armed self-defense, it's usually standard procedure to arrest a shooter, even though he or she is perfectly innocent. The Violence Policy Center's figures don't include the large number of "arrests" that never proceed to an indictment, much less a conviction, because the "crimes" involved are in fact justifiable uses of force.

here's some more attacks on the VPC study

Now, I love a good difference of opinion as much as anyone. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about things.

The question: Is Laura Billings reasonable?

Exhibit A:

The same sort of thinking (or lack thereof)

"Or Lack Thereof"?

This was part of the attitude that originally started souring me on liberalism 20 years ago; "we're smart, they're dumb". The notion that anyone who disagrees with you, if you're a liberal like Laura Billings, would seem to be too comical to be worth contempt.

...is at work in the bill that passed the House Education Policy Committee on Tuesday calling for an emphasis in sex education on abstinence until marriage. Proponents of the bill fear it would confuse kids to teach them that abstinence is the preferred way to prevent pregnancy and STDs while also educating them about contraception and the like. (Or as Rep. Mark Olson, R-Big Lake, put it, the latter method may destroy "young ladies' modesty.'')

Too bad these concerned legislators didn't consult the Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting, whose survey in 2000 found that 78 percent of Minnesota parents don't believe a comprehensive approach to sex ed — teaching both abstinence and contraception — sends a mixed message. In fact, 93 percent of them agree it gives kids the information they need to make responsible choices.

Reading their survey begs the question: how did these parents get their opinions? What parents were they? Why do they believe what they do? How were they selected?

But why bother finding out what parents think? Abstinence-only education is hot these days, and 86 percent of school districts with policies to teach sex ed require abstinence to be promoted. It's so popular, in fact, there are now three federal programs dedicated to funding restrictive abstinence-only education, and no federal programs dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex ed, even though that's the curriculum favored by three-quarters of parents in the U.S. and in Minnesota.

Which begs too many questions to even list: Why is sex ed a public school issue? Since it's rightfully the parents' job, why is the public school system endorsing any view of sex ed, much less a "comprehensive" view?

Does the abstinence-only approach actually work? After years of study, a 2001 Surgeon General report and the sources from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy say such programs have not been shown to delay teenage sexual activity. They simply make it more likely that kids will neglect to use condoms or other contraceptives when they become sexually active, putting them at greater risk for STDs, HIV and unplanned pregnancy.

Question: Did the Surgeon General's report and the "National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy" control for the messages the teens were presented about sexuality from the media and Hollywood?

Because I'd have to wonder if any form of sex education would have an effect against the glamorization of sex that our kids are exposed to.

Given how emotional both of these issues have been in the Legislature in the past, it's unlikely we'll hear much logical discussion on the topics this session.

After all, why let the cold hard facts get in the way of a really hot argument?

Ask us when you've presented any "Cold Hard Facts", Ms. Billings. In this column, you've presented references to debunked criminologists, a Violence Policy Center study that's been pretty thoroughly trashed, and a glorified opinion poll.
posted by Mitch Berg 3/24/2003 08:57:08 AM