

Scientific American’s gun error - oscarwao
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/

======
wsc981
As someone who lives in The Netherlands, I used to be a proponent of very
strict gun control. Here in The Netherlands almost no one has a gun. Gun shops
are hard to find. It seems to work out well for our country.

Then again, I visited Israel 3 times in the past and what's interesting is
that lots of people, soldiers in the IDF have guns. You pretty much see guns
everywhere. Yet at the same time, you don't have the fear that someone will
randomly start shooting people.

Last week I came across the following article, that brings up some interesting
points on why Israel has far fewer, if any, of the shooting incidents we see
in the United States: [http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-
politics/119408/why...](http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-
politics/119408/why-israel-has-no-newtowns)

In short, the article brings up the following points:

\- "An armed society ... is a polite society. Manners are good when one may
have to back up his acts with his life. It may be a bit odd to think of
Israeli society as polite, but when it comes to guns it is. When everyone has
a gun, guns are no longer seen as talismans by weak, frightened, and unstable
men seeking a sense of self-validation, but as killing machines that are to be
handled with the utmost caution and care."

\- "Rather than spend fortunes and ruin lives in a futile attempt to eradicate
every last trigger in America, we would do well to follow Israel’s example and
educate gun owners about their rights and responsibilities, so as to foster a
culture of sensible and mindful gun ownership. Go to any shooting range in
Israel, as a soldier or a civilian, and the instructor is likely to talk about
responsibility even before he or she begin to cover the basics of shooting."

\- "In Israel, still a somewhat socialist country, mental health services are
ready available, for free, to anyone. And because so many young Israelis
undergo traumatic experiences in the course of their military service, a whole
host of nonprofit organizations are on hand to provide counseling and
treatment."

Perhaps the 3rd point is the most important one.

~~~
brudgers
_"Yet at the same time, you don't have the fear that someone will randomly
start shooting people._ "

That the violence is not random does not make it any less violent. That the
violence is more directed in a specific vector may contribute to one's
feelings of relative safety so long as one is not identified as "the other."

~~~
rooshdi
Sucks being "the other." (Side note: Almost shot with AR at Israeli
checkpoint.)

------
aszepieniec
Gun control advocates cite statistics of the kind "how many deaths are caused
by guns" as justification for more gun control. Frankly, whatever the
statistic is, it is too high. But that is not the point.

But in order to successfully make an argument along the lines of "more gun
control will save lives", they must also cite statistics of the kind "how many
lives are saved by guns". Obviously, if guns cause the death of 12000 people
yearly and save the lives of 100000 people yearly, gun control is a bad idea.
On the other hand, if they only save the lives of 100 people yearly, it might
be a good idea after all. I have yet to see a single article on the internet
citing such a number. Why is it so hard to find such a statistic?

The number of lives saved by guns (not counting police and military guns) is
quite impossible to count. One might succeed in counting the number of cases
where guns are used in self-defense, even though these cases usually go
unnoticed. But how do you count the number of cases where the would-be
perpetrator chooses not to commit the crime on account of a gun being present
in defense of the would-be victim? Or doesn't even start to think about the
crime?

This is a classic case of Bastiat's "that which is not seen". Because the
statistic cannot be calculated, people do not take it into account. But they
should if they want to make an effective argument for more gun control based
on statistics.

Because the relevant statistics cannot be calculated, statistics should not be
used in policy debates such as the one about gun control. Rather, let us
reason about the unseen consequences of the actions of individuals as well as
of the government. Without involving emotional arguments from either side.

~~~
manicdee
This argument in support of "lives saved by guns" is not a classic case of
Bastiat's "that which is not seen". This is a classic case of intellectual
onanism.

There is a high statistical correlation between gun ownership as a percentage
of population and gun deaths as a percentage of population. Unknowable figures
such as "lives saved by firearms" are already taken into account. Regardless
of how many lives have been saved by potential criminals not committing a
crime due to fear of consequences, there were far more deaths actually caused
by firearms.

This is why the number of deaths got larger: there were more people dead from
firearms than people still alive from firearms.

------
oconnore

        "Based on this, framework, one model for the per-capita
        gun death rate D would be D = V * G * k, where V is the
        average tendency toward violence and G is availability
        of guns, with killing power k factored in."
    

Ah yes, the old "write an article based on a model that you made up apparently
without validation and then accuse everyone else of not citing evidence".

~~~
pretoriusB
Well, the Australian cases of drug laws / murders provides enough validation
for his case.

~~~
jtc331
Except that in both Australia and the UK the gun murder rates were already
incredibly low _before_ their respective gun bans. Their bans didn't actually
lead to less violence than before their bans; in fact, violence actually
_increased_ post-ban.

------
stinky613
1) Am I crazy/ignorant for thinking that his formula seems like an arbitrary
way to make his argument appear more technical than it is?

2) I really, really get frustrated when editorializers make the leap from
correlation to causation without hard evidence.

------
josscrowcroft
" _Fewer_ guns means _fewer_ deaths from guns"

Note that the word "less" doesn't feature once in the linked article.

~~~
chris_wot
I must be missing something here. Fewer is a synonym for less.

~~~
stinky613
Fewer is supposed to be quantitative; less is supposed to be qualitative.

~~~
boboblong
No, that's wrong. The distinction is between continuous and discrete, not
quantitative and qualitative.

------
carsongross
What if the causality runs the other way, and more violent social environments
inspire gun ownership?

Are there other confounding variables that we aren't allowed to think about?

Also, fewer.

------
astraelraen
I love the articles and commentary comparing US gun laws to other countries in
the world. There is no comparision and the US will never have gun laws similar
to other nations. Any discussion on banning weapons is moot considering that
the 2nd amendment exists and has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous
times in numerous ways. Given the high requirements to repeal a portion of the
constitution that will never happen.

I even wonder if another "assault weapon" ban would hold up if challenged
considering the Supreme Court overturned both DC's and Chicago's handgun bans?

The previous assault weapons ban was a joke anyway just labeling certain
features as evil and banning them if you had too many evil features on a gun.

Maybe limiting magazine size could do some "good" but I find it hard to
believe changing magazines takes any significant amount of time if the shooter
has any experience with the weapon.

------
paulgb
I don't think there's anything surprising about the stats. The more gun
violence around me, the more likely I am to own a gun for self defense. I
don't see evidence of causation in the other direction. (For what it's worth,
I favor gun control, but I don't like seeing it pushed with bad stats)

------
clarky07
This is a bullshit article. Why are we trying to minimize "gun deaths?" What
the article doesn't mention is that most of those are suicides that would just
do it another way if they were less readily available.

Violent crime in the UK is 4x what it is in the US yet there are less gun
deaths because of the strict gun control. Who gives a shit if guns are
involved or not?

~~~
alan_cx
Equally a bull shit post.

Suicide is easier and more irreversible with a gun. You can be saved from an
overdose, for example. But its much harder to piece a brain back together
after a bullet has ripped through it. A bullet to the head is pretty final,
and overdose less so. Clearly you dont understand suicide or its psychology.

Next, violent crime is not murder or death. It can be robbery or assault. Your
comparison is, to coin your phrase, bullshit.

Finally, "who gives a shit if if guns are involved". Well, what would you
prefer to face, a knife or a gun. What are your chances of surviving a hair
trigger lunge or trigger? I know I have a better chance of dodging a knife
than a bullet. Just like a criminal knows he has more control over a victim
with a gun rather than a knife. Can you dodge bullets?

Even so, the US is a gun based culture. International comparisons are the
bullshit you crave. The US was formed with guns. It started that way and will
remain that way. Taking guns out of the US is as unlikely as taking pubs out
of the UK. Which, interestingly suggests why violent crime is maybe higher in
the UK. We have an alcohol problem many other countries don't have. Which is
another reason why international comparisons are "bullshit". Fact is,
culturally we are very different. I am a Brit and I don't want US gun culture
and we will never have it. Equally, I bet the US doesn't want our alcohol
culture.

So, Americans should keep their guns, but equally not complain about other
freedoms being compromised to compensate.

~~~
clarky07
As for the suicides, who am I to say he shouldn't be doing it? He wants this
to happen, so it shouldn't be included in any kind of gun control stats. It is
not the thing we are trying to limit or stop.

As for what I'd rather face, I'll turn that around. If you are a criminal,
which would you rather face? I'd rather not face someone trying to hurt me
with either a knife or gun while unarmed.

I'm not sure why you consider my post bullshit. Is it just because I said the
original was bs? He clearly used meaningless stats to argue his point and I
was calling him on it. I even provided stats to back up my position.

------
lutusp
> Less guns means less deaths from guns

(groan) s/less/fewer/

Use "less" for continuous quantities. _Less water_.

Use "fewer" for enumerable things. _Fewer gallons of water_.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less>

------
philhippus
Is this supposed to be some kind of revelatory finding? Let's say there were
only one gun in the world; how would that affect deaths from guns?

~~~
mpweiher
"Revelation?"

No, it's pretty much duh.

However, it does need saying every once in a while because there are many who
deny this obvious connection, and in the US at least they seem to control much
of the discourse.

------
stevedekorte
For a look at more data (and different conclusions) see:
[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Kate...](http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)

------
bcl
The other side: More Guns, Less Crime -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime>

~~~
vacri
_"Lott examines the effects of the Brady law." "The third edition of the book
is the first study to examine Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws."
"Lott spends some time discussing gun ownership rates and crime rates in other
countries, such as the United Kingdom."_

What an informative and illustrative article explaining the other side.

------
sparkie
Where are the figures for government-caused deaths by guns?

Here's an idea. If we want less guns, perhaps we should stop manufacturing
them to sell to government.

------
vacri
An assault weapons ban will do little for the murder rate in the US. The US
has 17k murders annually, 13k of those are committed with firearms, and 11k of
those are committed with handguns. Only 2k out of 13k are committed with
longarms (which aren't just assault weapons) - this assault weapons debate is
a waste of hot air for both sides, and isn't going to have a meaningful affect
on either the real issues or the security theatre.

~~~
zzzeek
the theory is that decreasing access to large magazines and/or 100-round drums
would decrease the _mass_ -murder rate. Considering we're talking about
mentally unstable suspects, a little bit of resistance to being able to get a
large magazine might mean they can't fire off 30-100 rounds without reloading
when they go off on their spree.

~~~
vacri
Mass murder is highly visible, but makes barely a dent in the annual toll. Not
to mention that the two biggest school-based mass-murderers in the US did
their massacres with legally obtained handguns, not assault weapons. Even if
there were ten mass-murders the size of Sandy Hook a year, that'd still make
only 300 homicides out of 13k firearm and 17k total. And according to this
page [1], there's actually only been about 75 mass-shooting homicides in the
US in 2012, including Sandy Hook. 75 is _three_ orders of magnitude less than
the annual toll.

Also, 'mentally unstable' doesn't mean 'frothing at the mouth and barking at
the moon'. Simply because a mentally ill person might have troubles with moral
judgments doesn't mean that they lose the capacity for forethought - look at
Cho chaining the doors shut before starting.

Assault rifles are just simply not the problem in US homicides.

[1]
[http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeli...](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-
of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/?mobile=nc)

~~~
zzzeek
regardless, there's not much of an argument for 30-round/100-round magazines
to be legal. Just like there's not much argument for pipe-bombs to be legal
(anyone can make one, right ? is the illegality of easy-to-build bombs
"security theater" or just common sense?). These devices have no legitimate
uses by civilians.

~~~
vacri
I completely agree. I'm for gun reform of pretty much all kinds except perhaps
hunting rifles and longarms for farm/rural use. The problem is that the
assault rifle are not even a sideshow to the main event. It's going to run
counter to gun reformists desires because after long, drawn-out arguments
where they finally wrest some concessions, those concessions are going to do
absolutely nothing substantial, leaving the opposing side with a hard-to-
argue-with "I told you so".

------
gojomo
After reading this, I remain unconvinced that legislation like "limits on
magazine capacity and regulation of ammunition sales" will make Alaskans
desire gun ownership, and shoot each other, at rates more like New Jerseyans.

