# Gun nut John Lott is, well, nuts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2001, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197 "2001-03-08T04:44:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/21 "2001-03-08T17:11:59Z")
There’s no need for the lecture on logoc, **pl**. I said many posts ago that it was an exaggeration. You even quoted me saying it was an exaggeration. So I fail to see the need for a lengthy post pointing out that it’s a slipshod argument when I already acknowledged it as such. Also, the fact that the writer in the Newsweek article _quoted_ the word “dangerous” leads me to believe that Lott actually said it. Do I know where he said it, or in what respect to trigger locks he said it? Of course not. (FWIW, I didn’t get the impression from the article that it was supposed to be in the book. You’ll recall Lott is a darling of the talk shows, which is a big benefit of being a professional contrarian.) Nevertheless, Lott apparently feels trigger locks are dangerous, and the most reasonable explanation for that belief is that trigger locks prevent guns from being immediately utilizable in an emergency. Of course, if we’re supposed to keep our guns where they can be quickly and easily used, that also makes them more available to children (assuming there are children around). That doesn’t sound like a real good idea to me. If somebody wants to convince me with statistical evidence that it is a good idea, I’d prefer that the evidence come from a source who doesn’t see cause and effect everywhere he looks. And I like the TM analogy, **BigStar**. ---
**Author:** ![Tominator2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tominator2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tominator2)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/22 "2001-03-08T17:51:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Sure. > Lott studies every county in America for 20 years. > The crime rate goes down or stops rising in every single one after a CCW law is passed. > No correlation here folks…move along…nothing to see…move along… Nothing but [wish-fulfillment masquerading as statistics](http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.html). ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/23 "2001-03-08T18:32:03Z")
Tominator, Interesting that you posted a link from an Australian University. Since gun ownership has been outlawed in Australia, did they not see a rise in violent crime? Especially burglary? Hmmm. Yeah, I like their logic, fewer guns means more crime, but more guns would not mean less. Looking only at the guy’s summary so far, it seems he focuses on number of guns, not the fact that CCW laws had been passed. I could be wrong, I’ll read it and get back to ya. I’m off to get a link for Australia numbers, I’ll be baach! ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/24 "2001-03-08T18:55:20Z")
Tominator Finally. Someone is taking Lott to task on his methods and not on a personal level. This is something worth a debate. I’ve only had time to read through 5 of his pages, but I have found plenty that I disagree with. I’ll be back after I’ve had time to read it all, digest it a little bit and form a good counter post. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/25 "2001-03-08T18:57:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _from **tradesilicon** :_ > Looking only at the guy’s summary so far, it seems he focuses on number of guns, not the fact that CCW laws had been passed. I could be wrong, I’ll read it and get back to ya. Just to be helpful… Look in [Where’s the mechanism?](http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node11.html) and [Where are the differential effects?](http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node12.html) ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/26 "2001-03-08T19:58:37Z")
Thanks xeno, i did read most of it now, and he does talk about the CCW laws. However, I also found this [reply](http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Lott_v_Teret/Response_to_Lambert.htm) from Lott. I was not very familiar with Lott’s book, although I had heard about it. It seems logical to me, but that doesn’t mean squat. I think his reply is fairly solid, as was the evidence in his book. At any rate, from the evidence presented dismissing Lott as a looney is not warranted. In Australia, the new gun control laws and gun buyback were an attempt to reduce crime, but I don’t know the effect. Based on stats from New South Whales, crimes went up from '95 - '98, and down sharply in '99. 2000 numbers are not up yet in this [site](http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/pages/crim_culm3) Any dopers from Oz have comments, or other info? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/27 "2001-03-08T20:12:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BigStar303 \* > \*\*I have no taste for getting into the gun control debate. > > However, it does certainly seem from a simple perspective that there’s a lot of the following going on: > > A. This particular action was taken. > > B. An analysis of statistics from the time that action was taken shows this. > > C. Therefore, A must have had something to do with B. > Really? Isn’t it just as possible that the effect described in B was actually the result of a whole set of complex interactions between D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K…etc., and that A had little or nothing to do with it? > \*\* . . . except the book by Lott in question **does** attempt to take into effect the interaction between A, D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K, etc. by including variables for population, population density, race, gender, income, arrest rates, etc. Maybe you should, you know, read the book before criticizing what you think it says. And, really, **minty** , it was your damned OP. You were the one who wanted us all to read the Newsweek article and decide if Lott was a “loonie.” Well, if even you admit that as far as the article goes, there’s no “there” there, what would you like us to debate? Regarding guns in general, I don’t have a dog in the fight. Only fired them once or twice, don’t own one, don’t feel I need one. What I don’t like is a) public policy formation based on fear-mongering, or b) dimissal of valid statistical conclusions because the political ramifications are uncomfortable. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/28 "2001-03-08T20:40:37Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pldennison_ > And, really, minty, it was your damned OP. You were the one who wanted us all to read the Newsweek article and decide if Lott was a “loonie.” Well, if even you admit that as far as the article goes, there’s no “there” there, what would you like us to debate? I don’t know whether Lott’s a nut. The Newsweek article srongly suggests that he is. I generally trust the reporting in Newsweek. To confirm or negate the reporter’s portrait of Lott, I asked the Teeming Millions for their perspectives. And I posted the question in Great Debates because it is not a question with a simple factual answer and it invokes topics such as gun control and politics that most certainly belong in GD. I apologize if you don’t see anything here worth debating. > [@](#): > > What I don’t like is a) public policy formation based on fear-mongering, or b) dimissal of valid statistical conclusions because the political ramifications are uncomfortable. I’m not a big fan of fear-mongering, either. Nor am I fond of statisticians who tailor their conclusions to fit preconceived political agendas. John Lott arguably does this, and if he does, it makes his data and conclusions far less compelling. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/29 "2001-03-08T23:14:12Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by minty green \* \*\* > [@](#): > > I don’t know whether Lott’s a nut. The Newsweek article srongly suggests that he is. I generally trust the reporting in Newsweek. To confirm or negate the reporter’s portrait of Lott, I asked the Teeming Millions for their perspectives > \*\* Minty, that’s a fair request. I have read “More Guns, Less Crime,” and it’s not ridiculous. It’s based on massive amounts of data, analyzed in several reasonable ways. Speaking as one who works in a field of statistics, I find Lott’s work fairly convincing. BTW I have never owned a gun. I also took the trouble to read some journal articles by researchers who disagreed with Lott as well as Lott’s response to them. They were all based on much tinier amounts of data. Where Lott analyzed every state and every county over a long period of time, the refuters typically looked at a small geographical sample and a short period. Regarding your original question, those who disagreed with Lott simply had analyses pointing to different conclusions; they didn’t say Lott was crazy. So, Minty, my advice is to no longer regard Newsweek as trustworthy. I also echo the suggestion already made that you get a copy of the book and make up your own mind. I had no trouble getting it through my local public library. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/30 "2001-03-08T23:31:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > The problem with Lott is that he invariably sees coincidence as correlation when it suits his thesis, yet ignores strong correlations when they don’t. As someone who strongly supports individuals’ rights to reasonably arm themselves for personal protection, I feel no compulsion to distort facts in order to support my views. _And I don’t want John Lott on my side of any argument._ \*\* Well, but in the woman’s sufferage/increased gov’t spending paper you linked to, he discussed, and actually gave a test for causality. Whether his concusions are correct or not, in that at least, he dealt with the topic. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/31 "2001-03-09T02:29:15Z")
Well, what a pickle. A. Lott is a loony. B. This guy in Newsweek said so. C. Some other guy quoted in the newsweek article said so. D. Some other stuff I heard that Lott has said is whack. E. (A + B + C + D) = E: Lott is a “loony”. Try reading the man’s _own words_ written in his _own_ book before leaping to the conclusions that Mr. Bai is spoonfeeding you. Disagreeing with me is a safe bet; I’m admittedly biased and a self-proclaimed lay-man, with a lay-man’s understanding of the issues. I’m not an idiot; people who troubleshoot’s complex integrated electronic systems for a living usually aren’t. If cutting me down for being ignorant in a professional sense makes you feel intelligent and superior, bang away. But by discounting avowed fence-sitters or non-partisan posters, you only show your true colors. I at least admit to my biases, and try to compensate for them in the interest of eradicating ignorance and trying to understand and accomodate my fellow human beings and Straight Dopers. In my previous post, I stated that I neither agreed or disagreed with Mr. Cook’s analysis; just that Mr. Lott was not uniquie in believing that, statistically, there is evidence of voter fraud in PBC. According to the sources cited by Mr. Cook, neither he or Mr. Lott are alone together in that disputed viewpoint (unless it’s all a “vast right-wing conspiracy” :rolleyes: ). **RTFirefly** , in spite of my disclaimer to not adhering to any particular argument, immediately jumped in and tried to discredit my statement with a link to a thread where Mr. Cook was supposedly de-bunked (I wasn’t convinced one-way-or-another, here or there). But he just _had_ to get the dig in. Just like Mr. Bai. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/32 "2001-03-09T05:14:51Z")
> [@](#): > > _Posted by tradesilicon_ > Since gun ownership has been outlawed in Australia, did they not see a rise in violent crime? Especially burglary? > > Any dopers from Oz have comments, or other info? Gun ownership **has not been banned in Australia**. After the Port Arthur massacre most kinds of semi-automatic weapons were banned (and were the subject of a buy-back scheme by the Commonwealth). Hundreds of thousands of people still own rifles and shotguns and there is no real likelihood of that changing. I’ll see if I can find some respectable data on crime statistics at the ABS, but for now scroll down to the bottom [here](http://theage.com.au/news/20000629/A39849-2000Jun28.html) for a flavour. Volatility: note that for some of these crimes we are talking about small numbers which can make changes sound more significant than they are. For example we have less than one murder a day _for the whole country_ so one person can move the whole year’s statistics. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/33 "2001-03-09T05:50:56Z")
The ABS site is annoying, but you might try these links: [Crime in 20th Century Australia (Yearbook 20001)](http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/4524a092e30e4486ca2569de00256331!OpenDocument) [Crime and Safety (Yearbook 2000)](http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/e95615f039483745ca2569de0025631d!OpenDocument) Approximate bottom line: > [@](#): > > Has the level of crime increased? > > A previous Crime and Safety Survey was conducted by the ABS in 1993. Where data could be compared, > the prevalence of victimisation for offences was similar. Not that you’d really expect to be able to tell for such a small change over a fairly short time with lots of other factors in play. ---
**Author:** ![woolly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ebca7d/32.png) [@woolly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woolly)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/34 "2001-03-09T12:55:53Z")
Spot on \*\* picmr \*\*, well played Sir! ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/35 "2001-03-09T14:52:37Z")
That is definitely the most reading I have ever done for any one specific post.🙂 My conclusions: Lott’s study is not the Bible. There are probably many errors or debatable interpretations included in his study. Lambert’s response does not even come close to debunking Lott’s central claim, which is that CCW permits have a negative impact on crime. What Lambert’s response does do, is further the debate on what the impact actually is. Both authors cite extensively throughout. In Lott’s reply to Lambert’s response he claims that Lambert quotes out of context and twists the meaning to suit his purpose. Since I (we) don’t have easy access to the papers in question, it becomes difficult to judge just who is twisting what. I have to admit that some of the arguements are over my statistical comprehension level. Not all, but some are. Specifically the parts about manipulating the crime rate data to change the direction of it’s trend at the same time the laws were passed. College is a distant memory, and at this point my stat memories consist mainly of the brunette whom I studied with:) What I did walk away with, is that no one is trying to suggest that issueing CCW permits increases the danger to society at large. Since it has always been my impression that government had to justify restiricting an action or limiting a freedom, and not the other way around, **I see no reasonable arguement against expanding “shall issue” CCW permits to the entire nation.** ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/36 "2001-03-09T16:28:11Z")
**Captain Amazing** : Let me expand on the coincidence —\> correlation —\> causality chain that I think Lott has a problem with. For now, I’ll stick to general observations about Lott’s work (possibly this weekend I’ll have time to get into specifics regarding the Women’s Suffrage paper). (_NOTE: IANA statistician, either by profession or hobby. My observations are driven by skepticism, resistance to partisan bullshit and a neurotic distrust of easy answers._) **Coincidence** : The starting place for social observations. _What broad social actions were taken during a specific time period, and what specific changes occurred in social phenomena concurrently and subsequently to those actions?_ Lott generally does a thorough job of examining the application and scope of the specific social or legislative actions which are the focus of his studies. He is less thorough in his examinations of changes in social phenomena, preferring to focus on the specific effects he has presupposed to be present. **Correlation** : _Do the coinciding social variables relate to each other in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone?_ Lott’s methods of establishing correlation between actions and specific phenomena are fairly solid. Where he fails (and this is what throws up the giant “red flag” for me) is in his inattention to other relevant correlations. Lott gives a wealth of data establishing the relationships he wants to present, but is… _less dogged_ (cursory or disinterested might be a less diplomatic way to put it) in his pursuit of relationships not included in his thesis. Further, Lott seems to examine other social actors only to the degree necessary to show their inclusion; frequently he will underestimate or “miscalculate” the strength of those correlations. **Causality** : _Is there a causative link between the action and the phenomena?_ Thanks to John Stuart Mill, we can establish causality through four general methods.[ul][li]Concomitant variation - if a phenomenon varies in any way whenever another phenomenon varies in a particular way, a causal relationship exists. (Lott loves this method.)[_]Difference - if a phenomenon occurs in one instance, but not in another, and the two instances differ in only one circumstance, that circumstance is either the effect, cause or concurrent effect of the cause of the phenomenon.[_]Residues - rule out those phenomena known to be the effects of other antecedents and the phenomena which remain are the effects of the remaining antecedents.Agreement - if two or more instances of a phenomenon have only one circumstance in common, that circumstance is either the cause or an effect of the phenomenon.[/ul]Note that these methods establish only that a causal relationship exists. When one method is used in isolation from the other methods, it is impossible to determine direct causality. Lott, by relying so heavily on concurrency and concomitant variation to establish causal relationships, can never show whether the variables are common effects, common causes or interrelated in a more complex manner; he can merely establish that a relationship exists.[/li] Remember, sociological research is meat and potatoes for legislators. Once a “scientific study” establishes a causal link between a closely held tenet of a political philosophy and a widely desired social effect, moral justification can be given for any number of proposals. It doesn’t matter how flawed a published paper actually is; if Congressman Joe can say “studies show…” he’s well on his way toward garnering support for whatever ill-considered bill he happens to be sponsoring. Whew! I’ll try and be less wordy in the future, but I’ll be back in a day or so to deal with Lott re: suffrage. [/quote] **Ex Tank** : What gives? You gave a link to an article which **RTFirefly** had spent some effort a few months ago debunking. He felt it prudent to mention that fact, and to assert (politely and briefly) that he doesn’t consider Crook’s article very creditable. I don’t understand why this was a “dig” at you any more than **Tominator2** referencing Lambert in response to Lott was a “dig” at **Freedom**. [/quote] **Freedom** : I see no reason to believe “shall issue” laws have any negative effect on public safety (as long as strict criteria are followed); I just think it’s irresponsible to suggest that these laws “prevent” crime. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/37 "2001-03-09T17:02:03Z")
Thank you to both **Freedom** and **xenophon41** for your thoughtful posts. That’s exactly why I started the thread in the first place, guys! [sub]Note to self: Register for a statistics class next time I go back to school. But take it pass-fail.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/38 "2001-03-09T23:31:44Z")
picmr, > [@](#): > > Gun ownership has not been banned in Australia. After the Port Arthur massacre most kinds of semi-automatic weapons were banned (and were the subject of a buy-back scheme by the Commonwealth). Handguns are also ‘restricted’, according to the official information [site](http://www.gun.law.gov.au/Guns/handbook/frameset.htm) for the new laws and gun buyback. It’s interesting, that the specific language used to explain who can or cannot own which weapons, the explicitly state that self defence is never a legitimate reason to own a firearm! Only ‘professionals’ can carry guns. Does this include professional bank robbers? > [@](#): > > Not that you’d really expect to be able to tell for such a small change over a fairly short time with lots of other factors in play. Agreed, but the sites I listed in my previous post do show a strong trend upwards in the years from 95 - 98. Tough to evaluate not knowing what they controlled for or didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2001, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/39 "2001-03-10T01:03:31Z")
SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But gun locks are dangerous? > > Hypothetical situation: Joe Axmurderer breaks into your house, ranting and raving about wanting to chop you to pieces and feast on your remains (he’s also wearing a Mets baseball cap, so you know he’s nuts). You grab your handy-dandy Desert Eagle from your bedside drawer, point it at Joe, and pull the trigger… trigger won’t budge! OH NO! You forgot the safety lock! You fumble for the keys but… CHOP!.. too late! Joe racks up another victim! This may be a good case for why **mandatory** gun locks are dangerous, but **all** gun locks, mandatory or otherwise? My shotgun comes with a lock that I can loop through the action to prevent it from closing (and it cannot fire with its action open), but that doesn’t mean I **have** to store it with that lock in place. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2001, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197/40 "2001-03-10T09:28:19Z")
Well, Tracer, I forgot to mention that the Gun Lock had hired Joe Axmurderer to go after you so that it can sleep with your wife. Damn wife-stealin’ gun locks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nut-john-lott-is-well-nuts/57197.md?page=3)