Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:34:20 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

>> A self-defense "expert" who says that guns aren't useful for
>> self-defense is lying, ignorant, or stupid.  The victimization stats
>> show that folks who use guns for self-defense are significantly less
>> likely to be killed or injured than people who submit.  Submission is
>> associated with less injury/death than using other weapons*, but that's
>> not relevant to the "are guns useful?" question.
>
>Could this be as a result of the TYPE of people who would use gun
>as self defense as opposed to the fact that they use the gun for
>self defense?  In other words, is it possible that the same group
>of people would less likely to be killed even if they did not use
>a gun for self-defense?

You mean, like "gun owners are better at avoiding dangerous crime
situations"?

That's certainly possible, but a difference between "submit no matter
what" (a subset of the submitters) and "willing to resist" (all of the
resistors plus submitters who decided against resisting in a
particular case) is more likely and almost certainly swamps any
difference between people who resist with different weapons, unless
you're going to argue that competent people choose guns ....*  In any
event, that sort of difference is not particularly relevant in the
current discussion, which is about restrictions on self-defense
technology; that could only come in if we were considering MANDATING
particular self-defense technology, and then only if other things were
true.  (For example, it may well be that carrying "encourages"
reflection which has useful effects.)

Note that submission is not inconsistent with having some resistance
option, and that one can choose between available options.  (For
example, carrying a knife doesn't stop you from using other methods.)
If people are "good" at guessing the answer to "if I submit, will I be
hurt?", that will inflate the "success" of submission and hurt the
"success" of resistance.  Then there's the fact that a lot of
injuries/deaths happen BEFORE resistance, as part of a "I've got to
show him I mean biz/I'm serious/I'm bad" or "it's easier this way"
strategy; injury provokes resistance just as resistance may result in
injury.

Resistance is also associated with a lower completion rate than
submission.  It isn't obvious that injury is always "worse" than
giving the attacker what s\he wants.  (Consider rape or losing all
food/rent money for the week, not to mention eliminating witnesses,
not to mention the consequences associated with failing to protect
others, like kids from abduction or attack.  Some also have to worry
about the consequences of becoming known as an easy target.)  On a
society wide basis, resistance makes crime more expensive, even if it
may have adverse consequences for the resistors.  (It is difficult to
figure out if the overall benefits exceed the costs, even if we knew
that the benefits to resistors were exceeded by the cost of
resistance.)

>> * - If you lump guns in with other weapons, you find that "all
>> weapons" is associated with more injury/death than submission, but....
>
>But what?  Is this a game you are playing?  Why are you spitting
>out info in small quantities.  I think we (at least I) agree that
>you have more info on this subject than the rest of us.  So please
>stop toying with us and tell us but what..........

"...." is short hand for "most of you can figure the rest out".**

While I provide cites which include far more detail than I'll ever
type, I'm not an information service.  I'll discuss them honestly to
the best of my ability, but if you want more or doubt me, visit the
library.  (BTW - I think that the restriction proponents are
presenting their case about as well as it can be presented, and I've
watched some of the best.)  I think that gun control is a useful area
for discussing values in general, but if you're interested enough to
discuss just the particulars, then a little research surely isn't an
impossible burden, especially if "I believe" justifies "jail him" or
even "sorry, I won't interview with Bell Labs because I don't want to
deal with NJ's gun laws".  (For example, KAT has spent several hours
over the past couple of years writing about gun control; they'd have
been more enjoyable if some had been spent in the library.)

Besides, it wouldn't be much fun to post a preemptive refutation of
every known-to-me argument that I disagree with.  I did give fair
warning about some of them....***

-andy

* - I don't suppose there's a lot of "well, I'll try robbing that
person who I know is carrying a gun, and if he says no, I'll just move
along quietly".  If there is, then carrying a gun is still a good
idea.

** - The "all weapons" stat is useless, by itself, for evaluating the
effect of any particular weapon.  We're not talking about carrying a
box that will supply some random weapon in the event of attack, we're
talking about the effectiveness of different choices.

*** - Brer Fox, don't throw me in that bush.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU