Tag: debate

Of That, I Have No Doubt

KevinLeave a comment

As mentioned below, there was quite the kerfuffle at Rachel’s on the topic of Brits and violent crime and gun control, and one very patient (and willing) proponent of gun- and knife-control stood up to make his voice heard. So, as I am wont to do, I invited him to debate the topic. His name is James Kelly, and he’s a Scot.

Now, Mr. Kelly, who I will henceforth refer to as James, was reluctant to accept the invitation, stating:

I’d only just taken part in a full-scale debate on the matter and it was difficult to see the purpose of instantly embarking on a second one which would probably cover much the same ground. Secondly, having visited Kevin’s blog it became clear that the honeyed words in his comment here about the value of such a debate and my contribution to it were somewhat at odds with the rather more caustic assessment of me he had made over on his own patch –

“Not only more free that he’s ever imagined, more free than he can ever possibly understand.”

It’s hard to fathom how someone he regards as being so intellectually challenged in this way could also simultaneously be regarded as someone worthy of entering into intelligent debate with. A suspicious person might almost think I was being looked upon rather more as a willing patsy.

To be fair, I can see how he could draw that conclusion, but such is not the case. I don’t think James is “intellectually challenged,” at least not from a medical standpoint, I just think his philosophy is (provably) wrong. As I said in reinforcing my invitation:

James, it’s not about “winning” or “losing,” it’s about the philosophy.

At any rate, James did concede to at least one (1) post in the spirit of the invitation, though he stated that he does expect “fun and relentless mockery” in response. I suppose that’s in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t intend such. (I am, however, tempted to interpret James’s hypothetical example of the gun-control mindset as the product of isolated, paranoid, home-schooled, internet-bound loners as a bit of “relentless mockery” of his own! 😉

As noted, James begins the meat of his post, titled The only freedom I’ll ever understand, by drawing a hypothetical analogy of someone who has been taught that direct contact with other people can expose one to harmful diseases, and that such contact is risky and unnecessary. But our hypothetical person discovers that others, surely having this same knowledge, do it anyway! How can this be?!? He says:

This (admittedly colourful and extreme) example seems to me roughly analogous to Rachel Lucas’ bafflement in encountering a society where it’s not simply the case that ordinary citizens are legally thwarted from owning guns for self-defence purposes – for the most part they simply have no wish to do so.

Remember this. I’ll come back to it.

James continues:

But of course, the reason why people in Britain don’t want to carry guns even though there are hypothetical situations in which they might ‘need’ them is exactly the same as why people get physically close to others even though they might pick up deadly germs. It’s not that they’re fools or that they haven’t spotted the risks – it’s just that they choose not to allow their way of life to be defined by those particular risks.

Note the “scare quotes” around the word “need.” I’ll come back to this, too.

But where I want to start is here:

I was mercilessly mocked the other day for suggesting the cornerstone of true personal liberty is the freedom from fear. This was a childish fantasy I urgently needed to grow out of, I was told – freedom from fear is a literal impossibility, because it is a simple law of nature that we are all at constant risk. But this is to completely misconstrue the point I was making. Women who walk the streets without the gun in their handbag that they might ‘need’ to defend themselves against a potential assailant, or just anyone who shakes hands even though there’s a small chance it might make them ill…all these people in a small way have achieved that freedom from fear I was talking about. Not because the risk, the source of the fear isn’t there any more, but because they’ve recognised as rational people that it’s an acceptably small risk and that their lives therefore don’t need to be defined by that fear. Isn’t there freedom in not feeling you need to be practically chained to a gun, in the same way there’s freedom in not feeling compelled to avoid shaking hands with others?

This is where James illustrates his complete philosophical divergence from the majority of people who read this blog, and for that matter, Rachel’s. In Rachel’s comments, he put it this way:

I think this is another crucial aspect of the cultural difference between the US and countries like Britain with strict gun controls. You see, I believe in liberty as well – and the cornerstone of that is the freedom to live and the freedom from fear. Freedom that can only be safeguarded by a gun in my hand and the sharpness of my physical reflexes is a very poor quality, one-dimensional freedom. The widespread possession of deadly weapons by others is therefore a severe infringement of my personal liberty. And, yes, I am being utterly serious.

It was that comment that caused me to post my initial response.

James Kelly is a member of The Other Side. He honestly believes, convinced by his own flawed logic or by the constant deluge of the media or for some reason that weapons are the problem, and that by enacting strict controls on weapons, “freedom from fear” can be achieved. From his comments at Rachel’s:

I’m one of those idiots who think we’d all be a lot safer without so many knives around. And it seems the police in the UK (not a bunch of woolly liberals on the whole) agree with me, as they’ve fairly regularly held knife amnesties with the intention of making the streets safer.

At the end of the day, it’s a legitimate philosophical difference – am I safer with there being far fewer guns around to shoot me with, or is the proliferation of guns a price worth paying as long as one of those guns is in my hand and I’m trained to use it? I prefer the former option, and I suspect I always will.

“A legitimate philosophical difference.” Never mind that all available data says that such is not the case, and simple thought-experiments can disprove the theory. I suspect he will always think that way, too. But I’m not doing this to change his mind, I’m doing it in the hopes that someone, someday, somewhere will read this and decide – on the evidence – that James’ philosophy is wrong and mine is right.

“OvertheCliff” called it: “Cognitive dissonance,” anyone? Contrast this:

I think this is another crucial aspect of the cultural difference between the US and countries like Britain with strict gun controls. You see, I believe in liberty as well – and the cornerstone of that is the freedom to live and the freedom from fear.

with this:

Women who walk the streets without the gun in their handbag that they might ‘need’ to defend themselves against a potential assailant, or just anyone who shakes hands even though there’s a small chance it might make them ill…all these people in a small way have achieved that freedom from fear I was talking about. Not because the risk, the source of the fear isn’t there any more, but because they’ve recognised as rational people that it’s an acceptably small risk and that their lives therefore don’t need to be defined by that fear.

The unstated implication is that “countries like Britain with strict gun controls” have reduced the risk. (And note the scare quotes around “need” again.)

Based on what evidence?

I’ve been here before and have the T-shirt to prove it. Throughout Rachel’s comments James repeatedly made reference to the fact that the US homicide rate is “nearly three times greater” than in the UK, based on this Wikipedia entry that puts the 2002 UK rate at 2.03/100,000 and the U.S. rate at 5.6 for the same year. (Checking my math, that’s – carry the one – 2.76 times). For example:

Well, whether it’s down to fewer guns or some other factor, the article you linked to shows a homicide rate in the United States almost three times greater than that in the United Kingdom. The very least you can conclude from that is the personal right to defend yourself with guns is not sufficient to stop innocent people being killed (and the whole basis of Rachel’s post is her fond belief that it would be).

That’s quite a conclusion to draw from a single point of data, isn’t it? (James also mischaracterizes “the whole basis of Rachel’s post” as well, but I’ll leave that for possibly another time.)

Here’s an interesting chart I’ve made use of before, US homicide rates, 1900-2004:


Click on the image to take you to the Bureau of Justice Statistics web page, then click on the image there for the data in tabular form. Note that during that 105 year period the number of firearms in private hands in the U.S. increased each and every year. Over the last couple of decades it has been reported that the number of firearms in private hands has been increasing at a rate of at least 3-4 million annually – over two million long guns and about a million handguns. Every year.

But what about the UK? Well, for some reason, that kind of data is a little harder to come by. There is this:


This chart is from Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2007/2008 (PDF), a publication of the Home Office’s Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Note one difference between the American chart and the UK one? Ours has peaks and valleys. Theirs just keeps creeping up.

Here’s an older chart, again, only for England and Wales, but for the period of 1945 to 1997:


Again, this is the total number of homicides, not a rate, but with this chart you can see that things were pretty flat from about 1955 through about 1964.

If you go to the source, the report Homicide Statistics provided by the House of Commons Library (PDF) they give a table on Page 10 for England and Wales, and this chart on page 11 for Scotland:


Page 12 carries the homicide rate numbers.

Here’s a comparison for the years where we’ve got data so far, in rates per 100,000 population:

Year US England & Wales Scotland
1946 6.4 0.81 0.72
1947 6.1 0.86 0.59
1948 6.1 0.78 0.66
1949 5.4 0.68 0.47
1950 5.3 0.79 0.68
1951 4.9 0.75 0.41
1952 5.2 0.91 0.53
1953 4.8 0.74 0.80
1954 4.8 0.70 0.63
1955 4.5 0.63 0.68
1956 4.6 0.71 0.57
1957 4.5 0.71 0.51
1958 4.5 0.58 0.82
1959 4.6 0.59 0.66
1960 4.7 0.62 0.68
1961 4.7 0.57 0.71
1962 4.8 0.64 1.12
1963 4.9 0.65 0.88
1964 5.1 0.63 0.98
1965 5.5 0.68 1.21
1966 5.9 0.76 1.65
1967 6.8 0.86 1.35
1968 7.3 0.87 1.40
1969 7.7 0.81 1.57
1970 8.3 0.81 1.59
1971 9.1 0.93 1.38
1972 9.4 0.97 1.62
1973 9.7 0.94 1.47
1974 10.1 1.21 1.49
1975 9.9 1.03 1.49
1976 9.0 1.14 2.03
1977 9.1 0.98 2.03
1978 9.2 1.08 1.59
1979 10.0 1.27 1.56
1980 10.7 1.25 1.73
1981 10.3 1.12 1.70
1982 9.6 1.25 1.70
1983 8.6 1.32 1.86
1984 8.4 1.37 1.77
1985 8.4 1.28 1.64
1986 9.0 1.24 1.62
1987 8.7 1.31 2.08
1988 9.0 1.42 1.73
1989 9.3 1.33 1.98
1990 10.0 1.31 1.68
1991 10.5 1.42 1.72
1992 10.0 1.33 2.68
1993 10.1 1.31 2.22
1994 9.6 1.41 2.18
1995 8.7 1.45 2.67
1996 7.9 1.31 2.30
1997 7.4 1.41 1.72

What about later data? Say, 1998-2004? Well, we have the U.S. figures, and we have numbers from the aforementioned Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2007/2008, and for Scotland from this Scottish government site.

Year US England & Wales Scotland
1998 6.8 1.18 1.90
1999 6.2 1.25 2.30
2000 6.1 1.30 2.10
2001 7.1* 1.49 2.20
2002 6.1 1.54 2.50
2003 6.1 1.81 2.10
2004 5.9 1.47 ?

(* 2001 data includes the victims of the 9/11 attacks)
Wait – there’s a discrepancy. The U.S. number for 2002 in this chart is 6.1/100,000, not 5.6 as referenced in the Wikipedia entry. Turns out, the numbers used above come from the Centers for Disease Control. The 5.6 number comes from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, which (at a guess) is reflective of criminal homicides. No matter, I’ll use the CDC’s numbers as they make the US look even worse.

So, what does all of this (painstakingly collected and collated) data tell us? Well, this for one thing:

That’s a graph of the ratio of homicide rates between England & Wales vs. the US, and Scotland vs. the US since 1946. James seems to believe that the fact that the Wikipedia entry showed that the US homicide rate is “nearly three times” higher than in the UK somehow proved that “strict gun control” has made the UK somehow safer.

A murder rate of 5.6 per 100,000 residents in the US is more than two-and-a-half times greater than the murder rate of 2.09 per 100,000 residents in the UK. I’ll just say that again – more than two-and-a-half times greater. Can you not see that is not a trivial difference but is in fact an absolutely massive one?

It’s not a speck on the 10:1 ratio from 1971, is it? Anybody want to extrapolate out to where those graphs will cross 1:1?

But the trend indicates something far different from James’ position. Over the last eighty-plus years, via death-by-a-thousand-cuts legislation successfully aimed at disarming the (law-abiding) populace, the UK hasn’t gotten “progressively” safer. Over the same period, while the US keeps adding to its private arsenal, we haven’t gotten progressively less safe. Note another very interesting bit of information from those graphs of homicide rates above: since 1993 the US homicide rate has been precipitously declining. It is now at a level we haven’t seen since the 1960s.

What else has happened here during that same period? Here’s another graphic I’ve used before:


For those uninitiated, “Shall-issue” means that the affected states must issue a permit to carry a firearm, concealed on their person, to anyone who meets certain minimal requirements and applies for one. No discretion is left to the licensing state. Apply, qualify, receive permit. Period.

Among the criteria for qualification is a requirement that the applicant not have a felony record, nor a record of misdemeanor domestic violence. In all, the requirements to get a carry permit in 37 of our 50 states are far less than the UK places on the mere possession of a firearm. Two states require no permit whatsoever. James concluded that last quotation I cited thus:

Of course, my own conclusion would be stronger than that – it’s the gun culture in America that’s partly responsible for that death rate.

Partially correct. As a member of The Other Side, James holds the belief that there’s only one “gun culture.” As I’ve noted before, their errant philosophy leads to another inevitable (and wrong) logical end: the inability to differentiate between “violent and predatory” and “violent but protective.” There’s more than one “gun culture.” The surviving “gun culture” in the UK is largely responsible for the homicide rate there as well.

Certainly Americans have been killing each other at rates far above those in the UK, but they’ve been doing it since long before either polity enacted any gun control laws. It’s most definitely a cultural difference. But it isn’t the guns that are the cause of that difference. If they were (using their own logic) their homicide rates would be trending down, would they not? After all, “strict gun controls” are supposed to make you safer, right?

I share that basic logic – the simple, common sense logic that having fewer deadly weapons around in the UK results in fewer violent deaths. Since you dispute that logic and are boldly arguing the case for far more guns on the streets of the country you now live in – my country – I’d suggest the onus is on you rather than me to produce some very, very convincing statistical evidence that more people would not die as a result of you getting your wish. Certainly more convincing than vague assertions about regional variations within the society which you come from – which I fail to see how you can dispute is in general a much more violent society than the one in which you now live. Yes, gun violence has increased in the UK in recent years – largely because there are more guns around than there used to be. I’ve been accused of magical thinking, but it is the very definition of magical thinking to imagine that the solution to a problem caused by an increase in the number of guns on the streets is to speed up that increase exponentially!

But here in the US “the number of guns on the street” has increased, massively, and homicide rates have done what again? Gone down! With statistics, and everything!

It would appear that James’ “simple, commonsense logic” has failed, at least here in the US. I don’t know, it is perhaps possible that the inhabitants of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are constitutionally different and that the evil, mind-bending rays that guns emit would turn normal, law-abiding subjects into murderous killbots there, but somehow I don’t think so.

For me, though, the fascinating part of that comment is this:

Yes, gun violence has increased in the UK in recent years – largely because there are more guns around than there used to be.

Wait, what? I thought “strict gun control” was supposed to reduce “the number of guns”? No, James is sticking to the tenets of his philosophy: guns are the cause. If there is more gun violence, well it must be because there are more guns. Cognitive dissonance. The philosophy cannot be wrong. “Strict gun controls” must result in fewer guns and reduced gun violence. The explanation must be that the solution was improperly implemented! Do it again, only HARDER! (OK, I am mocking, but it’s so hard to resist!)

As an aside, let me illustrate:

The one thing you’ve conveniently left out of that list about Washington DC is that it borders a jurisdiction with incredibly lax gun controls, thereby rendering its own restrictions virtually useless. Golly, I wonder if that might just have something to do with it as well?

There we go again. Remember the “simple thought experiments” I mentioned above? I’ve covered this topic before, too. Alexandria, Virginia abuts Washington, D.C., Virginia being one of those states with “incredibly lax gun controls.” Unsurprisingly, Virginia has a very high rate of gun ownership.

And Alexandria has a homicide rate less than 1/10th that of D.C., where “strict gun controls” – the strictest in the nation – have been in effect since 1977.

I thought the philosophy said guns caused gun violence. Are all the ones in Virginia somehow defective?

And what about the UK? It has uniform “strict gun controls,” and is surrounded by water, yet guns just keep streaming in. (Hopefully James finds the Guardian an acceptable source of information.)

Now, I think I’ve exhausted homicide statistics. Let’s get back to “need.”

In another comment at Rachel’s, someone challenged James about the rates of other violent crimes in the UK. His response:

Well violence isn’t so much of a problem if you’re talking about the sort that only produces bumps and bruises. I strongly suspect that kind of violence is also worse in the US, but as that isn’t the point I’ve been making I don’t really need to prove it. On the point I am interested in making – violence that results in death – I think I’ve already proved it umpteen times over.

But not the way he intended, I think.

Let’s look at that comparison of non-lethal violent crime. James doesn’t believe that the UK really has much of a problem in this department:

I’ve seen that asserted many times over the last few days but I’ve yet to see compelling evidence. I’m guessing it may depend on the definition of ‘violent’.

This first came up as a topic back in 1998 when the Bureau of Justice Statistics published Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (PDF). It hit the evening news here. Here are the highlights:


Excerpts:

For most U.S. crimes (survey estimated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft; police-recorded murder, robbery, and burglary), the latest crime rates (1996) are the lowest recorded in the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996. By comparison, English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. For half of the measured English crime categories, the latest crime rates (1995 for rates from victim surveys; 1996 for rates from police statistics) are the highest recorded since 1981

—

(T)he U.S. robbery rate as measured in the victim survey was nearly double England’s in 1981, but in 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times America’s

—

(T)he U.S. robbery rate as measured in police statistics was 6 times England’s in 1981 but 1.4 times in 1996

—

(T)he U.S. rape rate as measured in police statistics was 17 times England’s in 1981 but 3 times in 1996

Things haven’t improved there since 1996, either. They have here.

“Bumps and bruises”? You’ll note I included a graph of burglary above. Burglary? Surely that’s not a “violent crime.”

It’s gotten to be in the UK. “Hot” burglary has become common there. Here in the states, burglars prefer to hit homes they know are unoccupied. It reduces the possibility of getting shot. But in the UK, where those few remaining honest subjects who own guns are required to keep them locked up, separate from the ammunition and where crime has been skyrocketing, homeowners tend to put alarm systems on their homes. It’s much easier for a “burglar” to ring the bell, assault the person answering the door, and then enter and “burglarize” the premises. Or just bust in on people while they’re at home. It’s not like they’re risking much. Here that’s called “robbery,” but not, apparently, in the UK. Ask Annie Hendrick and Sally Skidmore how much “proportional force” they should have used resisting the young men who invaded their homes, beat and robbed them. Really, we shouldn’t be concerned. After all, it’s just “bumps and bruises,” right?


The BBC reported in 2008 that a number of police forces in England and Wales have been undercounting some of the most serious violent crimes, and that “The government says it does not know how long the undercounting has been going on – leading to concerns that figures on violent crime may have been wrong for up to a decade.” (Note that said statistics would have been after the FBI report.) For example, “Crimes of ‘grievous bodily harm with intent’ committed between April and June this year were being mistakenly recorded as lesser crimes.”

Bumps and bruises. Right.

Here’s where the philosophical rubber meets the existential road. The Other Side believes that weapons are the cause of violent crime. Based on that belief, it logically follows that reducing the number of weapons in circulation will result in a reduction in violent crime.

So they pass laws to effect that reduction. The UK is the perfect petri dish for us to observe the efficacy of this philosophy.

“Gun Control” started in England about 1920. There were various measures before that, but after the turmoil of World War I there was fear of armed insurrection by communist-controlled labor groups brought on by the overthrow of the Russian government. The Firearms Act of 1920 required registration of all handguns and rifles and restricted them only to people who could prove they had “good reason” for them. Shotguns and air guns were exempted, as they were perceived to have only “sporting” purposes. Though the legislation was written because of a fear of civil unrest, it was presented to Parliament as a crime control measure.

In 1937 the laws were further tightened. Following the example of and amplifying on our 1934 Gun Control Act, the British outlawed fully-automatic weapons and short-barreled shotguns. If you had registered your war-trophy from W.W.I., or if you had purchased a perfectly legal Tommy-gun with your firearms permit, you had to turn it in. England didn’t outlaw alcohol as the U.S. had done, so they didn’t have a problem with machine-gun toting gangsters.

The “next step” (and isn’t there always a “next step”?) came with the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act. This made it illegal to carry an “offensive weapon” without being able to demonstrate a need for it. Offensive weapons included knives, pointed objects, and tear gas along with firearms. Ownership of a handgun for self-defense was no longer considered a “reasonable need.” After all, you were prohibited by law from carrying it.

Next came “sporting” shotguns. After a heinous murder in which three police officers were killed with unregistered handguns, the Parliament took action! The Criminal Justice Act of 1967 (later consolidated into the Firearms Act of 1968) required owners to register their formerly innocuous shotguns, and gave the police the power to refuse registration if they felt that possession of a shotgun by the registrant would “endanger public safety”. How this action could have possibly had any effect on the murders of three policemen with handguns was not addressed in the debate. Now all firearms were subject to licensing and registration, and two types had been banned.

There were a few other less sweeping laws passed in the interim, but in 1987 Michael Ryan, a licensed firearms owner, took a semiautomatic pistol, an AK-47 type rifle and an M1 carbine and went on a killing spree in Hungerford, England. He murdered 16 people before committing suicide. A few days later, a double murder was committed with a shotgun. The press, those stalwart defenders of the public, of course went crazy. (Much like we’re seeing here now.) There were a total of 159,000 firearms certificates held by English citizens at that time, and only a small percentage of the permit holders owned semi-automatic rifles. There were 861,300 shotgun certificates on file. The law shoved through Parliament and enacted in 1988 banned all semi-automatic rifles and all pump-action rifles as well. Owners of shotguns that could hold more than two shells were now required to get the more stringent Firearms certificate.

British Home Secretary Douglas Hurd reportedly told an audience that most the provisions in the 1988 Firearm Act had been (not surprisingly) prepared long before Hungerford, and the government had been waiting for the right moment to implement them.

Surely the number of guns was reduced and the British were safer now? No. In 1996 Thomas Hamilton, another licensed firearm owner took four handguns and several hundred rounds of ammunition and went to a school in Dunblane Scotland where he proceeded to kill sixteen children and a teacher. He was a suspected child molester. He had been refused membership at several gun clubs (membership being a requirement for holding a firearms license). He had lied on his application form. People had filed complaints with the police asking that they pull his license. Nothing was done. Hamilton, with all the restrictive laws already passed by the British government, was free to kill with impunity. He could just have easily done it with illegal firearms.

The predictable result – more banning.

Alun Michael of the British Home Office announced after passage of the Act: “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. We recognize that only the strictest control of firearms will protect the public.” (Sound familiar?) As of today British citizens are allowed to own only antique muzzle-loading firearms, shotguns, and rifles as long as they are not pump-action or self-loading (I believe that self-loading .22 rimfire rifles are still OK. For the moment.) Most are required to store their firearms in secure cabinets separate from the ammunition. The instructions provided by the government concerning what constitutes “safe storage” covers 15 pages. Firearms must be stored in a secure locker that is tamper proof and physically attached to the building. What constitutes “tamper proof” is up to local law-enforcement to define. No one but the licensed firearms owner is allowed to have access to his firearms. (A retired lawyer lost his shotgun license because he told his mother where the key to the gun safe was stored!)

The British have effectively disarmed their law-abiding citizens. In Scotland in 2007 there were 26,056 firearm certificates on issue to a total population of 5,062,000. In other words, about 0.5% of the population is licensed to own a centerfire rifle or a shotgun that can hold more than two shells. In England and Wales there were 128,528 firearm certificates on issue to a population of about 54 million, or less than 0.25% of the population there. No one can own a handgun, legally.

The government has made carrying any sort of weapon for self defense punishable by up to ten years in prison. The government has promised the people that each and every additional infringement on their right to arms will make them safer, and they have lied to them every single time. The British don’t kill each other all that often with firearms (or with much of anything else) because, apparently, killing just isn’t cricket – not because of any gun laws that have been foisted on the public in the name of safety. But the statistics say they’re learning.

Instead, the laws that have been passed have made the British public less safe; unprotected victims just waiting to be preyed upon by the growing class of those unafraid to break the law. Since 1920 England has enacted more and more draconian gun legislation, one step at a time, with the advertised purpose of making its citizens safer. Remember the words of Alun Michael: “Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. We recognize that only the strictest control of firearms will protect the public.” If that has been their true aim, they have failed. Epically. While still low, England now has an overall homicide rate more than double what it had when it began enacting gun control legislation. They have a higher firearm-related homicide rate, even though it has “some of the toughest gun laws in the world”. They have achieved a violent crime rate higher than even the United States. According to a UN report:

Scotland tops list of world’s most violent countries

England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.

The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-sexual crimes of violence and serious assaults.

Violent crime has doubled in Scotland over the past 20 years and levels, per head of population, are now comparable with cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Tbilisi.—

The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.

What a sterling example of gun control for the U.S. to study! Britain proves what gun-rights activists have said all along: Disarming the law-abiding is worse than useless, it’s counterproductive.

At the beginning of this essay I quoted James:

. . . it’s not simply the case that ordinary citizens are legally thwarted from owning guns for self-defence purposes – for the most part they simply have no wish to do so.

For the most part, here in the U.S. they don’t wish to either. Only about 2-3% of the people who are eligible get a concealed-carry permit. The majority of people who own firearms in this country don’t keep one loaded in their home for the purpose of self-defense. The majority of Americans don’t own a gun at all.

. . . the reason why people in Britain don’t want to carry guns even though there are hypothetical situations in which they might ‘need’ them is exactly the same as why people get physically close to others even though they might pick up deadly germs. It’s not that they’re fools or that they haven’t spotted the risks – it’s just that they choose not to allow their way of life to be defined by those particular risks.

The vast majority of people in the US make that same decision, and for the same reasons.

The difference here is we still have the CHOICE. The UK has, through a slow systematic strategy, denied its citizens the ability to make the decision to have a gun for self-defense out of the demonstrably FALSE belief that by doing so EVERYONE WILL BE SAFER. In the opening to James’ post, his “admittedly extreme” example involved someone who has been taught from childhood that physical contact with other people risks exposure to horrible disease, but what James (I’m sure unconsciously) illustrates is that his entire culture has been brainwashed in exactly that manner – except what they’ve been taught is that exposure to firearms brings with it the risk of horrible death. It’s part and parcel of the philosophy that guns are the cause of violence. From a comment James left here:

I’m not under the impression that the legalisation of gun ownership would make it mandatory in the literal sense. Perhaps I didn’t make this point clearly enough in my post (I did on the Rachel Lucas blog earlier) but my basic proposition is that a personal freedom can only regarded as absolute insofar as it doesn’t interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. And the right to own and carry a gun does exactly that. It’s not like owning a pen or a compass or a pack of bottled water – if you don’t own a gun but you learn that all your neighbours do, that’s a fact that changes things for you. It makes you (in a very rational way) reassess your own sense of security, and certain actions will flow from that. You might very well feel compelled to purchase a gun at that point and learn how to use it, even though it was not your wish to do so. And that compulsion would come from fear, not from government diktat.

From a comment at his own site:

Prior to the restrictions in the late 1990s, only a relatively tiny percentage of the UK population took advantage of the right to own handguns. But as we saw from the Dunblane and Hungerford massacres, there was a severe danger to the non-gun-owning remainder of the population from even that limited level of legal handgun ownership. An absolutely open-and-shut case of a personal ‘right’ interfering with the freedoms and rights of others – and in any civilised society, it’s at that point where a personal right must cease to be regarded as absolute.

The “logic” there is that – by definition – anyone who possesses a firearm is a danger, a severe danger, to all of society. The risk of exposure must be eliminated! But the risk of exposure to disease? Minor, manageable. Another comment from James:

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that fear is a relative thing, and that the less (rational) fear we need to endure, the more free we are. In one sense, people on the other side of this debate might even agree with that – they feel more safe in the knowledge that they are free to defend themselves with a gun, whereas others feel more safe by there being fewer guns around for people to be attacked with. And, yes, the latter proposition demands that we tackle the scourge of illegal weapons as well.

 And it goes without saying (I hope!) that I most certainly don’t want to see you beaten and killed – I just think you’re less likely to be killed if there are fewer guns around.

But given the evidence, is James’ fear of weapons rational? I submit it is not. Continuing that same quote:

. . . yes, Scotland does have a huge knife violence problem. I’d have to disagree with you, though – part of the solution is to get as many knives as possible off the streets (and from what I can gather, that’s a crucial part of the police strategy).

Let’s see: Guns are the problem, therefore “the strictest control of firearms will protect the public.” Only it doesn’t. There’s more guns, and more violence, and more violence with weapons other than guns. But the philosophy cannot be wrong! The only answer for the failure? Do it again, only HARDER!

Cognitive dissonance resulting in escalation of failure.

James said:

I believe in liberty as well – and the cornerstone of that is the freedom to live and the freedom from fear.

How do you defend your “freedom to live” if you are denied the tools necessary to the job?

One more comment from James:

I also think there’s an element of people on the other side of this debate wanting to have their cake and eat it. If someone is determined to attack you, they insist it makes no difference whatsoever whether it’s with a gun, a brick or a cobblestone, the outcome will be exactly the same. But then when they shift to talking about a person engaged in self-defence, the weapon in their hand suddenly makes all the difference in the world! That was the very question Rachel Lucas originally posed – how can a man hope to defend himself properly with a hammer? Why couldn’t he have had a more effective weapon to defend himself with?

So as a rational person, I hope you’d concede the following – the choice of weapon must make a difference to the outcome for BOTH an attacker and defender, or for NEITHER. I can’t see a reasonable third option here.

Of course he can’t. To do so would require him to question his philosophy.

I’ve had this conversation before, too. Tim Lambert worded it thus:

If the law disarms attackers, then it can make self defence possible where it would have been impossible if the attacker was armed.

But the data says – and James admits – that the law, the “strictest gun laws in the world” – haven’t disarmed attackers. There are more guns in the UK than there were before the bans. But now they’re almost exclusively in the hands of the criminals. Reader Sarah corrected Tim’s (and by extension, James’) assertion:

If the law disarms citizens, then it can make self defence impossible where it would have been possible if the citizen was armed.

THAT is what the law has done. It has disarmed the law-abiding, so that any thug can assault anyone (not also a thug) without fear of being faced with a weapon. I think it was Ronald Reagan who said “If you want more of something, subsidize it.” “Strict control” of weapons subsidizes violent criminals. It makes their vocation safer. Weapons are a force-multiplier. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is King. In the kingdom of the disarmed, the armed man is King.

But it’s just “bumps and bruises,” right?

The philosophy of The Other Side is in error. Nearly a hundred years of history illustrates this in unmistakable terms to anyone who will actually look. One more quote from the archives, from the meta-study of American gun control law and research conducted at the behest of the Carter administration, published in 1983 as Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America:

The progressive’s indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare. (3) Most of the firearms involved in crime are cheap Saturday Night Specials, for which no legitimate use or need exists. (4) Many families acquire such a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime. (6) Most of the public also believes this and has favored stricter gun control laws for as long as anyone has asked the question. (7) Only the gun lobby prevents us from embarking on the road to a safer and more civilized society.

The more deeply we have explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become.

British culture may have been neutered by their embrace of that philosophy, but it is my intention to ensure that the same thing doesn’t happen here. I’m not interested in learning how to properly be a victim. I don’t want my police forces to issue me a “spit kit” when some “chav” decides that I’m going to be his next target of aggression. I don’t want my government to tell me that I shouldn’t even honk my horn if I see someone committing a crime. I’m part of the good “gun culture,” and I refuse to allow the philosophy James espouses to do to us what it has done in Britain.

ESPECIALLY since Americans don’t seem to have much problem with killing each other already.

James says that his belief in “freedom from fear” is “the only freedom I’ll ever understand,” but it’s blindingly apparent he doesn’t understand it.

Of that, I have no doubt.

UPDATE: For a guy who didn’t want to debate, one is still raging in the comments of his post.

UPDATE II: And in a new post there.

As I said in a comment, James is failing miserably at not continuing the debate, and I am failing miserably in doing it in the comments at his blog instead of here.

UPDATE, 5/13: My final piece in this debate finally is done, Cultures: Compare and Contrast

Busy

KevinLeave a comment

Busy

Sorry for the lack of posting, but since I’ve got someone to actually, you know, respond to a debate invitation, I feel obligated to put out extra effort. Mr. James Kelly noted in his reply post that one reason he was reluctant to engage was to do so “at the very least would be extremely time-consuming”.

Don’t I know it.

Hopefully tomorrow. We’ll see.

Another Invitation

KevinLeave a comment

Another Invitation

Say Uncle linked to a David Codrea post at Gun Rights Examiner where a sportswriter showed his ignorance in the comments and was promptly smacked down for it. Feelings apparently hurt, the writer took his ball and went home after complaining about how nasty gun rights advocates were.

So once again I have decided to extend the olive branch and invite the sportswriter, Tom Ferda, to have an open, public discussion on the topic of gun rights right here at this blog or anywhere else he feels comfortable. Even though I’m up to my eyeballs with work for at least the next two weeks, I really want to engage Mr. Ferda. Here’s the text of the email I sent him tonight:

Mr. Ferda:

Welcome to the wonderful world of the gun rights debate! My name is Kevin Baker, and I live in Tucson, Arizona. No, I’m not Kevin Baker the award-winning novelist, I’m Kevin Baker the Professional Electrical Engineer who happens to run a blog by the name of The Smallest Minority, if you care to Google my name (which is how I found your email address).

Obviously you’re new to this topic, but don’t feel too bad – many are. On both sides. The problem is, there’s been a concerted effort for, oh, the past forty years or so to remove firearms from the public. It’s been described as a “decades-long slow-motion hate crime” against gun owners, and a lot of us are quite tired of it. So you were the recipient of some (very mild!) backlash when you demonstrated your ignorance the topics of firearms and Constitutional law.

I understand that you’ll find this difficult to believe, but when you wrote the words “semi-automatic machine guns” you basically punched nearly every hot-button most of us on this side of the aisle have. The ones you missed on that first pass you punched – emphatically – with the words “think about when these original right to bear arms laws were written.”

Mr. Ferda, I’m a calm, collected kind of guy. I started blogging with the intention of debating people like you in a public forum. Honestly, I don’t expect to change your mind, and I’m absolutely certain you won’t change mine (my position being the result of well over a decade of research, study, and consideration – I should have a PhD in the philosophy of gun rights) but I do believe that people LEARN when they discuss and defend their positions with people who DISAGREE with them. Hopefully, so do you, since you wrote: “Stay aggressive, call people with different opinions idiots and chase us all out of your area. You guys are doing a great job of forming a group where everyone can have identical opinions and keep anyone else out of the club.” And: “Good-bye and enjoy conversing amoungst yourselves without any more comments from people like myself who may differ in opinion.”

I earnestly wish to have a discussion with you – in a public forum! I will remain civil, factual, and I will give citations with links for you to follow and verify. (You’ll have to bear with me, however, as my day job at the moment is pretty overwhelming, so my responses will be necessarily slow.) I am willing to give you guest-posting privileges at my blog, and I promise not to edit anything you write (except possibly for readability – text size, font, etc. – never content) or you may email me your responses and I can post those – again, in total and without editing – or you may post your half of the discussion anywhere you’d like, so long as I can copy those posts to my blog for archival purposes.

I do have open comments. If you are as sensitive to the response of the readers as you appear to be at the Gun Rights Examiner post, I suggest you not read them. Oh, and this invitation is also being published at my blog.

I hope you do accept this challenge. I promise you, if nothing else you will come away much more knowledgeable about the topic.

Kevin Baker,
Tucson, AZ

Here’s hoping he accepts. Whatever the response, you’ll be the first second to know!

UPDATE, 1/19 8:00PM: No response from Mr. Ferda as of yet.

Another Debate Invitation

KevinLeave a comment

Seems like a good way to start the year off.

Breda‘s husband Mike wrote a rather scathing piece in response to an op-ed in the Detroit News blogs (so I didn’t have to). From that same source, one Libby Spencer wrote to defend the author of the piece against the verbal abuse strongly-worded missives hurled at him by us, the “vicious mindless mob” of gun owners who responded. (h/t to The Pistolero for the pointer.) So I dropped a comment of my own there. We’ll see if this goes anywhere.

Ms. Spencer, you make a good point about the (relatively small) percentage of gun owners who are abusive when responding to people such as yourself. I have said, on numerous occasions, that we are often our own worst enemy when it comes to public perception.

But I’d like to make some comments about this subject. Gun owners are, as Dr. Michael S. Brown once stated, the victims of a decades-long slow-motion hate crime. It is we who are routinely blamed for the deaths of others because the weapon used was a firearm. It is we who are demonized for being members of a culture that was once admired in this country. A lot of us are tired of it. A few of us are more than tired.

You characterized what I like to refer to as “The Great Zumbo Incident of 2007” as the act of a “mindless vicious mob.” So sorry, but no, it wasn’t. That was the impression the media sold – about a week and a half after the fact – but I was there from about the Saturday after Jim Zumbo (in the words of one blogger) “apparently tired of his 42-year career put his word processor in his mouth and pulled the trigger.” That same blogger also said this (and no, it wasn’t me): “Ten years ago, had his statement survived the editorial process and made it into print, we would have seen a handful of cherry-picked letters on the ‘Letters to the Editor’ page of Outdoor life, and things would have pretty much proceeded along at status quo ante. Not now. Not today.” Zumbo called the AR-15 rifle – one of THE most popular target and hunting platforms in existence – a “terrorist rifle” and advocated that they be banned from hunting.

He did so out of ignorance. The literally MILLIONS of us who own them were, understandably, angry. And we spoke up. Some, of course, excessively. Most, however, were not. And Zumbo’s sponsors (one of which was Remington, a company about to begin selling hunting versions of the AR-15) dropped him like a hot rock.

Welcome to the Internet age, where feedback is now instantaneous. Now when people such as yourself spout idiocy out of A) ignorance, or B) malice [or C) all of the above), there’s feedback.

I’m a fan of “reasoned discourse” myself, but I understand the anger and frustration of other gun owners who see what gets published as “fact” in today’s media and who KNOW that it is at best misconception, or at worst deliberate lies.

We’re tired of it. I’m tired of it. It’s why I became an advocate.

Here’s an offer: I invite you to debate the topic of “assault weapons.” The choice of forum is yours, but anything I write I will publish – in full – at my blog. I promise to be civil, to cite fact, and to provide references for you to verify. I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do think you’ll be surprised by what you learn.

If you don’t have access to my email address from this comment, do a Google search on “The Smallest Minority.” That’s my blog, and my contact information is on the left sidebar.

I’d make the same offer to Rev. Smith, but I doubt he’d accept. Besides, he wants to ban everything. You just don’t like “assault weapons.”

Think they’ll publish it?

UPDATE: That was quick. Now the question is, will she respond?

UPDATE II: Well, it’s a response:

Thu. 01/1/09 03:32 PM
Hey Kbaker. I believe we had that conversation on my personal blog back when the Zumbo thing went down. As I recall you were one of the few who were at all civil about it at that time. I still think that was completely unfair to him for the reasons I gave at the time.

I’m not at all equipped to debate the subject. I’m clueless on guns. All I can do is tell you how it’s playing among my fellow clueless citizens. Again, I’m on your side. The last thing I want to see is our citizens disarmed.

My reply:

Ms. Spencer, you state “I’m not at all equipped to debate the subject. I’m clueless on guns. All I can do is tell you how it’s playing among my fellow clueless citizens. Again, I’m on your side. The last thing I want to see is our citizens disarmed.”

The problem is, as most of us see it, is that those of us who ARE “equipped to debate the subject” are ignored. The level of vitriol you object to is one result of that. It seems, on many levels, that such language is the only thing that gets anyone’s attention any more.

Unfortunately, it’s gotten even worse, as many of us in the gunblogosphere have been discussing in recent months.

If you’d care to discuss THAT, I’m game. Because if people like you – people who don’t want to see the citizenry disarmed, but are unable to defend their position logically, factually, and (yes) aggressively – don’t do something to stand up to those who DO want to see us disarmed, then by all appearances harsh language may become the least of (y)our worries.

We’ll see where that leads . . .

Oh, and the post she referenced was, I think, this one: Boys and their toys – gun owners gone wild. Libby came into the subject only after the WaPo wrote an article on it. I’d forgotten, but I’ve debated Libby before on the Zumbo topic. Go here and read the comment thread, if you’re interested.

Nothing much has changed.

More “Reasoned Discourse”

KevinLeave a comment

This time OUR side gets dinged.

When I posted Another Debate Invitation Refused I did not consider (though I should have) that some of the people who read this blog would charge over to give the author of the blog and the author of the comment I was responding to what-for.

Do me a favor:

STOP.

If you can’t discuss the topic rationally without the use of invective, ad hominems and other insults, then DON’T. I don’t need nor want your “help.”

I appreciate your frustration. I understand that we are, as Dr. Michael S. Brown described it, the victims of a decades-long slow-motion hate crime, but THAT IS NO EXCUSE. If you cannot control your temper over some other person’s words and attitudes, then WHY SHOULD THEY EXPECT YOU TO BE RATIONAL WITH A FIREARM IN YOUR HANDS?

Any chance I had to actually discuss the FACTS with anyone from that site is now GONE. You have, whoever you are, done what Say Uncle intelligently advises against: You’ve “frightened the white people” (non-gun-owners), and given them more reason to consider us as Joe Huffman describes our current condition: “gun niggers” – people who they consider dangerous and “not like us” for whom it is OK to restrict our rights.

Thanks a lot.

I’ve left new comments of apology over at the site. I would not be surprised if they disappeared in short order. DO NOT “HELP” ME BY BEING JERKS.

Here’s one of the comments I left there, just in case she does decide to yank it:

Maggie wrote: “His blog contains a link to my posts on gun control on healthbeat, which explains why so many ideologues suddenly appeared out of the woodwork to drown out any possibility of rational discussion here–just as they had when Robert Feinman tried to raise the subject in an online diary.

“The NRA, and its supporters, are very well organized. One person who saw my post (a troll named Bob G) alerted Kevin, he in turn put a link on his blog to health beat, and suddenly we were overwhelmed with negative, nasty and personal comments. (They have removed –and will be in the future.)”

Maggie:

I’m sorry it happened, too. I certainly did not want it to, and I will write a post to that effect. However, while I will apologize for the behavior of those who came here and posted “negative, nasty, and personal comments” I cannot and will not take responsibility for them.

Again, I never made any suggestion that I was a “disinterested party.” Your blog attaches a hyperlink to my name which happens to go directly TO MY BLOG. My email address, which I assume you have access to since I must leave it in order to comment here, is “gunrights@comcast.” There was NO attempt made to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.

The fact that you popped over to my site, saw the “McCain-FEINGOLD Insurrection” link and leaped to the mistaken conclusion that I’m a McCain supporter (and that somehow that dubious “fact” apparently disqualifies me in some way from being a reasonable person) says far more about you than it does about me.

Further, you had – PRIOR to my Friday evening post – already refused my THREE offers to discuss the topic of gun control – publicly or privately – because of your fear that “rational debate” would be drowned out by other voices. (How that would occur via a private email exchange is beyond me, but…)

I am FULLY aware of the acid and vitriol that the gun control debate stirs up. I am a veteran of the talk.politics.guns Usenet forum and a full six months and more than 1800 posts in the “gun dungeon” of DemocraticUnderground.com. I have been blogging on the topic for nearly five years now, and studying it for nearly thirteen. I know how hostile BOTH sides can be.

As one writer described it, gun owners have been the victims of a decades-long slow-motion hate crime. We’ve been described in the national media as red-necked, knuckle-dragging inbreds with one tooth and single-digit IQs. And those have been some of the KINDER things said. Media forces have SELF-ADMITTEDLY (I have the references) dropped any pretense of impartiality on the topic.

While “the NRA and its supporters” ARE very well organized, you might not understand that the organization you speak of truly is “grass roots.” We do this because it is IMPORTANT to us, and it isn’t the NRA telling us what to do and what to think. The NRA pretty much has to follow our lead.

Again, I really would like to discuss this topic with you either publicly or privately, and that invitation goes out to ANY interested party. No negative, nasty, or personal comments. No acid, no vitriol, just a calm discussion of the FACTS, the history, the law, the statistics, and the reasoning behind my position and yours. As I said before, I don’t expect to reverse anyone’s beliefs, but I DO expect to give you a perspective you haven’t previously been exposed to.

Again, my apologies for the trolls my post brought to your site. I should have expected it. But this is the internet, and we’re both grownups. If either of us are that affected by mere words, we shouldn’t be posting on the internet.

C’mon people. I thought we were better than that.

UPDATE: My comments were erased, but even more, sometime today (3/9) BOTH of her posts on gun control and all their comments were shoved down the memory hole.

“Reasoned Discourse” indeed. (h/t to Kevin P. for the heads-up.)

Another Debate Invitation Refused

KevinLeave a comment

I swear, you’d think I intimidate them or something. Reader Bob gave me a link to a web page that asked the question What Ever Happened to Gun Control? Like its disappearance as a political topic was a bad thing.

I questioned the author, an economist who writes on heath-care topics, on some of her “statistics,” and I invited her not once, not twice, but three times to discuss the topic of gun control either publicly or privately.

She declined. Oh well.

But the subject of this post comes from another comment posted at that site. One “robertdfeineman” wrote:

A couple of years ago I posted a diary about gun control where I suggested treating it as a public health issue. As I recall I defined several classes of gun control issues:

1. Accidental injury
1a. by children
1b. by adults
2. Injury in the course of a crime
3. Injury in the course of a domestic disturbance
4. Injury caused by a mentally unbalanced individual
5. Suicide

I asked those who opposed gun control to select any category of their choosing and suggest what steps should be taken to lessen the rate of injury.

As you have discovered vitriol was quickly forthcoming, however useful suggestions – none.

Even the example of Canada isn’t able to bring any sanity to the discussion. Canada has a fairly high level of gun ownership (mostly sports and hunting), but has a much lower level of misuse. There seems to be no discussion of why this is so.

Without getting too deep into the American psyche there just seems to be a vocal core of gun supporters who are motivated by something deeper than rational arguments. As with most such inexplicable attitudes it is likely that it has its basis in a deep seated fear, of what isn’t clear.

As simple observation will show other advanced countries, that don’t permit the same freedom of gun ownership and use, are not overrun by people in black helicopters, nor by crazed gangs or druggies, nor by criminals threatening home and family. Whence the insecurity?

Given that the US is in a fortress mentality mode (personal Hummers, gated communities, domestic surveillance, etc.) expecting rationality about guns seems unlikely for the immediate future.

Coming from a guy who apparently believes that the world is suffering from overpopulation and resource shortages (I guess he’s never heard of Paul Erlich and The Population Bomb), he seems to believe that capitalism is outmoded and needs to be replaced by a “steady-state” economy (AKA “zero-sum” – the model every socialist system has based its economic system on).

Quelle suprise.

But I thought I’d take a shot at providing some useful suggestions without vitriol.

Here we go:

1. Accidental injury
1a. by children
1b. by adults

The answer to this is obvious, ongoing, and highly successful.

Education, education, education.

And it’s obviously been working for quite some time, too. Accidental death and injury by firearm in this country is at an all-time low, and has been declining ever since we started collecting statistics. This despite the fact that 3-4 million new firearms are added to the total in private hands in this country each and every year. It doesn’t require new (and dubious) safety features on guns, it doesn’t require free trigger locks to be given away by government agencies, it simply requires education – and the firearms industry and the NRA are doing apparently a damned good job.

Which is more than can be said for the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center.

Doubt me? Do you doubt the Centers for Disease Control?

Total accidental gunshot deaths by year:

1981 – 1,871 (Crude rate, 0.82/100,000)
1982 – 1,756
1983 – 1,695
1984 – 1,668
1985 – 1,649
…
1990 – 1,416
1991 – 1,441
1992 – 1,409
1993 – 1,521
1994 – 1,356
1995 – 1,225
…
2000 – 776
2001 – 802
2002 – 762
2003 – 730
2004 – 649
2005 – 789 (Crude rate 0.27/100,000)

The actual incidence of death by accidental gunshot wound has dropped 58%. The rate has dropped by 67% (the overall population has gone up over the same period.)

Over the period between 1981 and 2005 (25 years) the number of firearms in the U.S. has increased by approximately 100,000,000. Yes, that’s right, one hundred million, of which about 40 million were handguns. Over that same period the number of states with “shall-issue” concealed-carry laws has increased from eight (8) to 35 (now 37). The number of “no issue” states has declined from 15 to two.

I don’t know about you, but I call that “improvement.”

Topic: 2. Injury in the course of a crime

Well, for one thing, since 1990 the number of deaths and injuries from criminal assault have been declining rapidly to levels not seen since the 1960s. Homicide, highly variable over the nation’s history, has dropped dramatically, according to this Bureau of Justice Statistics chart:

Non-fatal attacks are down significantly, too:

What caused this? Well it wasn’t “gun control” by any indication. The only “gun control” law passed during this period was the 1994 “Assault Weapon Ban” (that wasn’t), but in 2005 even the New York Times admitted:

Gun crime has plummeted since the early 1990’s. But a study for the National Institute of Justice said that it could not “clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

Research for the study in several cities did show a significant decline in the criminal use of assault weapons during the ban. According to the study, however, that decline was offset by the “steady or rising use” of other guns equipped with high-capacity magazines – ammunition-feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds.

So, should one conclude from this that “high-capacity magazines” lead to a decrease in overall violent crime?

The first thing that leads to a decrease in injury in the course of crime is to reduce crime. How? Well, it would appear that a good economy helps. Of course, incarcerating more than 1% of the population might be contributing factor, too. I’ll leave that up to you to decide whether that’s a good thing or not. But how about defense with a firearm of your own?

Only about 29% of criminal assaults involve a perpetrator with a firearm, and even if they are so armed, defending yourself with your own firearm has proven to be the most likely way to escape without injury. That is, if you believe Gary Kleck’s analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization survey data. Kleck’s study indicates that defending yourself with a firearm reduces your chances of injury below any other method, including not resisting at all.

Topic 3. Injury in the course of a domestic disturbance

That’s a tough one. Congress passed a law that is supposed to disarm anyone who has received so much as a ticket for misdemeanor domestic violence. Of course, like the Brady background check, the law has been equally effective at actually disarming dangerous people – that is “not at all.” Generally, in this situation on party or the other may get a restraining order, but these have proven to be nothing more than tissue paper. Reciprocal restraining orders only guarantee that the one who is willing to kill is ensured of a defenseless victim, and then a knife will do as well as a gun. Here I’m going to have to admit defeat, and state plainly that I see no way to legally, constitutionally, affect this problem.

Strike one!

Topic 4. Injury caused by a mentally unbalanced individual

Again, a law has been passed that supposedly disarms people who have been adjudged mentally imbalanced or a danger to themselves or others. Again, as the Virginia Tech massacre proved, the effectiveness of this law is less than stellar. Too, there is the doctor-patient relationship which is supposed to be legally sacrosanct, the fear being, of course, that if doctors can be compelled to report about their patients to the legal authorities, some (perhaps many) would refuse to seek help at all.

Personally, I’m convinced that the recent (last decade or two) upswing in rampage killing / suicides is due to the use of anti-depressants that have a bad effect on a tiny percentage of the people who use them. That percentage is so small as to be statistical noise, but it has resulted in the deaths of a significant number of people. What to do about it? I don’t know. It’s a Catch-22 situation, and again, the best I can hope for is that someone law-abiding and armed can end any such situation before the perpetrator decides he’s finished.

Topic 5. Suicide.

I have already considered this one in great detail. Basically, my conclusion is that while Americans do use firearms in large proportion to commit suicide, firearms are not the cause of their decision to end their own lives. America is on the low end of the scale for nations with relatively high GNPs, ranking below Norway, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland, France, Austria, Denmark and Finland for suicide rates. The leading method of suicide varies with each nation, but it appears that if you really want to kill yourself (as opposed to a “cry for help”) you find a way. This is especially true among young people, as evidenced by Australia’s youth suicide problem. For no apparent reason, in Australia the leading method of suicide of young men changed from firearms to asphyxiation by hanging. There were no gun laws passed during the period during which this occurred to account for the shift.

A study of the Brady 3-day waiting period found that it reduced the number of suicides by firearm among people 55 and older, but that it didn’t affect any overall suicide rate. In other words, people that might have used a firearm found another, equally effective method.

My conclusion here is that the appearance of firearms being a cause of suicide is an illusion. If all firearms disappeared tomorrow, the rate of suicide would be essentially unchanged.

So in answer to your questions:

1: We’ve tremendously reduced accidental death and injury through education, even with a massive increase in the number of firearms in curculation. Perhaps if we want to affect this particular problem even more, we should be teaching firearm safety education in schools alongside sex education.

2: We’ve greatly reduced death and injury due to criminal acts over the recent decade, without any notably effective new firearms legislation. The “Assault Weapons Ban” didn’t seem to have any effect, and the worst thing you can say about the massive increase the number of states that have passed “shall-issue” concealed carry laws is that those laws might not have been responsible for any of the reduction in crime.

3: Injury in domestic disturbances has also decreased, but nowhere near as much as with other types of violent crime, and here I admit defeat. In a nation founded on the concept of individual sovereignty and individual rights, I really don’t see where we can affect this particular problem except by allowing the threatened parties to be armed in their own defense, and the law just isn’t written that way.

4: Mentally unbalanced people deciding to commit suicide and taking strangers, coworkers, or loved ones along with them present the same problem. The only thing I can think of here is for those coworkers or loved ones to pay attention to the situation and try to get obviously disturbed people into mental health care. Unfortunately, given the same rights as everyone else, this does not seem to be effective.

5: The suicide problem appears to be one of false perception. Yes, a lot of Americans who choose to end their own lives choose to do it by means of a firearm, but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t find another way if access to a firearm was denied to them. If “gun access” caused suicide, America’s suicide rate would far exceed any other nation in the world.

But perhaps instead of considering the beam in America’s eye, our neighbors to the North should consider the one in their own. Even our Roger Ebert has recognized that, while Canadians don’t murder each other as often as Americans do, their violent crime rate far exceeds our own.

Maybe Canada needs more guns.

UPDATE: See More “Reasoned Discourse”

From Comments:

KevinLeave a comment

In the comments to Still a Man Hears What He Wants to Hear… below, Markadelphia responds (stereotypically) with:

So, this piece begs the question…what if guns were allowed in schools and people chose not to carry one? Would that person be a moron? Is anyone that choses not to arm themselves stupid?

My reply:

Mark, as noted in the piece, 97-99% of the eligible population chooses not to get a CCW permit in the first place. In 2006 there were approximately 836,000 sworn full-time police officers in the U.S. according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Approximately 70% of those are “field” officers, as opposed to desk officers, so that brings the number down to about 585,000. Split by three shifts, and you get about 200,000 officers “on the street” at any particular time.

Divide that up among a population of 300,000,000 and there is one cop for every 1,500 of us. Obviously we don’t have a uniform distribution of either population or police officers, but still, you can see why police officers so seldom prevent or stop a crime in progress, they show up afterwards usually to take a report.

“Most Americans,” Mark, don’t think about it. Many do, and weigh the odds of needing a firearm against the irritation and responsibility of actually carrying one, and decide that they like their chances. (And carrying a firearm is a pain in the ass.) I’m OK with that. It’s called rational decision-making. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Some people are like Barry – terrified of the responsibility and convinced that they are not mature and competent enough to be trusted with a firearm. I’m OK with that, too so long as they do not work to deny me the right to choose for myself.

Consciously choosing not to carry is not a mark of stupidity. Not considering the question is, however.

As noted above, there are about 836,000 sworn officers in the U.S. – that’s about 0.3% of the total population. If 1% of the general adult population (which the CDC estimates at about 210,000,000) chose to carry concealed, an additional 2.1 million people would be out there, armed in defense of themselves and (one would hope) their neighbors.

Out of every 100 teachers and administrators, one would probably be armed, familiar with the school and staff, and on site if anything should happen that would require armed response – because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

It’s not stupid to decide to go unarmed in this world, Markadelphia. It IS stupid (and in my view, evil) to deny people the CHOICE.

Still the Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest…

KevinLeave a comment

(with apologies to Simon & Garfunkel)

Markadelphia dropped this in a comment on the post about the school shooting in Portsmith Ohio:

So, there were guns there and nothing could be done to stop it. Having people armed in schools will prevent nothing. While I think that if many people here were armed in a school would be responsible, most Americans, unlike Israelis, are fucking morons who jump at their own shadow and would probably shoot someone by accident. Simply put, I don’t trust most American and I don’t think you do either, Kevin, as evidenced by your writings.

Let us parse:

So, there were guns there and nothing could be done to stop it.

Really? You again exhibit your God-like powers of prescience and prognostication. Wherever do you find those? Is there a pill?

Having people armed in schools will prevent nothing.

Is that so? Well it is difficult to “prove a negative.” The probability that such an incident doesn’t happen because a gunman was dissuaded due to the fact that one of his victims might shoot back (or first) is, admittedly, impossible to calculate. Oregon school teacher Shirley Katz seems to believe with a weapon she could prevent her ex-husband from doing something unpleasant to her (since restraining orders are essentially tissue paper and she knows it), but the law requires her to be a disarmed target while she’s at work.

Just like Christi Layne.

However, it’s never really been that much about prevention, Markadelphia, it’s been about attenuation. Only two things will stop a rampage shooter – either he (or she) decides they’re done, or someone with a gun stops them.

As Tam put it so eloquently after the Montreal college shooting in 2006:

I ain’t goin’ out like that. Whether it’s some Columbine wannabe who’s heard the backward-masked messages on his Marilyn Manson discs, distressed daytrader off his Prozac, homegrown Hadji sympathetic with his oppressed brothers in Baghdad, or a bugnuts whackjob picking up Robert Frost quotes transmitted from Langley on the fillings in his molars, I am going to do my level best to smoke that goblin before my carcass goes on the pile. I am not going to go out curled into a fetal ball and praying for help that won’t arrive in time.

—

Even if the police are right there, it might not do me any good. Heck, I might not do me any good. But, dammit, I am going to try. If a 51 year-old nurse can overcome a hammer-wielding psycho with her bare hands, the least I can do is go out on my feet. I’m not going to wait for the coup de grace under a desk; I’m not going get in the abductor’s car; I’m not going to comply with their demands; I’m not going gently.

Help in this case didn’t arrive in time to stop the shooter before he decided he was finished, nor did it in the Baton Rouge shooting yesterday, but it did in the City Hall shooting in Missouri. There’s no way to know how many people Charles Lee ‘Cookie’ Thornton intended to kill before he decided he was finished, is there?

But now we get to the heart of the matter:

While I think that if many people here were armed in a school would be responsible, most Americans, unlike Israelis, are fucking morons who jump at their own shadow and would probably shoot someone by accident. Simply put, I don’t trust most American and I don’t think you do either, Kevin, as evidenced by your writings.

Then you’ve not been reading what I’ve been writing. (There’s a surprise.)

Prior to Florida starting the current trend in 1987, there were eight “shall-issue” states, where citizens who applied for a CCW permit and who passed a background check and a minor licensing requirement had to be issued a permit. It was not at the discretion of local law enforcement to deny. Vermont has always been a “no permit required” state. Seventeen states were “no issue” – you couldn’t get a CCW at all. Since then the number of “shall issue” states has increased to 37, Alaska has joined Vermont in not requiring a permit, and only two states remain “no issue.”

In each of the states where “shall issue” is the law, approximately 1-3% of the eligible population jumps through the relatively minor hoops in order to get a permit. The number of people who actually carry is unknown. What we do know is that those people are remarkably law-abiding. They are much less likely to be arrested for anything than the general population.

In point of fact, they do not “jump at their own shadow” or “shoot someone by accident” – at least if they do shoot someone by accident, it’s at rates far below those of police officers. It is a fact that the worst thing you can say about “shall issue” concealed-carry legislation is that it might not have contributed to the decline in violent crime during the same period. In state after state, opponents to the laws have had to admit that none of the “blood in the streets” and “shootouts over fender-bender” fearmongering came true.

You’re right, Markadelphia, I don’t trust “most Americans,” and with reason. Apparently “most Americans” are like you. But I do trust those who get CCW permits far above and beyond “most Americans” because – for the overwhelming majority – they’ve given thought to their own protection, and understand that the police can’t be everywhere, all the time. They are connected to reality in a way “most Americans” really aren’t.

And if you’re interested in the efficacy of concealed carry, I suggest you peruse the archives of Clayton Cramer’s Civilian Gun Self-Defense blog. Admittedly, the number of CCW defensive gun uses are low, but they do happen.

Contrast Tam’s words above with these of Barry of Inn of the Last Home from a while back:

I just…I just blink my eyes in amazement everytime this crops up – actually watching people feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in public…

If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation. To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment’s notice to possibly kill…a child. A homeless person. An innocent.

Obviously that is not your intent. You want to protect yourself – maybe that is how you feel in California. But being brought up in Eastern Tennessee I’ve never once felt the need to protect myself from imminent bodily harm in public. And if I were aware of a location that might be unduly hazardous – a dark alley, a badly lighted parking area – I would avoid it. I’ve never been mugged, nor can I readily pull up a name of any person I’ve ever met that’s been mugged or even bodily threatened in my whole life.

What scares me most is the arbitrary nature of self-defense. What line must be crossed to signal to you that there is imminent danger or threat? Is it a criminal pulling a gun on you? In which case, unless you’re a gunslinger, you’re not going to outdraw him. Is it someone pulling a knife? Threatening words? Bad language or rude gestures? Where is that one point where you decide, “Yes, my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger and I must now take it upon myself to take the life of another person.” What if the guy is reaching into his jacket, and you are sure, absolutely certain that it is a weapon. You pull your gun and shoot–and see he’s reaching for his wallet. Or worse, you miss and hit a child running in the street. Where is that line?

The radiation would rot my brain and I would never be able to live with myself.

Maybe it’s different in California. Maybe it’s different in Tennessee. Maybe I don’t love my family enough…maybe I love them too much. But I know myself, and know that if I surrendered to the paranoia – and I mean that in the most basic sense – there would be no turning back.

You can bet your ass I don’t trust him to make decisions for me.

UPDATE:  Original JSKit/Echo comment thread is available here. Thank you, John Hardin.