----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Forster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:06 AM
Subject: gun control (newbie)
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Science has a new Martyr (and a newbie)
> >
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm Dean Forster,
> >
> > Welcome. Since you've been here a while, you should
> > know what happens when
> > you post. <grin>
>
> heheh, thanks.
>
> > > on to the thread-
> > >
> > > I find it really disturbing that people take it
> > for
> > > granted that it's wrong to defend yourself in
> > general,
> > > and especially so if you're using a gun.
> >
> > That's not really the argument. I would consider,
> > for example, a policeman
> > who returned fire and killed someone firing at him
> > fully justified in his
> > actions. The question at hand is not whether using
> > force in self defense is
> > wrong, its whether the proliferation of guns
> > contributes to the murder rate.
>
> Okay, i was making a leap- ie, there is no reason for
> guns in the hands of civilians, which is wrong imho.
Actually, I do not advocate confiscation of guns. I advocate licensing of
all gun ownership, including mandatory gun safety. I have no problems with
the gun owners like the hunters I knew when I grew up: who have their rifles
locked up in one place, and the bullets in another. I am bothered by the
folks I know who bought a gun, loaded it, put it in their bedside drawer,
and thought they were protecting themselves.
> Self defense is the reason.
Well, the number of times that this happens is very small. In 1999, there
were about 400,000 instances of robbery, but only 188 instances of
justifiable homicide. I'll grant you that most of the time the perp is not
killed when the victim uses a gun in self defense. But, with two people
with weapons out on the opposite sides of a robbery, the chance of one of
them getting shot is certainly better than 1 in 100. I'd guess that, if self
defense with a weapon were an investigated category, roughly 25% of the time
the robbery victim would die, roughly 10% the perp would die, and roughly
65%, they both would live. That is a guess based on listening to regular
news reports on armed robbery of stores.
One does need to remember, that less than half a percent of robberies end up
with the victim dead.
Less than a twentieth of a percent ends with the perp dead. These numbers
are much worse than
>The high murder rate is a symptom of the way criminals do business in the
US.
I think that you are making a massive assumption here. First let me clarify
some of the statistics I used. There is a large number of unsolved murders:
responsible for virtually all of about 27% of all murders. I assume, with
73% sampling of known causes that the 27% will follow the same pattern as
the 73%. You appear to assume that all of the unknowns fall into the felon
category or murders associated with felonious associations.
But, if you look closer at the statistics, you will see that the number of
unknowns perpetrators is higher than the number of unknown types. A person
shot during a robbery by an unknown assailant does go into the associated
with a felony category. But, a person will not go into the "killed by a
family member" category without the family member being identified. So, it
would seem that using the same distribution is conservative.
> Proliferation is to blame in small part, but it's all
> about the 'nut behind the wheel', as my old boss used
> to say. The proliferation of guns is unavoidable in a
> capitalist country where they are legal- they are very
> durable goods, so the old ones don't get worn out-
> they stay.
But, they are legal in other countries, they are just regulated. We are not
the only capitalistic country in the world. By requiring registration and
training of our citizens and controlling the sale of guns, we can at least
decrease the problem of the loaded pistol in the drawer. There is a large
fraction of our population with violent tendencies and there is physical
abuse in a significant fraction of our families. IIRC, 10%-20%. These
violent people are typically not folks who make their income through crime.
Rather, they come from all walks of life. I'd argue that these folks are a
likely source for the people who kill in a middle of an argument.
>There really isn't a happy medium unfortunately, but it's a price that we
must pay.
For what? What aspect of the US culture/lifestyle that is advantageous in
comparison to the rest of the world is dependant on the saturation of the
society with guns?
> trade in progs are good imho, btw. =)
>
> >
> > > That you would somehow promote the safety and
> > welfare of others
> > > by allowing an aggressor to accomplish whatever
> > end
> > > they have in mind instead of standing up for what
> > is
> > > right.
> >
> > There are indeed pacifists. Many are pacifists due
> > to religious reasons As a
> > Christian, I'm not a pacifist, but I am a bit
> > troubled by the inconsistency
> > between my non-pacifistic nature and the literal
> > interpretations of the
> > teachings of Jesus. Since I'm not a literalist, I'm
> > not that troubled, but
> > I do admit that I worry about justifying of the use
> > of lethal force.
> >
>
> I surely don't ever want to have the blood of another
> human being on my hands, i'm not sure i could
> continue. but as a society and a country, i think it
> would be a mistake to legislate away the option to
> defend yourself with adequate force.
>
Well, I wouldn't make self defense illegal. But, I'm looking at what will
lower the probability of victims dying. I'll be happy to not include the
less than 200 perps who die in the equation.
> >
> > > When a concealed carry law is passed in the States
> > violent crime *drops*
> > there.
> >
> > Right, and they also drop in neighboring states that
> > don't pass the law.
> > Violent crime rates have been dropping across the
> > board during the last
> > decade, so one cannot attribute the drop in a state
> > that passed the law to
> > the law. One needs to show that, in areas that do
> > pass the law, that the
> > rates drop faster and that the rates go below those
> > of states that don't
> > pass the law. For example, Minnesota doesn't allow
> > concealed handguns and
> > doesn't have the death penalty. Texas allows
> > concealed handguns and executes
> > more people than the rest of the US combined, IIRC.
> > Yet, Texas's murder rate
> > is more than twice that of Minnesota. The causality
> > just isn't shown, IMHO.
>
> I know, you can slice statistics any way you want. I
> need to find an impartial source-
The FBI's uniform crime report doesn't sound like a liberally rag to me. :-)
> Minnesota is so sleepy and rural,
Have you even been to Minnesota? Goodness, Prince comes from and lives
there. It's night life is better than Houston's.
>you'll find that the related figures on crime were lower in relation
>already as compared to Texas before it got it's ccw laws on the books.
Right, and Texas didn't drop in response.
> CCW laws are only going to give the
> law abiding populace more options to protect
> themselves, they're not going to slow down the general
> crime rate that abruptly in the rather extreme case of
> Texas.
>
They are also going to have minimally trained individuals making split
second life and death decisions. You know that a significant fraction of
these folks will pack heat while drinking....with the number of alcoholics
around.
> >
>
> Some are like that, the young and stupid. most are
> career who *do* make risk assesments.
There are more murders committed by people 21 and under than 30 and older.
The median age for a murderer appears to be a young 25.
>I just can't swallow that rolling over and giving up is the way to go.
that's what generations of >Japanese and other Asian cultures have told
their women when they are
> being raped, just let it happen. What do we tell women in western
society?
> we can agree to disagree on that, unless we have
> someone in the law enforcement community here?
Well, I have a wife who use to work in incest and abuse and has had contact
with the rape prevention professionals.
> I guarantee you that the vast majority of the family
> murders were by prior criminals for whom it's illegal
> to have a gun in the first place.
Could you please provide a source on that?
>Of that 26%, i'd be surprised if as much as half was a straight out
> domestic dispute and didn't already involve criminal
> activity. I see that only slightly over 50% are other
> than felony, meaning that there wasn't already a
> felony going on when the murder occured.
But, as I said, I quoted the numbers of know situations. You do appear to
assume that unknowns fit in the felony category. Why? Doesn't the empty
cash register at a store put it in the felony category, even if the murderer
wasn't found.
>And over 25% are unknown- this fbi report has a lot of unknown and
> other, which annoys me.
Well, a lot of murders aren't solved. What are they supposed to do in those
cases?
>74% of the murders by these statistics are by non-family, meaning that it's
> *absolutely* not domestic violence.
But, a number of these are acquaintances and friends. The real question is
why do Americans murder at a far higher rate than Europeans...when the
robbery and rape rates are much closer. IIRC, the overall violent crime
rate in London is higher than New York, but the New York murder rate is much
higher.
> correct me if i'm wrong, but you are saying that the
> people at large aren't responsible enough to have a
> gun around?
I'm saying that guns increase the probability of murder while having a
minimal effect on the violent crime. In particular, handguns have little
use but to kill people. The proliferation of handguns is associated with
the high murder rate, IMHO.
>how about something slightly less dangerous? or one
>step less dangerous than that? We can't go down that path,
>we'll all end up mewling morons sealed in hypo-allergenic
>bubbles before long.
Are all the countries with tougher gun laws full of mewling morons? I'm
advocating a cost-benefit analysis and gun control. Personally, I think
there is a correlation between daddy owning a handgun that he carelessly
leaves in his bedside drawer and junior taking a handgun to school for
protection. My daughter's jr. high in an upscale neighborhood had 3
handguns found in a partial locker search a few years ago.
On the other hand, a kid who's dad has a hunting rifle, that he locks up
when not in use and who lets him hunt with dad after taking gun safety and
after getting more lectures from dad after is not likely to take the rifle
to school for protection. Hunters that I know have only offered minimal
arguments when I pushed requiring gun safety as a prerequisite for
ownership. Few really believe that we'll have a totalitarian government
imposed on us, with only our guns to save us.
> People have to take personal responsibility and
> improve themselves. Rob made an excellent point about
> men's anger management courses - though i cringe at
> the fact that so many people have to take a class in
> behaving themselves. it seems so fundamental to me.
There are a lot of people who have serious difficulties
> > But, the rate of stealing in Britain is as high or
> > higher than the US. If
> > it is the direct result of stealing,
>
> I only included theft as a caveat, junkies generally
> are not violent afaik.
>
> > then why is the
> > ratio of
> > murder/theft-robbery-etc. so much higher in the US
> > than in Britain. Why are
> > only 24% of murders that we can categorize
> > associated with felonies?
>
> they're more, see above
I saw it, and I strongly differ with your assumptions. I hate to get on my
high horse about it, but I used standard techniques of statistical analysis.
:-)
> I made the original argument that the majority of
> murders in the US are due to organized criminal
> activity.
> This is true by these statistics. of the
> 12,658 murders in the US in 99, 6,678 were other than
> felony.
and about 3500 were just unknown. I'd argue that a murder in the middle of
a felony is easier to attribute to a source than any other type of murder
where the murderer is unknown. So, my assumption that the breakdown of
unknown causes is the same as the known causes is probably generous towards
murders while committing a felon. I cannot see how you justify lumping all
of them in that category. I'd honestly be interested in a reason for this.
> of those, 695 were gang killings. 3,391 were
> 'other' arguments- I seriously doubt these were
> average citizens who just didn't get along.
>
Included in those arguments, remember, are arguments between relatives. You
seriously doubt that they were average citizens. Well, in some ways you are
right. The average citizen will not commit murder. But, people who appear
to be average citizens before they do it will. I'm sure that people with
drinking problems, abusive spouses, etc. are much more likely to commit
murder.
One more point here. You seemed to indicate that an abusive spouse is
probably a convicted criminal. Most aren't. My wife did her master's
thesis on the correlation between the financial resources available to a
woman victim and her returning to her spouse, so I know a bit about this.
> All of this isn't that important in the larger scheme
> of things in any case. We have to fix the people
> instead of taking away their toys.
It is very hard to fix all people. It is much easier to decrease the damage
they can do.
You can't just
> close your eyes and will away the violent side of
> human nature. You have to face it and deal with it.
>
Are Americans inherently more violent, or do they have a situation where it
is easier for a person's violent nature to spiral out of control?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
