tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post5824211139746715975..comments2024-03-30T01:39:32.888+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Baker blows his topJames Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-24546053104888002482011-03-05T06:57:18.010+00:002011-03-05T06:57:18.010+00:00Epsilon, this thread is now two-and-a-half months ...Epsilon, this thread is now two-and-a-half months old, so I've moved your latest comment (with a brief response from me) to a fresh post.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-10579876790195502682011-01-22T04:18:28.258+00:002011-01-22T04:18:28.258+00:00"Where did you get that from his comment?&quo...<i>"Where did you get that from his comment?"</i><br /><br />From this, for starters...<br /><br /><i>"When I said that, counter-intuitively, more guns reduce crime, I meant it."</i><br /><br />There are several other examples as well. Have you actually read this thread, Mike? As ever, what's rather troubling (from your point of view, I mean) is that you seem to honestly believe you're doing quite well here.<br /><br />The moon is made of green cheese. We have consistently proved that the moon is made of green cheese. Your laughable claim that it is made of rock has been ripped to shreds, again and again. From a "go to the moon to find green cheese" perspective, there is NO QUESTION that green cheese directly contributes to the composition of the lunar surface. History bears this out.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-5393813982299729832011-01-21T19:33:56.282+00:002011-01-21T19:33:56.282+00:00But you apparently believe that gun control someho...<i>But you apparently believe that gun control somehow (?????) causes more murders.</i><br /><br />Where did you get that from his comment? All we consistently prove is that your policy proposals do not work That is, they do NOT lower violent crime rates.<br /><br />Now, if we're talking about it from a "murdered by their own government" perspective then there's no question that gun control directly contributes to murder. History bears this out.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-40455338769101458042011-01-21T01:22:14.313+00:002011-01-21T01:22:14.313+00:00Now that I've been drawn into a reply I didn&#...Now that I've been drawn into a reply I didn't intend, I may as well deal briefly with Epsilon's points. <br /><br /><i>"If you think about it, though, when 7 people are murdered (it's not even clear if they were shot!), out of a population of about 490,000, you shouldn't be surprised that I don't have all that much confidence that gun control will somehow "magically" make that number shrink."</i><br /><br />But you apparently believe that gun control somehow (?????) <b>causes more murders</b>. So in the Highlands of Scotland - which is the reasonable comparison with a rural state like Vermont, not the entirety of the UK (nice try, but that simply isn't going to wash) - a liberalisation of the currently very strict gun laws ought to lead to a decrease in the murder rate. In which case, the same problem you've presented to me applies - given that the murder rate in the Highlands is already vanishingly small, how is that even possible?<br /><br /><i>"To the extent that I trust things like "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott (and studies by other criminologists) is because they describe enough of their methodology that I have some inkling of a confidence that they aren't cherry-picking."</i><br /><br />Which is as convoluted a way as you could have found of conceding that you do, in fact, take studies seriously when it suits you.<br /><br /><i>"After all, any law-abiding citizen can be carrying a gun, open or concealed. And that's just scary, don'cha know?"</i><br /><br />Well, you said it. Hardly an irrational fear, either - as we've discussed many times, the difference between the gun death rates in our respective countries is utterly mind-boggling.<br /><br /><i>"But, again, you ignore my point."</i><br /><br />No, Epsilon, I didn't ignore your point. I addressed it directly, and now you're simply repeating it unaltered. You've done that many times in this thread.<br /><br /><i>"It doesn't matter that people can get these guns from places where it's legal, because the places where they get the guns don't have the high rates of crime that the cities do."</i><br /><br />I've looked at that sentence umpteen times, and I still can't work out what point you're trying to make. It "doesn't matter"? I'd respectfully suggest it matters a great deal to the huge numbers of people shot with guns carried over from other jurisidictions with no difficulty whatsoever.<br /><br /><i>"The law of the land here says such a shooting is unambiguously self-defense"</i><br /><br />In which case I can only point out that since such a shooting is not self-defence (the robbers were trying to escape and Martin was clearly under no physical threat at that point) the US law as you describe it is demonstrably irrational. Rooted in ideology rather than fact - that would perhaps sum it up nicely.<br /><br /><i>"Guns don't commit crime. People do."</i><br /><br />Very true. And they do it more often, and far more effectively, when they are able to do it with guns.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-87914669166988208512011-01-21T01:21:31.278+00:002011-01-21T01:21:31.278+00:00Ah. Clearly the words "I'm now going to ...Ah. Clearly the words "I'm now going to draw my contribution to a close" have been interpreted as meaning "please come in for a free hit, Mike W". I'm happy to clear up that misapprehension for you.<br /><br /><i>"Then again James conceded early on that none of his claims have any real validity."</i><br /><br />Link? No, of course you can't provide a link, because you've just made that up. Silly me. What I actually pointed out in 2009 was that I had done precisely what Kevin Baker claimed he wanted at the outset - debated on the basis of "philosophy". He, by contrast, was at that stage relying almost entirely on a discussion of statistical 'evidence', which he apparently believed was so overwhelmingly on his side that it was perfectly reasonable to ask "why isn't being right good enough for us?". When challenged on this supposed 'proof', did he even come close to meeting the extraordinary standard he had set for himself? You know my view - and others can judge for themselves. But if (as I infer from some of his bizarre asides) Kevin fondly imagines that his contrived debating points have somehow been the real-life equivalent of an "irrefutable John Galt speech", then I'm afraid he's wallowing in a grandiose wish-fulfillment fantasy, every bit as much as Ayn Rand was when she wrote her (by all accounts rather tedious) novel. Bless.<br /><br /><i>"Ah yes, preparedness and personal responsibility. Concepts that subjects in the UK have long since forgotten."</i><br /><br />Hardly. Our sense of responsibility is to accept that everyone's safety is important, not just the safety of the selfish (and delusional) minority who want a gun constantly to hand to "feel safer", regardless of the risk that poses to everyone else.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-89932848203263787862011-01-20T17:04:01.269+00:002011-01-20T17:04:01.269+00:00I don't even advocate personal action to reduc...<i>I don't even advocate personal action to reduce personal fears. I advocate that we be ready to deal with threats to life and limb immediately, and not to wait until the officials arrive--because, by then, it might be too late.</i><br /><br />Ah yes, preparedness and personal responsibility. Concepts that subjects in the UK have long since forgotten.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-83904029590990421892011-01-20T17:01:51.775+00:002011-01-20T17:01:51.775+00:00Just who is peddling voodoo statistics? What stati...<i>Just who is peddling voodoo statistics? What statistics do you use to back up your claims? Your claims always rest on "I don't want to be afraid" and "banning guns will make us safer"!</i><br /><br />James kelly doesn't bring facts. He has no evidence on which to buttress his claims. It's sad that he calls others facts "voodoo statistics" but its easier for him to do that than to actually provide a rational, factually based counterpoint.<br /><br />Then again James conceded early on that none of his claims have any real validity. He admitted early on that his claims were based on vapor and could not be proven. Then he wonders why his positions have no intellectual merit.<br /><br />James has failed miserably to back up his assertions throughout the entirety of this discussion.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-25858233150599637482011-01-11T17:07:41.696+00:002011-01-11T17:07:41.696+00:00I didn't just "cherry-pick" Vermont ...I didn't just "cherry-pick" Vermont as an example. I chose it specifically because it is a State that has interesting gun laws--different from those of all other 49 States, as well as those from Great Britain. Although Alaska and Arizona now have similar keep-and-carry laws, those States adopted them only in the last couple of years.<br /><br />While I have plenty of reasons not to live in Vermont--it is, after all, a "People's Republic"--but unchecked violence in the streets is <i>not</i> one of those reasons.<br /><br />And <i>that</i> was the point I was trying to make.<br /><br />Since it turns out that you've visited Vermont, you should have been able to tell me whether or not you were in a Continuous State of Fear while there. If not, you should have been, according to your reasoning. After all, any law-abiding citizen can be carrying a gun, open or concealed. And that's just scary, don'cha know? <br /><br />If you think about it, though, when 7 people are murdered (it's not even clear if they were shot!), out of a population of about 490,000, you shouldn't be surprised that I don't have all that much confidence that gun control will somehow "magically" make that number shrink.<br /><br />I would add this: it's precisely because of "cherry-picking" that I don't trust the studies you're so ready to trust. To the extent that I trust things like "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott (and studies by other criminologists) is because they describe enough of their methodology that I have some inkling of a confidence that they aren't cherry-picking.<br /><br />"But in this country, inexplicable as it doubtless seems to you, the law of the land doesn't cease to apply simply because someone is standing on private property."<br /><br />I'm fully aware that the law of the land doesn't cease to apply simply because someone is standing on private property. That's why I'm perplexed that a person was convicted of manslaughter for shooting two people who had broken into a private residence. The law of the land here says such a shooting is unambiguously self-defense, and at one point, that was the law of the land in Great Britain as well.<br /><br />With regards to removing outliers: You're right: if we remove London, Birmingham, etc from the picture, Great Britain becomes much more peaceful. But, again, you ignore my point. America becomes more peaceful when we eliminate the cities that have strict gun control. It doesn't matter that people can get these guns from places where it's legal, because the places where they get the guns don't have the high rates of crime that the cities do.<br /><br />Guns don't commit crime. People do. That will never change, no matter what laws are passed.<br /><br />In closing: I don't blame you for not responding to this comment. I will probably have stopped soon anyway, if you hadn't. Otherwise, this thread would have grown exponentially.Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-19274076402295148762011-01-11T00:16:52.811+00:002011-01-11T00:16:52.811+00:00First, you have never addressed a major point I ma...<i>First, you have never addressed a major point I made</i><br /><br />But I have addressed that very point a number of times before. What you appear to be pointing out is that if you artificially exclude urban areas from the figures - especially those with high rates of poverty - the crime rate appears to be much lower. Well, that conjuring trick works just as well in Britain - exclude London, Birmingham, Glasgow, etc., and you get exactly the same effect. It's also true of just about every other country you can think of. Bearing that in mind, quite why differing gun control regimes should be your first and only port of call in trying to explain this phenomenon in the US is a bit of a mystery - especially as there are no internal border controls in your country, and guns can pass very easily between neighbouring jurisdictions. <br /><br /><i>"Have you ever visited Vermont?"</i><br /><br />First of all, let me just briefly savour the supreme irony of a right-wing libertarian extolling the virtues of the "People's Republic of Vermont" and its glorious quality of life!<br /><br />Yes, I have been there as it happens - it's my mother's home state, so I still have a number of relatives who live there. Same principle applies - cherry-picking a particularly affluent, rural area with a tiny population, and comparing it with the entirety of the United Kingdom is beyond ludicrous. The meaningful comparison would be with a region of the UK like the Highlands of Scotland - similar population sizes, similar rural/urban split. And I regret to have to tell you that, despite all the gun control in the world, the Highlands have mysterious failed to be overrun by barbarians and thugs - the murder rate is vanishingly small.<br /><br />Mexico : I dealt with that red herring <a href="http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2010/06/brazilian-ballistics.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br /><i>"I'm more astonished that someone, who shot two people who broke into his home, is being charged with any crime at all."</i><br /><br />Don't worry - that your bewilderment is genuine is coming across vividly. But in this country, inexplicable as it doubtless seems to you, the law of the land doesn't cease to apply simply because someone is standing on private property.<br /><br />Incidentally, there's no need to tear your hair out about the respective murder rates in our two counbries - it's roughly two-and-a-half times greater in the US than in the UK, as no less a person than Kevin Baker has confirmed on a number of occasions. And I'm not quite sure how comparing Scotland's murder rate to the rest of Europe is going to get you off that particular hook!<br /><br />This thread is now several weeks old, so I'm going to draw my own contribution to a close at this point.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-19056476233626420592011-01-10T17:39:56.432+00:002011-01-10T17:39:56.432+00:00(Continued from "Arrrg!"...)
Nottingham...(Continued from "Arrrg!"...)<br /><br />Nottingham and Coventry were a bit better--both are still somewhat scary places, but not as bad as Birmingham. Albany, New York is also a scary place.<br /><br />Coming back to Vermont: in the year 2009, Vermont had a population of 621,760. Out of that population, 7 were murdered. This gives us a rate of 1.1 per 100,000.<br /><br />The year that had the most murders, going back to 1960, was 1976. Vermont had a population of 476,000, of which 26 were murdered. This gives us a rate of 5.5 per 100,000.<br /><br />These stats for Vermont, can be found at "http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm". I found them via Google.<br /><br />Now, according to "http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime&all=1", Great Britian, in a year unspecified (but most likely somewhat recent) had 1.4 murders per 100,000 people. Unfortunately, I don't know how Great Britain compares to "highs" and "lows", since I cannot find that information. However, considering that England had 1,201 murders according to this website, and considering that Great Britain has a much larger population than Vermont, I would suspect that the rate doesn't fluctuate all that much.<br /><br />In any case, are you <i>sure</i> you want to claim that having guns increases the murder rate? In looking at Vermont, I don't just see it!<br /><br />It's actually kind-of maddening, trying to find these statistics for Great Britain. What I could find didn't specify year or population, either--just number of murdered, and (fortunately for me) the murder rate per 1,000. If I were the paranoid type, I'd almost suspect that there's a conspiracy to hide the murder rate. In the process of trying to find those statistics, though, I ran across headlines like these:<br /><br />"Scotland has second highest murder rate in Europe" http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/26/ukcrime.scotland<br /><br />"Britain: From Bad to Worse" http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml<br /><br />"Britain, Australia top U.S.<br />in violent crime" http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8340<br /><br />I'm not all that convinced that Great Britain is much safer than the United States.<br /><br />Finally, I'll address this:<br /><br />"You seem astonished in the Tony Martin case, for instance, that the crime of manslaughter was more severely punished than the crime of burglary. I'd be considerably more troubled if it hadn't been."<br /><br />I'm more astonished that someone, who shot two people who broke into his home, is being charged with any crime at all. It is a long-standing tradition in most of the U.S. that someone who breaks into your home, is legally assumed to do you harm--and thus, killing such a person is automatically self defense.<br /><br />Oh, wait! It's <i>not just</i> an American tradition! I remember reading it in "Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England"--it's an <i>English</i> tradition, or at least was, at one point. It's rather sad that it no longer seems to be an English tradition, because people who break into your home ought to be assumed to be there to cause you harm--if only because there are too many examples of people breaking into homes to cause harm!Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-77018441636097991422011-01-10T17:38:34.990+00:002011-01-10T17:38:34.990+00:00I will not go point by point anymore, nor quote yo...I will not go point by point anymore, nor quote you--that's making the comments way too long, as you have observed. I will make these points, though:<br /><br />First, you have never addressed a <i>major</i> point I made: that when you control for New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Los Angelos--where guns are practically <i>banned</i>--as well as a few other American cities, America has <i>far lower crime</i> than Great Britian does. <i>Including</i> violent crime. Yet, we are also talking about rural America, which is "awash" in guns. Indeed, even in states like New York--it's easier to get access to a gun than in these cities.<br /><br />These cities are, statistically, <i>outliers</i>: they have <i>much higher</i> rates of crime, including gun deaths, <i>than the rest of America</i>. And it isn't fair to blame these gun deaths on the lack of gun control, because most of these cities <i>have very strict gun control measures</i>.<br /><br />If gun control prevents deaths, how do you explain the 30,000 death toll in Mexico, where there is currently a war of sorts being played out between the Mexican government, and drug lords? Mexico has a level of gun control that's only known in places like New York City, Chicago, and Washington DC!<br /><br />Here's a comment that just needs addressing:<br /><br />"As I've been pointing out to Nate over the last couple of days, one of the many objectionable things about the gun free-for-all in parts of the US is that you get to a point where there is a de facto "compulsoriness" about everyone having to live with guns on a day-to-day basis. Does your freedom to choose leave others with the same? A meaningful choice, that is, not a nominal one. "<br /><br />Have you ever visited Vermont? I have. It's a very peaceful, very pleasant State to visit. It's also a State where anyone who could legally own a gun, could carry it anywhere, concealed or in the open, without license. And people have been free to do that since 1790, perhaps before. When I visited Vermont, I didn't feel all that much "compulsion" at all, really.<br /><br />Perhaps the greatest level of compulsion I felt was when I was mugged on the streets of Birmingham (in Aston, if I remember correctly), when I was punched in the jaw, and my friend was pounced on by three or four people. He lost his wallet in that encounter. Later, my friend was talking to someone who lost his friend--something similar happened, except that the friend had his head smashed in with a hammer.<br /><br />(Arrrg! Even when I'm trying to be brief, I go over the character limit...)Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-86333669520144075142011-01-09T08:14:58.511+00:002011-01-09T08:14:58.511+00:00"Please forgive me if I believe the claim tha...<i>"Please forgive me if I believe the claim that the BBC said...you should yell "call the police" instead of "help, I'm under attack!""</i><br /><br />Why should I 'forgive' you for that when it's now absolutely plain that you're totally unable to substantiate the claim you made? Yes, by all means, feel free to 'believe' whatever you like - but don't present it as fact when you haven't the faintest idea whether it is or not.<br /><br /><i>"And if I killed someone in self defense (whether for myself or others) with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys--or any other weapon I may have--under the juristiction of Great Britian, should I expect to be treated any differently, than the people in these cases?"</i><br /><br />If it's legitimate self-defence, then yes - as I pointed out earlier, some of those cases that were dredged up (and it seems just seven were found over a span of thirty years) did not fall into that category. You seem astonished in the Tony Martin case, for instance, that the crime of manslaughter was more severely punished than the crime of burglary. I'd be considerably more troubled if it hadn't been.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-64310020620003148382011-01-09T07:57:06.896+00:002011-01-09T07:57:06.896+00:00Oh dear, oh dear. Just been skimming through some ...Oh dear, oh dear. Just been skimming through some of the rest.<br /><br /><i>You seem to mis-understand the meaning of "counter-intuitive".</i><br /><br />Er, no.<br /><br /><i>Intuition is something that we expect to be true.</i><br /><br />Er, yes.<br /><br /><i>If it's counter-intuitive, it's because something is reverse from what we expect it to be true.</i><br /><br />Yep. Think I grasped that, actually, Epsilon.<br /><br /><i>Intuition, for example, tells us "Banning guns reduces crime".</i><br /><br />Indeed it does.<br /><br /><i>You like to brag that Great Britain has less crime than America</i><br /><br />Gun crime and homicide, you mean? There's very little need to 'brag' about something when it is a statement of plain fact.<br /><br /><i>The problem with that, though, is that crime has increased after you banned guns--including deaths by guns.</i><br /><br />And on both counts the level of deaths is still vastly lower than the US. Get back to us when that changes - until then you're on extraordinarily weak ground here. One point you don't seem to be taking into account at all is that the level of gun ownership has always (in modern history, I mean) been much lower in the UK than in the US. So you simply can't take the baseline figures before the much-vaunted "increase" and pretend that they had nothing to do with the rate of legal gun ownership being dramatically lower than in the US in the first place.<br /><br />And I ask for a third time - how can the general differential between deaths in the UK and the US be so easily explained away by "Culture!" without any possibility that it has something to do with the success of gun control, while the increase in deaths in the UK since the 1990s ban is apparently entirely attributable to gun control, with no possibility that it has anything to do with any of the other many possible factors? Until you come up with some sort of satisfactory justification for that brazen contradiction, your side has no credibility on this point whatsoever.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-65563156334860371202011-01-09T07:20:06.997+00:002011-01-09T07:20:06.997+00:00I was about to sit down and answer your comment, E...I was about to sit down and answer your comment, Epsilon, until I realised there were in fact seven very long comments, not just the one I originally noticed. So as time is short, for the moment I'll just have to content myself with making the two brief points I was planning to...<br /><br /><i>"I could think of several countries that became tyrannical, regardless of "democratic safeguards" and "the rule of law". Nazi Germany is the firt that comes to mind."</i><br /><br />I'd be interested to know what the other examples you have in mind are, because as I pointed out earlier, the Weimar Republic is absolutely not a good one. It was a fledgling democracy and an extraordinarily weak one at that - there were sweeping state of emergency powers in the constitution that allowed Hitler to quickly and easily establish a dictatorship while remaining almost entirely in conformity with the law.<br /><br /><i>"It is this compulsoriness that I object to."</i><br /><br />As I've been pointing out to Nate over the last couple of days, one of the many objectionable things about the gun free-for-all in parts of the US is that you get to a point where there is a de facto "compulsoriness" about everyone having to live with guns on a day-to-day basis. Does your freedom to choose leave others with the same? A meaningful choice, that is, not a nominal one.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-57833948722008868042011-01-09T05:42:23.667+00:002011-01-09T05:42:23.667+00:00A few thoughts:
With regards to mass killings, le...A few thoughts:<br /><br />With regards to mass killings, let's not forget these recent incidents: the swordsman in Japan, the knife wielder in China, and the man in China who <i>made his own guns</i>--each of which killed and injured a number of people, comparable to mass murders typical of gun-wielders--and each of which occured in places where civilian weapons are highly regulated.<br /><br />With regards to crime rates: When you control for New York City, Chicago, Los Angelos, Washington DC--and throw in a few Decades-Democrat-controlled cities like Miami and New Orleans, that tend to have lax gun control laws, but still have high crime (including gun deaths)--you will be left with a United States that is heavily "awash" in guns, but is among the most peaceful countries in the world.<br /><br />Even more peaceful than Great Britain!<br /><br />With regards to nuclear holocaust: Regardless of the reason, it's a mistake to assume that nuclear attacks would leave populations absolutely desolate. Consider the book "Alas, Babylon", which followed a community in Florida, in the aftermath of a nuclear war. In a situation like that--where government completely collapses--individuals will <i>need</i> their own weapons, because <i>there will be no police</i> to call on in an emergency.<br /><br />With regards to other holocausts: keep in mind that, over and over again, holocausts in the world have been caused with guns, poison gas chambers, machetes, even economic policy. It is a rare thing for holocausts to be caused by weapons of mass destruction!<br /><br />I also see that James missed my oblique reference to the American Revolution--a war fought by redneck hillbillies against the Greatest Empire of the day. For that matter, James forgets his own history, when the Great Empire of its own day sent a great Armada to war against Great Britain, and Great Britain won the day by sending out pretty much anything that could float, to fight against that Armada.<br /><br />Most recently, someone calculated that the number of hunters of <i>three States</i>--and not especially populous States, at that--numbered more than the <i>entire United States Armed Forces</i>. That number? Two million. The three States are Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The link: http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/12/worlds-largest-army-hunters-from-mi-wi.htmlEpsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-48960189312293304452011-01-09T05:38:34.403+00:002011-01-09T05:38:34.403+00:00(...continued from before)
Just think about that ...(...continued from before)<br /><br />Just think about that for a moment: If we were to select 1000 Americans at random, and asked the question "Will any of these people die of gunshot wounds by the end of the year?", you will have <i>only</i> a one in ten chance that the answer is "yes"! Well, it isn't <i>precisely</i> one in ten, but we'd have to resort to funny probability calculations in order to figure out the correct probability--and my guess is that it would be about that anyway.<br /><br />From this tiny number, do you really expect me to believe <i>any</i> study--for or against? I, for one, am fairly confident about "pro-gun" studies, and a lot less confident about "anti-gun" studies. Yet, you want to rely on studies like these to support your position on banning guns.<br /><br />Here's a funny exercise: From each of these three categories, choose item: [High/Low] suicide rate; [High/low] murder rate; [Stringent/Lax] gun laws. Whatever combination you choose, you will be able to find a country that has statistics to match!<br /><br />Now, why do I use statistics anyway? They may be flawed, but the give us things to think about. If you are familiar with the way statistics are created, and what their limitations are, they could almost give you a glimpse into things that you are studying.<br /><br />""and these are important tools to have, in the event of an earthquake or other disaster, for light search and rescue"<br /><br />"I'd refer you back to the answer I gave to Nate earlier - that's precisely why guns are qualititatively different from other 'tools'. Their 'use' is the same as the harm they cause - ie. they kill people. <br /><br />In America, about 40,000 people die per year from car accidents. Take a moment to let that figure sink in. Now, realize this: more people die from devices designed to get us from point A to point B, than they do from devices designed to kill people--<i>despite the fact</i> that devices to kill people are so popular among murderers and suicides.<br /><br />Just why is it that you fear guns? It's not as though they're all that likely to kill anyone!Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-70420609876066682362011-01-09T05:37:08.493+00:002011-01-09T05:37:08.493+00:00""Statistically, the general trend is th...""Statistically, the general trend is this: ban guns, and crime goes up; loosen the restrictions, and crime goes down."<br /><br />"Good grief. You won't accept Harvard studies as legitimate, and yet we're supposed to take seriously your personal impression of a "general trend". I come back to the point I've made many times before - Kevin flatly refuses to accord any significance whatsoever to the far lower homicide rate in the UK as compared to the US on the rather non-specific grounds of "Culture!", and yet when presented with a statistic that superficially suits his own case, all of a sudden none of the other possible factors (including those ubiquitous "cultural" ones) matter at all - it's quite simply absolute proof that gun control doesn't work. Please try to justify that ludicrous contradiction, Epsilon. Nobody else has.<br /><br />"To the extent that so many studies demonstrate that, if there's any sort correlation of the stringency of gun laws vs. violence, it's positive<br /><br />"Oh, so all of a sudden "studies" are perfectly reliable, except for the ones that aren't reliable, because they show the opposite picture. You'll have to forgive me, Epsilon - I'm struggling to keep up with all these twists and turns.<br /><br />It's time I make myself crystal clear about statistics: I <i>hate</i> them. They are always flawed, and when they are compiled, they mask the motives, and the lives, and the events, and the free will, of those involved. Oh, I'll parrot them almost as quickly as the next guy, because I'm familiar with statistical methodologies and their flaws, but I distrust even those claims that seem to bolster my side. The funny thing is, <i>you're just as guilty as Kevin</i>: You eagerly accept anti-gun studies, but dismiss the pro-gun ones.<br /><br />We are individuals with free will, for crying out loud! Every day, we make decisions, which when compounded, can easily make yesterday's statistics false. Indeed, we can even go so far as to decide to do something that hurts us financially, or even legally, because we decide that it's right thing to do!<br /><br />Properly speaking, though, we're not even discussing statistics and studies--a lot of times, we're talking about "parameters": actual measurements of populations. Let's look at a couple of those parameters for the United States, shall we? By United States Census, we have a population of about 300,000,000. By FBI (or is it CDC?) measurements of dead bodies, about 30,000 people die from guns each year. What percentage of the population dies every year from guns? 0.01% -- Yes, that's <i>one hundrenth of a percent</i> of the population.<br /><br />For statistical analysis to be valid, you typically need 1000 <i>randomly selected</i> people. What is 0.01% of 1000 people? 0.1 person. That is, <i>one tenth</i> of a person.<br /><br />(to be continued...)Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-12017309886901002382011-01-09T05:34:39.708+00:002011-01-09T05:34:39.708+00:00"""When I said that, counter-intuit..."""When I said that, counter-intuitively, more guns reduce crime, I meant it"<br /><br />""I know you did. This isn't news to me, Epsilon - I've encountered your worldview before. You're just wrong, that's all. Some things that are counter-intuitive turn out to be true. Many don't."<br /><br />You seem to mis-understand the meaning of "counter-intuitive". Intuition is something that we expect to be true. If it's counter-intuitive, it's because something is reverse from what we expect it to be true. Intuition, for example, tells us "Banning guns reduces crime". You like to brag that Great Britain has less crime than America. The problem with that, though, is that <i>crime has increased</i> after you banned guns--including <i>deaths by guns</i>.<br /><br />If banning guns will make you safer, shouldn't crime in Great Britain have decreased?<br /><br />""You claim that banning guns will make us safer. If that is so, it's up to you to prove it."<br /><br />"Let's try reversing that statement. "You claim that gun legality will make us safer. If that is so, it's up to you to prove it." Why does that make any less sense?"<br /><br />This reversed statement makes a lot less sense because freedom to own and carry weapons is the default. So is freedom of speach, freedom of religion, freedom to own property without fear of confiscation, and writ of habeus corpus--that is, the right to be free of arrest without warrant or probable cause.<br /><br />If there's good reasons to curtail these freedoms, it's the burden of those who demand these curtailings to demonstrate benefit. The burden is <i>squared</i> when you, like I, dismiss statistics. I'll be giving a few reasons later as to why I dislike statistics, as a whole--and why I still use them, somewhat, anyway.<br /><br />But I'll even take it a step further: that these freedoms are so important, that they need to be preserved, even if they are abused.<br /><br />Or are you prepared to make the case that, because I feel that freedom of speach is deadly, it must be suppressed--and then give you the burden of proof to preserve freedom of speach?<br /><br />"Perhaps you've overlooked the fact that I live in a jurisdiction where a handgun ban is the long-established status quo. And it might be worth remembering how the 1990s ban came about - I doubt that many of the Dunblane families would agree with you that it hasn't been established that their children wouldn't have been safer had Thomas Hamilton not been in legal possession of handguns. Just like Derrick Bird, everything about his character suggests that if he hadn't been able to own guns legally, he wouldn't have owned them at all, and the tragedy would never have occurred."<br /><br />Oh, I'm well aware of this event. I've often wondered what would have happened, though, had the teachers owned pistols, and been trained in their use. Are you aware of the Luby's Massacre? It's the event that convinced Texas to legalize concealed-carry permits. Suzanna Hupp <i>saw her parents die</i> because the law forbade her from carrying a pistol, and she decided to follow the law that day. At one point, early on, she would have had a clear shot, but she didn't have her gun with her.<br /><br />You seem to be unaware that, if you <i>really</i> want to kill a lot of people, there are better ways to do it. Say, with box cutters and airplanes. Or with bombs scattered hidden about a school. Indeed, the scary thing about the Columbine Massacre is that we were <i>lucky</i> that the only deaths were due to shootings. If the two young men had fully carried out their plan, the death toll would have been <i>much higher</i>.Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-70992810407465237472011-01-09T05:33:47.420+00:002011-01-09T05:33:47.420+00:00""Our side has never said that any tool ...""Our side has never said that any tool is just as useful as a gun."<br /><br />"Words fail me. Even the most cursory glance at the previous threads in this debate will confirm for you that your side makes that claim endlessly. Yes, I'd know you'd dearly love us to believe that the weapon in the hand of an attacker is a complete irrelevance, but that the weapon in the hand of a defender is all-important - just another example of the magical thinking and contradictions that are at the heart of the gun lobby's case."<br /><br />As I made that cursory glance, I have to agree: you're right that there are those who believe this. Unfortunately, it's too easy to view guns as magic talismans that ward off evil. Having said that, owning a gun, and being trained in its use, at least gives you a fighting chance.<br /><br />""An 18-year-old 250-lb male thug will consistently be able to use fists, clubs, knives, or whatever, to beat up, and even kill, any smaller victim--say, an elderly grandpa, or a petite 98-lb businesswoman, or a 110-lb male mathematician weakling--except when said victim has a handgun."<br /><br />"There's the difficulty in a nutshell. If you want to take into account the potential difference the gun in the hand of a victim would make (which I don't believe for a moment is what you think it is, incidentally), then we also have to take into account the difference a gun in the hand of an attacker would make. Gun legality makes both more likely. I trust you would concede that being "beaten up" by a thug, however awful, is a less terrible fate than being shot by one"<br /><br />No, I <i>will not</i> concede that being "beaten up" by a thug is less terrible a fate than being shot by one. Whether you get shot in the head by a thug, or have your head bashed in by a hammer, you're just as dead. Many people have survived gunshot wounds; whether this is more or less worse than getting beat up, depends on the circumstances.<br /><br />I <i>will</i> concede this, however: whether a thug has a bat, a rope, a chain, or even a gun, if that thug is attacking me, I'll be <i>much better off</i> if I have a gun. It doesn't guarantee I'll never get hurt--it just means that the odds are evened out!Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-88591622110848233442011-01-09T05:32:29.507+00:002011-01-09T05:32:29.507+00:00""Especially when the summary so clearly...""Especially when the summary so clearly matches British case law?"<br /><br />"Forgive me, but what has alleged "British case law" got to do with anything at this juncture? The summary (if that's what it was) purported to be of official advice given to the public, not of case law. So I ask again - was that advice ever actually issued, or wasn't it?<br /><br />""Or are you going to make the case that, in Great Britain, an individual can carry a knife, or a bicycle chain, or a pop-cap pistol, for the purposes of self defense?"<br /><br />"Again, I must confess I'm baffled. How precisely does that question relate in any way to your extraordinary claim that victims are expressly advised not to call for help while being attacked?"<br /><br />I'd encourage you to look at the list of cases I previously linked to. To provide a summary:<br /><br />-- A young man convicted of carrying weapons, for carrying a bicycle chain (among other things) for self defense. This, <i>despite</i> having notified the police, and having been beaten up.<br /><br />-- An elderly man, in the process of being strangled, convicted of carrying a weapon, for using a sword in his cane to fend of the attack that would likely have resulted in death.<br /><br />-- A man, armed with a toy gun, held two burglars while waiting for police; he was arrested for "using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate."<br /><br />-- An elderly woman who used a toy pistol to scare away groups of teenagers who threatened her was arrested "for putting someone in fear."<br /><br />-- A man, living in a farmhouse, shot two burglars and killed one. His sentence was harsher than the burglars who broke into his home.<br /><br />-- Another man, set upon by a gang of youth, killed one in self defense, was sentenced to manslaughter.<br /><br />-- Yet another man lashed out with scissors against a heavily-built man with a history of violence, in a fight that was pretty one-sided. The attacker died, and this man was convicted of manslaughter. The conviction was overturned on a technicality, rather than on the fact that he was defending his life.<br /><br />The details of these cases are given in one, if not both, links I previously gave.<br /><br />Please forgive me if I believe the claim that the BBC said you should defend your life with "a briefcase, a handbag, or keys", and that you should yell "call the police" instead of "help, I'm under attack!" Even if you are under attack in these circumstances, what are you going to use to come to someone's aid? A briefcase, handbag, or keys?<br /><br />And if I killed someone in self defense (whether for myself or others) with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys--or any other weapon I may have--under the juristiction of Great Britian, should I expect to be treated any differently, than the people in these cases?Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-2021078883673218132011-01-09T05:31:42.729+00:002011-01-09T05:31:42.729+00:00"I've got a heavy cold at the moment...&q..."I've got a heavy cold at the moment..."<br /><br />I hope you recover. I have the sniffles right now, too. Perhaps one of us infected the other... :-)<br /><br />"The counsel of despair is in thinking that we are powerless to stop a government turning tyrannical in the first place through democratic safeguards and the rule of law."<br /><br />I could think of several countries that became tyrannical, regardless of "democratic safeguards" and "the rule of law". Nazi Germany is the firt that comes to mind. So do a large number of various governments, that were taken over by coup d'etat.<br /><br />"The fact that Epsilon thinks he can (somehow) do something about a nuclear holocaust after the event doesn't make it any less of a counself of despair - because we will, indeed, mostly be dead by then. 'Lying back and taking it' in those circumstances is, for the vast majority, not so much an undesirable option as...well, compulsory."<br /><br />But does such a threat in the distance mean that we might as well just disarm right now? And not just disarm, but force others to disarm, too? It is this compulsoriness that I object to. You have consistently argued that, because there's an obscure possibility of dictatorship by mass destruction, there's no point in being ready for revolution--as though all uses of mass destruction will make revolution impossible, and as though all situations involving revolution will involve such devices.<br /><br />I have merely tried to make the point that, if weapons of mass destruction are used, that not all is lost. Indeed, there will still be plenty of "wiggle room" if the situation appropriately calls for revolution.Epsilon Givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-69604972846730175252011-01-07T04:40:20.242+00:002011-01-07T04:40:20.242+00:00The reason for the restrictive criteria is that Ep...The reason for the restrictive criteria is that Epsilon was arguing that it is perfectly possible for an armed population (by itself, without assistance) to overthrow a tyrannical government that has the full resources of a country like the US available to it. Perhaps you can think of an example of that happening, but I can't. The best (only?) example of a 'government gone bad' being toppled in a modern superpower was the failure of the Soviet coup in 1991, which was due to insufficient support from various arms of the state. The popular uprising in that instance was largely unarmed, in any case.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-6857550552666713292011-01-07T04:17:47.303+00:002011-01-07T04:17:47.303+00:00Maybe I'm not as ardent a member of the "...Maybe I'm not as ardent a member of the "Kevin Baker Fan Club" as you might imagine then! While I would not go so far as to imply that the U.S. was a domestic tyranny during that time period (although in my opinion, the draft was a form of slavery), what we did to Vietnam was deeply immoral, however you want to slice it and whatever label you want to put on it. In fact, I strongly believe that unprovoked war of any type is immoral, and the Vietnam war is one of the worst in our modern history, to go along with the Iraq war for sure. Maybe I'm not such a chest-pounding pro-American imperialist, eh?<br /><br />See, I'm probably more with you than against you on a lot of stuff regarding the deep disappointment that is the United States of America. It seems to me that this isn't really much of a free place at all, at least not in the ways that matter to me. For example, if I go and build a house on my own piece of faraway rural property, it can be bulldozed and razed to the ground if I fail to get a permit for construction, follow the byzantine building codes, and pay property taxes on it. I could write an angry email to my friend complaining about the government and be put on a secret list of supposedly dangerous people who are either barred from flying or at the very least hassled for no reason at airports, and also potentially be barred from gun ownership if some here get their way. I can engage in a multitude of consensual or private acts that harm nobody, such as taking drugs, betting money on a poker game, or shooting a BB gun at a phone book in the backyard, and be fined or jailed. I can earn a living privately by selling products and services I create to others who want to buy them, but I become a felon if I don't pay the 16% social insurance taxes, the 9% state income tax, the 20% or so federal income tax, the 15% capital gains tax, the 10% state sales tax…<br /><br />The only problem is that among industrialized nations, I can't really think of a better place for the particular aspects of freedom that I value. It may be disappointing, but everywhere else seems worse.<br /><br />Anyway.<br /><br />To get back to the insurgent/guerilla war thing, you've sketched out quite a restrictive set of criteria there, such that I don't think any known historical events could possibly fit them. But that misses my point, which is to demonstrate in general that armed guerilla fighters pose a real danger to a repressive government, whatever the type. Whether it be a socialist revolution against fascists, a pro-western uprising against communists, or a just-plain-pissed-off revolution against a non-ideological despot, all I want to stress is that governments of any type are vulnerable to irregular fighters with small arms. Communist, democratic, despotic—you name it, I don't think it makes much of a difference when thousands of motivated armed people start trying to destroy a government's power apparatus.Natehttp://gunsandbullets.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-72992603388832196382011-01-07T03:43:02.312+00:002011-01-07T03:43:02.312+00:00I strongly suggest you ensure Mr. Kevin Baker neve...I strongly suggest you ensure Mr. Kevin Baker never sees that comment, Nate. You seem to be fairly clearly implying that the US in the 1960s/70s was a "tyranny" - in which case you're now in line for a 4000-word <i>Smallest Minority</i> rant about how "bigoted" you are, and how much you "<i>really</i> hate America".<br /><br />By all means lets discuss guerilla/resistance movements, but for any example to be relevant to the exchange Epsilon and I've been having, it would have to meet every one of the following criteria - a) the government in question would need to have turned its back on democracy, b) it would need to have turned its fire on its own citizenry, not on the people of another country (Kevin himself drew an absolute distinction between "despotism" and "war"), c) it would need to have access to WMDs, and d) the citizenry would need to have overthrown its government without any aid from a portion of the armed forces or the police. The Vietnam War fits c), but none of the others.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-27162604169324110872011-01-07T00:39:52.004+00:002011-01-07T00:39:52.004+00:00The Vietnamese might dispute your characterization...The Vietnamese might dispute your characterization of a conflict against tyrannical government as hopeless. Witness their ability to hold off a modern industrialized army made up of planes, tanks, and, yes, WMDs. By your standards, shouldn't a U.S. victory in the Vietnam war have been a foregone conclusion?Shouldn't we have just nuked them if all we wanted was victory? Why didn't we then?<br /><br />Do you really want to go down the route of examining the efficacy of modern guerilla and resistance movements? Today's governments and their armies are a lot more vulnerable to guerillas with small arms than you seem to believe, especially when you start to look at the history of South and Latin America.Natehttp://gunsandbullets.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com