Here's the part I found most interesting.
Now, where have I heard that argument before, the one about "focusing on crime itself rather than the tools criminals may use." Oh, yeah, right here on the blog about a hundred times. The difference is no one who's suggested this before accompanied it with a contrary statistic like this guy did about Hong Kong. Usually, the way I've heard it is, it's not the guns, period. Now, we've got something else to work with.I used to be in favor of gun control. I lived in Hong Kong for a while. The only way an ordinary citizen could have a lawful gun was to keep it at a target-shooting club. In Hong Kong the weapon of choice of petty criminals was a knife, and the homicide rate was about one-quarter the U.S. rate. I came back to Seattle in 1993, when the U.S. crime rate was at about a 60-year high. There was a drive-by shooting at Ballard High School, and a student killed (not even the one the shooter intended). And I thought: this is ridiculous. We should get rid of guns.
And if I were designing a society from scratch--a society on Mars, maybe.--I would do that. But we don't start with a blank slate. A right to own small arms is deep in our culture, and is protected in the U.S. Constitution and even stronger in the 1889 Washington Constitution. I revere those documents for all the rights they protect, and I don't want to cut any more holes in them. We have to live with gun rights, and I think we can by focusing on crime itself rather than the tools criminals may use.
According to the Hong Kong statistics, it is the guns. So, how about if the pro-gun crowd get over their ridiculous paranoia about gun confiscation and their equally ridiculous claim that civilian gun ownership is what's keeping tyranny at bay, and start cooperating on common sense and reasonable gun control laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? How about it?
Please leave a comment.
"So, how about if the pro-gun crowd get over their ridiculous paranoia about gun confiscation and their equally ridiculous claim that civilian gun ownership is what's keeping tyranny at bay, and start cooperating on common sense and reasonable gun control laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals?"
ReplyDeleteBecause every time we cooperate with the gun controllers, we lose something and the gun controllers gain something.
So you get no more cooperation from me until you learn what cooperation means.
"So, how about if the pro-gun crowd get over their ridiculous paranoia about gun confiscation and their equally ridiculous claim that civilian gun ownership is what's keeping tyranny at bay, and start cooperating on common sense and reasonable gun control laws that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? How about it?"
ReplyDeleteMike, you are right. If only just one of my guns in Ohio were registered, those Seattle cops would still be alive. Maybe we should pass laws that say criminals released from prison shouldn't be allowed to own guns too, that would help.
How about instead of compromising my rights away we just let killers stay in jail and complete their sentences.
start cooperating on common sense and reasonable gun control laws
ReplyDeleteWhat do I get out of that, aside from having my rights trampled on?
I don't see the anti's cooperating or compromising on anything. How are we supposed to find any common ground when your goal is to eliminate private firearms ownership in this country? (I.E. disarm me)
According to the Hong Kong statistics, it is the guns.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not true at all. According to the Hong Kong statistics, they have fewer guns _and_ they have fewer murders. To conclude that they have fewer murders _because_ they have fewer guns is overreaching. It's an intuitively satisfying conclusion, but it isn't by any means conclusive evidence. If I note that Hong Kong has far more Dai Pai Dong restaurants than New Jersey and a far higher suicide rate, that doesn't prove that Asian street food causes suicide, even if I can construct a rational connection between unsanitary food preparation and personal despair.
This is easy to demonstrate: North dakota has far, far more guns than Hong Kong does, both in absolute terms and in proportion to population. Last year, they saw two murders, both stabbings. If Hong Kong's statistics "prove" that more guns equals more crime, North Dakota "proves" that more guns equals less crime.
I think it's obvious that neither of these "proofs" is very strong. The affect that guns have on violent death rates is murky and poorly understood, and is far, far more complicated than pointing at one country with strict gun laws and a lower murder rate and saying "see? Gun control works!"
Paranoia?
ReplyDeleteJust last week AH Eric Holder said he wants to confiscate all firearms from people on the super secret watch list.
A list which has somewhere between 400,000-1,000,000 names on it depending on the source and is growing by 20,000 people every month.
I think I'll go buy another gun.
But you go right ahead and try to stop me.
kaveman, I think the adjusted that list last year when it received so much attention. But, I guess you never know with a secret list.
ReplyDeleteKaveman - And it's not just holder, it's also a number of Democratic Senators.
ReplyDeleteThey want to deny Constitutional rights in an arbitrary manner based on a secret list which you won't know your on until the denial, which you won't know how you got on, and which you have no means of being removed from.
Is it any wonder we call you guys "anti-freedom?"
Okay Mikeb, you convinced me: I'm ready to compromise on gun control.
ReplyDeleteNow where are the gun control advocates who are willing to compromise, so that we can try to reach an agreement?
A lot of good arguments, and really better than the pragmatic "guns reduce crime" argument that is most common.
ReplyDeleteChanging the constitution should be done only with great need and great deliberation. Ignoring it, or twisting the interpretation from the original should be fought, regardless of which article or amendment. I'm not sure I like the idea that the children of illegal immigrants are automatic citizens, but the constitution says they are, and my doubts aren't nearly strong enough to advocate either changing the constitution or finding an excuse to ignore it.
Where there is both fewer guns and less crime, that is somehow proof that guns cause crime, despite the numerous counterexamples. I think it is more likely that Americans are more violent than most, being closer to an immigrant and frontier society, and not having fully recovered from institutional racism.
I'm not interested in "common sense gun control", because that usually means "leave all existing restrictions no matter how useless for the purpose of reducing crime and violence, but add restrictions on anything that at first glance appears to be scary". I would be interested in examination of gun policy in general-Figure out goals and priorities, then examine both proposed and existing laws to see how they meet these priorities, based on evidence rather than emotion.
I recently graduated from a (very) liberal arts college in California.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that few students and professors shared my views on the importance of gun control.
The most common complaint was that they were tired of being lied to, and that they didn't think the issue was worth the hysteria exhibited by gun control activists.
I didn't believe them until I found this blog.
MikeB, you have single handedly changed my position on gun control, and I thank you for it.
I will be voting against any gun control measure in Washington, and any politician that advocates such a measure.
As an aside to pro-gun commentators:
The right to marry the person I want to spend my life with is important, but it angers me that voting to secure this right would give power to politicians who would threaten your rights.
To those of you undecided on the issue of gay marriage, I ask that you remember me when the time comes to decide. Together, I believe we can seize our rights as citizens from those who are convinced we need none.
Anonymous said, "MikeB, you have single handedly changed my position on gun control, and I thank you for it."
ReplyDeleteDo we know you by another name? Have you commented here before?