Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:17:27 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

>>  Those of you who remember
>>previous versions of this discussion (or who've done the relevant
>>research; there's a reason that I provide cites) know that we're
>>talking about well under 2k lives/year, and that overstates the
>>potential benefits because not everything that is classified as an
>>accident is an accident in any reasonable sense.  (For example,
>>dueling hunters or suicides misclassified by police who figure that
>>"gun cleaning" is a blessing to the survivors.)  If we concentrate on
>>certain legal channels, we miss a large fraction of the "at risk"
>>population.
>
>   OK. You're talking accidents.

Since I was replying to a comment about accidents ....

>  I'm talking about the wide availability of guns in general.

No, you're advocating restricting availability, presumably because you
think that restricting the availability will provide benefits, which
is a very different thing.  Taking away my gun, which is fairly easy
to do (unless I act as if the law is an ass), provides no benefit to
anyone, and has costs....

>  One reason you give for owning a gun is that of
>  self-defense against criminals.  Here's an interesting thought on that--
>  criminals are more likely to use their guns than non-criminals.

That's true only in a sense that doesn't support gun access
restrictions.  Criminals tend to commit multiple crimes, so yes, a
criminal gun-user will use his gun criminally multiple times.  Victims
are less likely to be victimized repeatedly, so self-defenders are
unlikely to be repeaters.

It is false in the sense of "are guns used more often in crime or in
self-defense?"; in the US guns are used more often for self-defense
than for crime.  Of course, it's true that guns owned by criminals are
more likely to be used than guns owned for self-defense, but a
consequence of the fact that criminals are a minority and is another
argument against gun access restrictions.  It's absurd to think that
criminal's guns will be disproportionately affected by controls, yet
gun access restrictions require that assumption.

>  Most people who buy a gun for self-defense don't really think they will kill
>  another person some day.

Projecting again, aren't we....

As much as I enjoy reading fantasy situations invented by people who
don't know what they're talking about, they are fantasies and don't
tell us anything about actual experience.  The reason I've cited
Kleck's Point Blank is that it includes the relevant stats and
discussion.

>  the police don't want people trying to defend themselves in that way --
>  they want people to concentrate on escaping.

Police advise running away IF you have the opportunity, which is a
very different thing.  (I understand that parents don't like to run
away without their kids.)  Moreover, the police who advise personal
disarmament (only a fraction do, and most are in political positions)
don't practice it themselves.  (Even unarmed cops outside the US have
backup unavailable to mere mortals.)  It's almost as "funny" as
hearing "no one needs a gun for self-defense" from someone who has
armed guards or who lives in a safe neighborhood.  Why should anyone
else take their advice any more seriously than they do?

>  Another thing is that you seem to think that 2,000 people dying per year is
>  insignificant (and those are only accidental deaths).  I don't think that
>  it's insignificant that one person dies every year if there is something
>  that can be done about it.

2k/year IS insignificant if you're interested in death in the US even
if we ignore the benefits associated with gun ownership.  If you're
actually interested in death, there are far more effective ways to
express that interest.  If you're only interested in gun death, then
you're really just interested in guns, not death....

BTW - It's easy enough to prove that Racz doesn't believe "that one
person dies every year if there is something that can be done about
it.", and I can do it without pointing out that banning basketball*
would save several lives....  (Yes, it's another "put up or shut up.")

-andy

* - Basketball is far more deadly than target shooting.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU