Political Roundtable - Part VII

[fishercob]

It's curious that the U.S. is always compared to European nations when discussing homicide rate. It seems to me that European nations have historically been demographically homogeneous, with centuries of common cultural traditions and family bonds that help them to live among each other. The U.S. is more like the rest of the nations in the Americas. We are a culturally diverse mixture of ethnicities, races and religions with a much shorter common history. When you compare us to the rest of the Americas, we look pretty good. Here's a graph. The x axis is guns per resident. The y axis is murder rate.



It seems that our high rate of gun possession isn't impacting our murder rate all that much.

If you want to compare the U.S. to Europe, we should at least try to make an apples-to-apples comparison and compare our more racially and culturally homogeneous states to that of Europe. Here are the murder rates in select, mostly racially homogeneous states:

Idaho 2.0
Iowa 1.9
Maine 1.6
Minnesota 1.6
New Hampshire 0.9
Oregon 2.0
South Dakota 2.3
Utah 2.3
Vermont 1.6

These numbers compare with European nations like:

Norway 2.2
Hungary 2.7
Ireland 1.2
Germany 1.0

I believe the US and Canada are the only two developed countries on your entire chart. The US gets compared to Europe because it's chock full of developed countries.

How does your "separate the races" thesis jibe with New York and New Jersey having a below average gun homicide rates? California is barely above average as well.

Fair point about New York. But New York City is an outlier in many aspects of criminality. It's violent crime rate is way out of line relative to other cities of similar size, population density, and demographic makeup. I attribute much of that to Gulianni's "broken window" policies. It's worked well everywhere it has been tried.

I wouldn't consider New Jersey to be such an aberration. It's homicide rate is more or less in line with expectations given its demographic makeup - maybe a bit low.

Heh. Outlier. I admire the steely strength with which you cling to your own bull.

The 5 lowest states on your chart have a combined population that's less than half of New York City (let alone state). The chart you use to back up your argument doesn't say what you think it says.

[nate33]

So because you point out one state that doesn't track with my theory, it renders my entire theory wrong? I can say the same thing to you regarding your "gun control equals less crime" hypothesis. Explain to me why states with rabid gun-toting freaks like Wyoming, South Dakota and Idaho have such an extremely low homicide rate?

[cammac]

It's curious that the U.S. is always compared to European nations when discussing homicide rate. It seems to me that European nations have historically been demographically homogeneous, with centuries of common cultural traditions and family bonds that help them to live among each other. The U.S. is more like the rest of the nations in the Americas. We are a culturally diverse mixture of ethnicities, races and religions with a much shorter common history. When you compare us to the rest of the Americas, we look pretty good. Here's a graph. The x axis is guns per resident. The y axis is murder rate.



It seems that our high rate of gun possession isn't impacting our murder rate all that much.

If you want to compare the U.S. to Europe, we should at least try to make an apples-to-apples comparison and compare our more racially and culturally homogeneous states to that of Europe. Here are the murder rates in select, mostly racially homogeneous states:

I think your analysis is rather faulty in that most of the countries that you have in your graph are as homogeneous as most European countries. The only exceptions is Canada which is by far the lowest of any country in your list. Also many of the countries you listed dirt poor
Idaho 2.0
Iowa 1.9
Maine 1.6
Minnesota 1.6
New Hampshire 0.9
Oregon 2.0
South Dakota 2.3
Utah 2.3
Vermont 1.6

These numbers compare with European nations like:

Norway 2.2
Hungary 2.7
Ireland 1.2
Germany 1.0

I think your analysis is rather faulty in that most of the countries that you have in your graph are as homogeneous as most European countries. The only exceptions is Canada which is by far the lowest of any country in your list. Also many of the countries you listed dirt poor and obviously some have huge problems with drug cartels. Canada is the only culturally diverse on your list.

Many of the states you listed are very Canadian like Maine, Vermont, Oregon, New Hampshire and Minnesota.

[nate33]

The countries are homogeneous only if you consider "Hispanic" to be a single culture. It really isn't. Central and South Americans are a hodgepodge of European white, African black and native American genes in various ratios.

[fishercob]

So because you point out one state that doesn't track with my theory, it renders my entire theory wrong? I can say the same thing to you regarding your "gun control equals less crime" hypothesis. Explain to me why states with rabid gun-toting freaks like Wyoming, South Dakota and Idaho have such an extremely low homicide rate?

Low population density.

[nate33]

So because you point out one state that doesn't track with my theory, it renders my entire theory wrong? I can say the same thing to you regarding your "gun control equals less crime" hypothesis. Explain to me why states with rabid gun-toting freaks like Wyoming, South Dakota and Idaho have such an extremely low homicide rate?

Low population density.

The homicide rate in the city of Cheyenne Wyoming is 0.7 per 100,000. The city of Cheyenne has a population density of 2,425 per square mile which exceed that of every country in the world save Hong Kong, Singapore and Monaco.

I'm sure I could go down the list of every major city in these areas and find similar numbers.

[fishercob]

So because you point out one state that doesn't track with my theory, it renders my entire theory wrong? I can say the same thing to you regarding your "gun control equals less crime" hypothesis. Explain to me why states with rabid gun-toting freaks like Wyoming, South Dakota and Idaho have such an extremely low homicide rate?

Low population density.

The homicide rate in the city of Cheyenne Wyoming is 0.7 per 100,000. The city of Cheyenne has a population density of 2,425 per square mile which exceed that of every country in the world save Hong Kong, Singapore and Monaco.

I'm sure I could go down the list of every major city in these areas and find similar numbers.

I should have said population density in combination with size -- both in terms of geography and raw number of people. A dense small city and a dense big city are very different things. Cheyenne and LA probably have a slightly different feel to them.

[dobrojim]

Maybe there is a gross underreporting of these event to the extent they do occur, but I keep waiting for
the mass shooting that didn't happen because 'a good guy had a gun'. Maybe it's explainable by
left wing media bias. But I doubt it.

You aren't fully understanding the deterrence effect. It's not that there are a high number of "good guy had a gun" scenarios in which they averted a would be disaster. It's that the potential for "good guy has a gun" deters the bad guy from committing his act in the first place.

You gotta admit, a shockingly high percentage of these mass shootings are taking place in so-called gun free zones like schools.

But where are the stories of mass shootings averted by the good guy with a gun?
It's a fantasy. A lot more likely are a lot of negative consequences of yet another well
meaning but probably ill trained random person trying to be a hero.

[nate33]

Maybe there is a gross underreporting of these event to the extent they do occur, but I keep waiting for
the mass shooting that didn't happen because 'a good guy had a gun'. Maybe it's explainable by
left wing media bias. But I doubt it.

You aren't fully understanding the deterrence effect. It's not that there are a high number of "good guy had a gun" scenarios in which they averted a would be disaster. It's that the potential for "good guy has a gun" deters the bad guy from committing his act in the first place.

You gotta admit, a shockingly high percentage of these mass shootings are taking place in so-called gun free zones like schools.

But where are the stories of mass shootings averted by the good guy with a gun?
It's a fantasy. A lot more likely are a lot of negative consequences of yet another well
meaning but probably ill trained random person trying to be a hero.

According to the CDC gun report ordered by Obama and issued in 2013, "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

[montestewart]

So because you point out one state that doesn't track with my theory, it renders my entire theory wrong? I can say the same thing to you regarding your "gun control equals less crime" hypothesis. Explain to me why states with rabid gun-toting freaks like Wyoming, South Dakota and Idaho have such an extremely low homicide rate?

I will. My mother's side of the family was in Kansas and Oklahoma. My wife's family is from Wyoming and Colorado. Frontier. Everyone had guns and knew how to use them, primarily for hunting, but also for protection of life and property, as there wasn't a whole lot of quick response law enforcement. My mother could shoot a rifle, as could all her relatives. My great grandfather accidentally shot himself when he laid his coat on a chair and the pistol in the coat pocket discharged, because even out on the frontier, stupid accidents happen. There are surely plenty of people now in those states who have guns they don't need, and probably a few freaks who just shouldn't have guns, but the gun culture in those and similar states seems much different from gun culture in the East, the South, or Southern California.

How do you separate any examination of gun violence in the South from its slave economy roots and post-slavery racial hatred? Urban areas of the East Coast and Southern California have long been plagued by class conflicts manifesting as neighborhood cultural/racial conflicts. The presence of guns in these areas seems much different and much more dangerous than the presence of guns in Wyoming, Utah, etc. And I don't think it's simply explained by any one factor; racial/cultural homogeneity, population density, equality/inequality, history of gun culture or criminality, all may contribute to current rates of gun violence. And then there's the manliness of it all. Guns will be a lot safer when they stop being cool. All guns should be pink and lavender. Although that actually sounds kind of cool. Strike that.

The U.S. has one of the highest private gun ownership rates in the world (if not the highest) because people in the U.S. spend a lot of money on things they don't need, and they have the money to spend. I know a few gun owners in the DC area, and while some of them are experienced, regularly hunting or target shooting, others just seem to want to own a gun in the same way one owns a sports car, pool table, huge flat screen TV, swimming pool, etc. I think this acquisitive and perhaps status seeking gun ownership distorts the correlation between gun ownership and deterrence. If everyone in a well policed well-to-do gated community, in a wealthy suburb far away from poor, crime ridden neighborhoods, has a gun, is that totality of gun ownership keeping down the crime rate, or is it perhaps all those other factors?

[montestewart]

You aren't fully understanding the deterrence effect. It's not that there are a high number of "good guy had a gun" scenarios in which they averted a would be disaster. It's that the potential for "good guy has a gun" deters the bad guy from committing his act in the first place.

You gotta admit, a shockingly high percentage of these mass shootings are taking place in so-called gun free zones like schools.

But where are the stories of mass shootings averted by the good guy with a gun?
It's a fantasy. A lot more likely are a lot of negative consequences of yet another well
meaning but probably ill trained random person trying to be a hero.

According to the CDC gun report ordered by Obama and issued in 2013, "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

The same report also mentioned a figure of 108,000, gave reason to question the 3 million figure (an extrapolation from a small sample), cited no parallel figure for ,"offensive use by criminals," and added some wishy washy nuance to the discussion of effectiveness/benefit of victim gun use. Typical vague and sloppily written government report.

[nate33]

But where are the stories of mass shootings averted by the good guy with a gun?
It's a fantasy. A lot more likely are a lot of negative consequences of yet another well
meaning but probably ill trained random person trying to be a hero.

According to the CDC gun report ordered by Obama and issued in 2013, "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

The same report also mentioned a figure of 108,000, gave reason to question the 3 million figure (an extrapolation from a small sample), cited no parallel figure for ,"offensive use by criminals," and added some wishy washy nuance to the discussion of effectiveness/benefit of victim gun use. Typical vague and sloppily written government report.

The problem is that deterrence is a hard thing to measure. How do you report a non-incident that was averted because an innocent person brandished a gun and warded off an attacker? How many of these incidents are tracked? And furthermore, how many criminals decide not to break into homes or attack families because they have a concern that the homeowner is armed?

John Lott tried to answer this questions with More Guns Less Crime by examining on a county-by-county basis, how changes in gun laws affect the violence rate relative to other counties which had no change in gun laws. Lott's findings show that, in general, gun restrictions don't reduce violence. Others have disputed Lott's findings. I'm not a good enough statistician to evaluate the merits of Lott's efforts or those of his detractors, but it seems to me we ought to try and investigate this issue before acting. Certainly there's anecdotal evidence (Chicago, Washington DC) that suggests that gun bans contribute to an extremely high crime rate.

[montestewart]

According to the CDC gun report ordered by Obama and issued in 2013, "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

The same report also mentioned a figure of 108,000, gave reason to question the 3 million figure (an extrapolation from a small sample), cited no parallel figure for ,"offensive use by criminals," and added some wishy washy nuance to the discussion of effectiveness/benefit of victim gun use. Typical vague and sloppily written government report.

The problem is that deterrence is a hard thing to measure. How do you report a non-incident that was averted because an innocent person brandished a gun and warded off an attacker? How many of these incidents are tracked? And furthermore, how many criminals decide not to break into homes or attack families because they have a concern that the homeowner is armed?

John Lott tried to answer this questions with More Guns Less Crime by examining on a county-by-county basis, how changes in gun laws affect the violence rate relative to other counties which had no change in gun laws. Lott's findings show that, in general, gun restrictions don't reduce violence. Others have disputed Lott's findings. I'm not a good enough statistician to evaluate the merits of Lott's efforts or those of his detractors, but it seems to me we ought to try and investigate this issue before acting. Certainly there's anecdotal evidence (Chicago, Washington DC) that suggests that gun bans contribute to an extremely high crime rate.

My common sense tells me that in some cases, perhaps many cases, gun ownership would have a deterrent effect. A bad guy with a gun in a town without guns, versus in a well armed town, seems like the difference might be important to a bad guy's approach. Like you, I don't know how to measure the pluses and minuses. I would still prefer a world where few people and very few bad guys had guns. I think that world would be safer.

[Zonkerbl]

What in the world are you guys arguing about?

[nate33]

So because you point out one state that doesn't track with my theory, it renders my entire theory wrong? I can say the same thing to you regarding your "gun control equals less crime" hypothesis. Explain to me why states with rabid gun-toting freaks like Wyoming, South Dakota and Idaho have such an extremely low homicide rate?

I will. My mother's side of the family was in Kansas and Oklahoma. My wife's family is from Wyoming and Colorado. Frontier. Everyone had guns and knew how to use them, primarily for hunting, but also for protection of life and property, as there wasn't a whole lot of quick response law enforcement. My mother could shoot a rifle, as could all her relatives. My great grandfather accidentally shot himself when he laid his coat on a chair and the pistol in the coat pocket discharged, because even out on the frontier, stupid accidents happen. There are surely plenty of people now in those states who have guns they don't need, and probably a few freaks who just shouldn't have guns, but the gun culture in those and similar states seems much different from gun culture in the East, the South, or Southern California.

How do you separate any examination of gun violence in the South from its slave economy roots and post-slavery racial hatred? Urban areas of the East Coast and Southern California have long been plagued by class conflicts manifesting as neighborhood cultural/racial conflicts. The presence of guns in these areas seems much different and much more dangerous than the presence of guns in Wyoming, Utah, etc. And I don't think it's simply explained by any one factor; racial/cultural homogeneity, population density, equality/inequality, history of gun culture or criminality, all may contribute to current rates of gun violence. And then there's the manliness of it all. Guns will be a lot safer when they stop being cool. All guns should be pink and lavender. Although that actually sounds kind of cool. Strike that.

The U.S. has one of the highest private gun ownership rates in the world (if not the highest) because people in the U.S. spend a lot of money on things they don't need, and they have the money to spend. I know a few gun owners in the DC area, and while some of them are experienced, regularly hunting or target shooting, others just seem to want to own a gun in the same way one owns a sports car, pool table, huge flat screen TV, swimming pool, etc. I think this acquisitive and perhaps status seeking gun ownership distorts the correlation between gun ownership and deterrence. If everyone in a well policed well-to-do gated community, in a wealthy suburb far away from poor, crime ridden neighborhoods, has a gun, is that totality of gun ownership keeping down the crime rate, or is it perhaps all those other factors?

Careful montestewart. You might start sounding too much like me.

You clearly accept the premise that gun possession by responsible people in rural areas can result in a low-crime environment. You also mentioned that the lack of quick response by law enforcement in rural areas, indicating that gun possession might indeed be a necessary deterrent in these areas and might actually reduce violence. So we've established that guns are a good thing in certain areas of the country. I would expand that to include some suburban and urban areas. The crime rate in downtown Cheyenne, Wyoming isn't much different than out in the sticks.

The problem, as you mentioned, is how to deal with areas with, shall we say, less responsible people. It would be nice to snap our fingers and make all the guns in those areas disappear, but that's fantasy. There are about 270 million guns out there right now. And if we continue to permit guns in rural areas, there will inevitably be a black market supply of guns to urban areas.

[Induveca]

Time to ban the manufacture and import of guns.

I respect the intent, but we have to deal with reality. Banning of guns will not stop criminals. And the outright ban won't happen in our lifetimes.

And even if it does? Black markets will continue to exist where these weapons can be acquired. Mexico, Central/South America aren't going to stop selling guns, so they'll come right across the border with the drugs.

It sounds sad, but an *increased* police and security presence is needed. Right now, sadly, is a great time to invest in private security companies. They've been a booming business all over the 3rd world, and protect nearly every building and home.

It won't solve the ideological problems, but it's an effective band aid.

[dobrojim]

According to the CDC gun report ordered by Obama and issued in 2013, "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

The same report also mentioned a figure of 108,000, gave reason to question the 3 million figure (an extrapolation from a small sample), cited no parallel figure for ,"offensive use by criminals," and added some wishy washy nuance to the discussion of effectiveness/benefit of victim gun use. Typical vague and sloppily written government report.

The problem is that deterrence is a hard thing to measure. How do you report a non-incident that was averted because an innocent person brandished a gun and warded off an attacker? How many of these incidents are tracked? And furthermore, how many criminals decide not to break into homes or attack families because they have a concern that the homeowner is armed?

John Lott tried to answer this questions with More Guns Less Crime by examining on a county-by-county basis, how changes in gun laws affect the violence rate relative to other counties which had no change in gun laws. Lott's findings show that, in general, gun restrictions don't reduce violence. Others have disputed Lott's findings. I'm not a good enough statistician to evaluate the merits of Lott's efforts or those of his detractors, but it seems to me we ought to try and investigate this issue before acting. Certainly there's anecdotal evidence (Chicago, Washington DC) that suggests that gun bans contribute to an extremely high crime rate.

Examples of gun violence in 'gun restricted' jurisdictions compared to non-restricted areas are
pretty meaningless given the ease with which someone can cross a border from say MD or DC
and buy a gun in VA. I imagine the same thing applies to Chicago for instance. But I'll admit that's
just a guess.

To me, the real issue is a complete mistrust of govt on the part of gun owners. They've
all been scared $h1tless by the prospect that if the govt knows who has the guns via some
system of registration, then sure as the sun rises, eventually the govt will come after the
owners and take away their guns. This is what my gun nut friend fervently believes.
I believe it's a completely emotional and irrational fear, but that doesn't make it any
less real to him.

[nate33]

Examples of gun violence in 'gun restricted' jurisdictions compared to non-restricted areas are
pretty meaningless given the ease with which someone can cross a border from say MD or DC
and buy a gun in VA. I imagine the same thing applies to Chicago for instance. But I'll admit that's
just a guess.

I agree completely. Piecemeal gun restrictions only in certain jurisdictions are likely to be useless, if not actively counter-productive. The only type of gun ban that is likely to be successful would be a national gun ban. But that is problematic because people in remote areas actually do need guns to protect themselves, and there is still the problem of 270 million guns already out there, and the potential for a black market supply of guns from Mexico or other countries.

To me, the real issue is a complete mistrust of govt on the part of gun owners. They've
all been scared $h1tless by the prospect that if the govt knows who has the guns via some
system of registration, then sure as the sun rises, eventually the govt will come after the
owners and take away their guns. This is what my gun nut friend fervently believes.
I believe it's a completely emotional and irrational fear, but that doesn't make it any
less real to him.

I don't see why you consider that "the real issue". I suppose it's an issue in that it's one of the reasons why you can't convince some people to give up their guns. But even if you could convince enough people to amend the Constitution and actually attempt to implement nationwide gun ban, there are still the practical considerations of the gun ban that can't be ignored. We would have a huge supply of guns on a black market, where criminals could obtain them and attack the defenseless. Things are likely to get much worse for a long time before they get better.

I just think the notion of eliminating guns is such a non-starter, that it's pointless to discuss it. The best thing we can do is make adjustments at the margins to try to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people (the mentally ill, criminals and former criminals, etc.). For the most part, I think that is already being done.

[dobrojim]

For the most part, I think that is already being done.

I would disagree with that. The NRA primarily but other gun lobby groups as well have
been incredibly effective in stoking the fears of confiscation that simple common sense
steps are politically non-viable, another example of the current dysfunction of our
system at this time as large majorities support limited reforms.

First I think we need to stop talking about gun bans (we agree). Won't happen and only amplifies the fears of
legitimate owners. But there are things that can and should be done that might help a little and given the
size of our problem, even a little help should be considered a good thing and pursued. Registration and
background checks and closing loopholes having to do with ownership transfer would be a very good place
to start. Compare gun ownership rules to car ownership rules. They're a lot more lax. I don't see why they
should be.

[dobrojim]

As far as the Constitution goes, the relatively recent court rulings which seemingly affirm an individual
right to bear arms clearly move away from 'original intent'. They need to somehow be reversed.
And no one needs an assault rifle. There is no legitimate civilian purpose for ownership of one.
No one needs a gun that can fire 30 rounds in seconds without reloading. No legitimate civilian purpose.
No one needs armor piercing ammo. That kind of thing.