From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re:  A Japanese Student Killed in Lousianna (Gun Control)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:05:35 GMT

[I've tried to fix up the non-standard quoting that Nguyen used.]

In article <1992Nov9.195320.22393@ntmtv> nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.205559.26554@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.181029.12785@ntmtv> nguyenpd@ntmtv.UUCP (Phat Nguyen) writes:
>>>I agree with you.  If we need a driver license to operate a car
>>>because it is potentially deadly, why don't we need a license to
>>>use a gun then?
>>
>>Because car licensing is supposed to address unintentional acts, AKA
>>accidents.  We don't expect it to address intentional acts, like
>>drive-bys, get-aways, and so on.  There are significant problems with
>>unintentional acts with cars, but not with guns.  (Murder/robbery is
>>an INTENTIONAL act.)
>
>Are you sure Andy??  Have you catch up with the news in San Jose
>yet?  A grandfather had to stand trial because his 7 year old
>grandson used his gun to shot himself badly.

Yes, I'm sure, because I've read the statistics.  Rare events get lots
of coverage - they're newsworthy.  Common events don't get much
coverage.  That same week, more children drowned in San Jose.  More
died in falls.  More were poisoned with household chemicals.  Lots
more children died in auto accidents.  Gun accidents are in the noise.
Anyone who gets excited about gun accidents but doesn't care about
other accidents is either ignorant or dishonestly trying to use
accidents as an excuse to ban guns.  Which category does Nguyen fit
into?

>>process for buying automatic weapons anywhere is quite strict and has
>>been since 1934.  It allows arbitrary turn-downs by any chief in the
>>chain from the city to the feds.  (CA chiefs deny everyone who doesn't
>>have a movie-industry connection.)  One consequence of this system is
>>that legally owned automatic weapons are not used criminally, but it
>>has had no effect on the criminal use of automatic weapons.
>
>If it's that strict, how come there are automatic weapons being
>used on the street of San Jose??

Because automatic weapons can be made illegally.  The basic principles
have been well known for hundreds of years and the necessary level of
metal working is fairly low.  Hand tools are adequate and power tools
would be a luxury to someone with the mechanical aptitude of an
Afghan.  (The Afghans MADE guns to fight the soviets; would Americans
be less competent with our far better tools?)

Then there's smuggling and govt "leaks".

>					Have you checked with the
>police department lately and find out how many automatic weapons
>are confiscated by the police force.

Actually, I have.  Nguyen is talking through his hat, but let's
not quibble about that.

>It is higher than what you would expect.  These guns must come from somewhere.

It is higher than what I would expect based on what?

Sure, the guns come from somewhere, but that doesn't imply that they
come from any specific place.

If Nguyen insists that legal sources are being used, then I'll make
him the same offer that I make to everyone who claims that.  My $3k
says that he's wrong.

>>> There is a big difference here.  Illegal drugs are addictive,
>>> but owning a gun is not.
>>
>>The supplier doesn't care why the demand exists.  Guns are useful,
>>so there will be demand.
>
>OF COURSE!  THE SUPPLIER DOESN'T CARE WHY THE DEMAND EXISTES.

Hold it.  Nguyen said that the reason for the demand was relevant.  Is
s\he now retracting that claim?

>THE MORE GUNS THEY SELL, THE MORE MONEY THEY GET.  What I am talking is
>the consumer.  GUNS ARE USEFUL FOR SURE, BUT USEFUL TO DO WHAT??

They're useful for self-defense.  They're useful for recreation.
They're also useful for certain kinds of crime.

>to have it, then the answer is NO.  It seems to me that you forget
>that HIGH PRICE lowers demand significantly according to economic
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>theory.  So there will be less guns on the streets.

Nguyen doesn't understand the market.  In particular, he doesn't
understand the value to a criminal user.  (There's no social benefit
in disarming non-criminals; there's actually a social cost.)  The
value to criminals is high enough that it is unlikely that they can be
priced out of the market.

For example, doubling the price won't disarm him a criminal who has
multiple guns.  (It turns out that the typical criminal has multiple
guns.)  Then there's "rental" arrangements, so that several criminals
can share a gun.  It would require a huge price increase necessary to
price crooks out of the market.

It is unreasonable to think that legal measures could cause anywhere
near the necessary price increase.  Even if we assume every gun crime
is committed with a different gun, a couple of plane loads could
provide a year's supply.  That's small enough that it would be in the
noise in known smuggling volume.  It is unreasonable to think that
smuggled guns would be expensive.  Illegal manufacture is also
trivial, so it is unclear which source would dominate.  (I'm ignoring
govt "leaks", which provide a huge fraction of the automatic weapons
that are criminally used in the US.)

>Of course I don't know what I am talking about.

Then why should we agree with Nguyen's recommendations?

Nguyen doesn't understand the gun control we do have and doesn't
understand the effects that gun control has had (since it hasn't
helped in any other country, why does he think that it will help in
the US?).  "We should do something" doesn't imply that a specific
measure will work, no matter what the problem is.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8404 alt.politics.clinton:16647 alt.politics.bush:13639 alt.politics.perot:5382 talk.politics.misc:59284