Jack-booted thugs

[KeithK]

OK, Ben thanks for the post.  I'll preface my comment by stating that I've only read the abstract and quickly scanned the body.

Conclusions ... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

I'll accept for the sake of argument that the study demonstrates a substantially increased risk of in home homicide as a consequence of gun ownership.  I take exception, however, with the statement "rather than confer protection".  In my admittedly cursory reading I didn't see any attempt to quantify the benefits of gun ownership in terms of protection or anything else.  drawing a conclusion about the relative costs and benefits requires quantifying both.  My guess is that the study authors take it as a given that there is little benefit to gun ownership (the government will protect you) and therefore believe that any statistical evidence showing increased risk of homicide demonstrates that gun ownership is a net negative.  I do not agree with this view - I believe that the material and emotional benefits of gun ownership for protection can be substantial and over ride the risks.

Lots of things in life are dangerous but provide benefits as well. These things should not be outlawed unless there is a substantial mismatch between benefit and risk.  In my mind, the benefits of excercising ones fundamental right of self-defense easily outweigh the risks inherent with gun ownership.

[ugarte]

[quote krose]

"The risk of a gun accident is extremely low, even among defensive gun owners, except among a very small, identifiably high-risk subset of the population.

...you might have a case for outlawing private swimming pools...[/quote]
First, what is the "identifiably high-risk subset?

Second, that stupid chapter almost made me through Freakonomics out of the window. That book was half insightful and half insanely stupid.

[Rosey]

[quote ugarte]First, what is the "identifiably high-risk subset?[/quote]
I don't know; I didn't read the reference.

Second, that stupid chapter almost made me through Freakonomics out of the window. That book was half insightful and half insanely stupid.

Sorry, I must have missed something here; what are you referring to?

Kyle

[ugarte]

[quote krose]Sorry, I must have missed something here; what are you referring to?[/quote]There was a chapter in Freakonomics along the lines of "a gun in your home is less dangerous than a swimming pool in your yard."

To skip the step where you ask me why the comparison is a non-sequitir, while the stats are probably true in terms of number of related injuries/deaths per house with pool/gun, it isn't comparing apples to apples. For instance there are probably more car-related injuries than either pool or gun, but it wouldn't make sense to say that we should be banning cars*, not guns. There are probably far fewer injuries per use of the pool than to use of gun, so while the study accounted for the risks of pool/gun ownership, it didn't address quantifiable benefits of either.

I don't pretend that this addresses your philosophical argument in favor of gun control, just the shaky statistical logic of Freakonomics. (We can leave the philosophcal debate at "you are a gun crazed wacko who is tilting at windmills" vs. "you are a liberal pussy in thrall to a despotic government." Even on JSID this is a hockey blog and I don't care that much about debating gun control.)

*For the love of Dryden, please don't let this drift into a jeremiad against the evils of a car-based society. I agree with you, OK?

[Rosey]

[quote ugarte][quote krose]Sorry, I must have missed something here; what are you referring to?[/quote]There was a chapter in Freakonomics along the lines of "a gun in your home is less dangerous than a swimming pool in your yard."

To skip the step where you ask me why the comparison is a non-sequitir, while the stats are probably true in terms of number of related injuries/deaths per house with pool/gun, it isn't comparing apples to apples.[/quote]
To be clear, I was just being snide, so I'll let the rest of this go.  You are probably literally correct, but being correct wasn't the point of my statement. ;-)

Kyle

[DeltaOne81]

Frankly, Kyle - with all due respect cause you're a nice guy - I still have no idea what your point is. Its pretty hard to argue against when you don't seem to be saying anything concrete.

The idea that protection is a natural right is all well and good, but it seems to be to be more of a belief, or even a faith, than anything approaching a fact. I take no issue with it generally (except for maybe ugarte's point that "natural right" is a confusing if not oxymoronic concept), but it could never be disproved - its simply a matter of opinion - no one is 'right', and no one will 'win'.

You said you do not feel that people who don't want to own guns should anyway (could you parse that? ). So what's the practical point? Even a non-practical one? We already have a right to ownership in this country, we have a right to protect ourselves with arms if we so chose. I believe its a choice people should have the right to make for themselves, and I haven't heard anyone really yet disagree (maybe Ben does, but hasn't yet explicitly).

So I ask, what's the point you're trying to make here? What argument are you trying to make 'win'?

[KeithK]

We really should restrict driving in this country.  As someone who grew in NYC I know you can easily live without a car if our communities were set up properly.  Outlaw suburban communities.  Force everyone to live in buildings that are a minimum of three stories.  Mandate high density residences that allow intelligent planning of mass tr... Oh, sorry Charles. :-D

[jtwcornell91]

Your argument has become tiresome ... Now ve must dance!

[Tom Lento]

[quote krose]
Note the 600 total accidental gun deaths in 2000.  Homicides in 2000 come out to 15,586 on their own, and this doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of maimings, rapes (over 90,000 instances reported), muggings, and other violent crimes.[/quote]

I would like to point out that both of you have abused statistical data in support of your respective positions, I'll pick on Kyle because I've known him for a long time, and he should really know better.

This guncite.com table is one of the most egregious examples of meaningless numbers used to support a point that I've ever seen, and if I were still teaching Soc 101 I'd dig it out and put it up in lecture to demonstrate how to lie with statistics, and (more importantly) how to spot people who are doing it.  

The numbers here are not normalized, and are therefore totally meaningless.  Without looking it up I'm perfectly comfortable asserting that FAR more people in the U.S. ride in cars, swim in pools, walk around, and ingest things than own or use guns, so it's highly likely that the rate of death per gun user is far closer to the rate of death per .  It isn't even like the numbers are so dramatically different that the gun death rate MUST be lower.  If 1 million people use guns, and 250 million people ride in automobiles in a given year, then the accidental death rate due to guns is MUCH larger than the accidental death rate due to automobiles (150,000 per 250 million for guns vs 43,000 per 250 million for autos). This is probably not the case, but it's worth pointing out that it's impossible to attach any significance to these numbers if you're interpreting them responsibly.

[Rosey]

[quote DeltaOne81]Frankly, Kyle - with all due respect cause you're a nice guy - I still have no idea what your point is. Its pretty hard to argue against when you don't seem to be saying anything concrete.[/quote]
I'm arguing against the knee-jerk responses that "guns are bad" or "all guns should be outlawed" or "letting people carry around guns is idiotic" or "we need common-sense gun control (because all the failed gun control we currently have clearly argues for more)".   My basic point is that guns are indispensable tools and that attempts to restrict them to pretty much any degree will result in more violence, less personal safety, the increasingly asymmetric availability of force to and use of force by thugs (whether criminal or government), and less liberty.

The idea that protection is a natural right is all well and go, but it seems to be to be more of a belief, or even a faith, than anything approaching a fact. I take no issue with it generally (except for maybe ugarte's point that "natural right" is a silly if not oxymoronic concept),

By "natural right," I mean only those things you can do in a state of nature, i.e. a state in which some third-party isn't arbitrarily putting limits on your behavior.  As it applies here, in such a state you can own and carry a gun anywhere you don't have an agreement not to.  This is a pretty well-defined concept that is explained reasonably well on Wikipedia.

We already have a right to ownership in this country, we have a right to protect ourselves with arms if we so chose.

Tell that to the people in NYC who are restricted even from possessing guns in their own homes.  Tell that to the people in may-issue CCW states (like NY, CA, and MA) who have had permit applications denied for no reason other than the chief of police or other issuing authority simply doesn't think plebes should carry guns.  Tell that to the people in IL and WI who have no ability to CCW legally.  Unless you are home-bound, it is simply not sufficient to allow possession only in the home.

Have you taken a look at the ridiculous restrictions on CCW in some states?  E.g., in GA it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon into any establishment that serves alcohol.  While it's probably a good idea not to run around drunk with a gun, the blanket restriction keeps you from going to the local restaurant at lunch for a burger, even if you have no intention of drinking.  In MA, there is a restriction on carrying at a "public gathering."  Does that include a mall?  A theater?  Harvard Square?  Who knows; the courts haven't defined it!  How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?  IMO, the two are mutually exclusive.

As far as I am concerned, there is no right to do something if you have to apply for permission to do it.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Beeeej]

[quote krose]How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?[/quote]

Guess we'll be getting rid of those pesky driving tests now.

[Rosey]

[quote Tom Lento][quote krose]
Note the 600 total accidental gun deaths in 2000.  Homicides in 2000 come out to 15,586 on their own, and this doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of maimings, rapes (over 90,000 instances reported), muggings, and other violent crimes.[/quote]

I would like to point out that both of you have abused statistical data in support of your respective positions, I'll pick on Kyle because I've known him for a long time, and he should really know better.[/quote]
I think the problem here is that I included the whole table, instead of just the row of interest (the firearms row).  The point I made in the second-level quote above has absolutely nothing to do with the "per-capita" or "per-unit-of-time" issue you point out.  I agree with you on that point, which is why I said my remark about the swimming pools was snide.

I would point out, however, that more than half of all homes in the US have at least one gun, which is a much higher percentage than those that own private swimming pools.  Who knows, however, what percentage have guns that are readily accessible to unsupervised children, so I can't draw any further conclusions.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Rosey]

[quote Beeeej][quote krose]How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?[/quote]

Guess we'll be getting rid of those pesky driving tests now.[/quote]
Two responses:

(1) If parents were properly held responsible for the behavior of their children, this would be a non-issue (and would solve lots of other problems at the same time).  As long as the kids know how to drive before they get behind the wheel by themselves, the test means nothing because they would have acquired their license anyway.

(2) Who most often enforces the must-have-license-to-drive restriction?  Presumably the owner of the car, because I've only ever been pulled over 3 times (and gotten a ticket once) in 13 years of driving and I drive like my gas pedal has two positions: off and floor.  So, if the owner of the car is most often the one enforcing this restriction, why can't he or she simply make sure a person knows how to drive before allowing them to use the car?  Why does the gub'mint need to be involved at all?

Cheers,
Kyle

[KeithK]

[quote krose]As far as I am concerned, there is no right to do something if you have to apply for permission to do it.[/quote]I don't have a problem with gun licensing schemes that follow the shall issue model.  It's certainly in society's interest to insure that those who have forfeited their rights (i.e. felons) do not obtain weaponry. The small burden of applying for a license seems reasonable (setting aside issues about gun ownership databases, etc.)  The shall issue model presumes that individuals are responsible enough to own a weapon unless their past record indicates otherwise.  My problem is with may-issue where the decision is left to the subjective whim of the issueing authority.

[KeithK]

[quote Beeeej][quote krose]How can there be a presumption that you are irresponsible in a free society?[/quote]

Guess we'll be getting rid of those pesky driving tests now.[/quote]There's a big difference between driving on public roads (privilege) and bearing arms (constitutional and fundamental right).  Aside from that, I think it's generally understood that if you show basic competence behind the wheel you will be issued a driver license, essentially in perpetuity. There's much less risk of being denied a driver license due to the subjective opinions of the tester and people do complain in those cases (or jurisdictions) where this does tend to occur.

I wouldn't have much a problem in principle with requiring basic gun competence.  I would have a problem if the test were in any way subjective because it would be used by officials to restrict gun ownership.