I don’t know. Killing another person isn’t something casually done, even by some very bad people, IME.
I’d say that the great majority of people who want to kill someone badly enough to actually kill someone, do so. Just like people who want something badly enough to steal it, steal it.
My experience with criminals (I’ve worked as a deputy sheriff, with sex offenders, and as a teacher in an alternative placement school) is that they become concerned with what laws say only after they’ve been arrested and entered the legal system.
I’m sorry, do you think most rounds are expended at pictures of humans for some reason? Could you expand on this?
Well, let’s do all three. Suppose I’m arguing for (1) a constitutional amendment to allow a law requiring trigger locks, (2) a statute requiring trigger locks under existing constitutional law (according to Heller’s reasonableness standard), or (3) trigger locks, from a pure policy perspective. [I don’t know or particularly care about whether trigger locks are a good idea, I just snatched that out of the ether]. Is your answer about the relevance of the net short-term harm calculus different for (1), (2), or (3)?
The goal of my question was just to see whether an extended discussion about costs and benefits made sense. It wouldn’t make sense if, regardless of the outcome, people would just declare that the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t matter.
Your point here is basically addressed to the end of the calculation process. And, I think it can be re-phrased like this: what happens if the two are roughly equal?*
Maybe that would be a problem. Maybe it wouldn’t. But it doesn’t weigh on the a priori question I was trying to ask about whether the attempt to figure it out even mattered.
*After all, it is only difficult when the two sides are in the same ballpark, as with your example of $10 million dollars versus a human life. If we speak in actuarial terms where all things of value have a monetary worth, we can all agree that if guns cost us $500 billion a year and save us $1 billion that, regardless of the actual breakdown of lives/purses/etc., the cost-benefit analysis is clear. I’m not asserting that the balance is that skewed in either direction.
We certainly do hear arguments about substantially modifying First Amendment jurisprudence, so I’m not sure the comparison is valid since we’ve only had relevant Second Amendment jurisprudence for less than a year.
But in any case, that was rather my point, Brick. Constitutional rights cannot generally be reduced to a societal cost-benefit analysis. I very much doubted that those who believe in a constitutional right to defend themselves in their homes will be persuaded to support obstacles to that for the good of everyone as a whole, especially when some of those being injured by guns are total idiots (e.g. Plaxico). But I was wrong. Ex Tank seems to believe this analysis is the fundamental issue.
Well, the larger point I was trying to suggest is that it’s well-nigh impossible to quantify benefits like, “A free society.” In the abstract, practically everyone agrees that a free society has value; in the details, obviously, lurks the devil.
We quantify the unquantifiable all the time in the law. Why is a human life or the value of a national park any more quantifiable than a particular freedom? The quantities are fuzzy, to be sure. But almost everyone agrees that a human life is worth more than $10,000 and less than $100,000,000. Similarly, I’m sure we could value discrete freedoms with some margin of fuzziness (though our valuations might be idiosyncratic, we can take an average, or argue based on our opponent’s valuations). One way to do this is ask people what they’d give up for that freedom. If, in exchange for forfeiting my right against self-incrimination I could have a house, I’d probably do it. Again, I think your point only matters when we’re inside some general ballpark of parity.
With your particular point about valuing the general concept “a free society,” we would obviously run into considerably more trouble than valuing discrete freedoms. But if you’re someone who believes that without widespread gun ownership the US government will go all Nazi on us, then I imagine that any argument over gun control is going to be fruitless. People who are seriously considering good faith arguments about gun control are not on that extreme. Do you believe that gun ownership is a necessary condition for a free society?
The harm calculus is certainly important for (3). It is important as to whether (1) should be passed, but obviously not to whether it could be passed.
As to (2) it gets more complex. I simply don’t know enough about trigger locks. If a trigger lock significantly impairs the use of the firearm for self defense (as many claim) then the hamr calculus is probably not relevant. If it doesn’t, but does degrade some aspects of the use of the weapon, then the calculus is relevant.
Yes, “being necessary to the security of a free State”
“A free society” is not a phrase remarkable for its laser-like cogency.
But in general, yes. I believe the ability to defend oneself is a natural human right, and I believe that a society that unduly restricts an individual’s legal right to arm himself for the purpose of self-defense cannot be said to be truly free.
I don’t think it’s necessary or sufficient, though I also don’t believe it hinders the creation of a free society.
Oh, well if it says so in the Constitution, it must be true.
If that’s the argument then the “free society” bit is just a canard anyway. I agree that a society that denies natural human rights is not truly free. So would most. Thus, the truth of your statement really turns on the truth of it being a natural human to defend oneself with guns, and your definition of “undue.” (Consider the following argument: In general, marriage is a natural human right, so a society that unduly restricts an individual’s right to marry cannot be said to be truly free. Therefore, gay marriage is a necessary condition for a free society.)
And it still walks you into the obvious trap of declaring that the only truly free societies in the world are the US, Switzerland, Iraq, etc. Maybe you believe that, but I’m more sure of the premise that the UK is a free society than I am sure of the premise that gun ownership is a natural human right.
It is my personal belief that also happens to be enumerated in the Constitution as a right.
Just for the record, the Constitution does not state that ownership of guns free from undue restriction is a necessary condition of a free society. Indeed, not even the right wing of the Supreme Court agrees with your interpretation of the prefatory clause.
The Ninth begs to differ, but as usual, no one cares.
Enjoy,
Steven
Is there such a thing, and if so, could you define them for us?
You are correct; it was your supposition. Big difference! pssst! See “synonyms.”
Your supposition that elucidator’s hypothesis is correct is irrelevant.
I’ll grant that, very worst-case scenario (using low-end DGU numbers from avowed anti-gun cites stacked against the very worst crime years) you have a point. See below.
Telepathy isn’t required. A magnifying glass, perhaps; small print, narrow corridors, poor lighting, etc. Sort of the mental equivalent of a Wal-Mart.
No problem. Always willing to burst the bubble of supercilious pricks like you.
The number (65,000) I put up came from a “study of a study” by Dr. David Hemenway of the Kleck/Gertz study of DGU. Dr. Hemenway cites three different studies for his 65,000 number.
Mssrs. Cook and Ludwig posit 108,000 DGU’s in their 1996 survey.
They cite 64,615. I hazard a guess that this is the number Dr. Hemenway rounded up to attain his claim of 65,000 DGU’s per year.
Mr. Cook supposes 80,000 DGU per year.
So, elucidator you have caught me in a mistake.
I had supposed Bricker’s pile would be larger than yours by a factor of 4; I was wrong. I had, without referencing the .pdf extracts I have saved over the years, transposed the “17,566 Suicide by Firearms - 1997” number with the “32,436 reported Total Firearm deaths for 1997” number.
So, giving you every death by firearm (by murder, suicide, accident, and legal intervention) for 1997, the year Dr. Hemenway posted his rebuttal to the Kleck/Gertz study that yielded the famous “2.5 million DGU’s Annually” number:
64,615/32,436 = 1.99~ Bricker’s pile is still larger than yours by a factor of just under 2:1.
And these are low-ball numbers by Dr. David Hemenway, the anti-gunner’s answer to John Lott.
Using the Kleck/Gertz numbers:
Sect. III, para. 17.
Using their low-end number of 240,000 DGUs against the worst year on record, 1991:
240,000 DGUs/38,323 = 6.2625577 on my calculator. Let’s just call it 6.26.
So by your silly-assed “though experiment” involving bricks, Bricker’s pile could be 6 times larger than yours.
Even using the BJS number of 62,276 (see below) against the very worst year on record:
62,276/38,232 = 1.6288972 on my calculator. I’ll just call it 1.63.
Nope, Bricker’s still got you beat.
But wait, there’s more! Follow the bouncing ball!
Going to the Bureau of Justice Statistic’s homepage, and typing in the words “defensive gun use” in their little search box in the upper right-hand corner of their homepage, yields several results, the first of which is a .pdf extract titled, “Weapon Use And Violent Crime, 1993-2001.”
In the upper right-hand corner of page 2 of that extract, they report an “Average Annual Victimizations” number of 8,896,640. That’s almost 9 million annual victimization of some form of violent crime, from simple assault up through actual homicides, per year, from 1993 to 2001. That’s one metric assload of crime.
Firearm victimization clocks in at/around 10%, yielding 846,950.
Table 8 on page 7 shows injury rates from firearm usage in violent crime at/around 15%, or 127,042.
Table 10 on page 8 shows “Average Annual Homicide” by firearm at 12,486. So we can posit that approximately 10% of firearm injuries result in death.
But check out page 11, a little over halfway down the page a box titled, “Victim Self Defense.”
The tabular breakdown on the right-hand side of that box lists “Attacked/threatened offender with a gun” at the 0.7% rate.
8,896,640 x 0.7% = 62,276.48.
62,276/12,486 = 4.9876661 on my calculator. Let’s just call it 4.99.
So for the period of 1993 - 2001, according to the official government agency tasked with tracking this stuff, defensive gun usage outnumbered homicides by firearm by a factor of just shy of 5:1.
Damn! Bricker’s pile is still larger than yours.
Okay, you got me. I had interpreted Castle Doctrine articles and papers I had read too broadly. But it is my understanding that until a conviction is secured, it isn’t a reportable crime for statistical purposes.
This is also possibly wrong, depending upon the methodology of whichever statistical study is being conducted, is compiling data, etc.
I’m not finding that specific statement in Dr. Hemenway’s study I linked to earlier. Could you provide a section/paragrpah?
I promise to say nice words about **ExTank **when he eats his gun on a bad day.
So when you said my hypothetical was irrelevant, you meant that it was irrelevant to so much as ask whether, even if elucidator was correct, his point would matter.
Well, excuse me for trying to save some time. In my experience reading these debates, the statistical battle ends in a draw in which advocates of gun control question the methodology of a survey of gun enthusiasts personal heroism and anti-gun control folks question how many murders would be prevented by gun control. For myriad reasons, it is nearly impossible to obtain empirical information on either side of the equation that all reasonable people can agree on. So, I thought I might short-circuit that step and save you some time by asking whether it even matters.
But, by all means, carry on.
ETA: Can we also note that you’re using a study which states that “Firearm self-defense is rare compared with gun crimes,” to attempt to prove the opposite?
In fairness, he’s using the study to attempt to prove that undesirable gun use is less common than firearm self-defense.
In any case, we do already have empirical evidence showing that gun control reduces gun crime, thoughtfully provided by the government agencies of (nation-) states which do have gun control.
What’s the difference? Do you think the gun crimes numbers are disproportionately about illegal possession or something?
Anti-gun control folks disagree. Gun crime results from a whole host of factors. Those countries do not show that gun control measures are the key factor. Maybe it’s demographic, economic, or cultural. Maybe gun crime would be even lower if those countries allowed more gun ownership. The mere correlation is insuffucient (they would say).