Thursday, January 17, 2013
Political Mayhem Thursday: Do more guns make us more safe?
I'm fascinated by a statistic related to that.
I spent ten years in Texas, where gun ownership rates are higher than average (at least in terms of number of guns that are privately owned-- it is about average in the percentage of people who own a gun). There is no doubt that many people in Texas feel strongly about gun ownership and the ability to protect themselves with guns. If more guns (and the willingness to use them) mean more safety from gun violence, you would expect Texas to be relatively safe from gun violence.
But, it's not. Just as an observation, I was always intrigued by the fact that so many people had guns in Waco for self-defense, but there still was a remarkable number of armed robberies and other incidents of gun violence.
Hard numbers back this up. According to statistics from The Guardian, in the United States as a whole there are 2.75 firearm murders per 100,000 people, firearm robbery rates of 39.25/100,000 and firearm assault rates of 43.77. Texas is much worse, with a firearm murder rate of 2.91, firearm robbery rates of 50.21, and a firearm assault rate of 58.28. Especially in the last two categories, Texas is more prone to gun violence than the United States as a whole, despite all those legally owned guns.
When I have brought this up with people in Texas, they often say that the high gun crime rates are because of the state's proximity to Mexico. Hmmm... setting aside the assumptions that underlay that idea, let's look at data. If the problem is Mexico, then it must be really bad in El Paso, right? Since it is right on the border, and is so closely tied to Mexico, and is by far the largest Texas city on the border-- but El Paso turns out to be the safest city in the United States. Which means, I guess, that the rest of Texas must be really bad in terms of gun crime.
The truth is that there is no consistent correlation between gun ownership rates and gun violence rates. For example, the two jurisdictions with (by far) the lowest gun ownership rates are New Jersey and DC, but they diverge wildly, with New Jersey having low gun violence rates, and DC having high gun violence rates. Still, if more guns really meant less gun violence, then there would be a correlation-- and that just isn't true.
More guns don't make us safe. Fewer guns do make us safer, IF the gun that is not there is the one that would be used in a crime-- that is, if the person deprived of a gun is the one who would use it for gun violence. To me, that points to wisdom of the type of measures that President Obama proposed yesterday, which are largely targeted at the people most likely to use guns in crime, and the types of weapons they tend to use.
Comments:
<< Home
Christine, when you say "NO," do you mean "No, Osler, you are wrong once again," or "No, more guns do not make us more safe?"
So many tensions, contradictions, paradoxes to this issue.
Thinking out loud:
1. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But people kill people more efficiently and more readily, surely, with guns.
2. Although reasonable people can disagree, I firmly believe the the Constitution protects an individual's right to own a gun. I also believe that we as a polity have the right to impose limits (or even revoke) that basic right.
3. The President and the Gun Control folks are obviously appealing to the emotion of Sandy Hook--but using statistics on gun crime that mostly relate to an entire different set of circumstances and societal ills.
4. We would be safer as a society if there were no guns--perhaps--but unilateral disarmament in a society with 300,000,000 guns seems foolish. That is, if we could get rid of all the guns, we would be safer. But, if we get rid of our guns, we would likely be more at risk at least in the near term.
Just a beginning...
Thinking out loud:
1. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But people kill people more efficiently and more readily, surely, with guns.
2. Although reasonable people can disagree, I firmly believe the the Constitution protects an individual's right to own a gun. I also believe that we as a polity have the right to impose limits (or even revoke) that basic right.
3. The President and the Gun Control folks are obviously appealing to the emotion of Sandy Hook--but using statistics on gun crime that mostly relate to an entire different set of circumstances and societal ills.
4. We would be safer as a society if there were no guns--perhaps--but unilateral disarmament in a society with 300,000,000 guns seems foolish. That is, if we could get rid of all the guns, we would be safer. But, if we get rid of our guns, we would likely be more at risk at least in the near term.
Just a beginning...
The question to which I return, again and again and again, is this:
When was "well regulated" removed from the 2nd Amendment???
When was "well regulated" removed from the 2nd Amendment???
# posted by 
: 11:07 AM
: 11:07 AM
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is only a prefatory clause in the 2nd amendment. Therefore, as the Court stated, "apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause." Therefore, the words "well regulated weren't removed, they just don't restrict the scope of the operative phrase in the 2nd amendment, which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Court in Heller also defined what the terms "well regulated" meant in the context of the 2nd amendment. "Well regulated" defines "militia," not the right to keep and bear arms, or the type of arms that are at issue. This is confirmed by the Court, which stated, "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." Well regulated relates to the militia, not to the guns.
So, that is what happened to "well regulated."
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause." Therefore, the words "well regulated weren't removed, they just don't restrict the scope of the operative phrase in the 2nd amendment, which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Court in Heller also defined what the terms "well regulated" meant in the context of the 2nd amendment. "Well regulated" defines "militia," not the right to keep and bear arms, or the type of arms that are at issue. This is confirmed by the Court, which stated, "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." Well regulated relates to the militia, not to the guns.
So, that is what happened to "well regulated."
# posted by : 12:25 PM
: 12:25 PM
The first thing I learned for my citizenship exam was The Bill of Rights. It sounded like the Ten Commandments; etched in stone, immutable, indisputable…final. In spite of my weariness to this kind of expression format it sorta’ made sense and given the fact I experienced communist dictatorship first hand, it made sense even more. About Second Amendment I’ll preamble I’m biased toward guns because I do NOT feel safe around them and that is solely because I do NOT trust any person bearing a gun, any gun, to be cool under pressure, any pressure, be it that this person is certified, certifiable, both or any kind of permutation on human nature. Well, unless engaged in war, which warrants free for all killing and in my opinion, a most despicable, base type of human interaction. That being said, I’ll be candid and say that my first impression interpretation of the Second Amendment was as a safeguard against oppression, against a government that went awry of the will of people who put them in the position to govern. Only after I looked at it again I realized it came in handy during the frontier days of the Wild West or during the grizzly bears’ mating season, but never did it cross my mind any American will arm themselves to the teeth to kill other humans, defending the family silver or the flat screen TV.
RRL is right about Heller. And also about Scruffy's.
Which makes me wonder-- how does RRL feel about guns at Scruffy's?
Which makes me wonder-- how does RRL feel about guns at Scruffy's?
Do more guns make us more safe? NO
I do not feel safe knowing my neighbors are armed ~ some of them have assault rifles that they find FUN to shoot in the back yard.
I do not feel safe knowing my neighbors are armed ~ some of them have assault rifles that they find FUN to shoot in the back yard.
Yes, if the question is merely, "Do more guns make us more safe?" The qualifier is "from whom." The title of your post is broader than your actual discussion.
If you are just looking at gun crime, I think the level-headed gun enthusiast would not say more guns equals less gun crime. The answer to gun crime has nothing to do with the number of guns or their characteristics. More cars probably means more car accidents, but the answer to car accidents isn't less or more cars.
The effect of the number of guns on the amount of gun crime is a red herring the gun control debate. Much of the evidence is anecdotal, and as you point out Prof. Osler, the "statistical" evidence is inconsistent.
I suppose if there were no guns in the whole world, then we would not have gun crime. But if there were no knives in the whole world, no one would be killed with a knife either. Outside of such a utopia, gun crime is going to occur and nothing short of totally disarming the populace is going to avoid that.
The problem of gun crime is just like any other crime problem, it's a human problem, a problem with the human condition. That's why these correlations are hard to come by. That's why you have places like Chicago, with some of the strictest gun laws, having rampant gun violence.
But again, it's all a red herring. Because the Second Amendment gives me the right to own guns "of the kind in common use at the time." So I suppose some regulation and some of the proposals of President Obama "may" be reasonable from a certain perspective. But to the extent they infringe on my Second Amendment rights, they are unreasonable (and unconstitutional). It doesn't matter that these guns are used in crimes on occasion, that's merely a byproduct of liberty.
So again, the answer to your general question is "Yes." More guns do make us more safe. They make us safe from tyrants and keep tyranny perpetually at bay. That was the concern of the founders, and that is my concern. At the end of the day, crime will happen and there's little that can be done to change that. It's part of the human condition, the same human condition that also leads to tyranny. But while my guns may do little to prevent me from being a victim of a random crime perpetrated by a fallen individual, my guns combined with the guns of a nation of gun owners will prevent me from becoming a victim of tyranny.
If you are just looking at gun crime, I think the level-headed gun enthusiast would not say more guns equals less gun crime. The answer to gun crime has nothing to do with the number of guns or their characteristics. More cars probably means more car accidents, but the answer to car accidents isn't less or more cars.
The effect of the number of guns on the amount of gun crime is a red herring the gun control debate. Much of the evidence is anecdotal, and as you point out Prof. Osler, the "statistical" evidence is inconsistent.
I suppose if there were no guns in the whole world, then we would not have gun crime. But if there were no knives in the whole world, no one would be killed with a knife either. Outside of such a utopia, gun crime is going to occur and nothing short of totally disarming the populace is going to avoid that.
The problem of gun crime is just like any other crime problem, it's a human problem, a problem with the human condition. That's why these correlations are hard to come by. That's why you have places like Chicago, with some of the strictest gun laws, having rampant gun violence.
But again, it's all a red herring. Because the Second Amendment gives me the right to own guns "of the kind in common use at the time." So I suppose some regulation and some of the proposals of President Obama "may" be reasonable from a certain perspective. But to the extent they infringe on my Second Amendment rights, they are unreasonable (and unconstitutional). It doesn't matter that these guns are used in crimes on occasion, that's merely a byproduct of liberty.
So again, the answer to your general question is "Yes." More guns do make us more safe. They make us safe from tyrants and keep tyranny perpetually at bay. That was the concern of the founders, and that is my concern. At the end of the day, crime will happen and there's little that can be done to change that. It's part of the human condition, the same human condition that also leads to tyranny. But while my guns may do little to prevent me from being a victim of a random crime perpetrated by a fallen individual, my guns combined with the guns of a nation of gun owners will prevent me from becoming a victim of tyranny.
The 1st Amendment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
And we all know that we have "free speech" in this country and that there is some sort of division between "church and state." Even so, Federal, State and local law do place regulations on speech and the practice of religion.
For instance, to take the most common example one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater as a joke without penalty. More practically, one can protest government action or even private actions by individuals, but the protestor has to respect a person's property and privacy. I can't go onto the grounds of the White House, or on John Boehner's lawn (or the lawn of the President of Smith & Wesson) to express my views.
And religions that condone drug use, ritual sacrifice and even polygamy, for instance are regulated.
So why not guns?
Some "speech" or religious activities are considered to be outside the protection of the First Amendment. Seems to me that some guns should be outside the protection of the Second Amendment.
And Yes, I agree, RRL has correctly stated the holdings of Heller. That doesn't mean we as a nation can't change the law. It's happened before.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
And we all know that we have "free speech" in this country and that there is some sort of division between "church and state." Even so, Federal, State and local law do place regulations on speech and the practice of religion.
For instance, to take the most common example one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater as a joke without penalty. More practically, one can protest government action or even private actions by individuals, but the protestor has to respect a person's property and privacy. I can't go onto the grounds of the White House, or on John Boehner's lawn (or the lawn of the President of Smith & Wesson) to express my views.
And religions that condone drug use, ritual sacrifice and even polygamy, for instance are regulated.
So why not guns?
Some "speech" or religious activities are considered to be outside the protection of the First Amendment. Seems to me that some guns should be outside the protection of the Second Amendment.
And Yes, I agree, RRL has correctly stated the holdings of Heller. That doesn't mean we as a nation can't change the law. It's happened before.
Speaking of statistical correlations and just because I live here, according to the numbers quoted by the Prof. NYC is the 3rd safest city and the 4th lowest in gun ownership in the United States. And if I may add, it is also the place with the highest percentage of certifiable individuals running loose on its streets. Fear of tyranny aside this sole example only proves it is possible to be safe with less guns…Even though the lunatics running loose in NYC may be free of the manic anxiety of gun enthusiasts and for that matter a lot safer and saner for the society at large, so perhaps my added statistic is no good. The less guns less crime correlation still stands though, for NYC anyway.
Erik - interesting analogy with the guns and knives.
I would add a difference in the two is (not sure how to word it)... A knife crime to me would be more personal as you have to be right on top of someone to harm them. A gun crime 'can' remove that element as there is usually some distance between the shooter and the victim.
I would add a difference in the two is (not sure how to word it)... A knife crime to me would be more personal as you have to be right on top of someone to harm them. A gun crime 'can' remove that element as there is usually some distance between the shooter and the victim.
Christine, I don't disagree with your observation re knives. I think the analogy stands, but I mostly meant it as hyperbole.
IPLawguy, guns are already regulated. And some guns are outside the protection of the Second Amendment (see United States v. Miller). But the litmus test for citizen ownership is also found in Miller: "of the kind in common use at the time." And "common use" is presented in the context of use for military purposes, i.e., repelling tyrants, not hunting and not mere individual self-defense. That's pretty broad. And it runs counter to many of the proposed new laws/regulations today.
So if gun crime concerns us so much that as a nation we want to change the law and hand over our liberty, then we can amend the Constitution.
IPLawguy, guns are already regulated. And some guns are outside the protection of the Second Amendment (see United States v. Miller). But the litmus test for citizen ownership is also found in Miller: "of the kind in common use at the time." And "common use" is presented in the context of use for military purposes, i.e., repelling tyrants, not hunting and not mere individual self-defense. That's pretty broad. And it runs counter to many of the proposed new laws/regulations today.
So if gun crime concerns us so much that as a nation we want to change the law and hand over our liberty, then we can amend the Constitution.
A few thoughts:
1) The highest rates of gun violence occur in areas with the lowest rates of household gun ownership. Most gun violence occurs in urban areas, where around 30% of households own at least one gun, as opposed to 42% in the suburbs and 60% in rural communities--both of which have much lower rates of gun violence. This adds at least some credence to the claim that more legal gun ownership may be correlated with less gun crime.
2) Gun violence is not an appropriate stand-alone measure of safety. Admittedly, the US has the world's highest murder rate, but several nations with substantially stricter gun laws experience higher rates of violent crime. The UK, Sweden, and Australia, for example, all have higher rates of rape and assault than the United States (some much higher).
3) In my view, the current conversation on controlling gun violence (most of which is directed at preventing the next Sandy Hook) is reactionary and fails to reach the crux of the problem. We are hearing lots about banning assault weapons (like the AR-15 used at Sandy Hook), but rifles of any kind account for only 3% of homicides nationwide (more people are killed with an assailants bare hands, 6%). Handguns, by contrast, account for 47% of homicides. It may make us feel safer to ban AR-15s and the like, but our feelings may not do much to actually make us safer. Don't forget that while the tragedies at Sandy Hook and Aurora both involved assault-type rifles, the worst mass-killing in American history, Virginia Tech, involved only handguns.
In my view, everyone who purchases a gun should be required to pass a background check, and the efficacy of the federal regulatory structure should be seriously examined. But what will we achieve by banning assault-type rifles? To some extent, it's an all or nothing proposition--either get rid of all guns (virtually impossible), or limit ourselves to rational (i.e. not "feeling" based) control policies.
1) The highest rates of gun violence occur in areas with the lowest rates of household gun ownership. Most gun violence occurs in urban areas, where around 30% of households own at least one gun, as opposed to 42% in the suburbs and 60% in rural communities--both of which have much lower rates of gun violence. This adds at least some credence to the claim that more legal gun ownership may be correlated with less gun crime.
2) Gun violence is not an appropriate stand-alone measure of safety. Admittedly, the US has the world's highest murder rate, but several nations with substantially stricter gun laws experience higher rates of violent crime. The UK, Sweden, and Australia, for example, all have higher rates of rape and assault than the United States (some much higher).
3) In my view, the current conversation on controlling gun violence (most of which is directed at preventing the next Sandy Hook) is reactionary and fails to reach the crux of the problem. We are hearing lots about banning assault weapons (like the AR-15 used at Sandy Hook), but rifles of any kind account for only 3% of homicides nationwide (more people are killed with an assailants bare hands, 6%). Handguns, by contrast, account for 47% of homicides. It may make us feel safer to ban AR-15s and the like, but our feelings may not do much to actually make us safer. Don't forget that while the tragedies at Sandy Hook and Aurora both involved assault-type rifles, the worst mass-killing in American history, Virginia Tech, involved only handguns.
In my view, everyone who purchases a gun should be required to pass a background check, and the efficacy of the federal regulatory structure should be seriously examined. But what will we achieve by banning assault-type rifles? To some extent, it's an all or nothing proposition--either get rid of all guns (virtually impossible), or limit ourselves to rational (i.e. not "feeling" based) control policies.
Hey, I'm not saying Heller was right (though, I tend to like anything that grants additional individual liberties, and therefore would probably ultimately come down the same way) I'm just saying what the law is.
Also, I HATE guns. Scare me to death.
As far as guns at Scruffs, I support the portion of the concealed carry law that prohibits people from carrying guns into a bar. I think that guns and alcohol are a bad combination.
Also, I HATE guns. Scare me to death.
As far as guns at Scruffs, I support the portion of the concealed carry law that prohibits people from carrying guns into a bar. I think that guns and alcohol are a bad combination.
# posted by : 4:22 PM
: 4:22 PM
Does anyone believe a local militia (pick any, say one in Michigan) with a well stocked armory of assault rifles, RPG launchers and mountains of ammo, etc. could defend themselves against a U.S. led military assault?
Which maverick branch of the service should we be most fearful of? How long could our entire Marine Corp hold out against the Army and Air Force? The Army against the Marines and Air Force? Help me out here… Galactic Commanders and space craft from another world? Help me. . .
Are we to fear a coup? The entire military establishment in the hands of a tyrant? When that day arrives, those fearing tyranny will need more than 100 round magazines attached to their assault rifles. Prayer will be the order of the day. . . Psyche evaluations should be mandatory for anyone espousing such fears. . .
Is there another reason for not regulating high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles and handguns with large capacity magazines loaded with ammunition intended to take a life? I’ve been in the fields with my cousins, 4-10 and 20-gauge slung across my forearm – It’s an American tradition and often a ‘right-of-passage.’ Now handguns scare the ‘holy hell’ out of me. I’m blessed to live in a very safe suburban community and fully understand a handgun for protection – multiple clips of 7 to 10 rounds ?
Where is the balance between reason and fear? It appears four times a year, as many lives as 911 are lost to gun deaths. Onesey, twosey, dailey gun deaths are more often as concerning as an automobile death – So sad for the individual and the family and. . . life goes on. . .
There has to be some common ground to begin putting an end to mass killings – 20 first graders, six adults and a mother? We’re Americans – we’re so much better than this!!!
Which maverick branch of the service should we be most fearful of? How long could our entire Marine Corp hold out against the Army and Air Force? The Army against the Marines and Air Force? Help me out here… Galactic Commanders and space craft from another world? Help me. . .
Are we to fear a coup? The entire military establishment in the hands of a tyrant? When that day arrives, those fearing tyranny will need more than 100 round magazines attached to their assault rifles. Prayer will be the order of the day. . . Psyche evaluations should be mandatory for anyone espousing such fears. . .
Is there another reason for not regulating high-powered semi-automatic assault rifles and handguns with large capacity magazines loaded with ammunition intended to take a life? I’ve been in the fields with my cousins, 4-10 and 20-gauge slung across my forearm – It’s an American tradition and often a ‘right-of-passage.’ Now handguns scare the ‘holy hell’ out of me. I’m blessed to live in a very safe suburban community and fully understand a handgun for protection – multiple clips of 7 to 10 rounds ?
Where is the balance between reason and fear? It appears four times a year, as many lives as 911 are lost to gun deaths. Onesey, twosey, dailey gun deaths are more often as concerning as an automobile death – So sad for the individual and the family and. . . life goes on. . .
There has to be some common ground to begin putting an end to mass killings – 20 first graders, six adults and a mother? We’re Americans – we’re so much better than this!!!
Christine Charles said: Psyche evaluations should be mandatory for anyone espousing such fears. . .
Agreed
Question of the day???
Would Quentin Tarantino pass a psyche evaluation? How about the lunatic who was on Piers Morgan's program last week (veins bulging during his angry rant)?
I hope not
Agreed
Question of the day???
Would Quentin Tarantino pass a psyche evaluation? How about the lunatic who was on Piers Morgan's program last week (veins bulging during his angry rant)?
I hope not
I suppose 2/3 of Americans need a psych eval then:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny
On a more realistic note, I doubt the "entire military establishment" would ever be in the hands of a tyrant. There are too many Fightin' Texas Aggies in the military... You assume the entire military would follow a tyrant, and I know a couple Aggies and Ringknockers who would not.
But you miss the point, Christines. The Second Amendment isn't concerned with personal opinions on the practicality of a fear of tyranny. It's there because tyranny is always a threat to a free society. If you don't like it, seek amendment.
It's not a "fear" anyways. It's an understanding. An understanding that tyranny is less likely in an armed society. It's common sense. I'm not afraid of tyranny any more than I'm afraid of someone breaking into my house. I merely hope it doesn't happen, and I take precautions in case someone tries. My locks may not keep out a determined robber, but I lock my doors anyways.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny
On a more realistic note, I doubt the "entire military establishment" would ever be in the hands of a tyrant. There are too many Fightin' Texas Aggies in the military... You assume the entire military would follow a tyrant, and I know a couple Aggies and Ringknockers who would not.
But you miss the point, Christines. The Second Amendment isn't concerned with personal opinions on the practicality of a fear of tyranny. It's there because tyranny is always a threat to a free society. If you don't like it, seek amendment.
It's not a "fear" anyways. It's an understanding. An understanding that tyranny is less likely in an armed society. It's common sense. I'm not afraid of tyranny any more than I'm afraid of someone breaking into my house. I merely hope it doesn't happen, and I take precautions in case someone tries. My locks may not keep out a determined robber, but I lock my doors anyways.
Just for the record:
Well said, Erik.
I hear you. Keep making sense. It is a winning long-term strategy.
Well said, Erik.
I hear you. Keep making sense. It is a winning long-term strategy.
The number of Aggies in the military makes me feel much more strongly about the need to allow individuals to arm themselves.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 11:54 AM
: 11:54 AM << Home
