From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:22:51 GMT

In article <2sefcxt@Unify.Com> perry@Unify.Com (Perry Clarke) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) wrote:
>>Why would you ask that?  The introduction of gun control in the UK
>>was NOT associated with any decrease in the murder rate.  If anything,
>>there was a change for the worse.  See Greenwood's Firearms Controls
>>for more information.
>
>You are making this sound as if sometime in the recent past "gun control"
>(by whatever definition) was legally enacted in the UK and everyone's
>guns were taken from them.  This not so; it has always been difficult to
>license a hand gun the UK (it is now almost impossible because of the
>Prevention Of Terrorism Act).

Actually, I was pointing out only that the low crime rates predate the
gun control.

However, if we want to talk about dates, I'll note that the UK's gun
control actually is fairly recent.  Since that time, it has gotten
steadily tighter.  None of the changes have done any good.  The cited
reference discusses many of those changes.

>As the population densities and numbers grow the rate for all crime is
>increasing.  This has nothing to do with any gun laws.

Try again.  Crime rates are correlated with population density in some
countries, but not others.  Within cities, even in countries where
population density is correlated with crime rates, population density
doesn't necessarily predict crime rates all that well.

>>>What I don't understand is why its tougher to get a license
>>>to drive a car than it is to get a license to use a gun.
>>
>>Wrong.  There are 10 people in all of SF who have a license to carry;
>>LA has issued on such license since 1970.  There are millions of
>>people who have a license to drive in those two areas.
>
>10 people in SF have a license to own a gun?  Something wrong with
>your statistics here!  How do gun stores stay in business?

I didn't say that only 10 people had a license to own, I said that
only 10 people have a license to carry.  Yet, criminals do carry.
What good is that licensing system doing?  (Hint: real criminals can
be charged with real crimes, so there's no good penalty for carrying
without a permit, especially when the permit isn't available.)

>>Anyone with money can legally buy a car; that's not true of gun
>>purchase/ownership.
>
>But you can't drive it if you have lost your license (not quite the same
>thing, I admit).

It turns out that people without licenses can drive legally; they just
can't drive on public roads.

However, the basic problem with the whole "licensing" problem remains.
Even if licensing addresses competency, it can't affect intent, and
the gun problems are intentional acts.

>>>Both activities kill people if done with insufficient training.
>>
>>Wrong.  We don't have a gun accident problem, we have a problem with
>>people who INTENTIONALLY use guns criminally.  Competence requirements
>>can't address the problem we have.  (Does anyone think that driver's
>>license can affect drive-by shootings?)
>
>You keep mentioning the "problems we have" without suggesting anyway to
>solve them.

Some problems aren't big enough to warrant much attention.  Some
problems can't be addressed by the means under discussion.  (Some
problems don't even have solutions.)  Besides, demonstrating that
certain means are useless doesn't obligate me to provide effective
means and my failure to do so doesn't make those useless means more
effective.

>My point was merely that easy availability of anything 
>(be it alcohol or guns) means that people will abuse it

That's an irrelevant point.  Control can't work unless it can
interfere with access by problem users.  If you think that ALL users
are problem users, we get to argue about what "problem" you're
addressing.  (We know what ordinary law-abiding people do with guns.)
If you're going to argue about problems associated only with certain
users, it is reasonable to discuss whether or not the proposed
measures will affect those users.

However, it was nice of Clarke to bring up another failed war.  Booze
cost went DOWN during prohibition.  It didn't much affect access
either.  Eventually we got tired of the social costs of a war with no
social benefits.

>As to not having "a gun accident problem", there have been
>at least 3 shootings by children in the Sacramento area since I arrived
>and I don't pay that much attention to the nightly news.

So?  (News is a great way to find out about exceptional or
"newsworthy" events; it is fairly useless for most other purposes.)
In the same time, there have been hundreds of other accidents in the
same area with lots of deaths, and Clarke didn't even blink an eye.
The fact that Clarke doesn't care about them, but does care about the
less frequent (even adjusting for ownership levels) and less costly
gun accidents demonstrates that he's not interested in death, but in
guns.

If Clarke had proposed swimming pool licensing, or match, household
chemical, or ladder controls, he'd be able to avoid that response.
After the accident rates associated with cars and other products drop
to the levels associated with guns, one can claim that gun accidents
are worth worrying about.  However, as long as gun accidents are in
noise, people who "worry" about them aren't concerned about accidents,
they're just looking for an excuse to whine about guns.

>>BTW - Since "drug control" can't stop people from getting guns, how
>>can gun control stop criminals from getting guns?  What, it isn't
>>supposed to do so?  Then what's the point; there's no benefit to
>>disarming anyone else.
>
>Yeah.  Free coke for everyone.

If Clarke wants to argue that we can keep guns away from criminals who
want them, it's reasonable to ask if we can keep something else away
from people who want it.

Feel free to argue that the drug war has reduced availability to
ANYONE.  Then show that a gun war can be 10-15 times as successful,
because even the most outlandish supply requirements (a new gun for
each crime) are a drop in the current smuggling capacity.  Then show
that there's some reasonable way to deal with illegal manufacture
(guns are easier to make than many synthesized drugs and the required
tools and materials are not "special", so affecting illegal
manufacture is much harder).  That's what it takes to make a "we can
take guns away from criminals" argument.

Of course, if the gun war isn't supposed to disarm criminals, the
argument changes quite a bit.

>I *know* its too late to do anything about the problems associated with
>freely available guns, I just don't think that the answer is to give a
>gun to everyone.

Note the strawman.  No one has suggested giving guns to everyone.
(Hint: reading NRA proposals is far more useful than relying on what
its opponents attribute to it.  The NRA is the only group pushing for
mandatory nationwide background checks.  While that can't do much
good, it's far better than a waiting period and NO check.  Even
non-members like me have figured that out.)

I do find it interesting that Clarke admits that there's nothing that
can affect criminal access, but he still wants to "do something".  Why
and what?  (Wanna bet that Clarke doesn't know the magnitude of the
BENEFITS, to him, of gun ownership by others, let alone the benefits
to them?)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns