In the interests of fairness, I point you to the WSJ’s take on gun-control vs. anti-gun control advocacy claims (full article available to subscribers only, so I’ll excerpt at length):
The Virginia Tech shootings have reignited the gun-control debate, with both sides marshalling suspect numbers.
Gun violence “is costing this country over $100 billion a year,” New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who is pushing tougher gun-control laws, said this week on CNBC, citing the gun-control advocacy group Brady Campaign. The Brady Campaign, in turn, cites research by Duke economist Philip J. Cook and Georgetown public-policy professor Jens Ludwig. But the 2001 estimate, based on a 1998 phone survey, isn’t a direct measure of cost.
The researchers used a technique called contingent valuation, in which they surveyed respondents about how much they’d pay for a 30% reduction in gun violence. Extrapolating the survey results to the general population, they concluded that Americans are willing to pay $24.5 billion for that outcome. Extending that to a theoretical 100% reduction of gun violence, and factoring in the costs of suicide and injury by firearm, Profs. Cook and Ludwig arrive at $100 billion.
The researchers themselves noted drawbacks to their technique. They were measuring willingness to pay for a 30% decrease—it isn’t clear whether people would pay at the same rate for further reductions. More fundamentally, the willingness-to-pay, or WTP, method assumes survey respondents can quantify the value of a public good and trusts them to give honest answers to a hypothetical that may prod them to present themselves favorably. […]
Another argument for gun control: The U.S. has the most gun murders per capita in the Western world (three of 100,000 people annually). That claim holds if the Western world is defined as the U.S. and Western Europe. If Latin America and Eastern Europe are included, then Slovakia, El Salvador, Albania, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Mexico all had higher gun-murder rates in a recent year, according to the latest U.N. figures. The U.N. cautions that the figures are self-reported and, as a basis for comparison between countries, are “highly problematic.”
Meanwhile, opponents of gun control have written online commentaries claiming that Americans use guns 2.5 million times yearly in defense against crime. The number originates in research, more than a decade old, conducted by Florida State criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. They conducted a phone survey of defensive gun use, asking respondents if they, or members of their household, had used guns in self-defense—and extrapolated their findings to the general population. Defensive gun use, or DGU, doesn’t necessarily mean the gun was fired, which happens in relatively few of these incidents, the researchers found.
Prof. Kleck cites as corroboration for his findings a 1994 survey conducted by Profs. Cook and Ludwig for the Police Foundation, a Washington law-enforcement research group. Yet those two researchers concluded that their own numbers and Prof. Kleck’s are inflated.
They explain that surveys can inflate results for rare events. The logic goes like this: Some people who engaged in DGU will deny it to surveyors, while others will invent it. Because DGUs are rare by any estimate, the latter group is a far greater pool of potential liars. So even if the lying rate is lower in that group, false positives could outweigh false negatives.
Prof. Kleck countered in an email that surveys typically underestimate controversial behavior and that criticisms of his research show the critics’ own bias toward undercounting.
Another number that has emerged from the antigun-control camp ties multiple-victim public shootings to restrictions on carrying concealed weapons. John Lott Jr., visiting professor at SUNY, Binghamton, and University of Chicago economist William Landes counted references to multiple public shootings—more than one killed or wounded at one time—in the Lexis/Nexis news database for a 2000 book. They matched trends from 1977 to 1999 with right-to-carry laws, and found that when states allowed the carrying of concealed weapons, the rate of these attacks declined by 60%.
But another study, published in 2002 in the journal Homicide Studies, found “virtually no support for the hypothesis that the laws increase or reduce the number of mass public shootings.” This later study counted only shootings with four or more murders, used FBI crime data to supplement news reports and, unlike the Lott-Landes work, included shootings that were byproducts of other crimes, such as gang murders.
Grant Duwe, a researcher on the later study, said the news-archive approach was likely incomplete, because the media don’t always give publicity to multiple shootings.
Prof. Lott wrote in an email that he counted less-severe incidents to get enough data for statistically significant results. He justifies his exclusion of gang murders because gun usage by chronic criminals “would not be directly affected by the passage of right-to-carry laws.”
That seems to be precisely the reason to include them for a full picture of the effect of these laws. Of course, the complete picture frequently goes missing in this debate.
[my emphases]
Terry Hastings, who forwarded along the article, notes:
Once you know how the numbers are arrived at it becomes a little easier to weight them for credibility. One of my frustrations with the mainstream media is that they uncritically reference statistics w/o checking their validity. Almost as if they just check until they find what they are looking for
—an observation that suggest that, like gun-control and anti-gun control advocates, the media, too, is engaging in advocacy, picking and choosing which statistics to report and which to “debunk.”
Returning to our discussion yesterday on the probable effects of more easily obtained concealed carry permits on overall violent crime, it is possible to conclude—even bracketing both sets of advocacy statistics—that the risks are overstated, while the rewards are mostly potential.
Still, the question to ask is this: would an increase in the number of concealed carry permits have a positive or negative effect on violent crime? For gun-control advocates, the kernel assumption, which (to be fair) they’d likely frame in a different way, is that free adults ca not be trusted to translate their Second Amendment rights into responsible actions. That is, gun-control is founded on the idea that we cannot trust adult Americans to exercise their freedoms in a way that is responsible or beneficial to the common weal.
On the flip side, anti-gun control advocates argue that the Constitution provides them with right to bear arms, that gun-control undermines personal autonomy by denying law-abiding adult citizens and resident aliens the means to protect themselves from non-law abiding citizens (who generally circumvent gun-control laws anyway)—and that, in effect, gun-control advocates are preemptively criminalizing Constitutional rights, and operating under the assumption that free people cannot be trusted with their own freedoms.
Hence, the rise of the nannystate—be it in areas of gun control or the consumption of trans fats, marijuana, and soft drinks. Even tanning is now the government’s business in the state of Colorado. Which makes me wonder just how soon they’ll pass a measure requiring “children” to stay inside for their own protection.
Wearing helmets, naturally.
I haven’t seen any evidence that concealed carry permits have lead to an increase in violent crimes. And while one might argue that the more armed citizens we have, the more likely it is that we’ll see an uptick in overzealous use of firearms—it is equally possible to argue that the more armed citizens we have, the incidents of violent crimes (in which only the perpetrator is armed) will decrease, if only because most criminals are unwilling to prey on those who they fear might fight back.
And personally, I like to err on the side of freedom.
But then, I’m one of those old-school classical liberals who actually views the Constitution as a ratified document, not a living, breathing entity that, like some judicial Golem, is imbued with new life each time some politically-motivated judge needs to murder and earlier established interpretation.
James Q. Wilson makes another good argument in an opinion essay in the Los Angeles Times today: comparing gun violence in the US versus gun violence in European countries is misleading, because the baseline level of violence in the US is higher (sorry, no hyperlink):
“A militia, when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms.” – Richard Henry Lee
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia.” – Tench Cox
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?” – Patrick Henry
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.” – Noah Webster
“What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” – George Mason
“The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams
As an off-topic aside, I think Wilson’s point about the infeasability of extinguishing the existing supply of guns in this country applies also to the idea of cherry-picking out the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal aliens who are already here without massively violating civil rights.
In truth most progressive politics boil down to forms of totalitarianism. We have to trust our “betters” to make decisions for us dumb peasents. Look at the reaction social security reform recieved. People couldn’t be trusted to make decisions regarding their forced retirement contributions, never mind that many federal employees have had this option for years.
Many of the gun control advocates are likewise treating their fellow citizens as children.
Not really; too many differences. Guns can’t get up and leave on their own or be persuaded to leave. Guns don’t grow old and die. We don’t have an amendment to allow illegals. etc, etc..
Who says we have to get 100% of the 12 million anyway? If we get 10 or 20 or 80 percent it will be a Better Thing. Most importantly, we should keep new illegals from flooding in.
Okay, gun violence costs us a $100 billion dollars a year based on what some poll respondents would be “willing to pay” to see it reduced, and then extrapolated out from a 30% reduction to a 100% reduction.
I would be willing to pay $10k if every taxpayer would send me one—ONE—dollar. I’m sure you all agree, and would pay at least that much. Ergo, outlawing Ponzi schemes is costing the country $1,000,000,000,000. That’s one TRILLION. Outlawing Ponzi schemes is worse than gun violence!! TEN TIMES WORSE!! Won’t somebody think of the children?
Actually, the homicide rate is approximately the same in the U.S. as it is in Nancy Boy Canada, once you take out the hypenated population. Neither Nancy Boy Canadians nor Nancy Boy Americans tend to cap each other. And women prefer to poisen men anyway, so that’s not an issue.
Perhaps what the control crowd is really saying is the forty year old product of their beneficence cannot, unfortunately, be trusted with the rights and responsibilities envisioned by the framers. But, like Airport Security, we’ll have to treat everybody the same.
Another fine Democrat legislator who has no idea what she’s trying to legislate, other than that Colin Fergusen killed her husband.
BECAUSE OF THE BARREL SHROUDS!!
Les,
Suppose that my brother and I were both born in Mexico. I came to the US 25 years ago and am now a US citizen, thanks to Reagan’s 1986 amnesty. My brother came to the US 20 years ago and is still illegal. We both have jobs and families here. If you saw us together on the same construction crew would you recognize the illegal alien as easily as you could recognize a 9mm handgun?
Conservatives who are getting swept up into the anti-illegal immigration fervor are starting to sound a lot like anti-gun liberals. There are undeniable harms from both illegals aqnd guns, and also benefits.
Usually on illegals you guys end up falling back to self-righteously intoning “It’s the law.” Let’s face it, you are not that exactingly legalistic when it comes to the speed limit. The legalistic argument is the one that Greenwaldians used to argue against intercepting terrorist communications, citing FISA. Laws can be modified, so if you can’t come up with a better reason for a policy than the fact that it is consistent with some statute then you don’t really have an argument.
Aldo, just to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, are you saying that the US shouldn’t have any restrictions whatsoever on immigration? Open the borders to anyone who wants to come in?
Aldo,
No, I could not tell the difference between you & your illegal-alien brother just by looking at you. So? I can’t tell the difference between a serial killer & a pacifist by looking at them either. Does that mean there’s no substantive difference?
I don’t know of any Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to keep & bear foreign labor, so I’m not sure where you’re going with that guns/illegals comparison.
You want a better argument than “It’s the law”? Here’s one: every immigrant who crosses the border illegally home is directly aiding the degeneration of his home country. How exactly will Mexico ever pull itself out of Third-World status if all the energetic & enterprising citizens flee to the States? Why should Mexico’s corrupt ruling class change their ways when they know the prospective middle class (the true source of lasting social change) is going to cross the border – and will probably keep the economy sputtering along by sending Yanqui dolares home? I put it to you that the Mexican Government actively abets border crossers because it knows they would be agitators if they stayed home.
I’m reading aldo’s comments more as: Legality of an action is ireelevnat since the law can be changed. In his example, Conservatives can not argue for guns as lawful under the constitution, (since they could in theory be made illegal), because conservatives argue against illegal immigration (since it could in theory be made legal). Sort of hypocritical.
It’s all a matter of timing I guess.
How exactly will Mexico ever pull itself out of Third-World status if all the energetic & enterprising citizens flee to the States?
Amen. As a Spanish-speaker (non-native), I’ve been able to communicate with many immigrants in their own language (so they don’t sound stupid), and I’m telling you, if Mexico had any brains, they’d be building the wall to keep these people in.
With some obvious exceptions (drug runners, etc.), we’re getting the best and the brightest from LatAm, just as Europe lost most of its ambition capital to America in the 1800s. It takes ample cojones to pull up roots and go to a strange country where you don’t speak the language.
But the Mexican government is hopelessly corrupt and degenerate. They’re still a class-conscious society with too many wealthy elites calling the shots and not enough smart pro-growth measures enacted.
It would be great if all of the Latinos who have worked here could go back to their native countries and begin to show the rest of them how to do it right, but those Latinos who stay home are pretty complacent or resigned and downtrodden by a system that doesn’t reward hard work. It’s really hard to get anywhere in Latin America unless you know someone or are able to pay bribes.
Thank heaven this country was settled by the English and northern Europeans, or we’d be in the same quagmire as they.
Since I forgot to add that caveat I was expecting a spittle-spewing diatribe premised on the idea that I am an open borders advocate. Thank you for taking the time to ask for the clarification.
I do believe that we need strong enforcement of our borders. The implication of my previous comment was that trying to weed out the millions of illegals who have already assimilated here would be as impractical as attempting to confiscate the guns.
In my opinion, in the case of both guns and illegals, the best policy is not trying to weed them out, but to prevent the harms that come from abuse.
The comparison will only stretch so far, but just as training people to store and use guns properly and preventing them from being sold to minors and wackos might mitigate some of the problems that come from abusing guns, giving illegals who have established a record of living here responsibility a way to earn legal status by jumping through some hoops (learn English, etc.) might mitigate some of the problems that we have created by forcing them into the underground economy.
EF,
You are right. I believe that I have an a priori right to self defense. Even if my liberal legislature makes self defense illegal some day I will continue to believe that I have that right. To be blunt, the fact that something is “legal” or “illegal” really weighs very little to me as I consider whether or not it is right or makes sense.
Dicentra,
Latinos used to go back routinely. The reason that they don’t do so anymore is that we have succeeeded in making re-entry too hard.
dicentra, the illegals are by no means the best and the brightest. They are the tired, the poor, the hungry, and as often as not the slow. Talk to Chicanos and they will paint you a different picture. And many are retarded from lead poisoning.
I don’t expect the immigrants from 1880 to 1914 were much different, but they made their way, and their kids did well. What is worrysome here is that they are met at the order by out betters giving them money , access, and rights conservatives do not even want citizens to have. Their children lose their parents virtues in the first generation. Witness the single mother explosion.
Well, that was an awfully subtle hijack.
The core of the “gun debate” is that some people are willing to accept human nature and try to learn how to live with it, and some other people are unwilling to try that and think they can change human nature with laws.
Must we allow the left to name the charactors in this drama?
I am pro-gun, why must I wear the ungainly and technically incorrect lable of “anti-gun control”?
I think regestering weopons is reasonable, and that’s gun control. How illogical is it for the ones wanting wider access to guns being called “anti”?
Also, I’m pro-life, BTW.
I might too, except for the massive evidence from both in and out of the United States that registration leads toward confiscation.
For years the BATF steadfastly refused to obey an Act of Congress requiring that records of gun-buyers’ background checks be destroyed. For all I know they’re still refusing.
Granted there are big problems with all the statistics, suppose for a moment that the statistics on both sides of the gun argument are correct: Suppose that gun violence is costing this country over $100 billion a year. Then suppose that Americans use guns 2.5 million times yearly in defense against crime.
Aren’t most of the costs, whatever they may be, being visited on us by violent criminals? Yet most of the benefits of gun ownership are realized by law-abiding citizens when they use guns to mitigate some of those costs. Combined with the fact that most of the deaths from drive-by shootings, gang wars, and drug battles are of the “good riddance, there were no humans involved” variety, I’d say this is a powerful argument for criminal control. Gun control? Not so much.
I think Jeff is exactly right though: “… the risks are overstated, while the rewards are mostly potential.” With the exception of a few benighted locales, the violent crime rate is really pretty darn low. It’s not nearly the war zone out there that many on both sides of the debate would have us believe, so let’s not fall into paranoia.
I’d like to think that the extremely high rate of gun ownership in Wyoming explains our extremely low violent crime rate, but to be honest I don’t really know that to be the case; causation, correlation, yada, yada. Perhaps Wyomingites are just really nice people! (Myself being the exception that proves the rule of course.)
Also, there are no “what ifs” in history: ‘What if someone in that building at VT had a gun?’ Didn’t happen and conjecture to the contrary doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. Likewise, ‘what if that off-duty Ogden cop hadn’t been at Trolley Square?’ Well, the shooter might have been about to suicide and end the shooting anyway. Or not. We’ll never know. How we answer these “what ifs” tells us a good deal about our own biases, but such speculation doesn’t really shed much light on the greater debate.
I think the fundamental issue here is one of human rights and the nature of rights. I believe our founders were correct: The government didn’t give us these rights, we have them inherent in our nature as human beings. A good government recognizes these inherent rights, a bad government can crush them. We’ll be forever beset by those who would trade away someone else’s rights for their convenience, whether it be our right to life and liberty—thus self-defense—or our right to speak when that speech might embarrass some politician.
Worse, we’ll usually be told that our rights are being infringed for our own good, or for the greater good, and we should be grateful to these wise men who know better than our founders.
I think regestering weopons is reasonable,
Define “reasonable”
Is there such a thing as reasonable infringement?
IIRC, shortly after 9/11 it was announced that the FBI had been trolling through those records they were supposed to be destroying and had found a couple of gun purchases by probable terrorists. John Ashcroft shut them down and, when pressed they allowed as how they had destroyed the records, they just, ya know, kept a backup. This isn’t so much nefarious as it is just good database management technique. Also, the way computers work, I wouldn’t be surprised if the data couldn’t be accessed in a variety of ways, even if the actual background check records were destroyed.
Thus, debates over gun registration are pretty much moot, we have defacto federal gun registration, should anyone choose to dust off those backups in the future. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining Janet “burnin’ down the house” Reno acting to stop such a fishing expedition. I also have a hard time seeing Nanny Pelosi standing up for the privacy rights of gun owners. Background checks? Bad idea.
I think it’s a reasonable way to aid law enforcement in minimizing abuses of the right to bear arms. Tell me how it’s an infringment. As McGehee said, registration always proceeds confiscation, but it’s the confiscation that is the infringment, not the registration.
Do you think outlawing .50 cal machineguns, denying felons gun rights, and prohibiting minors from buying guns are unreasonable limits?
I’m OK with the Crips and Bloods not having access to bazookas, myself. But I personally own rifles, shotguns, and large caliber handguns, so I don’t see where my second ammendment rights are being infringed by having the serial numbers of those weapons recorded and on file by the authorities sworn to protect us all.