Question for libertarians

[RandFan]

Well the problem is that there are always to many confounding issues, and there are also issues where it becomes about what is right not what is safe.

Agreed but I would hasten to add "precieved what is right" and I would also add that it becomes what is "perceived as right and not what is effective or practical.

I've never been convinced that America would respond to gun control the way other countries like England have.

When you compare crime rates to other modern Western nations it is astounding just how relatively violent America is in all areas including rape and stabbings and burglary. Guns don't appear to be a significant leading factor in the overall rate of crime.

 

[drkitten]

When you compare crime rates to other modern Western nations it is astounding just how relatively violent America is in all areas including rape and stabbings and burglary. Guns don't appear to be a significant leading factor in the overall rate of crime.

The flip side of that observation, though, is that guns do appear to be a significant factor in the severity of crime. The gun rights lobby likes to point out, correctly, that it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people using the guns. What they don't like to point out is that the guns enable people to kill other people as opposed to merely injuring them, for example. If you are a victim of gun-related violence, then your chances of death or serious injury are much greater than if you are a victim of weapon-related violence (such as knives), and greater still than if you are a victim of unarmed violence.

This should come as no surprise; guns are force multipliers. But I'm not sure that the capacity to multiply force is one that should be encouraged --- and I'm dead certain it shouldn't be enshrined, deified, and put beyond debate.

 

[RandFan]

The flip side of that observation, though, is that guns do appear to be a significant factor in the severity of crime. The gun rights lobby likes to point out, correctly, that it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people using the guns. What they don't like to point out is that the guns enable people to kill other people as opposed to merely injuring them, for example. If you are a victim of gun-related violence, then your chances of death or serious injury are much greater than if you are a victim of weapon-related violence (such as knives), and greater still than if you are a victim of unarmed violence.

This should come as no surprise; guns are force multipliers. But I'm not sure that the capacity to multiply force is one that should be encouraged --- and I'm dead certain it shouldn't be enshrined, deified, and put beyond debate.

I don't know of anyone who wants to enshrine, deify or but beyond debate force multipliers. If you find someone on this forum I sure hope you will alert me and we will both take that person to task. Fair enough?

My point has to do with the emotional investment that some seem to have about this issue. I have no such investment. You?

 

[FledgelingSkeptic]

I'm not exactly a Libertarian though I'm all for less government in our lives. I was also once a pacifist. After getting metaphorically kicked around a few too many times, I decided that didn't work for me.

HOWEVER, I AM (or will be within the next couple months) a responsible gun owner. I go to the shooting range on a regular basis to practice and I am familiar already with the laws regarding carrying a weapon.

Why? It is my right as a US citizen to keep an bear arms and I intend to use that right before our wonderful Imperial Government decided that I shouldn't have that right after all.

I also feel very strongly that I should know how to protect myself. The world is becoming a more dangerous place all the time and it's my responsibility to be able to look out for myself rather than depending on the police for protection.

 

[Chaos]

I don't know of anyone who wants to enshrine, deify or but beyond debate force multipliers. *snip*

Wow. You have never heard of the NRA then? And you have never heard of the Libertarian Party? Or any of the other many gun nuts your country is crawling with?

 

[brodski]

The world is becoming a more dangerous place all the time

Is it really? can you show any evidence for this? The data seem to say otherwise.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The flip side of that observation, though, is that guns do appear to be a significant factor in the severity of crime. The gun rights lobby likes to point out, correctly, that it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people using the guns. What they don't like to point out is that the guns enable people to kill other people as opposed to merely injuring them, for example. If you are a victim of gun-related violence, then your chances of death or serious injury are much greater than if you are a victim of weapon-related violence (such as knives), and greater still than if you are a victim of unarmed violence.

Sure they matter significantly for the mass shooting spree type crimes. But are those truely significant in terms of crime statistics?

 

[RandFan]

Wow. You have never heard of the NRA then? And you have never heard of the Libertarian Party? Or any of the other many gun nuts your country is crawling with?

I was talking about people in this forum. I thought that was obvious. Sorry.

 

[RandFan]

Is it really? can you show any evidence for this? The data seem to say otherwise.

To be sure.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I have some big problems with all-private schooling. This is the US, after all, and the majority of private schools existent now are religious.

Don't you think that the present system is distorted by the enforced omission of religion in public education? Don't you think that's one reason religious schools exist? If there were no public schools, don't you think there would be good secular schools?

Can this country afford a private school system that will continue to educate children in superstition and nonsense?

It has one now, as you pointed out above.

 

[drkitten]

Sure they matter significantly for the mass shooting spree type crimes. But are those truely significant in terms of crime statistics?

Very much so.

 

[RandFan]

Very much so.

Cool, then the evidence should be easy to produce. I thank you in advance for providing it.

Number of deaths due to mass shooting sprees / number of deaths due to shootings.

 

[drkitten]

Cool, then the evidence should be easy to produce. I thank you in advance for providing it.

Easy, but tiresome. If you want to dig it up yourself, it's available on-line at the NACJD. Just register and type in your query. That's the only source I know that tries to track multiple-incident homicides.

Number of deaths due to mass shooting sprees / number of deaths due to shootings.

If you can provide hard numbers on the number of deaths due to mass shooting sprees --- or even a hard definition of "shooting sprees," you can probably work that ratio out for yourself.

In 2005, there were 12,352 homicides committed with firearms. In 2004, there were 11,624. In 2003, 11,900. To a first approximation, we can claim there are about 12,000 firearm homicides per year in the USA, a number I will project forward to 2008. (CDC data only goes up to 2005).

CBS News compiled a list of "shooting sprees" recently and identified five in the USA : Kirkwood, MO; Mount Vernon, WA, NIU, Omaha, and Cleveland (which was 2007, not 2008). Total number of victims was less than 30.

So the ratio you're looking for is approximately 1/400. Even if you assume that CBS's reportage is incomplete and the actual number of "sprees" is double what they reported, you're still looking at one half of one percent of all firearm-related homicides being related to a "shooting spree."

Of course, the real comparison isn't the number of firearm deaths vs. the number of shooting spree deaths, but the number of firearm deaths vs the number of non-firearm deaths (more accurately, homicides). In 2005, the number of homicides of all types other than firearm-related was 5772. Firearms cause more than 2/3 of all homicides in 2005. The numbers are comparable for other years.

But the actual question is whether firearm-related injuries are more severe than non-firearm related injuries, and unfortunately I'm at home right now and the data are mostly behind a subscribers-only firewall, so I don't have access to it. But one piece of evidence I could find ("Trauma," by Moore et al.) states that "assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm related assaults."

So, I stand by my statement. People without guns hurt people. People with guns kill people. Your chances of death are twelve times greater if your assailant is armed with a gun than if he isn't.

Therefore, I think it's both sensible and appropriate to take all reasonable measures to keep guns out of the assailant's hands, including removing them if necessary from non-criminals as well. (The US DOJ statistics support this as well -- they estimate about 100,000 "defensive uses of guns" per year vs. 1.2 million gun-related crimes.)

 

[Kittyclaws]

Don't you think that the present system is distorted by the enforced omission of religion in public education?

Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Confucianism were studied in my offspring's junior year of high school (last year). They covered the philosophy/ideology, major festivals, deities, and history/origin of these religions as well as how religious beliefs affected historical events, ie: Communist Russia and how religion was seen as detrimental to the unity needed for communism to thrive. So no, I don't think the public school system (in WA state, at least) is distorted by enforced omission of religion.

If you're referring to being taught that a particular religion is the one true religion is appropriate for public school, or that prayer should be required, or bible class be made a part of the curricula, well, that's just whackadoodle. Who gets to choose which one? When I was a pagan, I'd have loved to see a public school board try such tactics. I'd've been all over them about fairness in representation. Imagine me as a Wiccan priestess teaching the kids about the Wiccan Rede and the pantheon of gods and goddesses.

Don't you think that's one reason religious schools exist? If there were no public schools, don't you think there would be good secular schools?

I think religious school exist because some parents only want their children to learn certain things, in particular that about 6,000 years ago the great sky daddy created the universe in 6 days and put humans on it in our present form to worship him and convert everyone so they can be saved, too. Some parents also want their children to have no information about sexual practices and birth control.

Yes, there might be good secular schools if there was no public school system. There are good secular schools but if you haven't priced any recently, let me tell you that financially they are waaaay out of reach for most of us. Somewhat similar to the disparity in cost for public university versus private.

 

[RandFan]

So the ratio you're looking for is approximately 1/400. Even if you assume that CBS's reportage is incomplete and the actual number of "sprees" is double what they reported, you're still looking at one half of one percent of all firearm-related homicides being related to a "shooting spree."

I guess that statistically significant is a subjective thing. And are these figures constant from year to year?

Do you stand by your claim of "very much so"?

So, I stand by my statement. People without guns hurt people. People with guns kill people. Your chances of death are twelve times greater if your assailant is armed with a gun than if he isn't.

Without debating the numbers let's take your figures. I don't think that was ever in dispute. Of course this is a raw statistic and doesn't take into account the practicality of reducing harm through legislation. Not that I don't think one can reduce harm. The question is how much and will legislation exasperate or increase crime. Prohibitions of drugs and alcohol haven't shown to be all that effective. How do you legislate or prohibit something that is in high demand?

Therefore, I think it's both sensible and appropriate to take all reasonable measures to keep guns out of the assailant's hands, including removing them if necessary from non-criminals as well.

Well, who would argue that it is not sensible to use reasonable measures? Does't the question then become "what is reasonable"? Why is removing them from non-criminals reasonable? Aren't you begging the question? There's a circularity there you need to address.

(The US DOJ statistics support this as well -- they estimate about 100,000 "defensive uses of guns" per year vs. 1.2 million gun-related crimes.)

How do you get reliable statistics when many people don't report when they use a gun for defensive use? I'm rather skeptical of the DOJ stats.

If reduction of harm is so paramount wouldn't be reasonable to eliminate descretionary driving? Not only would that save a lot of lives but it would significantly reduce green house gases.

 

[drkitten]

I guess that statistically significant is a subjective thing. And are these figures constant from year to year?

Constant? Of course not. Relatively stable? I believe so, from the numbers I've been able to dig up. You are, of course, at liberty to disprove me.

But the significance is not THAT subjective, I'm afraid.

From the numbers I cited, the number of gun-related homicides are approximately 12,000 per year in the US. The number of shooting-spree related homicides are, let's say, 60 per year. So the number of non-shooting-spree gun-related homicides per year is 11,940, which is still sufficiently higher than 6000 as to make non-shooting-spree gun violence a much more serious problem.

Similarly, if you reduce the approximately 12:1 odds of being killed from gun-inflicted injuries by 0.5%, you get 11.94:1 odds of being killed from non-shooting-spreee gun-inflicted injuries compared to non-gun-related injuries.

Do you stand by your claim of "very much so"?

I do.

Without debating the numbers let's take your figures. I don't think that was ever in dispute. Of course this is a raw statistic and doesn't take into account the practicality of reducing harm through legislation. Not that I don't think one can reduce harm. The question is how much and will legislation exasperate or increase crime. Prohibitions of drugs and alcohol haven't shown to be all that effective. How do you legislate or prohibit something that is in high demand?

Via improved enforcement and improved law enforcement capacities. Installing LoJack style tracking devices have greatly reduced auto theft rates, and installing similar tracking devices on guns would probably have a similar effect. Simply requiring gun owners to register their guns and to report losses (as is already a requirement with cars) would reduce gun theft and reduce the supply.

An even simpler solution is to restrict ammunition sales. A gun without ammo is a paperweight.

Well, who would argue that it is not sensible to use reasonable measures?

The NRA and the Libertarian party, for two. The question of requiring reportage of stolen guns has come up before and the NRA lobbied against it. Similarly, the NRA has consistently argued against the requirement for mandatory registration, mandatory safety training, and mandatory safety equipment, despite the fact that these are demonstrably effective methods for improving car safety.

Does't the question then become "what is reasonable"? Why is removing them from non-criminals reasonable?

Answered above.

If reduction of harm is so paramount wouldn't be reasonable to eliminate descretionary driving?

And, funny enough, we do that. If you want to drive, you need to get the state's permission in the form of a licence, and you need to demonstrate to the state's satisfaction both that the car itself safe and that you are safe behind the wheel.

I am perfectly happy with "eliminating" discretionary gun ownership under exactly the same terms.

 

[John Bentley]

And, funny enough, we do that. If you want to drive, you need to get the state's permission in the form of a licence, and you need to demonstrate to the state's satisfaction both that the car itself safe and that you are safe behind the wheel.

I am perfectly happy with "eliminating" discretionary gun ownership under exactly the same terms.

I've been following your debate with interest, but this last statement seems a bit incredible to me.

Do you mean that you would be OK with private gun ownership as long as the same rules for driving a car were used?

Sorry about the above grammar confusion. I was trying to post in a hurry.

 

[RandFan]

Constant? Of course not. Relatively stable? I believe so, from the numbers I've been able to dig up. You are, of course, at liberty to disprove me.

Or I can be skeptical of your assumption. Lacking some proof I'll stay skeptical until I care to find the data or you care enough to dig up the data. This is still a skeptics forum and claims are still up to those who make them to prove them.

From the numbers I cited, the number of gun-related homicides are approximately 12,000 per year in the US.

Ok.

The number of shooting-spree related homicides are, let's say, 60 per year.

Sounds high. But, "let's say", for the sake of argument. Out of a total of 12,000 we have 60 or .005.

That's a pretty insignificant number in my book. But let's back up.

Number of deaths due to mass shooting sprees / number of deaths due to shootings.

To get a good perspective we really should add to that.

Annual homicides due to mass shooting sprees / annual homicides.

...the approximately 12:1 odds of being killed from gun-inflicted injuries...

What are you talking about?

There are 300 million people in the US
There are about 17,000 murder and non-negligent homicides per year.
If we accept your number of gun spree deaths thats 60.

Chance of homicide: 1 in 16,667 or 6 in 100,000
Chance of gun related homicide: 1 in 4,687,500 or .020 in 100,000
Chance of being struck by lightening 1 in 600,000.

BTW, I can't find any statistics for gun spree homicides on any crime related site. That doesn't mean that they are not there I just can't find them. However, it would seem that if these numbers were significant more sites would track them, right?

I do.

Of course. This is a political issue. Why would a 1 in 4.7 million chance not be significant?

Via improved enforcement and improved law enforcement capacities. Installing LoJack style tracking devices have greatly reduced auto theft rates, and installing similar tracking devices on guns would probably have a similar effect.

I would say "possibly" not "probably. I'm not against such legislation. I'd like to see some data.

An even simpler solution is to restrict ammunition sales. A gun without ammo is a paperweight.

A bong without cannabis is just a paperweight. By your logic, by restricting the sale of cannabis, we can reduce it's consumption. I'm not sure though.

And, funny enough, we do that. If you want to drive, you need to get the state's permission in the form of a licence, and you need to demonstrate to the state's satisfaction both that the car itself safe and that you are safe behind the wheel.

? By discretionary I mean non-essential.

Would you eliminate non-essential driving? You know, driving for vacation or to go to the pool?

 

[Matteo Martini]

I guess the same thing if someone happens to get drunk and gets into their own car and drives into someone else, assuming everybody drives around in their own car.
[..]

There are already a lot of deaths of people invested by drunkyards, why be willing to increase the number (potentially), by giving potential drunkyards guns?
Guns are not really needed in everyday life, cars are.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Think about it. Would you mess around with someone with a gun hanging off his hip?

I always try not to mess with nobody.
The point is.. would anybody with a gun on his hip try to mess with me?

What do you mean "what would happen if.."?, That sort of thing happens right now. Remember what happend to Cheney and his lawyer friend on that hunting trip? And Cheney wasn't even drunk.

You give me a hundred of easy shots on that..
Seriously, the more the guns that everybody is allowed to hold, the more lickely the occurence of such incidents, right?

Ditto. That happens now. Personaly I think anyone who wants to buy a gun needs to go to a traning class on gun saftey. But hell, here in the US you don't need to go to class inorder to get your drivers licence and more people die from car accidents than get accidentaly shot.

You are doing a good job, in order to show me your side of things.
As for gun safety, how would do avoid to have the 8-year-old son of a proud gun-owner taking his father`s gun from the desk and try to play at Rambo?

What if what? There are alot of people her own guns legaly or illegaly. There is not an all out wild west shoot out going on everywhere all the time.

There was a shoot out when guns were allowed to anyone (in the Wild Wild West)

people manage to get shot even in countries where civillian ownership of gun is illegal.

In Japan and Italy there are far fewer people who die being shot.
Please, do not ask me to post the link, I have no time

If someone wants to kill another person they'll manage to find a way to do so. Guns just make it more efficient to do so.

But that is exactly the point.
It is difficult (impossible?) for a psucho to kill 30 people with a knife.
But, if you give him two guns?
Becomes much easier