![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gun policy and associated lies
I cannot believe how much flap there has been over twenty murders in a country that experiences more than a thousand times that many every year. All because they were clustered in one place, with one perpetrator. All else being equal, is it not prereferable to have twenty children murdered by one madman, than twenty children murdered by twenty madmen? That, at least, is nineteen fewer madmen to contend with.
Unfortunately the media pile-on is not the result of any particular decision, its more like the weather, the confluence of many forces that are beyond human control. The story is not the murders; the story is the story, and the murders are incidental to that. As with 9-11, the reaction to the tragedy is far, far, far more tragic than the tragedy itself. It's like a national autoimmune disease, in which the whole country attacks and injures itself, in a way that is grossly disproportionate to the original assault.
What grates at me most, though, is the poor quality of reporting and discourse, which leaves me wondering whether to add to the manure pile or just ignore it. I think, though, that there is one thing worth saying, and saying very, very loudly:
Anyone who claims that there is a clear relationship between gun control policy and violence is a liar.
This applies to both the conventional liberal and conservative positions. This is a subject that has been studied out the wazoo, and the only consistent result has been that there is no consistent result. This applies not to imaginary scenarios, such as magically teleporting all guns into outer space, but to actions that can be plausibly and realistically carried out, such as mandating gun registration or passing concealed carry laws. Thanks to state level implementation of many different policies, there have been many natural experiments from which we can draw conclusions, and those conclusions are all over the map. Their inconsistency proves their unreliability. Unfortunately, discussion on the subject have been dominated by fabricated statistics that don't bear even a few minutes of scrutiny, and outright fantasies that don't even offer enough substance for critical analysis in the first place.
Never have I seen a subject that has revealed so much willful ignorance and cherry picking as this one. If there is a silver lining to all this, it's that nothing that is done in this area is really going to matter. Even if Obama makes it a priority, Congress has the opposite priority. Even if laws are passed, the demographics of gun ownership will change slowly, if at all. And if the demographics of gun ownership change, the effect on violent crime - which, incidentally, has been steeply decreasing for more than a decade - will probably not change in its unpredictable and always-surprising course. And if by some miracle it did, we would never even know it. The whole thing is just a giant waste of oxygen.
Unfortunately the media pile-on is not the result of any particular decision, its more like the weather, the confluence of many forces that are beyond human control. The story is not the murders; the story is the story, and the murders are incidental to that. As with 9-11, the reaction to the tragedy is far, far, far more tragic than the tragedy itself. It's like a national autoimmune disease, in which the whole country attacks and injures itself, in a way that is grossly disproportionate to the original assault.
What grates at me most, though, is the poor quality of reporting and discourse, which leaves me wondering whether to add to the manure pile or just ignore it. I think, though, that there is one thing worth saying, and saying very, very loudly:
Anyone who claims that there is a clear relationship between gun control policy and violence is a liar.
This applies to both the conventional liberal and conservative positions. This is a subject that has been studied out the wazoo, and the only consistent result has been that there is no consistent result. This applies not to imaginary scenarios, such as magically teleporting all guns into outer space, but to actions that can be plausibly and realistically carried out, such as mandating gun registration or passing concealed carry laws. Thanks to state level implementation of many different policies, there have been many natural experiments from which we can draw conclusions, and those conclusions are all over the map. Their inconsistency proves their unreliability. Unfortunately, discussion on the subject have been dominated by fabricated statistics that don't bear even a few minutes of scrutiny, and outright fantasies that don't even offer enough substance for critical analysis in the first place.
Never have I seen a subject that has revealed so much willful ignorance and cherry picking as this one. If there is a silver lining to all this, it's that nothing that is done in this area is really going to matter. Even if Obama makes it a priority, Congress has the opposite priority. Even if laws are passed, the demographics of gun ownership will change slowly, if at all. And if the demographics of gun ownership change, the effect on violent crime - which, incidentally, has been steeply decreasing for more than a decade - will probably not change in its unpredictable and always-surprising course. And if by some miracle it did, we would never even know it. The whole thing is just a giant waste of oxygen.
no subject
Considering we can't really have a controlled experiment here in the USA - the experience of jurisdictions with strong gun control laws adjacent to ones with relatively lax gun laws (e.g., Washington DC and Virginia) shows that would be difficult at best and is likely impossible - it seems that despite your dismissal of the experience of other nations, that's pretty much the only source of practical experience with other approaches to the problem.
Part of my argument is from utility, which you repeatedly refuse to address. I doubt anyone goes hunting with an AR-15, unless their idea of "hunting" is to turn small game into ragged gobbets. I may not have picked up a love of hunting from my father, but I could not help but learn some of the basic ideas - such as it being ideal to put the animal down as quickly as possible with as few shots as possible so as to maximize the edible meat - in addition to being as merciful as possible.
As I have said - I'm unaware of any practical use for a weapon such as was used in the recent tragedy in Connecticut other that that - murdering people - that could not be just as well served by a firearm less ideal for mass murder. Other than your idea that somehow a nut-case might not actually use it because he's got it ... do you know of any?
Addendum: if you want something more scholarly on the Australian experience than the link above - http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.full
no subject
If you are going to advocate interference with a long lasting downward trend in violence by imposing new laws, it's you that shoulders the burden of proof that those laws are likely to work. We already know from drug and alcohol prohibition that trying to constrain a basic human desire more often than not has side effects that are worse than the original problem. The assault rifle issue may look narrow and arcane, and it might have remained that way had it not been turned into an ideological litmus test. Now, people acquire them BECAUSE of the threatened ban. Yes, it's perverse, but its also reality.
Whatever has transpired over the past decade in the US is "working" more than any deliberate effort, ever, and we don't even know why. On the other hand, its not clear that the Australian approach worked at all; even if you accept the notion that it was responsible for eliminating mass murder, if the overall homicide rate is not measurably affected, who the hell cares? Oh right, people who are swayed more by mediagenic drama than by actual human welfare, i.e. nearly evryone. (sigh.) Go read the Wikipedia article on gun politics in Australia and you will see just how equivocal the results of that legislation were. I suppose it would be in bad taste to actually advocate for more mass murder, but it would be no more irrational or destructive than reactions that are considered socially acceptable today.
I don't care what the stated utility is of assault rifles. I know a number of people that choose to own them, and they all have their own reasons, but none of them are things you're going to talk them out of. I'm perfectly happy to accept the proposition that every single one of them is deluded, since it makes no difference what their rationale is given that it is sincerely and defiantly maintained. These guns embody a simple and common technology that cannot be contained, a cat that cannot be put back into the bag. I have already explained why, given existing American gun culture and ownership levels, you can't just legislate them out of existence, and you are the one who has repeatedly refused to engage with the reality of that situation. There may exist effective approaches to gun control, but focusing on this one class of weapon is, as far as I know, unsupportable under quantitative cost benefit analysis. Which is the only class of argument I take seriously.
no subject
Kates, B., and Mauser (heh), G. (2010). Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 30(2), 649-694. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf.
Lott, J. R., & Landes, W. M. (2000). Multiple Victim Public Shootings. Yale School Of Management's Legal Scholarship Network, 1. Retrieved from http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf
P.S.: Australia's model is inapplicable to the U.S. Irrelevant, in fact.
no subject
If this does indeed constitute a clear relationship, I'm ready to be convinced on this particular point, but again since mass murders are relatively rare things it's not clear how much this should influence policy even if it were.
In the meanwhile, I was kind of disturbed by efforts to suppress firearms research and was thinking of posting about this article as well.
no subject