Hey, Idiots with Guns... Knock it Off!

Why is that cost a bad thing?

A simple cost benefit anlysis or even a sophisticated one shows that the so called right to own a gun comes at a very high cost to all Americans whether your a direct victim, a freind relative, or a taxpayer. The proponents of continued gun ownership should re-examine their motives for use and possession.

For instance:

Of the 8,503 handgun homicides in 1997, only 110 (1.3 percent) were justifiable killings of an assailant previously unknown to the person using a handgun. What the FBI has been reporting year in and year out—that most homicides result from arguments between people who know each other. rather than the myth that they are so useful and used so often in self defence in response to a break-in or assault by a stranger.

A simple cost benefit anlysis or even a sophisticated one shows that the so called right to own a gun comes at a very high cost to all Americans whether your a direct victim, a freind relative, or a taxpayer. You've made this claim before, and I've rebutted it before. I hope you're not continuing to use the same horribly flawed figures and argument, Barry.

300,000 violent crimes using handguns are committed annually. 12,000 murders are committed annually using firearms. The Department of Justice estimates that guns are used 1,500,000 times annually, defensively. One in six of those users claim that, had they not so used their gun, they would have been killed. That's potentially more than 250,000,000 lives saved by gun use.

By pretty much any metric, the benefits outweigh the costs.

You've made this claim before, and I've rebutted it before. I hope you're not continuing to use the same horribly flawed figures and argument, Barry.

The figures speak for themselves year in year out the United States continues to lead the world in the number of deaths and injuries caused by guns by about six times to any comparable population. If you want to improve the lot for future generations something needs to change or you will continue to lead the world in these unenviable statistics...

The figures speak for themselves year in year out the United States continues to lead the world in the number of deaths and injuries caused by guns by about six times to any comparable population. Uh huh. So you ARE using the same completely bull@!$%# assertions. Thanks, good to see you're incapable of learning from our previous exchanges.

One need look no further than Mexico to see the flaw in your argument.

Homicide rate per 100,000
United States: 4.55
Mexico: 17.8

Homicide committed with a firearm, rate per 100,000
United States: 2.97
Mexico (with strict gun control): 3.7

Of course, simple comparisons such as this leave out lots of variables which impact the numbers, as I've pointed out to you on a number of occasions, but sure-- why don't you just continue making your asinine assertions, regardless of whether they're supportable.

Legalization or decriminalization of drugs would do far more to lower homicide rates than gun control.

One need look no further than Mexico to see the flaw in your argument

Except that Mexico is an appendage of the United States in more ways than one...

Lol... In other words, you'll interpret anything in whatever way necessary to fit your thesis.

Despite your dissembling, your assertion is nevertheless rebutted.

Barry:

Why not approach this issue intelligently? Is the issue gun violence, or abrogation of a constitutional right?

If it is gun violence, there are many, many ways to address that, the actual issue, without abrogating a constitutional right. Why is it that people who wish to abrogate that right don't want to look at these solutions?

REally, why is that?

I suspect the real reason is that the folks who wish to abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms really don't give a damn about the "gun" violence, their goal is to abrogate the constitutional right.

This seems clear as those actions which would actually reduce gun violence as shown time and time again, are NOT being pursued (such as right to carry laws, castle laws, mandatory prison sentences of usage of a weapon in the commission of a crime, crach down on gangs, etc).

It really is strange, isn't it. In LA now there are, essentially, "police free" zones where gangs operate unfettered.

Great, eh?

iarnuocon

Lol... In other words, you'll interpret anything in whatever way necessary to fit your thesis.

Rather, you chose Mexico to fit your thesis ! LOL

Rather, you chose Mexico to fit your thesis I merely responded to your claim that America leads nations of its size (a pretty limited pool) in firearms deaths. Mexico is a suitable example to show that your assertion is bull@!$%#. I could have picked Russia.

Since America ranks so low in terms of intentional homicide, and is outstripped by numerous countries which have strict gun control, the inevitable conclusion is that you're simply wrong.

America's firearm homicide rate is about 3 per 100,000, which puts us firmly behind:

• Barbados
• Brazil
• Colombia
• Costa Rica
• Estonia
• Guatemala
• Mexico
• Northern Ireland
• Paraguay
• the Phillipines
• Russia
• South Africa
• Thailand
• Uruguay
• and Zimbabwe

It also puts us Just slightly worse than

• Argentina
• Azerbaijan
• the Czech Republic
• France
• Italy
• Latvia
• Macedonia
• Portugal
• Slovakia

But hey-- you keep on flogging your manufactured statistics. It's really getting you somewhere.

It really is strange, isn't it. In LA now there are, essentially, "police free" zones where gangs operate unfettered.

I dont know the operational reasons why police have cosen not to enter these zones perhaps it might be that there is such a prevalence of firearms it has become just too damm dangerous for them too. Perhaps someone clos to the LAPD could explain this to us...

iarnuocon

Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000

Japan 0.07
Singapore 0.24
Taiwan 0.27
Kuwait 0.37
England/ Wales 0.4
Scotland 0.49
Netherlands 0.55
Spain 0.74
Ireland 1.24
Germany 1.44
Italy 2.27
Sweden 2.27
Denmark 2.48
Israel 2.56
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94
Belgium 3.32
Canada 3.95
Norway 4.23
Austria 4.48
Northern Ireland 4.72
France 5.48
Switzerland 6.2
Finland 6.65
USA 13.47

Source: W. Cukier, Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International
Context, Chronic Diseases in Canada, April, 1998 (statistics updated
to reflect most recent figures, January 2001)
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/International.html

Iarnuocon

& here http://www.allcountries.org/gun_deaths_by_country.html

& here related to before and after Australia's gun buy-back scheme:

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/pdfs/2006_InjuryPrevent.pdf

Barry:

For whatever reason it is, I really don't care. The police have, essentially, just given up on attempting to curb crime, illegality in those areas.

Tell me, is that the kind of civilization in which we wish to live? Reminds me of those movies, Escape from NY, and Escape from LA. Is that what these cities will eventually become, walled off cities in which criminals rule the day and law enforcement won't even go in to try to keep order?

And folks believe the police will protect them? Not likely.

...

Hey Barry - Just a couple of observations...

From the guncontrol.ca site - For the US they chart uses the rate I then compared to the Bureau of Justice site (US) and found that for the year 1998, the rate for Murder is 4.1/100K, for 2001 3.9/100K. Not too sure where they got the data so I checked the source and found a http 404 error. A search on the site using the Author and Title of the document - no Joy. Movin' on...

From the allcountries.org site - below the table I found the following: Note: Figures are for the latest year reported. The years differ, depending on the State and on the type of death. The data are "as reported" in the survey. There are often differences in the way in which States compile statistics. International comparisons should therefore be made with caution. Ummm, not too sure how to take the data considering "there are often differences" How does one really make an accurate comparison between countries? ...at least using this data.

From the Australia site - From the data the trend was on a decline Pre-Law and continued Post-Law. Interesting that the Non-Firearm Homicide Death Rate increased during the same Pre-Law period and Post-Law appears to have leveled off and is dropping slightly. It appears that the law was in response to a 1996 Mass Killing in Tasmania. Their own conclusion states - ...law reforms were followed by a more than a decade free of fatal mass shooting. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides. Notice the key phrasing - may be.

Not too sure on the first two sources but the Autralia document bears some further analysis. The firearm homicide trend was dropping anyway and considering the spike in 1996, it appears they didn't let a good crises go to waste.

Thanks for the sources and take care, RR

Barry never makes comparisons with caution. It's something we've argued about for quite some time. He just blithely asserts things, and ignores anything which contradicts or casts doubts on his assertions.

As RR notes, the table you've recreated comes from a site that promotes gun control, and the figures they give for the United States are over-inflated compared to the actual figures given by the Department of Justice. Your site claims a rate of homicide by firearms of 6.24 per 100k, whereas the DOJ notes it at 4.1 per 100k for 1998. Current rate is 3.9 per 100k; up a tad from a low of 3.6. Looking at suicide by firearm for 2005 (the first year I could find figures for) the rate per 100k comes to 5.6, so their figures for suicide look a little suspect, as well. Of course, including suicide rates isn't exactly the best practice, since no one in their right mind would claim there wouldn't be a substitution effect if firearms weren't available.

But, surely, the COALITION for Gun Control wouldn't inflate the figures, would they? Sadly, the answer appears to be "yes."

I stand by what I said. Even if we include suicide rates to inflate the US numbers, the United States falls behind Russia, South Africa, Colombia, Thailand, Guatemala, Brazil, Mexico, the Phillipines, and Estonia; and is neck and neck with Argentina. If you look specifically at homicides committed with a firearm, we trail all those countries plus Paraguay, Northern Ireland, Zimbabwe; are neck and neck with Costa Rica, Barbados and Uruguay; and are within about 2 per 100,000 of Italy, Slovakia, Argentina, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, and Latvia... and those are only countries I have figures for. There are doubtless others for which figures are more difficult to arrive at.

So your bull@!$%# about the United States leading all countries in firearms deaths is simply that-- bull@!$%#. What you should have said is that the United States tops the list of a select number of countries picked specifically because they have lower rates, and using data which doesn't jibe with the self-reported rates by the governments of those countries.

But that doesn't carry quite the same punch, does it?

And just as an aside-- you might try picking figures that are less than a decade old. Or, conversely, for maximum rhetorical effect (not that educated people wouldn't see through it) use only figures from earlier than 1994-- that'll really goose the numbers.

In the meantime, consider this-- gun ownership in the US has continually risen over the last 15 years. Gun crimes, including murder and suicide, have dropped, however, over the same time period.

Gosh, how is that possible?!

He gave you four. But I'll add another one-- decriminalization/legalization of drugs.

Barry:

Gads, I have listed them numerous times, but here you go.

1. Legalize drugs.

2. Cause crimes committed with a firearm to receive a non parol sentence of at least fifteen (take your pick) years in jail. For example, you commit a burglary without a weapon, five years, you commit one with a weapon, you get 25 years, no parol.

3. If you are caught with an illegal firearm, ie you are a felon, you have a fully automatic weapon and no paperwork, you get much time in the slammer.

4. Have the federal government pass a right to carry law, and lobby for ALL states to have right to carry and castle laws.

5. Do a current review of existing "gun laws" in each state, those that are outdated, let them sunset, those that are not then begin to ENFORCE them.

6. Address gang violence through a compendium of the above, do not allow "police" free zones.

7. Address illegal immigration. If an illegal immigrant is caught with a firearm, immediate deportation, no ifs ands or buts.

the list can go on and on. Note, none of these would require additional "gun control" laws, but all would address gun violence.

Now, why don't politicians/police seek to actually institute laws that would actually reduce gun violence.

wmolaw

1. Your first idea has a lot of merit.

2. I think will you probably find that most crimes committed with a weapon already command higher prison sentences...

3. Again you will probably find that serious offenders are already given harsher sentences for possession of weapons by the judiciary..

4. THe castle law sounds good in theory. Those against would argue that it gives carte blanche right to murder someone who enters your property for any reason. Other argue that an intruder may well use deadly force first knowing that the owner occupier has the right to do the same...

5. Police departments and Justice authorities would already argue that it costs an awful lot of money and to monitor, to keep registers, and generally monitor firearms at the same time giving the right to all citizens to possess and own them in the dynamic environment that the public, law enforcment and weapons exist...

6. Police may well argue that they have a right to self-preservation and entering areas that are like law-less war zones because of the proliferation of weapons drugs and a gang culture is a no-win situation for them.

7. I understand that there are 30 million plus Americans that have not yet gained American Citizenship. Making laws that discriminate against citizens many of whom have been settled in the US for 10-20-30 years would probably be unconstitutional.

Now, why don't politicians/police seek to actually institute laws that would actually reduce gun violence. Well they probably do and it goes to my earlier point that an awful lot of resources go into gun control at the same times as giving people the right to own and possess a firearm. Tho whole thing just becomes too hard and difficult.

Barry:

If you are an illegal in the USA, you have no constitutional right to carry a firearm. Period. What's so tough about that.

Most jurisdictions, even if they have enhanced sentences for commission of a crime with a firearm a) do not abide by them in sentencing, b) the DA's do not enforce them (because of plea deals due to docket overcrowding). Many, however, do not have them. And if they do, they are certainly not draconion or certain enough to act as a deterrent. Admittedly, this ties in with my number 1 as the dockets and prisons are so crowded due to the presence of non violent drug offenders that it stretches the ability of the court and prisons to handle what they have to handle.

As to the policeman's "right to self preservation." Sorry, that's bull@!$%#. Cops are paid to put their lives on the line and to maintain order. Moreover, if those areas are truly that dangerous, truly that lawless, then call in the National Guard and clean them out. To allow them to continue, to grow, is truly bizarre and against everything the "rule of law" stands for.

Castle laws are good, see those states that have enacted them. Look, generally it is the law abiding citizens who are protecting themselves, their family, their property. I am not aware of any random killings just because a kid was walking through a yard. But, if there are excesses and can be shown there was no threat (such as a kid walking through a yard) then fine, prosecute them. That's what we have DA's for.

My point is simple, one with which you seem to agree. Given that there is NO WAY that criminals will merely turn in guns because of another law passed, then other avenues must be researched/implemented to address gun violence.

wmolaw

perhaps the top priority for gun policy is to close the gaping loophole in the current system which allows/exempts private sales of guns. Because they are unable to conduct a background check on the purchaser.

I understand the Castle laws are implemented in many states already through case law. Prescribing legislation for the castle laws would limit the discretion that courts currently follow when they determine a case individually on prior case law cases...

Barry:

Stare Decis is never, ever as good as statutory law, period. To make it statutory would not, in any way, reduce the discretion the courts have. Incidentally, it really ain't the courts as much as it is the DA.

How can you possibly, ever, prevent private gun sales? First you would have to register every gun in this country. Then you would have to constantly monitor and spot check each owner's array of weapons to be sure they still have what they said they have (even if that was correct).

Just ain't gonna happen.

How can you possibly, ever, prevent private gun sales? First you would have to register every gun in this country. Then you would have to constantly monitor and spot check each owner's array of weapons to be sure they still have what they said they have (even if that was correct).

Well this is the point if anyone can aquire a gun then requiring gun dealers to be the only one to conduct background checks makes a mockery of the attempt by authorities to ensure that those that are responsible enough to own and posssess a firearm...

Barry:

HUH? If you have a quality background check, then the person purchasing the weapon is a law abiding citizen, eh?

You know, one of the things I did not list was that "privacy" laws would be altered so that information about an individual which would otherwise not be able to be accessed would be part of the database which is searched in background checks for the purchase of guns.

This would include mental health history, juvenile history, etc.

That would assist in making certain the person purchasing the gun is truly a law abiding citizen and not a "threat" to others.

A simple cost benefit analysis or even a sophisticated one shows that the so called right to own a gun comes at a very high cost to all Americans whether your a direct victim, a freind relative, or a taxpayer.

Can you explain this?

I'll give you a source to read up for yourself. The paper has links to other sources which answers the other the questions you have posed to me... any issues please get back to me..

here: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1214

Barry

Valid measures of macro-level gun levels are essential to assessing the impact of gun levels on crime and violence rates, yet almost all prior research on this topic uses proxies that are either invalid or whose validity has been assumed rather than demonstrated. The present study uses city, state, cross-national, and time series data to assess the criterion validity of over two dozen gun indicators. The criterion measures used are primarily direct survey measures of household gun prevalence. The results indicate that (1) most measures used in past research have poor validity, making past findings uninterpretable, (2) the best measure for cross-sectional research is the percentage of suicides committed with guns, and (3) there are no known measures that are valid indicators of trends in gun levels, making credible longitudinal research on the subject impossible at present.

Kleck, G.; Measures of Gun Ownership Levels for Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research; Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 41, No. 1, 3-36 (2004)

Cross-national studies show that the quality of a government—as reflected in the efficiency and reliability of its criminal justice institutions and the existence of programs that provide economic safety nets—is associated with lower rates of homicide.36–38 In Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, for example, one study concluded that dissatisfaction with the police, the justice system, and prisons increased the use of unofficial modes of justice.39 In the United States, these institutions are often taken for granted, but in examining the problem of violence globally, one becomes increasingly aware that these institutions are the first line of defense against higher rates of interpersonal and collective violence. From the perspective of violence prevention, maintaining a fair and efficient criminal justice system and basic supports for individuals and families in dire economic circumstances should remain an important priority in the United States.

...One risk factor that appears to be universally associated with interpersonal and collective violence is income inequality.36,42 Poverty itself does not appear to be consistently associated with violence, but the juxtaposition of extreme poverty with extreme wealth appears to be a key ingredient in the recipe for violence. Given that income inequality has been growing in recent decades in many wealthy countries, it may be wise to closely examine its potential contribution to higher rates of violence in the United States and be more proactive in finding strategies to reduce its influence on violence.

Mercy, J, et al; Violence and Health: The United States in a Global Perspective ; American Journal of Public Health 256-261; February 2003, Vol 93, No. 2

In other words, there are lots of factors that you and the studies you consistently cite fail to take into consideration, always. Rational people, seeing both the sparsity of data upon which you build your conclusions and the variety of cultural and economic influences on violence, will take your conclusions with a rather large grain of salt.

It's not nearly the black and white issue that you make it out to be, and your failure to account for the huge numbers of positive outcomes of defensive gun use in your "economic" argument against gun ownership renders your conclusions on the subject moot.

Lord Fluffy

Here is another worth the look it highlights the costs in particular on young people in their prime which is another major public policy issue for the US.

Gun Violence

By Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig