John Lott, in the National Review Online writes:
Nor does it really matter that the only academic research on the impact of trigger locks on crime finds that states that require guns be locked up and unloaded face a five-percent increase in murder and a 12 percent increase in rape. Criminals are more likely to attack people in their homes, and those attacks are more likely to be successful. Since the potential of armed victims deters criminals, storing a gun locked and unloaded actually encourages crime.
Lott falsely claims that his own paper with Whitley is the only academic research on the topic. But he knows this isn't true. A peer reviewed article in JAMA by Cummings et al found:
Laws that make gun owners responsible for storing firearms in a manner that makes them inaccessible to children were in effect for at least 1 year in 12 states from 1990 through 1994. Among children younger than 15 years, unintentional shooting deaths were reduced by 23% (95% confidence interval, 6%-37%) during the years covered by these laws. This estimate was based on within-state comparisons adjusted for national trends in unintentional firearm-related mortality. Gun-related homicide and suicide showed modest declines, but these were not statistically significant.
Now Lott is well aware of the Cummings paper. In the working paper he linked, he used Cummings' data in his analysis, but misrepresented the paper when he wrote that Cummings only considered accidental deaths. Then, in The Bias Against Guns he misrepresented the paper again when he wrote:
they did not use fixed year effects which would have allowed them to test whether the safe storage states were experiencing a drop relative to the rest of the country.
But Cummings did use fixed year effects. They wrote:
To control for national trends over time in firearm mortality rates, all states were included in the analysis, and 15 indicator variables were used to represent each calendar year. Categories of age, sex, and race were examined as potential confounders.
When I pointed this out, Lott responded with:
We had been unable to replicate their claimed results using fixed effects and the only way we could get something similar was without fixed effects. It really shouldn't have been that difficult for us to confirm what they found since we were used their dates for the laws.
This is not credible. If you couldn't replicate their findings, why not say so, instead of writing something ("they did not use fixed effects") you knew to be false. And it doesn't seem to have been that hard to replicate Cummings' results -- these researchers had no difficulties.
In the light of all this, is it plausible that Lott just forgot all about the Cummings study?
The NRO article describes Lott as "senior research scientist at the University of Maryland". Which is true, but they don't mention that he is now a research scientist in the Computer Science Department. At least one Maryland student is not impressed
Lott works here now. He is a Senior Research Scientist over in A.V. Williams. Who knows why we decided to pick him up, but I imagine it has something to do with his friend Jim Purtilo of our computer science department. Purtilo has a website where he defends Lott to the hilt; he warns readers to "be not only careful to check the assertions they find on the web, but also the quality and policies of the source as well." Purtilo's star example? The Wikipedia entry for Dr. John Lott.
It is in fact the only academic research that looks at the impact of trigger locks on crime rates. The one paper that you referred to had no Tables or actual estimates (but just four words in the paper that is not connected to anything else in it), and when asked about it by USA Today the author of that piece said "that, unlike Lott, he didn't explore the possibility that gun-storage laws actually cause crime. 'I guess I wouldn't have, because it seems like a very implausible connection,' Cummings says. 'But I guess anything's conceivable.'" (Martin Kasindorf, " Study: Gun-lockup laws can be harmful," USA Today, Thursday, May 11, 2000, p. 8A.) This was also cited in The Bias Against Guns, but apparently you were unable to remember to quote it in the typical selective quoting that you engage in. Your other information is equally inaccurate.
Shorter Lott: I had fancy tables therefore I did the real research!
Oh please. Your paper was not on the impact of trigger locks (you have no data on them at all), but like Cummings it was on safe storage laws. You even used his data on the laws.
Cummings may have thought it unlikely that the laws would cause increases in crime, but his regressions would have shown an increase if they had.
I see you have no defence on the other stuff. Why did you claim that they Cummings had not controlled for national trends when he did and other researchers had replicated his results?
There were only 80 children under the age of 15 died in 2001 due to firearm accidents(i.e. unintentional deaths). I don't have access to that paper today, maybe I'll wander down to my library and get a copy. I'm pretty sure I know some of those states enacted those laws, and they're the ones that already have the stricter firearms laws. I'd like to see the data myself, since I don't buy their argument.
They measured whether or not there was an association with the safe storage laws, but did they check for compliance? Are there any other explanations for the decreases in accidental shooting deaths in those states? I'll reserve judgment until I've read the paper.
Except for one thing, was the research funded by the Joyce Foundation? If it was, I'll be skeptical until I read the paper.
Taken from my post at CafeHayek:
Trigger locks are one type of lock mandated by safe storage laws, but my response was not meant to single out just trigger locks. My paper was on safe storage. The point of my post above was to respond to Lambert's claim that Cummings paper looked a crime rates. Lambert's response that "but his regressions would have shown an increase if they had" is hardly a defense of his claim that they did estimate the impact on crime rates. This directly contradicts Lambert's statement in his first post that "Lott claims that his own paper that found that safe storage laws increase crime is the only academic research on the subject, even though he is well aware of other academic research that comes to a different conclusion."
As to the point that Lambert raises in his second post here, I called up Cummings and tried to figure out what was going on. The discussion of fixed effects was drawn from the conversation that I had with him, and the investigation would have been a lot more productive if he had been willing to share his data when he was asked. The fact that he was willing to share it years later was not particularly useful when I was doing the analysis.
Oh no! It's another "share the data!" demand! Aaaaagh!!
Ben, I agree it's always wise to be skeptical of ecological studies, in case there was some other unrecorded phenomenon occurring in those states. But unless that phenomenon was nationwide one should expect it not to show up in a multi-state analysis. Do you have any suggestions?
So am I to understand the criminals know which houses have the locks and/or safes? What of the homes which don't have a gun to lock up? Or are they just screwed either way?
Well, I got a copy of the paper. A whopping 2 1/2 pages in JAMA. Anyway, their data does seem to show what it says it shows, but this does not seem to be much of a result.
Here's what I know from the study and other data:
- Between 1990 and 1994 the average number of children younger than 15 to be killed unintentionally by a firearm was 267 per year.
- In 1994, the last year of the study, there were 12 states that had child firearm access prevention laws.
- In 2000, there were 18 states that had child firearm access prevention laws.
-In 2001, 80 children under the age of 15 who died by unintentional firearm injuries.
The accidental firearm death rate for children under 15 years of age seems to be falling much faster than the rate of passage of child access prevention laws. Seems to me that Cummings et al were closer to the mark in their paper when they stated
Further, they state that they don't have any way of knowing the rate of compliance with the law
I dislike safe storage laws that dictate to gun owners exactly how we must store our firearms, and make no exceptions for the various lifestyles and circumstances that many of us have. Furthermore, any attempt at enforcement by random inspection is anathema to most gun-owning Americans, and many non-gun-owners as well.
On the other hand, I am in favor of laws that allow for criminal punishment of anyone who's firearms are used by a child, where the use was enabled by failure to properly secure the firearm. This is a different matter all together. But the test for firearms shouldn't be any more arduous than for other dangerous devices, such as matches or automobiles. Singling out gun-owners is not acceptable.
I don't think there's much more to say about the subject. The study is what it is, which, I think, is at best a call for more research. Certainly, it is not evidence enough to call for more laws regarding the storage of firearms.
And in any case, in 2001 approximately ,5320 children under the age of 15 (66.5 to 1) died in accidents that did NOT involve firearms. Probably better to address all those deaths that involved automobile accidents, falls, drowning, poisoning, fires, suffocation, and "all other causes," before tackling the problem of the 80 who died from accidental firearm related injuries.
Ben, better be careful accepting that ecological stuff... there are lots of countries out there with much lower gun death rates than the US, and they all have more gun control...
but what, really, is the difference, if I may ask, between a law which punishes you for letting a kiddy play with a gun, and a law which requires you to stop the kiddy getting access to a gun? (In terms of the principle of the thing, I mean). In either case you're being told (by big, bad Nanny State) that your kid shouldn't play with your gun. But in one case your kid is dead and you're in gaol; in the other case, not. Surely it's just a question of where in the process of a kid accidentally dying that you choose to intervene legally?
Such a law is far easier to enforce if there's a law defining safe storage in the first place.
Criminal negligence involving the use of an automobile isn't going to be filed in the US, at least, if you're driving sober, at or below the speed limit, on the right side of the road ("correct", I should say, since this blog originates in oz), etc etc.
However, if you're breaking one or more traffic laws and doing so in an extreme way, then a charge like negligent homicide is likely to be tacked on to whatever traffic citation you're going to receive after getting a ticket.
Who says we don't? Drunk driving campaigns, mandatory child restraint laws, mandatory wearing of life jacks by minors while in a boat, "ugly face" education campaigns for poisons and emergency poison response phone lines, ever more stringent fire codes, prenatal child care education for parents ...
We do tackle all of these things.
As usual, Ben posts from ignorance informed only by his narrow-minded political belief system.
How do you enforce safe storage laws?
So where's the gun safety education in schools and for EVERYONE? Education is the key, right? But no, the libs don't want education here. They claim that it will lead to glamorization of guns and more people interested in guns, but they claim the exact opposite with sex ed! Oh the irony!
I've had it with Ben's willful ignorance.
We've been through that before. It isn't the guns
For other examples, the UK has always had much lower gun homicide than the USA, even when they had virtually no gun-control laws. Among Caucasians only, Finland and the USA have nearly identical gun-homicide rates. Mexico, with super-strict gun-control laws (but lax enforcement) has a much much higher firearm homicide rate.
As others have said, gun-control is what politicians do instead of something. Better to tackle the problems of inner-city poverty and violence. It's not the guns.
ben writes:
[[As others have said, gun-control is what politicians do instead of something. Better to tackle the problems of inner-city poverty and violence. It's not the guns.]]
Do you remember the Virginia Tech massacre? Do you think the shooter should have been allowed to buy guns and ammo, given his history of mental illness and violent conduct? Yes or no?
If you answer "Yes," you are probably clinically insane.
If you answer "No," then you favor at least one type of gun control.
Lott writes:
>The point of my post above was to respond to Lambert's claim that Cummings paper looked a crime rates. Lambert's response that "but his regressions would have shown an increase if they had" is hardly a defense of his claim that they did estimate the impact on crime rates. This directly contradicts Lambert's statement in his first post that "Lott claims that his own paper that found that safe storage laws increase crime is the only academic research on the subject, even though he is well aware of other academic research that comes to a different conclusion."
Cummings paper did look at crime rates. Contrary to Lott's claim the paper did contain estimates and there were certainly more than four words on it. In fact, the word "homicide" occurs ten times in the paper and Cummings give estimates for the effects of safe storage laws on gun and non-gun homicides. (An 11% reduction in with-gun homicides, for example.)
Cummings estimated incidence rate ratios using Poisson regression to compare the rates with the law with the rates without the law. A ratio greater than one would suggest that the law had increased homicide, but the ratio was less than one.
>I called up Cummings and tried to figure out what was going on. The discussion of fixed effects was drawn from the conversation that I had with him, and the investigation would have been a lot more productive if he had been willing to share his data when he was asked.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that in conversation Cummings told you that he had not used fixed effects to control for national trends? Even though his paper clearly states that he did. (And it says so in more than one place.)
Assuming I'm at home in Anyville, USA, what are the odds that I will (1) require a gun to defend myself from harm,(2) successfully use the gun to defend myself.
Ompus, why don't you ask her?
Ompus, why don't you ask her?
Ben, this story is obviously slightly beyond your mental capacity.
this discussion is about trigger locks and safe storage. neither of them would have changed the outcome of this story.
Ompus was asking about "chances". a single event is not a good answer. to that question. as someone who has been belitteling the death of 80 children above, what relevancy do you attribute to this single case?!?
sod, I was simply answering Ompus' question.
I only belittled the death of 80 children in terms of 5000 other children. I think that is fair. I think the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent to push gun control could do far more good spent elsewhere, and the gun-control supporters are belittling the 5000 in favor of the 80 simply because they have an irrational hatred of firearms.
"this discussion is about trigger locks and safe storage. neither of them would have changed the outcome of this story."
Oh? Suppose the guy broke into the house more quickly, and suppose he went straight for the bedroom. Would the woman have had time to undo a trigger lock or open a safe in a panic? Would she have even been able to get to the weapon in time, depending on where it was stored in the house, and where the man broke in?
This is one of the fundamental problems with the recently struck-down DC gun law... that it required weapons to be stored disassembled or locked, rendering them useless in the event of a sudden intrusion.
And you know, this is DC, crime capital of the United States, in spite of its strict "gun-control."
I agree that, in principle, an adult citizen has an intrinsic right to defend his/her life or the lives of others, with weapons as needed. Thus I would oppose any effort to take guns in general away from people in general. On the other hand, I don't want criminals to have guns. Guns amplify the power to do harm; a guy who runs amok with a knife in a school can probably be brought down before he kills more than one or two victims, but the same guy with a gun could easily kill a dozen people. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Texas A&M... So I would say some people should be allowed to own guns, but only as a prima facie right, not an absolute right. A history of violent crime or of paranoid mental disorders should mitigate against gun ownership for that person.
"A history of violent crime or of paranoid mental disorders should mitigate against gun ownership for that person."
And so it does.
"...a guy who runs amok with a knife in a school can probably be brought down before he kills more than one or two victims."
You'd think, but it's not necessarily true. I've seen pictures on the internet of a police officer who was slashed repeatedly by a guy he was trying to disarm who had a knife. He didn't want to shoot the guy. The results were pretty horrific. I won't link to them here... he lived, but it was pretty bad.
Ben, your answer to my ecological studies was feeble, cherry-picking arguments and examples. The majority of low-gun-crime countries have strict gun-control. (I actually agree with you and Mike Moore, btw, there is something other than free availability of guns making Americans kill each other at such a ridiculous rate. But since you don't support changing that something, you need to take Mike Moore's - and the rest of the World's - alternative suggestion, and introduce gun control).
You also asked the silly "who enforces gun storage laws" routine, in order to raise the spectre of random home checks by police (which spectre you raised in a previous comment as well). I know I probably shouldn't ask you this because you are a libertarian, therefore kooky, but when you renew your car's insurance every year, is it not the case that someone checks your car? I.e. enforces a road worthiness law? The same could be done very easily for guns... what is the difference? Why demand less oversight of a luxury, and accept more oversight of a necessity?
"...cherry-picking arguments and examples."
it was anything but cherry picking.
"The same could be done very easily for guns... what is the difference?"
And how exactly does this check that everyone is COMPLYING with the law, hmmmm?
Ben, if everyone COMPLIED with laws, we wouldn't need laws. The point of a law is to establish a penalty for breaking a code, not to establish a system by which UN police invade your house from unmarked helicopters to check that you are complying with it. The law sets a standard others are meant to adhere to, and people are assumed to be trying to live up to the standard. Police don't routinely invade bars to pre-emptively check that everyone is obeying anti-assault laws. Society assumes everyone WILL obey the law, and if they do not they get charged when the evidence presents.
It's a classic wingnut argument, to resist a new law on the basis that no-one will follow it. Maybe wingnut libertarian prats will refuse to follow a new law because they think they're special, but the rest of us tend to obey most of a society's laws. In this case there's even an implicit threat, since the law concerns safe management of a weapon, and the people telling us they might not obey the law - and therefore will insist on endangering the lives of the law-abiders - are the same people who own the weapon. "Nice society you have there... be a shame if it got broken" kind of statements, really.
"I only belittled the death of 80 children in terms of 5000 other children. I think that is fair. I think the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent to push gun control could do far more good spent elsewhere, and the gun-control supporters are belittling the 5000 in favor of the 80 simply because they have an irrational hatred of firearms."
I'm sure that Ben feels that laws targeting the minority of pedophiles who use the internet to find their victims are a waste of money and "belittling" the much larger number of victims of child abuse who are found by other means.
The usual economic value of a life is set at US$2-3 million. So if the cost of enforcing and complying with safe storage laws is less than say $100 million a years, there's a clear economic benefit from such laws.
Oh and od I evne need ot point out the number of states with safe storage laws is really only a valid measure of the application of those laws if all the states have the same approximate population and uniform gun ownership rates?
"I'm sure that Ben feels that laws targeting the minority of pedophiles who use the internet to find their victims are a waste of money and "belittling" the much larger number of victims of child abuse who are found by other means."
Yes, but those laws actually get passed. Not a single gun-control measure has passed, nor has the gun-control crowd done any good, but they have spent millions and millions of dollars.
Gee Ben, that's a bit disingenuous. I wonder why ever those laws haven't got passed? Is it the inefficiency of those silly gun-control weirdos, spendign all that money and forgetting to submit a law to congress...? Or could it be that someone spent a lot more money preventing the laws... no... surely not...
"Yes, but those laws actually get passed...."
Sorry weren't we talking about the safe storage laws which HAVE been passed?
If not, what's the relevance of the 80 lives per year you admit safe storage laws probably save.
Also, since when does a libertarian complain about how people voluntarily spend their own money?
"Or could it be that someone spent a lot more money preventing the laws... no... surely not..."
More like the general gun-owning public would hand those politicians their hats. The gun-control movement is funded by big outfits like the Joyce Foundation. The gun-rights movement is primarily funded by individuals. Where do you think the NRA gets all its money?
And it's not disingenuous. We will not allow feel-good laws to pass, laws that we know will do nothing for safety, but only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.
"Sorry weren't we talking about the safe storage laws which HAVE been passed?"
No, I was talking about general gun-control. The stuff that the anti-gun lobby pushes like mad, but rarely gets passed.
- "Assault Weapons" bans, just about the stupidest, most innefective, laws on the planet.
- One-gun-a-month laws.
- Waiting periods
- Magazine limits
- Registration and licensing
- The list goes on...
Note that the only "gun-control" to pass at the federal level in the last decade was the recent strengthening of background checks. The NRA fully supported this measure, so it's hardly a "victory" for gun-control.
"Also, since when does a libertarian complain about how people voluntarily spend their own money?"
The same way we complain about people who spend money to try to curb rights to free speech. Any fundamental right should be protected, not infringed.
"Or could it be that someone spent a lot more money preventing the laws... no... surely not..."
See, we're spending our money to protect our rights. They are spending their money to infringe our rights. Of course they talk about "rights" that aren't, such as the "right to feel safe," which does not exist.
So, Ben, you're against waiting periods? You think it's a good idea to sell a gun to someone who storms in after an argument with a wife or a co-worker and asks for a .38 and one speedloader full of bullets? Against registration and licensing... are you against registration and licensing of cars and drivers, too? If not, why not?
What limits, if any, would you place on gun ownership? Should violent psychotics be allowed to own guns? People convicted of rape or homicide? Small children? I don't think I ever got a straight answer from you about the Virginia Tech shooter. Did he have a right to buy guns and ammunition? Would a law preventing him from doing so have been morally wrong?
"So, Ben, you're against waiting periods? You think it's a good idea to sell a gun to someone who storms in after an argument with a wife or a co-worker and asks for a .38 and one speedloader full of bullets?"
So you think it is a good idea to make a woman wait a week to get a gun when someone is stalking her? And how often does your scenario occur exactly? You do know that there is no waiting period at this time in most states to purchase handguns, right?
"Against registration and licensing... are you against registration and licensing of cars and drivers, too? If not, why not?"
The same reason I'm against registration and licensing of computers: infringement of free speech. The right to owning and operate a motor vehicle is not a fundamental one outlined in the Bill of Rights. Registration is good for one thing: showing the government where to look when they want to ban and confiscate firearms. I've yet to see how registration will inhibit crime. Canada's long-gun registration scheme was a notable fiasco.
"Should violent psychotics be allowed to own guns? People convicted of rape or homicide?"
Naturally no.
"Did he have a right to buy guns and ammunition? Would a law preventing him from doing so have been morally wrong?"
Are you aware that such a law was in place, but that the State of Virginia did not provide the funding that would have put the information about Cho into the database?
By the way, Barton, I assume you are in favor of so-called "assault weapons" bans. Do you think the recently sun-setted ban did any good? Could it have logically made any difference? Does the media, and does the gun-control lobby, repeatedly lie and obfuscate the issue of "assault weapons?"
The "assault" weapons ban was a ban on the way guns looked. Ironically ownership of guns that have intrinsic military value, such as M-16s and their semi-auto variant the AR-15, is just what the second amendment was designed to protect.
It wasn't written to facilitate duck hunting.
So I'm still waiting to hear rough odds that an average person in an average town will require a gun to defend myself from harm and in fact successfully use the gun to defend themselves?
I know it happens, but how often? It matters. People die in elevators, but who takes the stairs? If the number of people who require a gun and successfully use it is 1:4 then I should get a gun. If it's 1:4,000,000, then I might as well spend my money on that tennis racket I've been coveting.
ben posts:
[[So you think it is a good idea to make a woman wait a week to get a gun when someone is stalking her?]]
Probably not, so we'd need a way to distinguish the cases, wouldn't we?
[[ And how often does your scenario occur exactly?]]
I have no idea. Neither do you.
[[ You do know that there is no waiting period at this time in most states to purchase handguns, right?]]
Yes. That's part of the problem.
[["Against registration and licensing... are you against registration and licensing of cars and drivers, too? If not, why not?"
The same reason I'm against registration and licensing of computers: infringement of free speech.]]
You mean you ARE against licensing drivers???
[["Should violent psychotics be allowed to own guns? People convicted of rape or homicide?"
Naturally no.]]
Then you're for at least one form of gun control.
[["Did he have a right to buy guns and ammunition? Would a law preventing him from doing so have been morally wrong?"
Are you aware that such a law was in place, but that the State of Virginia did not provide the funding that would have put the information about Cho into the database?]]
Yes. That would be a failure of implementation, not an intrinsic problem with the law. Any law will fail if no one enforces it.
[[By the way, Barton, I assume you are in favor of so-called "assault weapons" bans]]
Yes. Cop-killer bullets, too.
So I'm still waiting to hear rough odds that an average person in an average town will require a gun to defend myself from harm and in fact successfully use the gun to defend themselves?
I know it happens, but how often? It matters. People die in elevators, but who takes the stairs? If the number of people who require a gun and successfully use it is 1:4 then I should get a gun. If it's 1:4,000,000, then I might as well spend my money on that tennis racket I've been coveting.
"So I'm still waiting to hear rough odds that an average person in an average town will require a gun to defend myself from harm and in fact successfully use the gun to defend themselves?"
Good question, Ompus. Nobody knows for sure. There are estimates that range from 500,000 to 2,500,000 per year. The high end there is probably bogus, but it does appear to be at least several hundred thousand, most of which DO NOT involve shots fired.
"Yes. Cop-killer bullets, too."
That's funny, since there are no such things. The "cop-killer" bullet issue was another example of media and gun-control lobby fabrication.
Does it matter that the "Assault Weapons" ban was a joke, and that it did not, and could not have caused any changes to rates of crime.
And another thing, does it matter that the gun-control lobby (i.e. Brady Campaign, VPC, Joyce Foundation) lies and obscures nearly every chance they get in order to push their agenda? Or is that fair game?
Good question, Ompus. Nobody knows for sure. There are estimates that range from 500,000 to 2,500,000 per year. The high end there is probably bogus, but it does appear to be at least several hundred thousand, most of which DO NOT involve shots fired.
it is slightly hard to keep you somewhere near the topic Ben.
the fact that the majority of those "crime preventions" did not require a shot to be fired looks like MASSIVE support for more trigger locks though...
"it is slightly hard to keep you somewhere near the topic Ben."
I'm only answering a question that was asked.
"the fact that the majority of those "crime preventions" did not require a shot to be fired looks like MASSIVE support for more trigger locks though..."
Oh? You mean a criminal will stop doing whatever evil they are involved in if you point a locked gun at them? May as well just point your finger at them in that case *pow!* *pow!*.
"The gun-control movement is funded by big outfits like the Joyce Foundation. The gun-rights movement is primarily funded by individuals. Where do you think the NRA gets all its money?"
Got any evidence for this Ben?
I tried looking on the NRA's website for their budget but it's a godawful mess.
"The "assault" weapons ban was a ban on the way guns looked. Ironically ownership of guns that have intrinsic military value, such as M-16s and their semi-auto variant the AR-15, is just what the second amendment was designed to protect.
It wasn't written to facilitate duck hunting."
The dominant view amongst constitutional scholars of all political stripes these days is that the well-ordered militia phrase is illustrative and not limiting.
That is, the left has abandoned the position you espouse here that maintenance of a militia was the only or principal object of the amendment.
Personal defence - especially in frontier areas - and subsistence hunting were probably of more practical interest to most Americans at the time.
"Oh? You mean a criminal will stop doing whatever evil they are involved in if you point a locked gun at them? May as well just point your finger at them in that case pow! pow!."
So logically there should be an increase in the crime rate in the states which passed safe storage laws. Got any evidence for that?
"So logically there should be an increase in the crime rate in the states which passed safe storage laws. Got any evidence for that?"
This is not exactly true, since many of those states (notably Florida) passed concealed carry laws around the same time. So one method of "safe storge" is to simply keep your gun loaded and on your person.
"Got any evidence for this Ben?"
No, I can't find it either. What I do know is that the NRA takes more orders from its members than the other way around. Gun owners are a very active group. Gun-control groups on the other hand are the other way around. Most funding seems to come from a few wealthy sources, such as the Joyce Foundation. I do know that the Brady Campaign's budget from donations has been going downhill for years now.
Gun control is total astroturf, while the pro 2nd Amendment side is a real grassroots movement.
ben writes:
[[That's funny, since there are no such things. The "cop-killer" bullet issue was another example of media and gun-control lobby fabrication.]]
What else would an armor-piercing bullet be used for? Are muggers or breaking-and-entering men likely to be wearing kevlar? The police lobby certainly didn't consider the issue to be a "fabrication."
"What else would an armor-piercing bullet be used for? "
Suppose you encounter a Kevlar wearing deer when hunting? Would you want your family to starve?
I've never ate a Kevlar. What do they taste like?
I once heard of a Kevlar wearing a deer, but my mate scared it off in the excitement of telling me about it. I think they're a myth personally.
I'm sure I've had one made into a kroket and sold out of a FEBO automat machine
You guys have been watching "Lethal Weapon 3" again, haven't you?
Quick lesson for those of you who don't know about "armor piercing" and "cop killer" ammo:
- Civilians are already restricted from possessing actual "ammo piercing" ammunition (such as that for the FN Five Seven, which is one of the few pistols I know of, that with special ammo can penetrate police body armor).
- Police "bullet proof" vests, aka body armor, typically made with Kevlar, are made to stop bullets fired from COMMON HANDGUNS.
- NONE of those same police "bullet proof" vests will stop any centerfire rifle bullet fired from a rifle, i.e. every single deer hunting rifle in North America, from .223 Winchester to the super common .30-06, on up.
- American soldiers in Iraq use specially made body armor that incorporates ceramic plates that will actually stop rifle rounds from penetrating. Police do not wear these on a day-to-day basis.
- The cop-killer bullet thing is a farce. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing.
Honestly, there's no reason most of you would have known any of that, since most people just don't care. I blame the media for spreading the BS that you do "know". But just like me with global warming, if you're going to be on a side of an issue, you should try to learn the facts.
500,000 - 2,500,000 successful defensive gun uses yields yearly odds of 1:600 - 1:120...right? If I make the assumption that many of those defensive gun uses were by police, security officers, convenience-store clerks, gas-station attendants, or other persons who work in particularly dangerous occupations, I would imagine the odds an "average" person would engage in a successful defensive gun use would drop dramatically.
Ompus, the odds are indeed small.
Ompus
Check out the dgu in the archives here.
Then number of people saved by dgu is very small.
"Ompus Check out the dgu in the archives here. Then number of people saved by dgu is very small."
On the other hand, I think the number of people "saved" is greater than the number of people killed by criminal use of guns.
wrong yet again ben.
The number saved in the US is approximately 160/year much, much less than
number of gun homicides.
http://timlambert.org/category/guns/dgu/
http://timlambert.org/1992/05/dgu-00009/
"The number saved in the US is approximately 160/year much, much less than number of gun homicides."
Maybe true, I don't know. It's just Tim's estimate. But then Tim, whom I respect, does write something dumb on that same page:
"According to Wright and Rossi's study, the main reason criminals acquire guns is "self-defence". They would have less reason to acquire guns if there were fewer legal guns to defend against."
I don't think that the bad guys are aquiring guns for self-defence against legal guns, they're buying guns for self-defense against other bad guys, duh.
Did you also see Kleck's article, Resisting Crime: The Effects of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes, that established that armed resistance was the best way to avoid or mitigate injury when attacked by a criminal.
Tim also says in your link, elspi,:
"65,000 is the number of violent crimes prevented by guns."
That's more what I was thinking, number of violent crimes prevented by guns, not necessarily lives saved. And I think that number is too low, but I could be wrong.
On the other hand, nobody seems to be able to attack the BS that I pointed out above about assault weapons, cop-killer bullets, and the rest of the bunk that is a pure media and gun-control-lobby fabrication. For example, if you scroll down here you can see a graphic that demonstrates just exactly how dumb the "ban" was.
Ben, I think you're talking shit. According to the NRA foundation website, they received more than $250,000 from each of 11 companies, that is at least 2 and a half million bucks from just 11 companies. You can view the list. The NRA foundation is the fund-raising arm of the NRA. 3 of those corporations were gun manufacturers. That was just for the endowment, which funds ongoing NRA foundation activities. There is a whole separate page for "corporate sponsors".
So who is astroturfing who again?
And, funnily enough, a very quick search on "cop-killer bullet" turns up a press release from the company First Choice Armour talking about just such a bullet from the Mexican company Tecnos. It appears that this company's body armour can stop the bullet but police-issue armour can't. This company certainly seemed concerned about it.
But then, maybe this company doesn't treat NRA information sheets as a serious source...?
SG, the NRA has something like 4 million members. At a cost of approximately $20 per membership, that'd be 80 million dollars. And when the SHTF, it is the voices of the members (and the many many non members for whom the NRA is not pro-gun enough) who call the senators, make the noise, and keep useless gun-control legislation off the books.
The cop-killer bullet thing fell off the media radar a long time ago. I'm not the one who brought it up here. I was only answering an assertion.
Also, the number of guns has been growing quite steadily in the United States. Crime has been dropping. Gun accidents have been dropping. CCW has been increasing. More guns not= more crime.
And about Europe, well, take Finland for example. If you look only at Caucasians in the US, the homicide rate in the US is about the same as Finland and about 50% higher than Canada, Italy and the rest. Our murder problem isn't a gun problem, it's a culture problem.
So ben, why is it okay for NRA members to support an organisation which affects the legal framework, but not for the gun-control crowd?
If you think your murder problem isn't a gun problem, but a culture problem, doesn't that mean you agree with Michael Moore? Or when you say "culture problem", do you mean that you blame black people?
"If you think your murder problem isn't a gun problem, but a culture problem, doesn't that mean you agree with Michael Moore? Or when you say "culture problem", do you mean that you blame black people?"
I agree with Michael Moore that it is a cultural problem, but that's as far as my agreement with that particular tree-sloth goes.
"Blame?" Not the way you mean it. Homicide rates are far higher among young black men than any other demographic group in the country. I do not claim to be an expert on why this is, except that Michael Moore's pathetic explanation is false. His intimation that the NRA is somehow linked to the KKK is an outright lie. I don't expect much better from him though.
come on Ben, lay it on the line. What do you think Michael Moore's explanation is? What is yours? How do they contrast?
"What do you think Michael Moore's explanation is? What is yours? How do they contrast?"
Just watch his idiotic cartoon. He thinks we're a bunch of fraidy white people who like to shoot black people, and that black people were otherwise happy and peaceful until we started blasting them out of fear. He claims that there's some link between the NRA and the KKK, which is complete crap. It's a crock. Ulysses S. Grant was the eighth president of the NRA and he effectively destroyed the Klan.
Come on Ben, get over your spaz about that part of the movie and try just a little harder. Is that all of Michael Moore's theory? Is there possibly any chance that it dovetails into "sicko"? What do you think the explanation is for this cultural problem? How do they contrast?
Quit bitchin' about the fat lady and lay out your manifesto. For all his faults, Michael Moore is the only popular cultural commentator who has tried to look past the gun control debate. If you think you are right and he is wrong, explain how.
"And about Europe, well, take Finland for example. If you look only at Caucasians in the US, the homicide rate in the US is about the same as Finland and about 50% higher than Canada, Italy and the rest."
Yeah and if you exclude the poorest 10% of the population in those countries what does that do to your comparison?
"Yeah and if you exclude the poorest 10% of the population in those countries what does that do to your comparison?"
Dunno, don't have the data.
I guess you are right though... they should just have gun control for poor folks and black people. That would reduce gun violence, which seems to be the goal, if the gun-control supporters are correct, isn't it?
You mean the Klan wasn't effective in the South in the 20th century? Really?
The NRA during Grant's Presidency wasn't the same organization it is today. It's not even the same organization it was when I learned gun safety basics from NRA materials in the boy scouts in the 1960s.
Knowing your track record when it comes to blindingly obvious facts, my guess is that you're unaware that the transformation of the NRA into a rabid absolutist gun-nut lobbying organization (as opposed to the educational, hunting, is relatively recent. Last 30 years.
The NRA was founded ...
and gun safety and skill and hunting safety were its focus for most of its history.
The point is Ben, the poorest and most discriminated against people in virtually every society have much higher crime rates than the average.
But hey maybe Canadian Amerinds; Japanese-Koreans; Germans of Turkish descent; French-Algerians; Scots and Afro-Carribean Britons and Australian Aborigines all share the same culture.
Oh and if you're only looking at American Caucasians, you're excluding not only blacks but Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans or close to half the population - and that probably includes say 75% or more of the poorest third of the population.
Ben has kinda- sorta almost stumbled upon one of the key reasons why it's so hard to get handgun control in the US - most of the victims of gun violence are Black.
Make Ben live in Harlem or DC for six months and he might have a different attitude to this issue. (Don't waste time with the "NY and DC gun laws don't prevent gun violence" argument Ben we both know that its essentially impossible to stop the illegal interstate importation of guns into a US state.)
In fact, you could turn around that old shibboleth of the American Right "state rights" and argue that the states with the laxest gun laws are effectively imposing their views on gun ownership on the other states.
dhogaza writes:
[[Knowing your track record when it comes to blindingly obvious facts, my guess is that you're unaware that the transformation of the NRA into a rabid absolutist gun-nut lobbying organization (as opposed to the educational, hunting, is relatively recent. Last 30 years.
The NRA was founded ...
...on November 17, 1871 by two Union Army officers, Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, who were upset with the poor marksmanship of their troops. In a magazine editorial written by Church, he stated their primary goal was "providing firearms training and encouraging interest in the shooting sports"
and gun safety and skill and hunting safety were its focus for most of its history.]]
I could quibble about the 30 years, since I remember some of the NRA craziness on gun control from the '60s, but dhogaza's main point here is quite correct. Most people probably don't know, for example, that the NRA helped pass the laws in the 1930s that made sawed-off shotguns illegal. Yes, folks, the NRA once supported gun control.
come on Ben, your manifesto. I'm waiting. How exactly do you differ from Mike Moore.
(But an answer to Barton and dhogaza would be nice too).
"...and gun safety and skill and hunting safety were its focus for most of its history."
Because gun control wasn't the focus of government back then. Now they have to fight to keep their rights. What'd you expect? Gun control wasn't the mantra of the media back then. There was no Joyce Foundation back then. Back then, it was about marksmanship. It still is, but from a media point of view, it's about rights.
"Ben has kinda- sorta almost stumbled upon one of the key reasons why it's so hard to get handgun control in the US - most of the victims of gun violence are Black."
Yes, but the VAST majority of the murderers who kill those black victims are black themselves. While the white homicide rate in the US is around 2.76, the black homicide rate is around 22.3! That's nuts!
"In fact, you could turn around that old shibboleth of the American Right "state rights" and argue that the states with the laxest gun laws are effectively imposing their views on gun ownership on the other states."
Lame. Why do the states with lax gun laws then have such low crime rates. For example, compare Vermont to New Jersey. Or compare Washington state with Massachusetts. There's something besides guns driving that.
"there are lots of countries out there with much lower gun death rates than the US, and they all have more gun control..."
Yes, but many have higher rates of murder and higher rates of suicide. Their stabbing deaths are over the top compared to America's. In addition, if you look at US gun deaths, many of them occur in the inner cities (where there is usually strict "gun control") and are related to drugs. Many of the countries you're referring to with lower gun deaths also do not have the violent black market in drugs that the US has-- they usually have less strict drug laws as well in regards to possession and that sort of thing.
dhogaza misses Ben's point in saying that we should focus on causes of death which occur at more than the rate of 80 per year, such as automobile accidents. Contrary to what dhogaza said, drunk driving is not what causes most car deaths of children and neither is lack of child restraint. Simple negligence by one or more drivers is usually the cause.
"Do you remember the Virginia Tech massacre? Do you think the shooter should have been allowed to buy guns and ammo, given his history of mental illness and violent conduct? Yes or no?"
A better question is, Would the shooter have gotten a gun on the black market even if he was prevented from doing so legally? Since he had no qualms about killing people in cold blood, I think he would have simply bought a gun from a fellow criminal and been off on his way to the campus building to do what he was determined to do. Take a look at another Virginia college shooting, the Appalachian School of Law about two years ago. That shooting was prevented from becoming worse when someone went to his car, got his gun, and confronted the shooter. If Virginia Tech hadn't banned guns on campus, maybe a law-abiding citizen would have been able to stop this mass murderer in his tracks. But, it's very hard to stop criminals from buying guns. With gun control, you only stop law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.
You can't seriously think that someone who sits at home and wants to murder people will think, "Hmm, my state just passed stricter gun control laws, now my murderous rage has gone away and I will give up what I wanted to do." The Virginia Tech shooter could also have done the school shooting in other ways, even more damaging. The worst school violence incident in the history of the US occurred in the 1930s when a man bombed an elementary school in Michigan. Bombs are much more widespread and indiscriminate than a gun.
"Most people probably don't know, for example, that the NRA helped pass the laws in the 1930s that made sawed-off shotguns illegal."
There is no federal law that makes sawed-off shotguns illegal, Barton. You do have to register them and pay a $200 "tax", but they are not illegal. Neither are machine guns, sound suppressors, bazookas, or "any other weapons" whatever those are. Heck, Finland doesn't even regulate sound suppressors ("silencers") at all.
Also, anyone here know how many people have been murdered by someone using an actual machine gun that was legally owned by a civilian in the United States since 1934? One. And it was by a bad cop who was involved in the drug trade.
And yes, DC is poor and black, but did the DC gun ban make it poorer and blacker? Crime there has only gone up since the ban. Were guns from out of state made more available because of the DC ban? None of what you claim holds water. It ain't the guns.
And as to the Seattle/Vancouver study, are you claiming that there are more poor white people in Vancouver than in Seattle? Hard to believe, since America is the place where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
"Yes, but many have higher rates of murder and higher rates of suicide. Their stabbing deaths are over the top compared to America's."
Actually, murder rates from all causes are far lower in every developed country than in the US. (Unless you know, we ddcided to base the US on some subset of the US population like say "left-handed Jewish grandmothers who've had hip replacement surgery" which is no more absurd than Ben's "caucasians-only" argument.)
Of course, US murder rates are pretty tame compared with third world countries.
So as with life expectancy and as with wanting ot be treated on the same basis as China and India re. greenhouse emissions, I guess this is another case of the US looking more like a developing country than like a developed one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
America's murder rate puts it somewhere between Yemen and Georgia - but hey they are doing better than Zimbabwe.
Interestingly, the western developed country with the next highest murder rate is Switzerland. You know, the place American gun-nuts keep citing to argue that you can have a low murder rate combined with widespread gun ownership.
Oh and if we keep looking down the table we find Finland - the country Ben used for his nonsensical whites only comparison. Finland's murder rate is roughly 50% higher than Australia's and almost double England's. Butr I'm sure that has nothing to do with picking Finland as the basis for comparison.
But since we are comparing Finland and the US, the Finnish murder rate is 2.9 per hundred thousand lower than for the US.
Reducing the US murder rate to the level of Finland (never mind the level of Australia or the UK) would save around 8,700 lives per year.
But hey what's a mere three 9-11's a year, especially when most of the lives saved would be black?
"...which is no more absurd than Ben's "caucasians-only" argument."
It's not even remotely absurd. It's an apples to apples comparison. Caucasians in Vancouver have approximately the same murder rate as Caucasians in Seattle. If the guns were the cause of the problem then Caucasians in Seattle would necessarily have to have a higher murder rate than their counterparts in Vancouver.
Why? Because, I claim, that Vancouver and Seattle are culturally very similar. They are only separated by a hundred miles or so geographically. They have about the same standard of living (Ian, I assume you'd argue that Vancouver's standard of living is higher, which works in my argument's favor as well).
Finally, the research that produced this result was done by Kellerman, and he wasn't looking for this result. He didn't even mention the result. It just turned up in his paper, it's not a cherry picked result. You guys all love Kellerman, right?
Besides that, I've lived most of my life in both cities. I know them, and I probably know better than most people here that what I say is plausible.
We have a problem in this country. For some reason that I won't get into, our young black men have a problem with violence. It is inescapably true. Banning guns WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
And finally, not matter the cost, we will not cede our liberty to the government. Yes people will die because the government doesn't rubber-stamp our every move, but it is worth it. The big-brother thing that is going on in England right now scares the crap out of me. The quote attributed to Ben Franklin serves me best here:
"Reducing the US murder rate to the level of Finland (never mind the level of Australia or the UK) would save around 8,700 lives per year."
And you're going to do that by banning guns? Even if you could get the US to adopt UK style gun laws, I'd wager that it would do little good.
Libertarian Girl:
>Take a look at another Virginia college shooting, the Appalachian School of Law about two years ago. That shooting was prevented from becoming worse when someone went to his car, got his gun, and confronted the shooter.
[Nope](http://timlambert.org/category/lott/appalachian/).
"And finally, not matter the cost, we will not cede our liberty to the government."
To paraphrase The Onion: "No price is too great for someone else to pay for freedom."
The idea that the US government, if it were determined to impose a dictatorship, would be deterred by handguns is frankly, ludicrous.
As I've noted before, if you believe it is essential to liberty that the citizenship have the capacity to overthrow the government by force of arms then you MUST support private ownership of tanks, stinger missiles and nuclear weapons.
Or is that a price too high to pay for freedom?
I'm confused, Ben. The murder rate for whites in the US is 2.76, you say. But the overall murder rate in Australia (which is 60%-80% white, can't be bothered looking it up) is 1.28 (from Ian's list). How come yours is twice ours? France (more white than Australia) is on 1.64, and the UK (more blacks than Australia) is on 1.62.
Oman, with a population of 2 million foreign workers and 1 million Omanis, is on 0.59. The Netherlands, with its incredibly liberal policies on everything, apparently hordes of suicidal muslims, but otherwise white, is on 0.95.
How come you guys can't even get your white population to have a murder rate just twice that of multicultural Australia, UK or the Netherlands? What gives?
and can you explain why the black murder rate you quote is higher than Zimbabwe (3x), Uganda (3x), Dominica (nearly 10x), Cote d'Ivoire (5x), and Zambia (3x)? Your first world blacks are 3x as violent as the nations they came from? Figure that out!
And also, why is your white population's murder rate the same as Northern Ireland? They have some trouble there, you know...
SG, Northern Ireland has always had a low murder rate.
Odd, I know.
Besides being a fairly rural and deeply Christian place, for the most part, until recently the rival paramilitaries in the bits that weren't so rural and deeply Christian tended to summarily execute suspected killers which probably had a deterrent effect.
Ian, that wiki link you gave shows an amusing sudden drop in 1994, which coincides exactly with the peace accords - from about 8 to about 4, and then down to 2. I remember being in London when the peace deal was announced, and everyone was very relieved. It's nice to see it reflected so quickly in the stats. But I have heard that today Northern Ireland remains a pretty grim place, with a lot of poverty and drug-related violence. If so, it's interesting to see its murder rate is lower than that for the good (white) citizens of the US.
Libertarian Girl posts:
[["there are lots of countries out there with much lower gun death rates than the US, and they all have more gun control..."
Yes, but many have higher rates of murder and higher rates of suicide. Their stabbing deaths are over the top compared to America's.]]
Who wants to bet she doesn't see it?
Hint: In an area that successfully controls guns, murder rates tend to go down by about 50% and aggravated assault rates tend to go up by about 80%. Anyone see a connection there?
[["Do you remember the Virginia Tech massacre? Do you think the shooter should have been allowed to buy guns and ammo, given his history of mental illness and violent conduct? Yes or no?"
A better question is, Would the shooter have gotten a gun on the black market even if he was prevented from doing so legally? Since he had no qualms about killing people in cold blood, I think he would have simply bought a gun from a fellow criminal and been off on his way to the campus building to do what he was determined to do.]]
So it's okay in your view to sell guns to such a person? And you think gun control laws are totally unenforceable? If the latter is the case, why do you even bother opposing them?
ben posts:
[[Also, anyone here know how many people have been murdered by someone using an actual machine gun that was legally owned by a civilian in the United States since 1934? One.]]
School shooter in California several years ago, several kids. There are probably additional examples. I don't trust your memory.
[[Also, anyone here know how many people have been murdered by someone using an actual machine gun that was legally owned by a civilian in the United States since 1934? One.]]
combination of extremely rare events cause EXTREMELY rare events.
drawing conclusion from a lack of cases then is complete nonsense:
so, anyone knows a case, on which someone who won the lottery the day before was killed by lightning because he stood under a tall tree?
a lack of such cases does NOT make standing under trees during thunder storms a good thing to do...
Millions? Who cares about millions? Obviously, the USA has trillions to spare, or the Iraq war would never have been begun...
(Yes, I am being sarcastic.)
Well said.
Yes. In the meantime she can buy pepper spray. Hey, if she has pepper spray, what does she need a gun for? Just so the stalker has something he can rob from her?
Well, of course it isn't mentioned in that 18th-century document, duh. But why do you bring up this argument at all? Aren't you with the crowd who always emphasizes the place where it says "all rights not enumerated here rest with the states or the people"?
Isn't going to happen if not enough of you voted for politicians who would do such a thing. Why do so many Americans have to be told they live in a democracy (or did so till December 2000)?
Gun safety? In the boy scouts? Consider this a culture shock.
Please do get into it. What about poverty? What about the general lack of future (which led to the car burnings here in Paris)? What could it be?
"I think that should be restricted. [Pause.] There are wackos out there, y'know?"
-- Best quote from Bowling for Columbine.
The UK has ALWAYS had a far lower homicide rate than the US, including WHEN THEY HAD VIRTUALLY NO GUN CONTROL. Back in the days when a peaceable subject could carry a pistol. It ain't the guns.
NOT TRUE. There are hundreds of thousands of privately owned MACHINE GUNS in the USA, and only one has ever been used to murder someone, and it was done by a cop who was a bad egg.
You got a link for that? I think you are mistaken. Remember, we're talking fully automatic weapons here, not phony "assault weapons."
In 2000, the total homicide rate for blacks in the USwas 22.3. Around that same time period, the homicide rates for Mexico, Brazil, Estonia, Columbia, and South Africa were 17.6, 19.0, 28.2, 36.5, and 75.3, respectively. I don't know where you get your numbers, and I didn't see a link, but I doubt they are correct. Zimbabwe? Did you leave out the murdered white farmers?
Our inner cities are an awful lot like third world countries. Don't believe me, how about you go have a visit. Wonderful places, thanks to "the projects" and the liberals who put them there. It's apt that they are all named for their wonderful benefactors in government.
I disagree, Ian. Yes, a determined government might not be deterred by handguns, but that's why millions of us own "assault weapons." There are more of us than there are members of the military, and many of those in the military would likely break ranks. And make sure you tell that to the Afghanis who defeated the Soviets. And also make sure that the "insurgents" in Iraq get the memo. They aren't doing half bad, considering that they can't even shoot straight.
You think that for the American citizenry to defeat their own government bent on tyranny they'd need nukes? So you're saying that such a government would nuke itself in trying to subdue its populace? That is absurd.
Ben, that argument always confuses me.
If the American military would suffer enough defection to cripple their airforce and armoured forces, the sort of things that the currently armed population would have no chance against, then why should the population fear the miltary enough to have guns in the first place?
The only reason for an armed population would be if a minority of that population were under attack from a majority who were in agreement about that action. In that case you would not have such massive defection, and it would come back to the full force of the US military against their target group.
Who, given current political trends in the USA, would not be the gun lobby.
Most of the time, the groups who are genuinely at threat within the USA of having their rights stripped are those who large elements within the gun lobby are against, and who the majority wouldn't raise a finger to defend. In their cases no matter how many guns are out there, they won't matter a jot. Except that they have to fear those that have them.
ben writes:
[[I disagree, Ian. Yes, a determined government might not be deterred by handguns, but that's why millions of us own "assault weapons." There are more of us than there are members of the military, and many of those in the military would likely break ranks. And make sure you tell that to the Afghanis who defeated the Soviets. And also make sure that the "insurgents" in Iraq get the memo. They aren't doing half bad, considering that they can't even shoot straight.
You think that for the American citizenry to defeat their own government bent on tyranny they'd need nukes? So you're saying that such a government would nuke itself in trying to subdue its populace? That is absurd. ]]
What's equally absurd is to expect the American government, or any government in real life, to arm its citizens as needed so they can overthrow it. Most governments don't want to be overthrown.
To whom are you referring, Paul? I think some prejudice on your part is leaking through here.
Here's an interesting study that concludes that annually, 400,000 violent crimes are thwarted by persons using guns, and 800,000 more are deterred by law-abiding gun owners. Not too shabby.
Tim cited Southwick in an attack on Lott to show that Southwick's research didn't use his statistically insignificant results, while Lott's research sucked balls and did.
How many did?
I remember when pumpguns were available in Austria without a license. That is, I have never seen a pumpgun. What I remember is when the media told me that the license requirement was being extended to pumpguns (and I thought it was mighty strange that it had been possible to simply buy a gun). Nobody except two or three gun nuts had owned a pumpgun.
You seem to believe there were hundreds of thousands of white farmers.
And Canada is not? (Hint: Bowling for Columbine.)
Before Uncle Sam gave them Stinger missiles (and Rambo III was dedicated to "the brave Afghan people", har har), the Soviets had the situation completely under control; the insurgents weren't able to do anything against the helicopters.
They use bombs, and they fight against an army that is way too small, underfunded, and scared shitless because it has no training in how to deal with people from this culture and language. People who are scared shitless and have a gun tend to use it, turning the situation into a spiral...
Good that you bring up Iraq, however. Saddam was not afraid of an armed populace. Every man who considered himself one had a Kalashnikov -- and Saddam led a paranoid but luxurious life, while every few years an insurgency against him failed. Somehow I don't think that was because "they can't even shoot straight".
Ben thinks the insurgents are going to win in Iraq. Ben, why do you hate America? Is it because of their freedoms?
I got my death rates for Zimbabwe etc. from the wiki page Ian linked to, feel free to criticise it. In the meantime, can you explain why US blacks have higher murder rates than African blacks? The only country where that is not the case is South Africa, which just happens to be coming out of a long period of black disenfranchisement. What's that about I wonder?
And what exactly do you think makes the UK and Australia culturally dissimilar from the US? Pray do tell...
Nobody except two or three gun nuts had owned a pumpgun.
What's a "pumpgun"? A pump shotgun?
People who are scared shitless and have a gun tend to use it, turning the situation into a spiral...
Often claimed, but never substantiated. The "Blood in the streets" mantra never seems to pan out, I wonder if that's because it's not true?
In the meantime, can you explain why US blacks have higher murder rates than African blacks? The only country where that is not the case is South Africa, which just happens to be coming out of a long period of black disenfranchisement. What's that about I wonder?
Blacks were murdering other blacks like mad in SA because they were disenfranchised? Doesn't seem much like a wining strategy to me.
Don't forget this graphic, David:
Apparently I can't put graphics in here. Here's the link to the chart. Notice that more guns don't seem to equal more crime? How can that be?!?
Ben, I didn't say blacks were killing blacks because they were disenfranchised. But they would certainly be very poor as a consequence of their disenfrachisement, and especially relative to the white population. You have already admitted you don't know and don't care if the issue is poverty, yet you continue banging on about race against all the evidence.
Your graphic is pretty, but have you considered that the relationship between handgun ownership and gun homicide might not be linear? There could be a threshold effect, for example. Also the plain statistic on "handgun ownership" doesn't consider the possibility that the nature of who owns what gun - and the conditions on their ownership of said gun - has slowly changed over the last 50 years. Then the issue would not be the volume, but the lack of controls on the use of those guns. It's unlikely that spiralling gun ownership is not associated with decreasing gun controls.
Also, of course, it could be that the murder rate is independent of the gun ownership rate because there are so many guns in the US. It may be that once your gun ownership levels double from, say, the Australian level, you're just fucked - all further increases are independent of further increases in gun ownership.
You have already admitted you don't know and don't care if the issue is poverty, yet you continue banging on about race against all the evidence.
I never did claim to not care.
It's unlikely that spiralling gun ownership is not associated with decreasing gun controls.
Gun control has not decreased in the last 100 years, with the exception of the sunsetting of the pointless "assault weapons" ban that wasn't, and liberalization of concealed carry laws. Neither of these things can be shown to have led to an increase in gun violence.
It may be that once your gun ownership levels double from, say, the Australian level, you're just fucked...
Well, I guess that's one way to put it. Did you notice that the handgun supply has more than tripled since the '60's, but the rates of homicide haven't followed?
"So you're saying that such a government would nuke itself in trying to subdue its populace? That is absurd."
Actually that's exactly how the Chinese government forestalled a threatened army mutiny after Tienanmen - they threatened to nuke the units that were refusing to follow orders.
It worked.
Oh and Ben the "essential liberty" quote was specifically disowned by Franklin. It comes from a book which he published (but did not write) in 1759.
Let's note that, that's well before the revolution and during the period when Franklin was the main proponent of a negotiated settlement with the British crown.
Franklin lived long enough to see the Bill of rights enacted but indicated that he had unspecified misgivings about it.
You might be interested though in what Ben had to say about the problems facing black Americans:
"Attention to emancipated black people, it is therefore to be hoped, will become a branch of our national policy; but, as far as we contribute to promote this emancipation, so far that attention is evidently a serious duty incumbent on us, and which we mean to discharge to the best of our judgment and abilities.
To instruct, to advise, to qualify those, who have been restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of civil liberty, to promote in them habits of industry, to furnish them with employments suited to their age, sex, talents, and other circumstances, and to procure their children an education calculated for their future situation in life; these are the great outlines of the annexed plan, which we have adopted, and which we conceive will essentially promote the public good, and the happiness of these our hitherto too much neglected fellow-creatures."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Address_to_the_Public
Ben Franklin, father of affirmative action.
"Wonderful places, thanks to "the projects" and the liberals who put them there."
Yeah because they were paradise on Earth before the projects.
Yeah because they were paradise on Earth before the projects.
No, they sucked. They were frequently populated by immigrants who did not fit in culturally, were poor, and had little other place to go. But they had incentive to leave! It typically took three generations or so, but they eventually integrated into society and moved on up, hard as it was. The new immigrants were uniformly discriminated against, and rightly so, since their habits and folkways did not fit in with mainstream America.
Now what do we have? We have the projects, we have scads of single moms, sons raised without fathers, we have the "hip-hop" culture, and all the rest. Instead of "tough-love" we gave an entire group of people minuscule freebies, just adequate to live at a sub-human level, but enough to do so with any number of children and with no expectation that anyone would better themselves. We have an ingrained inner-city culture that is a national disaster. Wonderful! Who was it who said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?
And yes, I know that about the Franklin quote. The wiki page about it indicated that he did not write the book, but that it is likely that the quote is in fact from Franklin.
Come on Ben, you didn't even address my point. I said "Also, of course, it could be that the murder rate is independent of the gun ownership rate because there are so many guns in the US."
and you said
which is not an answer.
Also you still haven't told me how the UK and Australia are culturally dissimilar from the US, in some way which makes US whites twice as likely to commit murder as the average Australian.
"No, they sucked. They were frequently populated by immigrants who did not fit in culturally, were poor, and had little other place to go. But they had incentive to leave! It typically took three generations or so, but they eventually integrated into society and moved on up, hard as it was."
Except Ben that there were black ghettoes from the pre-civil war period onwards.
so even in the absence of the evil government something was preventing the blacks from following the same path as the other groups.
I guess it was "cultural factors".
"The new immigrants were uniformly discriminated against, and rightly so,..."
That's statement you might want to reconsider.
Probably. Must be one of those English words in German that don't really exist in English.
You mean there's no blood in the streets in Iraq?
Please supply some context. Where do the data come from? Is it realistic that the handgun supply stayed exactly constant from 1919 to 1943? Also, nobody has ever claimed that the availability of guns is the only influence on the number of crimes.
I also notice you didn't answer several of my questions.
Which reminds me: even the highest of the minimum wages in the USA are ridiculous at best. Seven whole dollars an hour? Or even 7.15? In Europe they are more like 10 $/h, tendency slowly rising. You worry so much about "incentive to work" -- and that in the country where people can have three jobs and still be poor (with Fearless Flightsuit saying that's just great). Get your priorities straight.
That's statement you might want to reconsider.
I do not. Prejudice is one thing, but discrimination is another all together. My great grandparents were immigrants and experienced the same thing. Once they learned to be Americans, there was no problem. That's the way it works here.
That's a far cry better than a place like Germany, for example, where no matter what you do, you are never a German.
Notice David that that is the handgun supply rate, not the total supply.
Which reminds me: even the highest of the minimum wages in the USA are ridiculous at best. Seven whole dollars an hour? Or even 7.15? In Europe they are more like 10 $/h, tendency slowly rising.
Right, where they have substantially higher unemployment.
Did you know that, according to Thomas Sowell, that Americans who start out in the bottom 10% of income earners have a better chance of ending up in the top 10% of income earners than they do of staying in the bottom 10%? That's fairly interesting.
Sure, minimum wage is low, I earned it myself for a long time when I was young. But most people don't stay there.
Depends on the country, and how you measure it.
Don't get started on one of your "taxes in canada are 3x higher than in the US" rants here. They tend to expose your lack of knowledge in a most embarrassing fashion.
I just read that France and Germany have high unemployment. It's true, that might be measured differently than in the USA. I don't know.
Have to agree with Ben on this one. The minimum wage is one of those issues where the mere name of the issue seems to cause false thinking about it. (You're against the minimum? You capitalist bastard! I suppose people should be paid nothing at all!)
The fact is, the minimum wage doesn't help the poor. All it does is raise the rate of unemployment for teenaged and other entry-level workers. If someone is making $100,000.00 per year on a small business, and is paying four people $20,000.00 each, and the government suddenly mandates that he pay them $25,000.00 each -- is he going to wipe out his own income to pay them? Extreme example, but you see my point. He'll either fire someone or cut their hours, and he'll look as hard as he can for ways to get the job done with less labor.
The minimum wage is essentially a massive political fraud -- a way for politicians to look like they're helping the poor without actually having to spend any money. 90% of economists know it's a bad idea, but 90% of the public thinks it's a great idea, so it will always be around. Except in some unlikely future where everybody understands how markets work.
On the other hand, I have seen examples where a higher minimum wage was beneficial to employers. That just meant that the employers weren't being very good entrepreneurs, and were paying to little for the work that was to be done.
Kinda like at one of my favorite restaurants in Vancouver. It used to be that on Saturday and Sunday morning, the establishment was full of teenagers who sat around smoking and drinking coffee, without ordering much food, trying to shake their hangovers.
The province instituted a smoking ban, and nearly over night, the restaurant patronage on weekend mornings changed to families ordering big breakfasts. Then the smoking ban was overturned in court. The restaurant in question kept their own ban in place.
"I do not. Prejudice is one thing, but discrimination is another all together."
So what sort of discrimination against migrants do you think is fine: denying them jobs; denying them a place to live; banning them from schools and colleges; using physical violence to stop them voting; lynchings (happened to plenty of Asians and Mexicans in the 19th century)>
"Did you know that, according to Thomas Sowell, that Americans who start out in the bottom 10% of income earners have a better chance of ending up in the top 10% of income earners than they do of staying in the bottom 10%? That's fairly interesting."
Yeah until you realise that the people in the bottom 10% of "income earners" who move up into the top 10% are virtually all minors from upper middle class or upper class families working part time jobs in high school.
Germany's still recovering from the equivalent of our Reconstruction after our Civil War. Figures for (the former) Western Germany are much better than for (the former) Eastern Germany.
And if you want to argue that 20 years is long enough for them to figure it out ... why is the south in the US still economically depressed vs. the rest of the country?
Barton's attempt to chip in supports my thinking that he's a rather un-Christian born-again "Christian", which I'm sure adds to my credentials of being an "anti-Christian bigot".
(hint, there are plenty of examples which tend to argue against the "raising the minimum wage hurts workers" argument).
Many problems with this.
For one thing, the owner might raise prices. Typically, wages are a small proportion of price, so a 25% raise in wage isn't going to translate into anything like a 25% raise in price.
Perhaps the most important point ... your premise is based upon the assumption that some of those hires aren't necessary, that the owner hasn't previously optimised their business.
If true, the owner should fire someone regardless of any increase in minimum wage. They're not actually needed to maintain the income of the business.
If all businesses are working at optimum efficiency, raising wages should cause a general increase in price, which might lead to a reduction in sales.
Or might not. The American economic revolution was built on unions in hard industries like steel and automobiles winning their members sound middle-class wages. Wages which allowed them to buy a lot more.
Pay workers more money means workers have more money to buy with. That's been shown to work here in the US and elsewhere.
And I just have to say that it's interesting that two of our born-again xtians types are here supporting the "fuck the poor" arguments of business against raising minimum wage.
So what sort of discrimination against migrants do you think is fine: denying them jobs; denying them a place to live; banning them from schools and colleges; using physical violence to stop them voting; lynchings (happened to plenty of Asians and Mexicans in the 19th century)
Anything from the private sector is fair game. If you own a company and want to bar people from working there for any reason, it should be your right to do so. It is also my right not to associate with such companies if I dislike their practices. The government, on the other hand, must treat all citizens the same. All legal immigrants must be treated according to the law. Same with illegal immigrants, as the law applies to them.
Pay workers more money means workers have more money to buy with. That's been shown to work here in the US and elsewhere.
Typically that happens when there is not enough labor to go around, and industries have to compete with each other for workers. Asian economic miracle anyone?
Ben, Australia has a minimum wage higher than the US, and lower unemployment with 16 years of uninterrupted economic growth. Also we don't imprison our poor or siphon our unemployment figures away through a bloated military.
I think your minimum wage argument is typical libertard reductionism.
On the other hand, you still haven't explained how the US and the UK are culturally dissimilar to the US. Why do Australians of all colours commit half as many murders as good, white Americans?
Ben, Australia has a minimum wage higher than the US, and lower unemployment with 16 years of uninterrupted economic growth.
Sounds like Australia is a frickin' utopia!
Also we don't imprison our poor or siphon our unemployment figures away through a bloated military.
And Americans do imprison their poor? Just for being poor? Now, I agree that our "war on some drugs" is stupid, and that a lot of folks are imprisoned for drug crimes and that that is dumb, but I was poor when I was a kid, I lived with quite a few poor people, and the only guy I ever saw go to jail was one who sexually molested a mentally handicapped teenager. So I really don't know what the hell you are talking about.
On the other hand, you still haven't explained how the US and the UK are culturally dissimilar to the US.
From this website:
Why do Australians of all colours commit half as many murders as good, white Americans?
I know very little about Australia, so I don't know.
And here's something for all you "Bush Lied, People Died" folks out there:
From our own Mr. Tim Lambert. Please remember that when you hear someone blah blah about Bush lying about WMD's etc.
Ben, your quote doesn't answer my question at all. That quote says that the difference in murder rates between Europe and the US is socio-cultural, not due to gun control, and then adduces evidence to that effect. Cool, we get that: we are arguing about the socio-cultural differences.
You claim that Michael Moore's theory of the socio-cultural differences is wrong, and you first offered the race-difference theory, but now we have boiled it down to the white people. White Americans are more murderous than Australians of any colour. If you can't present a socio-cultural reason (as the article suggests) for this difference, you are hardly going to convince anyone about the uselessness of gun control, are you? So what is the difference? If you can't suggest a better theory than Michael MOore's, can I accept Michael Moore's theory? Come on, you must have a manifesto...
As for your other points, whether or not Australia is a utopia it seems to have some things to say about your arguments against the minimum wage.
As for locking up the poor, I didn't say they were locked up for being poor. The US has the highest rate of incarceration of the developed world, and the burden of incarceration falls disproportionately on the poor. Thus, a large pool of poor americans are not in the unemployment statistics. This is not the case in Australia.
As for Bush lied, people died: I really can't be bothered arguing over such a transparent idea.
You claim that Michael Moore's theory of the socio-cultural differences is wrong, and you first offered the race-difference theory, but now we have boiled it down to the white people.
No I did not. I showed an example where people of highly similar cultures but vastly different gun ownership rates showed effectively no difference in homicide rates.
So what is the difference?
Between Americans and Australians? I have no idea.
If you can't suggest a better theory than Michael MOore's, can I accept Michael Moore's theory?
I can tell you why Moore's conjecture is wrong, which I think I already did. He claims that the high murder rate is because whitey is scaredie-poo, which results in us running amok and shooting peaceable black folks. It's a lie. Why would you believe such garbage?
America has a long history of violence. Many of the immigrant groups that came here had a long history of violence, including my own: the Scottish, the Irish, the Scotch-Irish, the Russians, the Ukrainians etc. I count at least two of those in my own ethnic background.
"Sounds like Australia is a frickin' utopia!"
Fuckin' A!
SG forgot to mention universal medical care.
One of my business partners didn't feel well the other day. He went to the 24-hour medical clinic across the road but he would have had to wait an hour for a doctor.
so instead he hopped in his car, drove about half a mile to the Mater Hospital. got seen within ten minutes was diagnosed as having a kidney stone.
He passed it the next day but still wasn't feeling well so the doctors decided to keep him in all week-end. In his private airconditioned room he surfed the net, watched cable TV (including the free movies on demand service) and chose his meals from an ala carte menu.
He has private insurance but it costs him far less than comparable insurance in the US and the government lets him write the premiums off against tax.
People think we hate or resent Americans. We don't.
We are however beginning to pity them.
He has private insurance but it costs him far less than comparable insurance in the US and the government lets him write the premiums off against tax.
Now that's what I'm talkin' about, yeah!
People think we hate or resent Americans. We don't.
Who are these people? I don't know any.
We are however beginning to pity them.
With Hillary running for president, and having a reasonable shot at it, I don't blame you, I'm pitying myself for that one.
On the other hand, I pity your firearms laws. What's with banning handguns over .38 caliber? Are those particularly deadly? I agree with Tim that your pre-1996 gun laws were far better than what you have now.
If you'd just add a provision for legal concealed carry of handguns, I'd consider that pretty darn good.
Ben, you offered the explanation that Australian and American whites are culturally dissimilar a little while back, before comment 120. Your comment 120 is a response to my request for an explanation.
You also didn't show "an example where people of highly similar cultures but vastly different gun ownership rates showed effectively no difference in homicide rates." Australia has half the rate of US whites. I want you to explain why this is a socio-cultural difference not a gun-ownership difference. To do so you have to explain the cultural differences between the two nations.
You touched on one reason - a long history of violence. But Australia and the US are more similar than different in this regard. We both have histories of genocide of indigenous peoples, we both have been in the same wars, both nations have a history of frontier culture which is fast and loose with the law. The main difference is that Australian sports are violent, while US sports are poncy. Australia also, I think, has a higher assault rate than the US (or similar). So I don't think that explanation works.
Ian Gould touched on another one, which is what I was referring to earlier when I asked if maybe Moore's thesis from Columbine dovetails into Sicko. We have universal health care and you don't.
And waht's with asking if a handgun over 0.38 calibre is particularly deadly? All guns are designed to kill - they are all particularly deadly.
"What's with banning handguns over .38 caliber? "
Virtually all handguns are banned here as far as the general public are concerned.
The exceptions are, for example, private security guards; target shooters (who have to store their weapons at a gun club); and collectors.
That's been the case for decades.
In other words, Europe is trapped in an utter catastrophe. Where is it? I can't see it when I look around myself.
And what is the chance of someone in the second-lowest 10 % falling into the lowest 10 %? The USA is the place where you can hire people and fire people. In the rest of the First World both of these are much more difficult (producing a complex assortment of advantages and disadvantages, of course).
That's called an argument from personal incredulity. :-)
If Fearless Flightsuit really was so stupid as to believe Iraq had WMD, after all those UN inspections which he cut off by saying "go out, I'm coming and making war", he's incompetent to be president.
Is that what you wanted to say? (Because I'm sure most of us here already agree with that, though for different reasons.)
In the Germanic-speaking parts of Europe people used to regularly kill each other when they quarrelled. Then came Christianity. On churches of the 10th and 11th century, you can find Cain & Abel over and over and over. It worked and resulted in a population explosion, which is the reason for why e. g. German is today spoken in Berlin.
No, it's not all in the genes. Go look for another excuse.
Well said.
From an Australian perspective, hah! :-D From a European one, American Football (as opposed to football, i. e. soccer) is pretty violent, too -- I mean when it's played according to the rules.
What would you need that for? For allaying your paranoia?
dhogaza comments:
[[Barton's attempt to chip in supports my thinking that he's a rather un-Christian born-again "Christian", which I'm sure adds to my credentials of being an "anti-Christian bigot".]]
See the logic? I can't just disagree with him on an issue. The fact that I disagree makes me a bad person.
[[(hint, there are plenty of examples which tend to argue against the "raising the minimum wage hurts workers" argument).]]
There are plenty of examples of badly sited land temperature stations and places with records of recent cooling, too. What is anecdotal evidence worth, exactly?
Labor services are something employers can buy. If you raise the price of those services, how will it affect how much they buy?
A. They'll buy more.
B. They'll buy the same amount.
C. They'll buy less.
The numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student.
]]
dhogaza, continuing the ad hominem, adds:
[[And I just have to say that it's interesting that two of our born-again xtians types are here supporting the "fuck the poor" arguments of business against raising minimum wage.]]
Yeah, that's my attitude, fuck the poor. Just out of curiosity, dhogaza, when's the last time you served dinner in a homeless shelter?
charity doesn't prove anything Barton, except perhaps a certain sort of condescension.
"Labor services are something employers can buy. If you raise the price of those services, how will it affect how much they buy?
A. They'll buy more.
B. They'll buy the same amount.
C. They'll buy less.
The numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student."
You've never actually studied economics have you?
To return to the Ben's "public housing + welfare = crime" thesis.
I have to ask how it is that Britain and France with far more public housing and far more generous welfare provisions seem not to have experienced this.
Britain had millions of people (many if not most of them either Afro-Caribean or South Asian) living for decades in apartment tower blocks as bad as anything in the US. But somehow they never took to murdering each other at the rates found in the US.
France STILL has millions of young unemployed people of North African or sub-saharan African ancestry living in massive public housing projects.
When they get pissed off as they did a year or two back, the burn cars and smash shop windows, they don't resort to murder.
Say Ben ever stop to think that maybe those nebulous "cultural reasons" are as much or more to do with the culture of mainstream America?
Yeah until you realise that the people in the bottom 10% of "income earners" who move up into the top 10% are virtually all minors from upper middle class or upper class families working part time jobs in high school.
agreed.
i googled this a little, and there is pretty horrible stuff on the net on this one.
"how to lie with statistics" at its best.
i love this NYTimes poll:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/in…
50% think they moved up in class, 40% they they stayed the same.
that s great. extinction of the poor!
Ian Gould posts:
[[You've never actually studied economics have you?]]
Econ minor, University of Pittsburgh.
The question stands. If you increase the price of labor services, by raising the minimum wage or by any other means, will employers buy
A) more
B) the same amount, or
C) less
of them? Answer the question, please.
BPL
When Walmart moves into an area the price of labor drops by about 20%.
You believe for some reason (faith based economics?) that the labor market is a perfect market (one that maximizes utility, where no player in the market is able to affect the price)
THIS IS KNOWN TO BE FALSE (see above).
What we have is closer to a monopoly, and so the government stepping in to enforce a minimum wage increases utility rather than decreasing it.
As for you question, we already for a fact that when in the past minimum wage has been increased employers hire more or the same amount.
Barton, assuming you were awake during your micro-economics classes you should know the correct answer is in fact:
D. There is insufficient data to give a meaningful answer.
For example, is this a situation where the employers are colluding to hold down wages in order to maximise profits?
What is the competitive structure of the market?
Is there important competition?
Have some employers been engaging in free rider behaviour by hiring away trained staff from competitors rather than investing in training their own staff from scratch?
There is actual real empirical evidence of cases where raising the basic wage has resulted in an increase in employment.
"Important competition" shoudl of course read "import competition"?
Barton ...
As Ian points out, I wasn't speaking of anecdotal evidence. Neither exactly nor inexactly.
I haven't, but for most of my adult life I've only worked part-time, generally about 1/2 FTE, with the vast majority of the rest of my time going as volunteer labor to NGOs.
And you? Have you quit beating your wife, yet?
elspi posts:
[[As for you question, we already for a fact that when in the past minimum wage has been increased employers hire more or the same amount.]]
No, elspi, we do not have such evidence at all. I happen to have done the relevant regressions myself. Teenage unemployment is very positively correlated to the minimum wage and the minimum wage Granger-causes it. The empirical fact, completely non-controversial in the economics community, is that the minimum wage increases unemployment for teens and entry-level job seekers. It's only the public at large that thinks differently.
If you like I'll post the numbers. It's been a while since I did the analysis, so my numbers cut off in the '80s or so, but if I can find more recent ones I'll update the analysis.
I used to support the minimum wage myself -- until I did the math.
Ian Gould posts:
[[Barton, assuming you were awake during your micro-economics classes you should know the correct answer is in fact:
D. There is insufficient data to give a meaningful answer.]]
Is there? Let's check the numbers and see. This is something that should interest a lot of the people here who are capable of doing serious statistical work.
You may have misunderstood my answer Barton.
My point isn't "no-one knows" my point is that any one of the three scenarios you mention may occur depending on the specific circumstances.
For a rough-and-ready and as usual for Wikipedia slightly suspect summary of the arguments and evidence go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences
I'll defer to Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman on the minimum wage issue
That's from Free to Choose, 1980. I think I'll take Milton's word over yours, Ian.
"Labor services are something employers can buy. If you raise the price of those services, how will it affect how much they buy?"
"Teenage unemployment is very positively correlated to the minimum wage and the minimum wage Granger-causes it"
"unemployment for teens and entry-level job seekers"
I didn't know that we were playing on the moving-goal-post field.
The numbers that I have seen show a decrease in unemployment (not statistically significant) after a increase in min. wage.
Well, here are the numbers, elspi.
I regressed U1619 on U, Min, and Inf for the years 1948-2007 (N = 60), where the terms mean:
U1619 -- unemployment among people aged 16-19.
U -- the general civilian unemployment rate.
Min -- the nominal minimum wage.
Inf -- the inflation rate, measured by the CPI-U.
I got the regression equation
U1619 = 3.81 + 1.81 U + 0.576 Min + 0.00259 Inf
Student's t for the coefficients was 7.04, 18.7, 6.95 and 0.0550, respectively. 90% of variance was accounted for and the regression as a whole was significant, by F test, at the level 0 followed by 27 nines after the decimal point. (Spurious regression? You be the judge!) You will note that the minimum wage term is positive and significant at way past the 99% level; the teen unemployment rate increases by about 0.6 percentage points for each dollar's increase in the minimum wage. For every million teenagers that's 6,000 jobs lost.
Let me know if you want the raw figures. I got it all from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those who suspect the regression may want to perform the usual tests for integration and cointegration.
BLP
I am willing to concede that a min wage hike causes unemployment to rise in the 16-19yr range. But that wasn't the original question.
DOES A MIN. WAGE HIKE CAUSE A RISE IN UNEMPLOYMENT across the board. That is where this started and that is what you need to address.
One of the problems with no (or a low) min. wage is that older people (who are better paid) are fired and replace with teenagers at min wage. So rather than convincing me that raising the min. wage is bad, you are convincing me that it is good.
I have found (from personal experience) that it is much easier to live in your parent's basement when you are 17 than when you are 30 (and married with 3 kids).
"That's from Free to Choose, 1980. I think I'll take Milton's word over yours, Ian."
You're are also taking his work over close to thirty years of empirical research in economics - including observing the effect of Thatcher's abolition of minimum wages in Britain and their reinstatement under Blair.
But then the essence of religious conviction is to prefer scripture over mere fact.
First off, Britain did not have a blanket minimum wage under Thatcher, IIRC. Some trades in Britain had minimum wages set by the national government, and it was these laws that were repealed. Then Blair instituted national minimum wage laws later.
You and I both know that there is no evidence that minimum wage law changes alone in Britain between the pre-Thatcher era and the post-Blair era were the cause of whatever changes occurred in their economic conditions. Those changes in minimum wage laws did not occur in a vacuum, and for all you or I know, the economic advancement of Britain might have even occurred in spite of them. Usually you are smarter than that.
You may note Ben the word "including" in my last post.
There's also the famous and even more directly relevant study in New Jersey which showed increased employment in the fast food industry after an increase in the basic wage there. You can find the citation and a discussion (pro and con) in the wikipedia article I cited earlier.
Hey Ben, if you can claim that the minimum wage is responsible for increased unemployment without taking into account any other effects, why can't Ian make the opposite statement without taking into account other effects? You can't make a strong, blanket statement about a policy's effects and then start demanding consideration of confounders when someone gives you evidence to the contrary.
Barton I think U1619 and U are collinear. Also it's possible that U and M are not independent, U and Inf are collinear (isn't it a fundamental economic law that U and Inf have a linear relation?), and probably Inf and M are not independent. I would suspect some sort of structural equation model would be a better approach to the problem you describe, particularly if government policy is such that the minimum wage only increases at times of low inflation or low unemployment. But I'm sure this has been described in detail in the published literature by now...
SG posts:
[[Barton I think U1619 and U are collinear. Also it's possible that U and M are not independent, U and Inf are collinear (isn't it a fundamental economic law that U and Inf have a linear relation?), ]]
When you have multicolinearity in your independent variables, it shows up in insignificant t-statistics, which is clearly not the case here except for Inf. And no, there's no fundamental law that U and Inf have a linear relation. If you're thinking of the Phillips curve, the old linear model had to be thrown out when stagflation turned up in the '70s. It works short-term, but the curve itself shifts position with time, and can go in either direction depending on what the economy is doing.
But there is a fundamental law that they're correlated right? Perhaps dependent on a third instrumental variable? And there's no reason to think that the minimum wage fixing policy isn't also dependent on some third instrumental variable which is influencing economic growth and government policy. Not to mention that the minimum wage mostly increases as a result of increasing costs of living, i.e. it is conditional on all the past values of inflation. It's not like it's a fundamental variable on its own.
The obvious third variable which would be related to all 3 variables would be spending on education. More education spending means less young people in the workforce, more competition for their labour, higher basic youth wages and more flexibility to increase the minimum wage. Inflation is dependent on things like government spending and education spending, and the available workforce. So I think you need to use an SEM for this. I'm sure there's already a literature on this, and I suspect Ian is familiar with it. It's not the sort of theory you can dismiss (against a run of real-world examples) with a trivial OLS regression in a blog comment.
When Oregon increased its minimum wage a few years back, while Washington did not, fast-food and similar, minimum-wage paying businesses in Vancouver WA had to raise their wages because kids were skipping across the river to Portland, OR for part-time minimum wage jobs.
If BPL and Ben and the like are right, why wouldn't the increased unemployment in Portland that they predict would result from a higher minimum wage lead to the job flow running the other way?
If BPL and Ben and the like are right, why wouldn't the increased unemployment in Portland that they predict would result from a higher minimum wage lead to the job flow running the other way?
They also result in higher prices. If the market will bear those prices, then it means two things: the producer was undercharging for the products they sell, and they were also underpaying for labor.
I don't think it's the government's place to tell private business owners how to run their business. I know the folks here don't agree, and never seem to mind government intrusion into private life. There's a balance somewhere in the middle, I'm not sure where it is. I err to the side of individual freedom.
Yes, we know you believe that. We know you believe that government shouldn't, for instance, tell business that they have to provide a safe workplace, because after all, history tells us that without regulation, workers will boycott those that don't.
And, oh, if only government would butt out of environmental issues, business would do the right thing, would never pollute, never endanger species, etc.
What's your address, Ben? I want to build a 10,000 hog farm in your lap.
So what do you think the percentage of the cost of a BigMac is attributable to burger-flippin' minimum wage labor at your local McDonald's? 3%? 5%? And a 10% raise in wages will raise the cost by what fraction of a percent, exactly?
"the producer was undercharging for the products they sell, and they were also underpaying for labor."
Bingo, Ben finally gets it.
Guess what Ben, this isn't an isolated case, it happens very frequently.
Thing is the employer who wants to pay his staff more (for purely utilitarian reasons like attracting and retained better staff) can't if his compettor is undercutting him on price.
btw Barton, I doubt you're still reading this, but in case you are, I thought I'd just mention that your prior regression model is completely in error. The data you are using is serially correlated, so you need to difference the series and then apply at least an ARIMA model. It's likely that between 50 and 100% of the "increase" in youth unemployment due to the change in the minimum wage can be predicted by the month or year before.
Just thought I'd add that for completeness.