[hijack]
Max, do you remember which thread that was? I’d sure like to read it.
[/hijack]
Sheesh, you’re acting as if Lott doesn’t have an agenda, Max. It’s quite obvious that he does. The question is whether the guy does good work, and I believe Lambert does an admirable, easily understandable job of showing that MGLC is a seriously flawerd analysis.
I did not see this cite posted yet. Ehrlich takes issue with Lott’s conclusion.
Lott doesn’t properly compute statistical significance. Another very serious problem with Lott’s method is how he calculates the statistical significance of his results. He essentially asks, What is the probability of getting the observed variation of the crime rate on either side of t=0 based on changes in the various socio-demographic variables and random variations? If that computed probability is very small, he regards his hypothesis that the concealed carry laws made the difference as being proven. But, that’s not right. He needs to look at the probability of a change in the crime rate for years t= -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3, etc. Only if the probability is very much less for year zero than the other years can he consider his results meaningful. It seems very likely, however, that Lott would find similarly low probabilities for all these other years, because only if the violent crime rate were static over time would there be no significant variation on either side of year t=0, or any other given year. In fact, one researcher’s analysis of Lott’s data show that the most significant turning point for the robbery rates occurs before t=0. 
Yup, it was Come one, come all: Gun Control revisited, revisited, from the misty depths of yesteryear. Oh, how we’ve all grown since then! Well, most of us, anyway…
Thanks, Mr. Torque!
Minty… out of curiosity, what is your opinion on Gary Kleck’s conclusions?
Haven’t read his stuff–I’ve only seen it described. I can’t comment specifically on his methodology, but I can be quite certain that that his figure of 2 million DGUs a year is almost certainly wrong, and by quite a lot.
At a rate of 2 million DGUs a year, a gun would be used defensively in slightly more than one out of every six crimes on the FBI’s Crime Index, and that includes murder, all nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
One out of six?!? That doesn’t pass the smell test very easily.
That doesn’t follow, though – the FBI’s reports only include crimes that occurred, not crimes that were prevented. If a DGU prevented a crime from occurring, then by definition it won’t show up in the UCR reports.
Great, then it’s down to a little better than in seven. Unfortunately, that’s still completely out of touch with reality.
Well, I’m not saying I accept Kleck’s number – to be honest, I don’t care enough to do research on it myself. I don’t have a dog in this fight, as a non-gun-owner; but I am concerned that public policy, especially public policy directly affecting a Constitutional right, be based on sound reasoning. I’m just saying that your conclusion doesn’t follow from the way the UCR index is compiled. I don’t even think it’s fair to assume 1 in 7, since we don’t really know how many attempted crimes are unsuccessful.
Me too. And that goes for the status quo too, since the ephemeral benefits of essentially unrestricted gun ownership contrast quite sharply with the concrete detriments of deaths, injuries, and gun-related and -enabled crimes. Me, I figure if you’re going to justify those costs, you better be prepared to demonstrate they’re outweighed by the benefits.
Then let me ask you this: What sort of data would you accept regarding gun ownership that would convince you that the status quo, at least, was sufficient?
From encyclopedia brittanica, on gun statistics:
I dunno, Phil. What have you got?
Seriously, I can’t quantify that. There are just too many variables for me to even begin wrapping my mind around it. That’s one of the reasons I support only reasonable gun control, not anything resembling a wholesale gun ban. I have no doubt that such measures would result in a net benefit to society. It is perfectly simple to explain the mechanism whereby such measures would reduce the availability of legal firearms to those who are most likely to misuse them, but without posing any but the most trivial impediment to a law-abiding citizen who wishes to own a gun for self-defense.
**
Sorry if I generalized you, but almost every prominent member of the anti-rights crowd opposes self-defense as a whole - they instruct and suggest that people remain defenseless in favor of relying on the State (the police), and many, many anti-rights activists tend to follow them in their belief. You seemed to be disgusted that a woman “needed” to defend herself, and seemed to be advocating a position in which she wouldn’t be able to defend herself. I don’t think it was unfair or inaccurate, although it might’ve assumed too much of your particular motives.
**
Well, you seemed to be advocating a waiting period that would keep people disarmed during times where they need to protect themselves the most - and then justified that by saying “she shouldn’t NEED to defend herself like that…” I wasn’t reading your mind, so much as interpreted what you said.
That Encyclopedia Brittanica article appears to be remarkably fair. I’m impressed.
Anti-rights. This would be a person who believes what? This label, imo, implies something that I am uncomfortable with. I think it would be more accurate to say that I believe in stricter gun laws. I am not opposed to “rights”.
Yes, I advocate a waiting period. I think it would be wise for people that purchase guns to be cleared. I think it would be smart to provide enough time for this to be done.
Maybe the pro-gun folks would like to have guns delivered like pizzas.
This is a debate that is useless, as for as the possibility of changing someones mind. All of the cites I have provided have been deemed not credible while all of your positions are valid. How interesting. Right away, we established that common sense would not be allowed. Then right behind that, I was told to produce evidence of crimes that have not occurred. How could anyone do that? Any stats I have provided have been shot down due to the fact that the source “has an agenda”. What a joke.
I do depend on the police to protect me. I am not a gun fighter. Is it your position that those that are being threatened should either sleep next to their gun with one eye open, or rush down to the sporting goods store to buy a gun? This does not sound like a good strategy. You know I bet felons probably run with a pretty tough crowd. There is a good chance that they could easily find themselves in a rub with some thug that wanted to kill them. Maybe they should have access to a gun too. Why shouldn’t they be able to defend themselves? They should be able to run down to WalMart and buy a Nine.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System allows a background check to be performed, as the name would imply, instantly. Waiting periods would effectively destroy gun shows, since dealers would be unable to sell their wares; they can’t hang around town for days waiting for background checks to go through. What purpose do you seek to serve by making purchasers and dealers wait?
So you’re engaging in a debate with no intention of changing your opinion, even if you were proven wrong?
No, we dismissed your cites because they’re wrong. I don’t know why I’m bothering, since you’ve already admitted you’ve buried your head in the sand, but what the heck:
First, I’m utterly mystified by what you intended to prove with the Soros link. It’s just a survey of laws, stemming from the premise that they’re inadequate, without demonstrating why they are inadequate. They assert that their report “reveals how wide the gap is between the public mandate and levels of gun control across the nation”; in support of the “public mandate”, they cite the UN’s “International Study on Firearm Regulation”. Now, I don’t know if you’ve paid much attention to the UN lately, but they’ve been pushing for some years now for a unified, international ban on civilian ownership of firearms, and they’re nigh-famous for criticizing the US for our relatively liberal civilian gun ownership stance.
Beyond that, all the article does is list states and say, “State X has no waiting period! The horror!” To which I respond: so? The article as a whole does nothing to support gun control; it assumes the validity of the premise that “liberal gun ownership is bad” and pukes up “rankings” based on how tightly states regulate gun ownership. Exactly what you wished to prove with this is beyond me; if you don’t believe the premise that the article assumes, the rest is just noise.
Statistics, eh? Well, let’s take a look at your second link, the VPC one. The article contains such Kellermannesque statistics as “for every time in 1998 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 51 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.” Pretty sobering, unless you realize that you don’t measure the social benefits of handgun ownership by counting bodies. Asserting that “the only useful measure of a handgun is in the number of criminals it kills” is just plain ignorant. I notice that they carefully worded their sentence to limit the stats to “civilians” versus “handgun homicides”, which means that they could include justifiable homicides by police officers in the “51 people lost their lives” figure.
To their credit, they then go on to discuss situations in which a gun does not kill. Of course, to do so they cite the only lowball defensive gun use survey ever performed. We often cite Kleck’s 2 million annual DGU number, but we don’t often mention that, before Kleck performed his survey, thirteen other surveys reported annual DGUs of between 800,000 and 2.5 million. The VPC, of course, ignores those in favor of the lone low survey, the NCVS (I presume, since their footnoted references aren’t listed on the page). Of course, they don’t mention that the NCVS doesn’t directly measure for DGU; at best, it offers the opportunity for respondents to volunteer that they used a gun defensively, and if the respondent neglects to mention a DGU, it doesn’t count. I’d prefer to trust a survey that actually asks whether the person used a gun defensively, thanks.
I also find it rather dishonest that they lament that “most gun deaths… result from arguments between people who know each other”. Well, for one thing, rival gang members “know each other” and are known to occasionally “argue”, but that hardly makes their deaths impulse events. For another, “most” deaths do not result from arguments; if I recall correctly (and since my copy of Acrobat is acting screwy, I can’t check the FBI UCRs) about 35% of homicides occurred during arguments. Note that that’s “occurred during”, not “were caused by.”
So. Hope that helps you feel a little less ignored.
The police can’t protect you, they can only avenge you.
Good question. How about you answer it first? You’re threatened, the police can’t drive by your house ever hour…what do you do? Run?
No one is advocating that convicted felons should be allowed to own guns, so you really shouldn’t argue this.
It’s also remarkably copyrighted. Calenth, I see you are new here. Lemme state our policy on the posting of copyrighted works. Don’t. Small excerpts and quotations are fine; posting entire works or great bulks of them is not; links to the original text are great. The Chicago Reader, owner and operator of this message board, as you might expect of a publisher, is a very strong advocate of copyright laws. Violations of copyright law, which includes the form electronic republishing you have done here, are uniformly deleted from these boards. If you could dig up the URL to that article and post it, that would be appreciated.
Thanks.
I do not agree with your remarks regarding “head in the sand”. I have read and considered the information in this thread. I conclude differently than the pro-gun poster. This does not mean my head is in the sand. I am convinced that I am attempting to consider this issue objectively.
What I have learned about this issue is valuable, to me at least. For instance -
Of the 23,000-plus cases referred by the FBI to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for potential prosecution since the beginning of the year, 65 people have been arrested, according to the ATF.
This is shocking. It pisses me off really.
I find it interesting that when I Google this topic, the sites that appear are 10 to one, pro-gun. I conclude that the pro-gun position folks invest more time and energy in getting their statistics and their pov “out there”. Or… maybe Google gets funding from the NRA.
I conclude that to debate with you guys, I would need to hire a team of actuaries or at least a think tank of people with serious statistical theory capabilities. I concede that I am an intellectual “light weight” and that the fact that, “I believe I am right, but can’t prove it” has no credibility in this forum.
The “strategy” that I advocate in dealing with an issue such as this one has several parts.
Right away, I want to get it out that I would be terrified to think that someone was after me and that in order to protect myself, I would have to engage in a gun battle. I would automatically assume that I would be at an unfair disadvantage. Being a civilized person and having never raised a loaded gun at another human, I would question my ability to kill someone. I have to say however that I suspect that all of this thinking would be part of the “dred” and “worry” process. If I were able to get past that, maybe I would begin to remember that I have some military training and I have fired countless numbers of weapons on countless numbers of occasions. Then, I would begin to worry about the innocent casualties of a gun battle. Next, I would worry about my mental state following killing someone. Would that image stay in my mind forever? Would the relatives and friends of this person now come after me and my friends and family? Would I now have issues with the law? Would I now be able to shake all of this and stay employed?
The strategy I advocate would be geared toward avoiding all of the above. I would be in favor of making it more difficult for those wanting to commit a crime to get their hands on guns.
Fewer guns and stricter gun laws seem essential to my strategy. I would expect law enforcement to take me seriously and have the man power to devote more attention to my situation. I key part of the strategy I advocate is creating a society with less violence. I outlined my theory about this in an earlier post.
I am not in favor of finding security in the possession of superior fire power.