Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 11 Oct 1992 14:36:28 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Guns, Freud, and Psychology

>I have said several times that the relation of Freudian psychology
>to the political issue of gun control is beyond the understanding
>of gun freaks, and the list's former serf proves this for us yet
>again.

"Former serf"?  That would be "Freedman".  Either way, the event
in question predates me by quite a bit, so "former" is ....

>In the pathetic belief that statistics speak for themselves,

Well "statistics" certainly say something.  Suppose that there was no
difference between the murder rate in the US and, say, Canada.  (I've
provided a reference to research showing that the difference is
explained by factors other than guns.)  Does Morse want to claim that
his position would be unchanged, that his argument wouldn't change?
If yes, then his position really has nothing to do with crime, it is
about HIS feelings about guns and gun owners, it is his bigotry.
(Ooh, I've said something not nice about gun banners in low crime
countries.)  If no, then if the statistics "say" the wrong things ....

>While we're about it, Andy, care to cite the stats for
>the number of handgun deaths per year in the U.S. versus every other
>country in the world? I thought not..

Which is it?  If Morse rejects the idea that "statistics speak for
themselves", as I do, then what purpose would such a list serve?

An abridged version of such a list has been posted recently; the
selection procedure used was "US plus industrial countries with lower
handgun murder rates".  What does it tell us?  (Does it imply that ALL
industrial countries have lower murder rates?)  Does a list of murder
rates tell us something more interesting?  Does the selection
procedure affect the message? Suppose we include gun control laws in
our list.  What do we know then?  Would it be more interesting to know
how gun control laws affected the murder rates?

However, Morse wants a list, so I'll provide one.  The list I'll
provide is an abriged list of intentional homicide rates for various
countries with lots of northern-European-type white people, plus
Japan.  (I'll leave out former communist block countries.)
Intentional homicide is murder/manslaughter + suicide but gun control
advocates don't get to complain about including the latter because
they insist that guns cause suicide.

    Country             #/100k population
    Denmark             29.4
    Austria             28.4
    Finland             27.2
    France              26.2
    Switzerland         25.6
    Belgium             25.0
    W Germany           21.8
    Japan               21.2
    USA                 19.8
    Canada              16.5
    Norway              15.6
    Ireland*            15.0
    Australia           13.5
    New Zealand         11.3
    England/Wales*       9.3
    Israel               8.0
    * - may not include political murders

US murder rates are driven by demographics and whether or not we're
fighting a war on some substance.  They've been far lower, and the
increases happen to be associated with increases in gun control.

>and that any quote from Freud is as good as another,

Not at all.  Morse has shown that Freud thought some people saw guns
as penis'.  I've shown WHICH people Freud thought that about; he
happens to have disgreed with Morse.  That's why I picked the quotes I
picked.

>he is evidently incapable of understanding what the PROBLEM is.

Which problem?  I know about LOTS of problems, some with guns, some
without.  More importantly, I know something about what measures can
affect what problems.

>And it is not guns, nor is it statistics, nor is it which corrupt
>law journals you happen to peruse: it is aggression, violence, and
>distorted human values.

"Corrupt law journals"?  (I have mentioned law journals wrt legal
issues.  Is that really an unreasonable response when someone grossly
misquotes a legal document?)

What distorted human value does Morse want to discuss, or even
attribute to me?  I happen to believe in the use of deadly force to
stop an immediate threat of an attack.  I'm beginning to believe that
the "battered women's syndrome" defense should be accepted.  Both
concern responses to violence and involve violence, but neither is
aggressive.  Is either "distorted"?  How about "wrong"?  How so?

Oh, I get it.  Disagreeing with Morse is a distorted human value.

>twisted malevolence in Robert & Andy, the need to strike back, the
>rage and frustration.

Rage?  I'll admit a bit of frustration; I'm not nearly as good at
unfounded personal attacks as Morse.  (On the other hand, I happen
know a great deal more about the subject than he does, and if I got to
trade one characteristic for the other....)  I do wonder why he
insists on trying to tie me to Robert though.  How are we the same?
(Has Robert disagreed with him too?)

BTW - Is there "untwisted malevolence", or is "twisted" part of Morse'
"appeal to the hind-brain" style of argument?  Other than disagreeing
with Morse' claims, and showing that they're wrong, how have I been
"malevolent"?  (Is the truth of his claims really irrelevant?  Is
showing that they're wrong an expression of hatred?)

>problem, the idiotic frontier mentality that the way to solve problems
>is with superior firepower.

Some problems can't be solved by anything other than firepower.
(Force in general can be a useful thing; imagine trying to build a
wood structure without using it.)  I'll bet that Morse agrees.  Would
he ever call on police?

BTW - Morse doesn't want to bring up the frontier experience with guns
and crime; it doesn't support his position (even if Hollywood does).
Western movie fans might enjoy McGrath's "Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and
Vigilantes"; then again, they might not.  John Wayne lied.

>the ability to master these id-drives is the absolute precondition for
>a civilized society, and precisely what you clowns so bitterly oppose.

Really?  Perhaps Morse should be a bit more detailed about my position
and what I oppose.

Here's a start: I oppose gun laws that don't affect crime.  (I don't
share Morse' control-others fetish.)  Are such laws a precondition for
a civilized society?  I furthermore oppose laws that don't provide
more benefits than the costs incurred, regardless of how nice things
would be if they'd deliver other benefits that they don't, in fact,
deliver.

BTW - Morse is demonstrating that he doesn't understand why gun owners
own guns.  He's also making Bruce-Briggs' point about gun control as a
culture war, with "good" people on the wrong side.

As always, references on request; Kleck's Point Blank is the best
place to start.  (Kopel's "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy"
is supposed to be a good review of other countries' experience, but it
is aimed more at social than crime issues because that's where the
effects have been.)

-andy