Political Roundtable - Part VI

[popper]

We're under the impression that gun related crimes/deaths is much higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world except Central America and failed states.

Decline in gun violence is a red herring.

Why is a consistent downward trend in gun related crime a red herring? Isn't that our goal?

[Zonkerbl]

We're under the impression that gun related crimes/deaths is much higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world except Central America and failed states.

Decline in gun violence is a red herring.

Why is a consistent downward trend in gun related crime a red herring? Isn't that our goal?

You're trying to say that the correlation between gun violence and gun purchases implies causation. It doesn't.

Although I suppose you're right -- if we're really interested in reducing gun violence, we should maximize EPA's authority to eliminate behavior-changing toxins (like lead) from the environment. EPA has been trying to get a rule through to eliminate mercury emissions from electric power plants since the 1990s.

[Nivek]

Zonk's point is a good one, I think. Crime is down period, apparently because of reduced lead in the atmosphere (due to the change to unleaded fuels). I'd hypothesize that other nations have seen a similar drop in crime rates as they've reduced lead in the atmosphere. The fact remains, however, that gun violence happens at a much higher rate in the US than it does elsewhere.

[dobrojim]

speaking of things that are down there is also the deficit
as per front page story in the Post related more to the inside
politics aspects of this than the actual details.

[Zonkerbl]

speaking of things that are down there is also the deficit
as per front page story in the Post related more to the inside
politics aspects of this than the actual details.

Would be hilarious if Clinton and Obama both end their terms with a surplus.

[pancakes3]

Currently my goal in life is to get people out of the habit of saying "markets are good and we should trust them," which was fine during the Cold War, but now we have to embrace the more nuanced "the role of government intervention is to create an environment so that markets can do the good things we know they can do."

Not to tell you how to do your job but have you tried to hammer home the idea of multiple equilibrium points, and to steer away from certain equilibria in favor of others? Or do people just dismiss that as empty "too big to fail" rhetoric?

[popper]

Zonk's point is a good one, I think. Crime is down period, apparently because of reduced lead in the atmosphere (due to the change to unleaded fuels). I'd hypothesize that other nations have seen a similar drop in crime rates as they've reduced lead in the atmosphere. The fact remains, however, that gun violence happens at a much higher rate in the US than it does elsewhere.

Could you or someone else provide a link regarding the relationship between reduced lead and crime? I'm not arguing the point but I've never seen a study? In the meantime I"ll Google it and find what I can.

The fact that gun violence happens at a much higher rate in the US than in other countries is true but in IMO we should delve deeply into the cause. For instance, if we removed Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, LA from the equation would we then be about equal to other countries? If so, let's formulate and direct a violence-reduction solution into those areas. Another possible area to look at is drug and gang related violence. I suspect if we slice and dice the numbers we will find very specific reasons for the heightened violence as compared to other countries. Let's address those specific reasons instead of spinning our wheels with grand schemes that respond to inaccurate perceptions of causality.

A good analogy might be airport security procedures where we punish 80 year grandmothers in order to justify checkpoints knowing there is no history of their involvement in terrorism.

[Zonkerbl]

Currently my goal in life is to get people out of the habit of saying "markets are good and we should trust them," which was fine during the Cold War, but now we have to embrace the more nuanced "the role of government intervention is to create an environment so that markets can do the good things we know they can do."

Not to tell you how to do your job but have you tried to hammer home the idea of multiple equilibrium points, and to steer away from certain equilibria in favor of others? Or do people just dismiss that as empty "too big to fail" rhetoric?

Psssht, I gave up using the word "equilibrium" a long time ago. "Markets are good" is about as close as I get nowadays.

Do I talk about prisoner's dilemma outcomes, multiple equilibria outcomes of duopoly games? Mmmm, not directly. No one has asked me about "too big to fail" in a policy context. Not sure what my advice would be. Make sure they don't fail by creating an environment where the market doesn't fail? How you would do that exactly I'm not sure.

[Zonkerbl]

Zonk's point is a good one, I think. Crime is down period, apparently because of reduced lead in the atmosphere (due to the change to unleaded fuels). I'd hypothesize that other nations have seen a similar drop in crime rates as they've reduced lead in the atmosphere. The fact remains, however, that gun violence happens at a much higher rate in the US than it does elsewhere.

Could you or someone else provide a link regarding the relationship between reduced lead and crime? I'm not arguing the point but I've never seen a study? In the meantime I"ll Google it and find what I can.

The fact that gun violence happens at a much higher rate in the US than in other countries is true but in IMO we should delve deeply into the cause. For instance, if we removed Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, LA from the equation would we then be about equal to other countries? If so, let's formulate and direct a violence-reduction solution into those areas. Another possible area to look at is drug and gang related violence. I suspect if we slice and dice the numbers we will find very specific reasons for the heightened violence as compared to other countries. Let's address those specific reasons instead of spinning our wheels with grand schemes that respond to inaccurate perceptions of causality.

A good analogy might be airport security procedures where we punish 80 year grandmothers in order to justify checkpoints knowing there is no history of their involvement in terrorism.

Or, since there's such a clear relationship between gun ownership and suicides and other gun violence, let's focus on the root of the problem: guns.

[popper]

Zonk's point is a good one, I think. Crime is down period, apparently because of reduced lead in the atmosphere (due to the change to unleaded fuels). I'd hypothesize that other nations have seen a similar drop in crime rates as they've reduced lead in the atmosphere. The fact remains, however, that gun violence happens at a much higher rate in the US than it does elsewhere.

Could you or someone else provide a link regarding the relationship between reduced lead and crime? I'm not arguing the point but I've never seen a study? In the meantime I"ll Google it and find what I can.

The fact that gun violence happens at a much higher rate in the US than in other countries is true but in IMO we should delve deeply into the cause. For instance, if we removed Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, LA from the equation would we then be about equal to other countries? If so, let's formulate and direct a violence-reduction solution into those areas. Another possible area to look at is drug and gang related violence. I suspect if we slice and dice the numbers we will find very specific reasons for the heightened violence as compared to other countries. Let's address those specific reasons instead of spinning our wheels with grand schemes that respond to inaccurate perceptions of causality.

A good analogy might be airport security procedures where we punish 80 year grandmothers in order to justify checkpoints knowing there is no history of their involvement in terrorism.

Or, since there's such a clear relationship between gun ownership and suicides and other gun violence, let's focus on the root of the problem: guns.

Zonk, a tool (gun) is not a root (cause) of suicides or violence. If someone uses a hammer to bludgeon someone we don't conclude that the hammer is the root (cause). A gun is certainly more effective and efficient in achieving suicide and committing violence but it is not the root (cause). Shouldn't we determine the causes of suicide and violence and then address those issues first and foremost?

[Nivek]

Zonk's point is a good one, I think. Crime is down period, apparently because of reduced lead in the atmosphere (due to the change to unleaded fuels). I'd hypothesize that other nations have seen a similar drop in crime rates as they've reduced lead in the atmosphere. The fact remains, however, that gun violence happens at a much higher rate in the US than it does elsewhere.

Could you or someone else provide a link regarding the relationship between reduced lead and crime? I'm not arguing the point but I've never seen a study? In the meantime I"ll Google it and find what I can.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... k-gasoline

[Nivek]

Zonk, a tool (gun) is not a root (cause) of suicides or violence. If someone uses a hammer to bludgeon someone we don't conclude that the hammer is the root (cause). A gun is certainly more effective and efficient in achieving suicide and committing violence but it is not the root (cause). Shouldn't we determine the causes of suicide and violence and then address those issues first and foremost?

A tool is designed to make doing something easier. A screwdriver, for example, is intended to make it easier to tighten/loosen a screw. A gun is a tool that dramatically increases the trauma that comes from a violent act. If a gun wasn't available, people moved to violence (whatever the cause) would be limited in their ability to cause damage and create trauma. I'm in favor of addressing root causes of violence, suicide, etc. But, I also think there's room for reasonable restrictions on access to a tool that helps someone moved to violence do far more damage than he/she could do with their fists, or a hammer or a bow & arrow.

[popper]

Zonk, a tool (gun) is not a root (cause) of suicides or violence. If someone uses a hammer to bludgeon someone we don't conclude that the hammer is the root (cause). A gun is certainly more effective and efficient in achieving suicide and committing violence but it is not the root (cause). Shouldn't we determine the causes of suicide and violence and then address those issues first and foremost?

A tool is designed to make doing something easier. A screwdriver, for example, is intended to make it easier to tighten/loosen a screw. A gun is a tool that dramatically increases the trauma that comes from a violent act. If a gun wasn't available, people moved to violence (whatever the cause) would be limited in their ability to cause damage and create trauma. I'm in favor of addressing root causes of violence, suicide, etc. But, I also think there's room for reasonable restrictions on access to a tool that helps someone moved to violence do far more damage than he/she could do with their fists, or a hammer or a bow & arrow.

I'm a conservative gun owner and I agree with you. The lack of trust between the two parties constrains progress on the gun issue, spending/tax/budget issues, etc. If D's would show me that they are serious about attacking the root causes of violence then I would be more willing to trust them on the gun issue. So far that hasn't happened so for now we'll probably remain gridlocked.

[pancakes3]

If D's would show me that they are serious about attacking the root causes of violence then I would be more willing to trust them on the gun issue. So far that hasn't happened so for now we'll probably remain gridlocked.

Root cause: violent, angry, unstable people.
Solution: severe background checks to remove those people from the population of "gun owner".

Also, I hate the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument, as well as the "man dies in car accident, ban cars" argument. Like Zonk said - those things have primary purposes where the side effect is death. Guns have no other purpose than to destroy things. You can't help but destroy something when you fire a gun. That makes it different than a hammer, a car, or a teddy bear.

[Induveca]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/33 ... -jim-manzi

The lead angle is actually quite interesting. Studies of felines and other mammals exposed to lead for long periods did indeed result in reduced IQ and more aggression.

South African government is actually promising the voters crime will be dramatically reduced in 15 years due to their restricting of lead 9 years ago.

Seems like a big stretch. The article up top does a good job attacking the theory.

[Zonkerbl]

Popper, we are discussing the problem we have in this country, that we have too many deaths from having too many guns.

The same amount of violent behavior results in more death when there are more guns. We have more guns than anyone else and therefore we have more death. Putting a $1,000 per purchase tax on guns will lower the amount of guns and thus reduce the likelihood of death, for any given underlying level of violence.

I sense that you're trying to make a point about how addressing violent behavior can somehow reduce the amount of deaths more cheaply or easily than restricting the number of guns. If that's what you're trying to say then say it. I'm not going to argue with myself.

[popper]

If D's would show me that they are serious about attacking the root causes of violence then I would be more willing to trust them on the gun issue. So far that hasn't happened so for now we'll probably remain gridlocked.

Root cause: violent, angry, unstable people.
Solution: severe background checks to remove those people from the population of "gun owner".

Also, I hate the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument, as well as the "man dies in car accident, ban cars" argument. Like Zonk said - those things have primary purposes where the side effect is death. Guns have no other purpose than to destroy things. You can't help but destroy something when you fire a gun. That makes it different than a hammer, a car, or a teddy bear.

pancakes - the vast majority of violent gun crime is committed by people that do not acquire their guns legally. Background checks don't effect them. Why then would we want to develop legislation that ignores the core issue? When D's decide to address the core issues then I and many other conservatives will support them in further reducing gun violence. Until then, I don't see it happening.

[Zonkerbl]

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... k-gasoline

"Another chapter suggested that crime drops in big cities were mostly a reflection of the crack epidemic of the '80s finally burning itself out. A trio of authors identified three major "drug eras" in New York City, the first dominated by heroin, which produced limited violence, and the second by crack, which generated spectacular levels of it. In the early '90s, these researchers proposed, the children of CrackGen switched to marijuana, choosing a less violent and more law-abiding lifestyle. As they did, crime rates in New York and other cities went down."

Huh.

[daSwami]

If D's would show me that they are serious about attacking the root causes of violence then I would be more willing to trust them on the gun issue. So far that hasn't happened so for now we'll probably remain gridlocked.

Root cause: violent, angry, unstable people.
Solution: severe background checks to remove those people from the population of "gun owner".

Also, I hate the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument, as well as the "man dies in car accident, ban cars" argument. Like Zonk said - those things have primary purposes where the side effect is death. Guns have no other purpose than to destroy things. You can't help but destroy something when you fire a gun. That makes it different than a hammer, a car, or a teddy bear.

I'd go one step further on the root cause: a significant chunk of the populace that refuses to see the 2nd amendment as the anachronism that it is. And a belief that we, as humans, have the right to own a device designed to kill at distance. Believing that handgun ownership is a right, is to have a willingness to kill.

Should we, as a society, really be codifying such things?

I know I'm out on the radical fringe on this, but I think that the 2nd amendment should be repealed.

My conundrum is that I also believe that there should be regulations restricting the sale of guns to the mentally ill, which would mean violating of their Constitutional rights. Unless, that is, the 2nd amendment magically disappeared.

[popper]

Popper, we are discussing the problem we have in this country, that we have too many deaths from having too many guns.

The same amount of violent behavior results in more death when there are more guns. We have more guns than anyone else and therefore we have more death. Putting a $1,000 per purchase tax on guns will lower the amount of guns and thus reduce the likelihood of death, for any given underlying level of violence.

I sense that you're trying to make a point about how addressing violent behavior can somehow reduce the amount of deaths more cheaply or easily than restricting the number of guns. If that's what you're trying to say than say it. I'm not going to argue with myself.

I tried to make my point and did so without thought of how expensive it might be. Addressing the root cause of gun violence will not be cheap but it is the right and worthy thing to do. I guess if we were successful in addressing root cause then we could save substantial money on costs associated with incarceration, medical care, courts, lawyers, etc.

Our society is sick in some large measure. It needs a proper diagnosis so that healing can take place. We avoid addressing causal influences because of political correctness and other reasons that I cannot explain.