(no subject)

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Arguments about gun control invariably center around two areas - the Constitutional component and the public health and safety component.

The Constitutional piece, while far more interesting to me, is the easier of the two. The 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well, the first thing I notice when I read this is that if it were handed in to a high school professor, this sentence would probably be highlighted in red marker with a note reading "Mr. Madison, see me after class." The language and vernacular has changed, and arguments about whether the first clause indicate a restriction of who's allowed to own guns don't really hold water. In the vernacular of the time it was written, that prefatory clause is indicative of an example of the right's context, rather than a condition of the right. You're also seemingly allowed to use commas with reckless disregard for the public good.

Arguments to the effect that the founders didn't foresee modern weapons are similarly irrelevant. You don't lose your right to free speech because you're spouting your opinion in the Internet, and you (mostly) don't lose your right to protection from illegal search and seizure because modern search technology involves through the wall heat sensors, electronic surveillance or remote sensing satellites.

Arguments about modifications of the granted right lead directly into the "public good" component of the argument. The first amendment is just as direct, but over time, abridgments to the complete freedom of speech have been held to be constitutional in instances where complete FoS is not in the public good. Libel, obscenity laws, truth in advertising, imminent lawless action, and other special cases all modify a blanket license for FoS. Similarly, I'm of the opinion that there are reasonable limits on access to gun ownership, as long as the public good is established.

Before we dive into this section, it's important to ask 3 questions
- How many gun deaths are there in the US every year?
- How many of those are criminal in nature as opposed to accidents or suicide?
- How many incidents occur where someone defends themselves with a gun every year in the US?

If you don't know the answers to those questions without looking them up, you do not have an informed opinion on the public health component of the argument.

The answers, btw are:
- About 30k
- Less than half
- It's really hard to get good stats - anywhere between 600k and 2.4m incidents. (Source: search Google on "DGU" or Defensive gun use" *)

My stance is that while gun violence is a real problem, most currently proposed gun control measures are not going to substantively reduce crime, AND they will reduce an individuals ability to defend themselves. (When you prepare your counter argument, put yourself in the place of a 90 lb woman defending themselves against a rapist or an elderly person defending themselves against a violent mugging. You're not Brock Lesnar defending himself against a pickpocket.) Additionally, recent studies which compare crime rates in communities which have lax CCW regulations to those that restrict CCW's indicate that the effect that knowing a potential victim could be carrying might serve to lower the crime rate.

I'd like to address some known rebuttals at this point:
- "X country has gun control and their crime rates/suicide rates are better/worse than the US." I don't believe that cross cultural comparisons are sufficient to rebut the issue about self defense. Finland has a much lower gun ownership rate and a much higher suicide rate (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html and other sources). Other countries have different constellations of gun ownership and violence rates. Factors other than gun ownership rates contribute more to crime/gun violence/suicide rates than simple gun ownership does. Therefore, if you are trying to control gun ownership rates at a macro level, you are not actually working to reduce crime/violence/suicide.
- "Nobody needs a gun that can [fire rapidly/shoot big bullets/looks ugly]." Good point but irrelevant. Nobody NEEDS these things, but the role of government isn't to prohibit anything people don't NEED, particularly if it reduces their ability to defend themselves.
- "Reckless/stupid people will get guns and use them inappropriately". Good point. I'm ok with an educational requirement for gun ownership, but not an outright prohibition as DC had for many years.

Lastly, if you're in favor of prohibiting guns entirely, let me know if you're also in favor of prohibiting alcohol entirely. Alcohol causes more deaths per year, is essentially a recreational product, and nobody's ever fought off an attacker with a Tom Collins.

* Don't ask for my sources if you don't want to hear "Do a Google search for X". I didn't do any complicated research - it's all available if you want to look for it.

EDIT: Restrictions I'm ok with:
- Gun registration doesn't bother me too much. Most of the cops I know feel its a useful investigatory tool
- 5 day waiting period doesn't bother me too much, but I would be happier if there was a waiver for someone demonstrating an urgent cause (protection order where they're in fear for their life.)
- Felons can't have guns. I'm ok with that. You've already demonstrated that you have bad judgment.
- I'm ok with certain kinds of firearms being restricted. Your ability to cause mayhem with a bazooka and endanger the public good exceeds my admittedly hazy line about your right to recreational devices.

I'm sure there's more that I'm not presently thinking of.

Comments

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Lastly, if you're in favor of prohibiting guns entirely ...

I run in some pretty liberal circles and I have NEVER met someone who is for this. I would like to know if anyone is this forum thinks this. It just seem like something people bring up to put these images in people's minds of liberals "talking your guns away" -

I have some answers to other things you posted that I'll address later.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I'm kinda torn on gun control. On one hand I'm from a family of hunters so I generally oppose most forms of gun control. On the other I moved to NY a couple of years ago. It's VERY hard to get a gun here, and after dealing with certain people day in and day out I'm glad they can't get a gun so easily. Now and then I hear of robbery attempts with crowbars and the like and it kinda makes me laugh.

What I'd like to know is what impact New York's strict gun control laws have had on their crime rate, if any.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

The DC gun ban tried to do exactly that with the exception of grandfathered weapons and police weapons.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

[technocratic.livejournal.com]

I support an educational requirement for gun ownership and ammunition purchase. I grew up in Oklahoma with a grandfather who introduced me to the safe and responsible use of firearms (under extremely close supervision) from the age of 9 or 10.

In this modern age, that kind of experience is increasingly rare. Without training or previous experience, a person with a gun is a danger to themselves and others. I believe some formalized training should be required, as is already required in some states to hunt or carry a concealed weapon (actually, I think it's required in all/most states for concealed weapons).

[contrachamp.livejournal.com]

recent studies which compare crime rates in communities which have lax CCW regulations to those that restrict CCW's indicate that the effect that knowing a potential victim could be carrying might serve to lower the crime rate.


Really? I've read in the Boston Globe of a study showing that gun owners are more likely to get shot than those who don't. It may have to do with gun owners going into dangerous situations they wouldn't go into without a gun.

Violent crime has declined in the US over the last few decades, and the rates of gun ownership have dovetailed down with it. I'm not convinced that gun ownership reduces crime.

[contrachamp.livejournal.com]

That's just it. Gun restrictions are good in cities, but not so good in the countryside.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

re: para 1. I think it has more to do with the fact that poor people are more likely to a) get shot, and b) try to own a gun to protect themselves.

re: CCW - do a google search on "ccw lower crime rates"

I had the impression that ownership rates are increasing, but if you have something contrary, please post it. I must have missed that trend.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"Gun restrictions are good in cities, "

Please document. It didn't work for DC and many other cities like it.

Overall, I think it's extremely difficult to parse out GC as a significant separate component of crime reduction as opposed to increased police presence, differences in enforcement policy, and overall poverty rate.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Hmm I thought you live in NYC?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

You mean NYC cause you drive 2 hours out of NYC and you can see people walking around with guns.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that if you are an adult of sound mind and body and without a criminal record, you should be able to own a gun in the US.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

It also pays to remember that at the time, militia and even the military required recruits to own and maintain their own weapons.

Self defense isn't an argument unless the person knows how to use the weapon properly. A .22 stuffed in a purse is as useless as the purse in defending yourself. In this sense there is no upside, it tends to give only a false sense of security while risking theft or misuse of the weapon. So I am in favor of mandatory gun and self-defense training in public high school. Guns are here to stay, it only makes sense that people know how to use them.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I think the constitutional issue is more complicated than you give it credit for. The other amendments of the Bill of Rights do not state rationale or possible contexts in which the right might be asserted. The fact that the Framers felt the need to involve a contextual example or justification for this seems significant, at least to me. I don't find it worth handwaving away all that easily. A lot of the drafters were lawyers or at least familiar with the canons of construction, and thus would have been aware of "expresio unius est exclusio alterius" (to express one is to exclude others, or the general principle that by specifying one scenario in legislation, they are excluding others from consideration).

Still, it's probably the less important constitutional issue I can think of. Strangely, I'm more worried these days by interesting interpretations of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment...

You also didn't address the availability and effectiveness of non-lethal means of self-defense (Tazers, Mace, and the like). I'd like to know how these affect the self-defense argument, if at all. Obviously many cases will require the range and accuracy of a gun, but what proportion? Does this proportion justify the increased risk that wide availability of guns poses?

Finally, minor logical quibble:
Factors other than gun ownership rates contribute more to crime/gun violence/suicide rates than simple gun ownership does. Therefore, if you are trying to control gun ownership rates at a macro level, you are not actually working to reduce crime/violence/suicide.
This statement is not consistent. If gun ownership has *any* impact on crime, violence or suicide, then addressing it is "working to reduce crime/violence/suicide." You assert that other things are more likely to produce the problems complained of. While that may make gun control a less efficient means of controlling violence, it doesn't render it 100% toothless, or the actions of those working for it somehow invalid or disingenuous.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Really? Bazookas are fair game? Ex-felons are cool? No requirement on training?

(Not challenging, just clarifying.)

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"I think the constitutional issue is more complicated than you give it credit for. " Absolutely - I was deliberately simplifying, but I don't see a clear way to find a middle ground between "waving it away" and "only the police/military get guns". (I also didn't discuss difficulties re: incorporation WRT gun ownership. Again, a deliberate omission.)

Agreed re: 14th.

I'm not sure that I understand the non-lethal means paragraph completely, but I'll try to give a good faith answer. I think you're asking whether the availability of non-lethal methods should affect the policy towards GC, and without knowing the numbers re: Non-L defense instances, I'm inclined to say no. Without a compelling case to the contrary, people should be able to use the self defense method they feel appropriate. It's an excellent point, though.

re: logical quibble. A fair point based off a piece of hyperbolic rhetoric on my part. It's more accurate to say that you're not actually working optimally to reduce crime/violence/suicide.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Gun control seems to be a staple of every Tea Party demonstration I've seen. OMG THEY'RE COMING AFTER MY GUNZ is almost a mantra with the right wing, always accompanied by a few choruses of REMEMBER THE ATF AND WACO? as if a group of religious zombies led by a complete psycho represents the average American citizen.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Re: Non-lethal self-defense. My concern was that, where non-lethal methods are available that are similarly effective, shouldn't those be preferred and encouraged over lethal means? After all, we require individuals under the law to limit their responses to the means necessary to stop or avoid a threat (so you can't shoot those rascally teens throwing snowballs at you, even if one of them was mostly ice and it really stung). Proportionality is a big concern. Contrary to popular belief, you don't get to use lethal force for defense of property alone. The key test is whether a life is endangered. So the law seems to have some idea that, where death or gross bodily harm is not imminent, non-lethal measures should be preferred.

Against that background, I'd argue that any justification for guns as necessary for self-defense be limited by other available and equally effective means of self-defense that have much lower risks of death to others.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Let me start by saying that this is a nice post, data, clear arguments and an attempt to anticipate some arguments and address them. I wish more people would put this kind of thought into their posts. That said:


"I don't believe that cross cultural comparisons are sufficient to rebut the issue about self defense"

why not? Presumably, if guns are really effective for self defense that would ultimately manifest itself in lower crime rates. If you're telling me that in Country X there are few guns, much less crime but also far fewer incidents of people defending themselves with guns as compared to Country Y, that hardly seems like a very convincing argument for less gun control. For one thing, it seems that the evidence is at least consistent with lax gun control laws (a) creating a culture of violence and (b) guns not being a very effective detterent of crime.


"Factors other than gun ownership rates contribute more to crime/gun violence/suicide rates than simple gun ownership does. Therefore, if you are trying to control gun ownership rates at a macro level, you are not actually working to reduce crime/violence/suicide."

You can't just wave your hands like this and claim to have refuted the argument. Which factors? why are they important and/or why do they trump the prima facie evidence in favor of gun control? why isn't it reasonable to argue that controlling guns at the "macro level" can reduce crime/violence/suicide if a strong correlation between the factors exist? Of course, one determined to save the hypothesis that gun control doesn't decrease violence but that's a helluva long way from showing that controlling gun ownership rates at a macro levels fails to reduce crime/violence/suicide.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Yikes, all sorts of bad writing there, sorry, supposed to be working, but let me at least rewrite the last sentence.

Of course, one determined to save the hypothesis that gun control doesn't decrease violence can always find ways to reject the naive conclusion such data suggests but that's a helluva long way from showing that controlling gun ownership rates at a macro levels fails to reduce crime/violence/suicide.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"shouldn't those be preferred and encouraged over lethal means?"

Ah - I get it. Yes - if it were demonstrable that they were as effective in defensive situations, I'd encourage them over lethal means. I'm not sure how to gather the data or build that case, and I'm also not sure if "encouraging them over lethal means" would include gun prohibition.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Nor am I. It's just that it reduces weight from the necessity of guns for self-defense. And I agree that it'd require further study, but I'm sure we can agree there's some significant overlap in the situations where a Tazer and a gun would be equally effective at defusing a situation, with the Tazer being far less likely to cause death.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the kind words.

re: argument 1. I think because the cultural approach to self defense, the use of violence in conflict resolution, and the varying economic factors make the model too complex for easy comparisons. In a sense, this argument leads directly to the objection in your second paragraph.

re: argument 2. Someone else above tagged me on that bit of rhetoric. I should have said "you're not working optimally to reduce..." I haven't seen gun availability parsed out from police levels, standard police enforcement strategies, cultural attitudes towards violence, etc that makes a compelling enough case for me (the "string correlation" you mention).

In short, I think the arguments tend towards oversimplification. With respect to gun ownership being an effective deterrent, I could cite the lower incidence of "hot breakins" in the US vs. the UK. (These are breakins where the criminal knows someone is home and goes in anyway.) It's been posited as proof that gun ownership (and the possibility that someone in the house will start shooting at you) serves as a deterrent While that would build my case, I'm ignorant of police procedure, criminal consequences, legal status of the castle doctrine in the UK, etc for cases like this, so I'm not 100% convinced that this is a suitable argument.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

I agree, the data is ambiguous. Given that, I'm inclined in the direction of greater freedom and greater ability to defend oneself.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Oh - absolutely. LJ ate a sentence that didn't appear in my previous entry. My memory is that some 80% of all self-defense incidents where a gun was used occur within 10 feet. There would seem to be some number of situations where a Tazer could do the trick.