Well, I'm off to Sin City, sorry, Sydney, tomorrow to visit Chris Mooney, who's giving a talk in that metropolis, and Tim Lambert, another Sb Scibling. But before I go, I just had to note this study on the effects of the gun buyback and stricter controls in Australia following the Port Arthur Massacre. A prior study had argued that it had no effect on the rate of gun deaths; this study says that around 280 deaths per year have been prevented, both suicides and violent crime-related deaths.
At the actuarial rate of $AUS2.5 million per death saved, the $500 million buyback paid for itself in two years or so. Now, I hope this inspires politicians to support an even stricter control of firearms. It's just good social policy.
What Americans do is up to them. I prefer this way of doing things.
- Log in to post comments
I'm pro gun-control, but I find myself wondering just how tractable the control of firearms is in America as opposed to other countries. After all, there are about 200 million guns in America, about a third of the number of people living here. Short of a mass confiscation I find myself wondering what any new laws could do.
I couldn't agree more. I'm a big, strong guy; I can only benefit from the weak being unable to defend themselves.
Tyler, I don't get your reference to the number of people living in America, unless you refer to both the two continents. Otherwise, I would have to point out that the number of people living in the US is estimated to be 300 million.
Of course, the rest of us know that there are police, who somehow manange to protect "the weak" in the parts of the world with strict gun-laws. The rate of rape, violence and murder is much higher in th US than elsewhere in the Western World.
Kristjan, there is no point in arguing with that attitude, particularly in Americans. They seem to think that society is a war of all against all in a Hobbesian manner (though few of them have ever heard of Hobbes, let alone read him), and that their weapon defines them. Me, I think it is mostly about penis compensation.
Of course most of the world uses police and the law to prevent violent crime. But it appears that in America, that option is not available to all, or is ineffective, unlike most other rule of law nations. That is sad for them. But we who live elsewhere know that, despite the inevitable shortcomings of our own nations, we are safer for having a strong control over weapons.
[Now we wait for the "big strong guy" to invite me outside to settle the argument in a civilised manner.]
The paper itself is here. I note the following in the abstract:
The high variability in the data and the fragility of the results with respect to different specifications suggest that time series analysis cannot conclusively answer the question of whether the NFA led to lower gun deaths. Drawing strong conclusions from simple time series analysis is not warranted, but to the extent that this evidence points anywhere, it is towards the firearms buyback reducing gun deaths.
I guess I'd like more information about the certainty expressed in the news article and the above lines.
Actually, I'm Canadian.
In my part of the country, the Hell's Angels (a large and notoriously violent biker gang) regularly holds their national conventions at a nearby ranch. Illegal drugs are the largest sector of the economy. Bears, cougars, and wolves frequently grab pets.
The police, should they need to come, would be dispatched from over 100 kilometers away. This area simply isn't populated enough to support a local police presence.
The nature around you may not be red in tooth and claw, but some places are less thoroughly domesticated.
"After all, there are about 200 million guns in America, about a "third" of the number of people living here"
I assume you meant to write two thirds!
Actually I think your statistic is wrong, not so long ago there were officially more hand guns legally registered in America than there were people living there and nobody has any idea how many non-registered weapons there are.
Sorry, "two-thirds" of the population here. It was late. :(
Faced with a gunman shooting at you, would you rather have a gun or not?
I would rather the gunman not have a gun. Failing that I'll take some trained police officers, and then if I can't get any of that a gun of my own. Not that I think it would do me any good.
Ryan the local gun laws allow farmers to have guns, and anywhere around here 100km from the nearest police would be a farm. Between the snakes, having to put down sick/injured farm animals and killing assorted feral animals farmers actually need the rifles. But just because there is a need for guns in some areas doesn't mean that I (or anyone around here) should have access to one. We live in a city where there are parks and wildlife people to deal with the dangerous animals. I have no need, nor should I, to own a gun therefor I should not have access.
Alex wrote:
That goes without saying but it appears to be almost impossible to achieve.
The UK now has firearms laws that are amongst the most stringent in the world yet, despite that, there is a serious problem with illegal guns carried by young men in the poorer inner city areas.
There is a general air of smug self-congratulation that the post-Dunblane controls mean that such a tragedy can never happen again. I fear it is only a matter of time.
And, just as before, there will be no one around who is armed and in a position to shoot back.
Again, that would be ideal but is there a society anywhere in the world that has been willing to pay for sufficient police to provide round-the-clock protection for all its citizens? Most police will admit that they simply do not have the resources to do that. In other words, if something happens, you are on your own until they arrive.
A gun is no guarantee of survival and it takes practice to reach an adequate level of proficiency but, if the worst comes to the worst, it is surely better than nothing.
Ian
If guns were more easily available I would be worried about the type of people who would choose to carry them. It seems like the ones who end up with the weapons (baring the hypothetical gunfight happening in a shooting range) are the ones who glorify violence and weapons. My experience of these people is that they aren't very stable, and aren't likely to be properly trained. 9mm aren't considered a fashion accessory by most sensible people.
Another issue is that all this would be taking place in an urban area. More stray bullets doesn't seem like a good move.
I can understand your point, but keeping the guns away from the psychos in the first place seems like a better move. Having large numbers of firearms in the general populace would bring with it other problems; they would be more likely to be used in anger, feeling the need to carry a weapon in the streets would lead to a general sense of fear and a larger portion of the psychos would be armed.
There is approximately 1 gun death per million population per year in the UK, compared to 100 gun deaths per million population per year in the USA.
I think that demonstrates the effectiveness of the British approach.
Hmm. There is a perception of a problem, largely whipped up by the Daily Mail and their ilk IMO.
Alex wrote:
A car can injure and kill people if mishandled so we require potential drivers to undergo training and obtain a licence. At least the same should apply to anyone wanting to use a firearm for sport or recreation. I would go further and allow people to carry a gun for self-defence if they pass more extensive training and rigorous background checks.
That is a risk but it has to be set against the right of people to defend themselves, especially in circumstances where society concedes that it is unable to do anything.
The problem with those who propose a ban on guns is that they usually have nothing to say about how those who might find themselves in imminent danger should defend themselves. It is almost as if they are supposed to accept that they might be killed and should not expect to be able to do anything about it.
Mark W wrote:
I am not proposing a completely laissez faire approach to firearms use but the British controls have penalized law-abiding gun owners and done nothing to curb illegal weapons. That is unjust and a measure of how a supposedly democratic legislature can encroach on civil liberties where they are not defined in a statutory declaration. The European Union is even worse.
Possibly, but the BBC reported in 2003 that gun crime in England and Wales had risen by 35% in just one year and the Home Office admits it "has been increasing each year since 1997/98".
Yeah, but 'gun crime' in this instance includes all guns, air weapons, imitation firearms, CS gas, pepper spray, and concealed objects which were presumed to be firearms.
By Ian: "A car can injure and kill people if mishandled so we require potential drivers to undergo training and obtain a licence. At least the same should apply to anyone wanting to use a firearm for sport or recreation. I would go further and allow people to carry a gun for self-defence if they pass more extensive training and rigorous background checks."
You don't drive much do you? There a plenty of idiots on the road (usually in SUVs) who somehow managed to pass their licence test. They ignore the road rules, drive in a reckless manner and generally make driving a pain the arse. Why do you think the tests for gun ownership tests and licences would be any more effective?
More by Ian: "The problem with those who propose a ban on guns is that they usually have nothing to say about how those who might find themselves in imminent danger should defend themselves."
Gun control is about seeking to prevent the situation in the first place. I don't want to be in a gun fight: so we should try to prevent that situation in the first place, rather than give people the ability to retaliate when in the situation.
Your arguing for mutually assured destruction, if they hurt you you will hurt them back. As far as I'm concerned I'm fucked either way, so I may as well take the moral high ground and be nice.
By the way, what are the quote tags for this software?