MSM Does the Great Gun Debate
Posted on August 13th, 2008 by bosco Tags: 30 Days, gun control, gunsI found this on Hulu. Discussion to follow in comments.
12 Responses to “MSM Does the Great Gun Debate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
1. If anyone ever fired a gun I own and then stuck the barrel in the dirt or concrete and leaned on it afterwards I may have to kill them.
2. I think anyone who wants to legislate something should experience it first (guns, drugs, sexual practices, etc.). I give this woman credit for firing a gun.
3. I believe the self-defense argument for firearms lacks merit.
4. It’s interesting how they note that the town has a lot of firearms and also low crime. That’s probably due to the fact that the town is in the middle of nowhere.
5. Danger and fun usually go hand in hand. So many people refuse to recognize this link.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:52 am
What then do you make of the hundreds of thousands of incidents a year where people simply brandishing a gun scares off a would be criminal? The stats that show a significant portion of criminals name armed victims as a deterrent/fear? That in most every case where a person goes on a rampage where a potential victim has a gun on them or near the aggressor is stopped before government officials arrive and very likely leading to less deaths? That in states which changed to right to carry or locales which advertised teaching people to handle guns the decrease in violent crime was greater then that of the surrounding areas or national trends. The stats that show in places like DC, the UK, Australia (IIRC) where they banned handguns crime has risen.
I don’t see the connection with being in the middle of nowhere and little crime. Being remote doesn’t mean low population density nor crime rate. Look at Helena-West Helena, Arkansas.
I like how one of the first things this woman says is she thinks the gun owners are bigoted neo-confederates.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Here we go… again. Carrying handguns may deter violent crime in the short term, but in the long term criminals will just adjust. Weigh that versus the increased stress level the population will experience as the constant threat of death becomes much more real. People already get nervous around cops who carry guns, they are going to be VERY nervous if everyone is carrying guns. The ability to take someones life at the drop of a hat is a bad idea. Concerning your statistics, I bet if we cut off criminals hands, the crime rate would go down as well.
About population density and crime. Looking at the pictures in the video the rural community they went to seemed much more established than your average city. One factor effecting crime rates is how transient the population is. Rural communities tend to have more homes and urban communities tend to have more apartments. If you were comparing the two locations in the video, I’d say you’re comparing apples and oranges. Secondly, it didn’t even sound like the statistics they gave were per capita, so population would have a huge effect.
I’d be willing to bet the gun guy thought she was some liberal yuppy before he met her. He would have been correct, after all she is a hip-hop dance aerobics instructor.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:42 am
bosco - You suggest that criminals will adjust. Remember that some of them will opt out of an arms race. My psychic abilities predict that bile will overestimate this while you underestimate.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am
You forgot the “and wackiness ensues!” or possibly “non-stop hilarity!” after your psychic prediction.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:42 am
“Here we go again” because you have no facts to back up your claims and therefore no agreement. Show me that criminals adjust. Your claiming that there is no equilibriums but that’s simply not true. There is an obvious risk/gain evaluation made. If risk is raised the gain must also to keep those acting prior continuing to do so. The threat of death is not worth a random robbery of $45. Most theft are crimes of opportunity. Those crimes are very obviously and easily deterred by increased risk. A near guarantee that a possible victim is unarmed is a huge risk imbalance and incentive to perform.
If anything is temporary the increased stress would be. Those who fear guns do so because of ignorance, inexperience and bias. I don’t know which people you spend time with but the average gun control advocate is only comfortable with “trained” cops and military personnel with guns. I see people walk up to paramilitary in NYC with M16s and M4s to say hi and pet the German sheperds they walk with. They see them the only one’s who safely use such weapons. I on the other hand are nervous around cops because I know they are incentivized to use the weapons due to lack of responsibility. The video you posted about shows just that. She was nervous to be in a room with unloaded guns but was fine with cops having them and I can be sure she’s fine when walking around the street with armed cops. She had never been around them. Had never touched one. It’s like farm animals. People in NYC go gaga over deer and mounted police horses. I couldn’t care less.
Your comment about cutting off hands is shallow. What keeps people in line is their own interests. If people are incentivized to participate in society instead of making them outsiders and raising risks for making a living while cutting off other ‘legit’ avenues (war on drugs) you’d have much less crime. Also in their interest is their safety. If they know there is an increased risk to an action with the same payoff they are less likely to take it. That’s the reason many criminals do what they do. Crime pays because the risk is relatively low, has low investment and the profit high at the start while because of regulation legit work is made to have high starting costs, low returns and low risk. The slight increase in risk is completely overshadowed by the high entry barriers and low returns. Once the risk is too high they are often in a position difficult to withdraw from and too far into their life to start at the bottom again.
Number of deterred crimes vs accidental deaths. It’s like 400 to 1. Per capita could be interesting but not needed. The crime stats for carry states are per capita and the info on gun training has little to do with per capita.
Apartments don’t imply transient. I know people who have lived in rent controlled NYC apartments for 20 years and others who house hop. As I pointed out with Helena-West Helena. It’s half the density of the town I went to highschool is in yet has 3 times the population and is obviously far more crime ridden.
He was far nicer to her from the get go then she was to him. I don’t know what he thought… they didn’t ask… she advertised her bigotry freely.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Agreement or argument?
August 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
agreement: as in we have no conclusion to the discussion but I suppose argument works too though that would be more harsh.
As for overestimating… I look at the historical evidence, all variables involved, observations of human behavior and the relevant statistics of all obviously related components. I think it’s pretty clear that lowering risk and raising gain will generally increase the occurrence of something. Going in the opposite direction of either will lower the occurrences all things being equal. Increasing the ability to defend oneself is shown to lower crime and WRT guns simply showing the firearm scares off most criminals. According to Guy Smith in Gun Facts, every day thousands of violent crimes are prevented by showing a gun and less than .9% of the time is it fired. Other studies showed that in 98% of the confrontations, armed individuals brandishing their gun caused aggressors to flee. 30% of intended victims “almost certainly” or “probably” saved their lives or those of a bystander. In 1999, 824 people in the entire US died in firearm accidents. 88 under the age of 14. Yet about 400,000 were saved by the use of guns. The numbers even if skewed are so divergent from the compared values that it would require an order of magnitude error or lie to get which would make it that much easier to catch. I really fail to see how these patterns are disputable.
At worst it’s inconclusive. At best it’s a form of crime control with obvious and practical gains.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Would the criminals adjusting include doing armed robberies in pairs or larger groups? Would the overall risk/reward ratio be more beneficial to criminals at that point? Would personal safety advocates then recommend only going out in groups since criminals would be operating in groups? Maybe the next step would be bullet proof vests for walking down the street followed by vest piercing bullets followed by armored vehicles and then rocket propelled grenades and then tanks with flame throwers. I’m just not convinced that there’s one solid answer one way or another.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Criminals already go in pairs and larger groups. Reality tends to keep it small. Rarely does the gain when split cover the risk. When the gain does cover the risk you’re usually talking about gangs and prohibited substances. The very fact you need more people raises the risk. More likely someone will snitch, more likely to be noticed, more likely to be caught, etc. You’re ignoring the reality of the situation. If it was so simple to just gang together and rule … they would have already. Petty crime doesn’t warrant a bullet proof vest. The vest doesn’t negate the risk by any substantial margin otherwise common thefts would all be dressed in body armor hanging out in Vermont, Utah, Montana and New Hampshire. They aren’t.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
@invisipunk
Criminals around here typically work in groups of two or more. In Trenton the violence is rarely about getting money from the victim. Because of this the victims will usually get shot even if they comply. Genitals and knees seem to be the two favorite places. Usually the other members of the group are watching the individual who did the firing so they can see that they are loyal. Also they now have something over that individual. It’s more about sending out a message that “we own the streets” through terrorism than making any money, at least around here.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
And what does Joe Friday have to say about gun crime?