# Sam Harris on a world without guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808 "2013-01-30T14:06:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/81 "2013-01-31T20:54:53Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html) That is a 5 year old newspaper report… There was another claim on Japan as well ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/82 "2013-01-31T20:59:39Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > There was another claim on Japan as well Japan is very different, culturally, from us and the rest of the world. AFAIR, crimes rates among ethnic-Japanese citizens in the US are extremely low too. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/83 "2013-02-01T13:13:22Z")
> [@Backcountry\_Medic](#): > > It just goes to show that being able to have critical, rational thought about something like religion doesn’t mean that you are somehow always going to apply the same to everything else in your life. His argument hits pretty much all of the critical thinking fails; conformational bias, anecdotal evidence, strawman, false dichotomy, statistical denial, cherry picking data, etc, etc. Isn’t that just what a typical anti-gunner would say? Isn’t this, “conformational bias, anecdotal evidence, strawman, false dichotomy, statistical denial, cherry picking data, etc, etc” just what the gun grabbers do? Maybe you could be a little moe specific in where you think his reasoning fails. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/84 "2013-02-01T13:21:37Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I agree with you about all of the above. > This, though, is just sophistry. Yes, in that sense they’re protecting his freedom of speech, because dead men don’t speak. But it’s not at all what a reasonable person would think you mean when you mention the 2nd Amendment protecting the 1st. > > Protecting your 1st Amendment rights generally means protecting them against government censorship, not against independent crazies who try to kill you for your statements. I’m happy we both agree and to have helped you understand where general concepts can apply to particular situations. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/85 "2013-02-01T13:32:49Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Isn’t that just what a typical anti-gunner would say? > > Isn’t this, “conformational bias, anecdotal evidence, strawman, false dichotomy, statistical denial, cherry picking data, etc, etc” just what the gun grabbers do? Can’t tell if serious ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/86 "2013-02-01T14:04:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Except that strong religious belief correlates with higher homicide rates, not lower ones. Religion doesn’t make people more moral, it makes them less. You will of course be willing to provide that stat, from a reliable and non-biased, source, or course. Right? Right? ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/87 "2013-02-01T14:23:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html) > [@Terr](#): > > I don’t see where they equated the two. The article can speak about two different things, you know. In fact, if you note that the first paragraph says higher than anywhere except Australia and the second says highest in the world, it is pretty clear that they do address two different measures. > > It does talk about 1999 though. So today it may not be true. But considering that US crime rate has been dropping faster than UK’s, it probably is. > [@China\_Guy](#): > > That is a 5 year old newspaper report… > > There was another claim on Japan as well More than five years old. It’s not dated but it refers to Jack Straw as the Home Secretary and he only served in this role from 1997 to 2001. Not only is it not dated but the article provides no link or reference to the survey it claims to be quoting so there is no way of checking the figures or the methodology. Having said that \*\*Stanislaus \*\*has already explained one point: the Daily Mail goes from: > [@](#): > > _Originally from the Daily Mail_ > 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 to > [@](#): > > In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery. but as the UK definition of violent crime covers way more tha “assault or robbery”. Basically this is the sort of scare story the Daily Mail specialises in - lose use of statistics used to bash the Labour governement of the time. Basic rule for non-Brits; do no use the Mail as a souce of factual information (except possibly if it is about celebs and there doings 😃 ). ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/88 "2013-02-01T17:00:00Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > More than five years old. It’s not dated but it refers to Jack Straw as the Home Secretary and he only served in this role from 1997 to 2001. Not only is it not dated but the article provides no link or reference to the survey it claims to be quoting so there is no way of checking the figures or the methodology. How about this: are burglaries defined the same in US as in other countries? [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg/430px-Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg.png) ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg/430px-Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg.png) or this paper from 2011: [http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf](http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf) Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US, while the opposite was true thirty years ago. We label this fact as the “reversal of misfortunes” If you read it, they do control for how things are measured. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/89 "2013-02-01T22:14:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > How about this: are burglaries defined the same in US as in other countries? > > [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Burglaries\_per\_1%2C000\_pop.svg/430px-Burglaries\_per\_1%2C000\_pop.svg.png](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg/430px-Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg.png) > > or this paper from 2011: [http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf](http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf) > > Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US, while the opposite was true thirty years ago. We label this fact as the “reversal of misfortunes” > > If you read it, they do control for how things are measured. Don’t get me wrong - this is not my field - I have no real knowledge of whether overall crime rates, violent crime rates, or murder rates are higher or lower in the States compared to the UK. I was just cautioning against using a Daily Mail article from 2000 (?) to support your case. Also, burglary is not necessarily the same the world over. IANAL but don’t some jurisdictions split out day time breaking and entering and/or theft from commercial property and not classify it as burglary? The paper by the Italian professors looks interesting but I do not have the background to judge its data, its methodology, or its conclusions. One thing that did catch my eye was Figure 3b that shows rates for violent crime in each of the European countries. A quick look at the chart shows that in Britain violent crime jumped from 5 per 1000 inhabitants to 20 per 1000 between the mid-90s and the mid-00s. Anarchy unleashed, no-one safe on the streets… But then reading the Note explains that the jump was the result of change to the very wide definition to that quoted by **Stanislaus**. It realy shows the problems of comparing across time never mind across countries. As to the Wiki chart on burglaries, well again I would not rely on that to support your argument. Not only is it completely unsourced but it finishes 14 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/90 "2013-02-01T22:22:37Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > I’m happy we both agree and to have helped you understand where general concepts can apply to particular situations. :rolleyes: Really? No retraction at all about making a claim in your OP that’s not supported by your own link? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/91 "2013-02-02T01:49:56Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Really? No retraction at all about making a claim in your OP that’s not supported by your own link? Why would I make a retraction? I was very specific that Sam’s 1st amendment rights were protected by his 2nd. You agree with me I thought. Anyway, here’s my quote in question: “My guess is that he understands, more than most, that his first amendment rights might have to be protected by his second. What say you Der Trihs?” From what I can tell you have agreed with me on all important points. So what’s your problem? And yes I noticed that Der Trihs failed to answer my question about general risk of firearm ownership vs. his and Sam’s risk in particular, and he never answered my question whether he has the courage to speak his mind against religion in real life or not. So my guess is “not.” ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/92 "2013-02-02T01:51:33Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Can’t tell if serious Serious. You don’t think the anti-gunners are guilty of any of said logical fallacies? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/93 "2013-02-02T02:06:21Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Serious. You don’t think the anti-gunners are guilty of any of said logical fallacies? …he said, while using a huge logical fallacy, so well-timed that it had to be on purpose. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/94 "2013-02-02T02:46:00Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > …he said, while using a huge logical fallacy, so well-timed that it had to be on purpose. Or not. What do you mean by that? ---
**Author:** ![elninost0rm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ed655f/32.png) [@elninost0rm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elninost0rm)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/95 "2013-02-02T17:04:37Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > What do you mean by that? He means ya done goofed. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/96 "2013-02-02T17:55:08Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > What do you mean by that? You had just employed – in fact, you had just **repeated** – the logical fallacy of [Argumentum ad hominem,](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) specifically the form known as [Tu quoque.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/97 "2013-02-02T20:48:19Z")
The RationalWiki page on [Gun nuts](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gun_nut) is insightful and relevant here: > [@](#): > > **What they are, and what they are not** > > Like mall ninjas, gun nuts rarely refer to themselves as such except in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and typically call themselves gun owners, collectors, or enthusiasts. However, there are several points separating genuine “nuts” from the average gun owner. > > **Absolutist views on gun rights** > > Nearly all gun owners, including moderates on the issue, believe in the right to keep and bear arms for sport, hunting, historical interest, and in most cases self-defense. What separates the average owner from the nut is the degree of such support. Most moderate, non-nutty gun owners accept or even support some degree of gun control, or at most grumble about it creating long lines and ammo shortages/purchase limits at gun stores. > > Many gun nuts, on the other hand, take a staunchly anti-regulatory position on the issue of gun control; restrictions on (semi)automatic weapons, “high-capacity” magazines, and “assault” features, as well as measures like waiting periods for gun purchases and permits for ownership, are seen as not only an unnecessary burden, but as a step towards authoritarianism and a threat to freedom. This is the position of groups like the Gun Owners of America and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, as well as, to a lesser extent, the more radical wing of the National Rifle Association. > > However, this in and of itself is not a clear mark; one can take staunchly anti-gun control positions without being a nut. Some of them may not even own guns themselves, instead seeing it as a civil liberties issue. > > **Intended purpose of guns** > > Another dividing line between normal gun owners and nuts is the degree to which the idea of self-defense is embraced. Most gun owners take it as a given that defense of one’s life, limb, loved ones, and property is an acceptable use for a firearm; the “castle doctrine” is rooted in this idea, as is support for concealed carry. The common refrain of responsible gun ownership is that one always hopes to never have to actually use a gun to kill another person, keeping it solely as a last resort in the event of the worst — a malicious home invasion a la the Manson Family, a spree killing, an attempted mugging or rape, etc. Even then, it is hoped that the mere sight of the gun, or the sound of it being cocked, would scare off any potential threats before things turned ugly. > > Many gun nuts do not subscribe to this idea, instead keeping guns in the expectation of having to use them against intruders, robbers, or killers. While they may offer platitudes about hoping to never use their guns, their personal, unvoiced attitudes will differ. The guns they view as defensive weapons are likely to be higher-grade than simple pump-action/break-action shotguns or .45 pistols; instead, they will argue that semi-automatic rifles are necessary to defend one’s home. Some go further and anticipate long-term societal breakdown and an oppressive police force or government as things to defend against; ironically, the latter puts them in line with the original Black Panther Party, which called for African-Americans to embrace gun ownership in order to stand up to police brutality. > > **Crankery** > > Embrace of conspiracy theories is perhaps the clearest dividing line between the average gun owner and the true nut. As noted, a popular idea among gun nuts is that gun control is a threat to freedom, and that, by extension, the only way people could support it is if they have authoritarian tendencies or have been scared by those that do. As a result, they are often more inclined to believe that killing sprees committed with easily-accessible, high-grade firearms, like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook, were false flag operations or staged hoaxes carried out by the government in order to drum up support for gun control, and that the United Nations’ proposed Arms Trade Treaty[1][2], designed to crack down on smugglers and arms traffickers, is targeted at American gun owners. Likewise, there tends to be a significant deal of cross-pollination and sympathy with the militia movement and the radical right in general. They ain’t makin’ it up about about those “false flag operation” theories, either. See [this Pit thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=679081) If you believe/proclaim that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, then you are a gun nut, and probably several other kinds of nut. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/98 "2013-02-02T21:56:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The RationalWiki page on is insightful and relevant here: Yes,BrainGlutton, we know you don’t like guns. So to you anyone who who likes guns more than President Obama is a gun nut. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/99 "2013-02-02T22:00:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You had just employed – in fact, you had just **repeated** – the logical fallacy of [Argumentum ad hominem,](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) specifically the form known as [Tu quoque.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) Nah, it’s just what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I read through Sam’s article with interest and I didn’t see anything that seemed fallacious. If any of you anti-gunners have any specific issue where you think he has then I’d like to see you be specific about it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2013, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808/100 "2013-02-03T04:08:27Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Yes,BrainGlutton, we know you don’t like guns. So to you anyone who who likes guns more than President Obama is a gun nut. _sigh_ Well, at least I don’t hear you saying the Sandy Hook massacre was staged. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sam-harris-on-a-world-without-guns/648808.md?page=6)