From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Canadian Experience with Gun Control
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:33:14 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>>Centerwall showed that there are factors other than guns that explain
>>the difference between American and Canadian crime/murder rates.
>>He also showed that the differences are rather localized, that
>>Americans who don't make certain choices aren't at more risk
>>from crime than Canadians.
>
>Check out the difference in crime rates between Detroit and Windsor.

Yes.  Check them out.  Then, ask yourself "How does gun control keep
guns out of Windsor?"  The answer is "it doesn't", because the border
between Detroit and Windsor is as controlled as the border between
Detroit and low-crime US cities.

>While it may be true that there are mitigating factors which influence
>our lower crime rates (health care, better social welfare system, lower
>population concentration, better housing for the poor)
>to say it has nothing to do with gun control is to ignore reality

Which reality?  In this reality, we can see how much effect those
mitigating factors have on both sides of the border.

In this reality, Canadian crime rates were NOT affected by gun control.

>We have criminals and drug dealers in
>Toronto just like you but we don't have the shoot-outs or drive by killings
>largely because firearms are more difficult to get.

No, they're not, unless Canadian criminals are too stupid to drive to
Detroit.  Note that Detroit's criminals aren't that stupid, so even
the "Canadians won't smuggle, yet Americans do" assumption doesn't
save the "gun control works" theory from the harsh reality that shows
otherwise.

>Is this because our criminals are morally superior to yours or because they
>cant get the firearms they need in the volume they need?

"The volume they need" shows that we've found yet another person who
doesn't know the numbers involved.  If we use "the numbers they use"
as an approximation for "the numbers they need", we find the numbers
are surprisingly small.  Then again, you have to know them to be
surprised.

I recently ran across a by-block murder rate map for Chicago.  Gun
control laws are uniform in Chicago.  Yet, the murder rate varies by
orders of magnitude.  Obviously something other than gun control laws
affects murder in Chicago.  Its rather easy to find the factors and
to see how much they matter.

-andy

ps - KAT might be wondering why I'm not interested in discussing his
hypotheticals.  If so, he's forgotten what I wrote at the end of a
previous discussion along those lines.  In it, I went along with one
of his hypotheticals but he then tried to twist my "if we assume
<general x>, then ..." into agreement with "<specific x> is true".  I
wrote that that sort of dishonesty has consequences.  KAT might also
be wondering why I haven't taken him up on his kind offer to answer a
series of questions that appear to be minor variations on each other.
Under the best of circumstances, I think that's an annoying discussion
form.

I must admit I was intrigued by KAT's "profitable AND reduces crime".
I use a "zero-base" for figuring out reduce/increase, so if KAT
intended it in his question, the flip side might have led to an
interesting discussion.  (Namely, when would it be good policy to
CAUSE more crime in return for other benefits?  That's a different
question than "we could reduce crime by <x> if we did <y> with cost
<z> - should we do it?)  However, given the definition of profit being
used, realized benefits (crime reductions) - incurred costs, I've
answered the actual question several times.  If KAT doesn't pay
attention, he should be more upfront about his confusion.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU