I wonder what part of East Belfast Hillfoot st is in? It will be interesting to see if his MLA will look into things, even if it is too late for this ex-soldier. Compare and contrast Dallat and the tourist situation to this. Therein lies the problem. No one can take politicians seriously anymore, unless they send their armed wing to talk to you because you think differently from them.

The war is on and the feral youths are winning.

Feral adults are apparently also active in that part of the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6956046.stm

True Noel. But to be fair we had the same in the west with the knife culture, death drivers,and the Ballymurphy feud and on and on. We also have crime committed by immigrants, recently a rape in north belfast was committed by a man from west belfast with a name I couldn't even begin to pronounce. Theres definitely a problem with feral youths but there is also a link IMO between crime and immigration.

Yeah yeah yeah

Classic snobbish horse dung

"only poor people and Immigrants are criminals, my little Johny is an angel" mentality

Is there not a higher rate of criminality amongst the poor? Isn't that the one of the main reasons given in support of welfare programs? Do you have evidence that Mr. Vance's child(ren) is/are criminal(s)? Do you actually disagree with Mr. Vance and believe that Mr. Harland should remain a prisoner in his own home? Do you have any constructive proposals that might stop this, that are alternatives to those proposed by Mr. Vance?

"...we need to meekly stop accepting this crap and force our political class and our politicised police to understand that we ALL deserve protection from those who would do us physical harm..."

The police cannot be there to protect you 24/7. Your government has GOT to start recognizing the law abiding citizen's right to defend himself/herself.

Monica: I think one of the things that our friends across the sea are getting at is that they have more crime and less punishment than necessary. One of the recurring news items, certainly in the Republic of Ireland, and to a somewhat lesser extent in the UK is the hideous sentencing of criminals. The sentences would frankly shock even the more liberal politicians over here.

People ask me "why do you keep a gun in the house?" and I answer "because a whole cop would be too expensive".

To a small extent I agree with Monica in that the state and law enforcers should respect and acknowledge much more than they do at the moment the right of citizens to take effective action against criminals, but i would still much prefer a comprehensive police FORCE (not service) and a judiciary that is proud of the word PUNISHMENT and meaning it with actions.

Typhoo, Hillfoot Street is near Park Avenue which was in the news recently "http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news?articleid=3122671"where someone tried to set fire to a front door of a house. I don't know if that is where Mr Harland lives.

I believe that the parents of these yobs are as much to blame as the kids and as soon as parents are fined or jailed for 'irresponsible parenting' things will slowly start to change.The sad thing is I'm sure some of the parents of these kids were drinking in the local British Legion.

Tell the Parents who are on benefits that those benefits will stop in full, no ifs no buts for a set period each time their little darling commits a crime. If the parents are working take a set number of weeks salary off them either by removing it from their bank accounts or by court order from their employers.

"where someone tried to set fire to a front door of a house."

Emphasis mine.

Not only are these kids delinquents, nobody taught them how to start a bleedin' fire!

Parents. Now theres something. We have the dismantling of marriage, theres is no respect for adult authority over the young, fathers are absent, and the police are powerless. I suspect Mr Harland should be grateful he didn't get his head kicked to a pulp.

I understood that, Mahons, but thank you so much for explaining it.

I am concerned that the population in the UK is to the point that they don't even realize that self-protection is an option - perhaps because it really isn't an option according to law enforcement and judicial behavior recently. I was not implying that recognition of the right of self-defense is the only piece of the puzzle that is missing. I absolutely agree that robust conviction and sentencing of criminals is paramount.

People ask me "why do you keep a gun in the house?" and I answer "because a whole cop would be too expensive".
Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 08:46PM | Registered Commenter The Cynical Libertarian

Love that, CL!

Monica -- just out of interest -- regarding the curious US notion that gun ownership = self protection -- am I to assume that if this incident had occured in Philly, the elderly gent or his family could have taken pot shots at these 12 year olds with impunity?

There was a bizarre article recently in the UK Sunday Times featuring apparently normal US middle-class families posing for smiling photos with their kids, pets and high-tech weaponry. Judging by some of the firearms involved, a military siege was a more likely scenario than 'self protection.'

Given that the US crime rate is hardly low and that deaths from shootings are alarmingly high, do you personally think that gun ownership actually lowers crime or does it merely give a false sense of security?

That’s a fair few points you raise over crime in the west of the city Typhoo.

“We also have crime committed by immigrants, recently a rape in north belfast was committed by a man from west belfast with a name I couldn't even begin to pronounce”

I presume that you’re speaking of this Typhoo:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6940581.stm

The man was indeed a South American immigrant but I think that it’s slightly unfair to single out this one case as I would suggest that most of the murder, assault, sex crime and delinquency being carried out in the city are resultant of nefarious activities of human muck of the local variety as the following links clearly demonstrate:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6669869.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4605510.stm

In the first case Terence McKenna came from a respectable working-middle class family in Belfast which demonstrates that such dross don’t always come from benefit dependent wastrels of parents. The parents of Thomas Devlin have said that both they and the police know the identities of Thomas’ murderers and they live less than five minutes walk away from where Thomas was murdered.

I remember seeing CCTV footage on the local news showing how a twenty something from Lurgan, (who was subsequently identified and convicted from the footage), launched an absolutely unprovoked attack on a pensioner standing at a bus stop in Belfast city centre. The video showed the young man attacking the pensioner from behind, punching him to the ground and then kicking him all because he had a hangover and felt bad.

This young man was sentenced to some eight months, as far as I remember. An insult of a sentence for launching an unprovoked attack on an absolutely defenceless and vulnerable stranger just as the sentences handed down to Quinn and McKenna, considering not just the rape of a child but also the despicable gloating to the mother in the wake of her childs rape, were also disgustingly lenient.

I suppose most people on this forum would view me as a bleeding heart lefty liberal but I have to say that I get really incensed at some of the sentences handed down. I believe that people in possession of a knife without a satisfactory explanation of why they have it in their possession should automatically be sentenced to five years, rape should carry an automatic ten year sentence with no remission and additional sentencing for aggravating factors, such as the case above, and the yobs such as those that attack, [and continue to attack], Mr Harland and the pensioner attacker above should be automatically sentenced to three years without remission in whichever YOC / prison is appropriate with additional years for aggravating factors.

Human Animals - self defense does not always have to involve guns. I've seen too many stories coming out of the UK that illustrate law abiding citizens defending themselves (of course, without guns because guns are illegal and we're talking about people who respect the law) and getting into trouble for it.

As to this 81 year old man - just how are you providing him the means to defend himself against a gang of thugs, no matter the age?

Again - owning a gun for self-protection does not guarantee ones ability to use it and it does not guarantee ones safety. There are no guarantees, ever , and I'm not surprised that you don't know that. You have, apparently, been raised with the strange notion that you will always be protected and taken care of by someone, or somthing, else. It's just not true.

As to crime in the US vs. crime in the UK - don't even go there. Crime in the UK (that is - if it's even reported...) is sky-rocketing. We've also been through too many debates comparing crime stats in countries with high % of gun ownership to countries with very low % of gun ownership - which completely slays any point that you are trying to make.

I find it very interesting that your media chooses to portray gun ownership in America in such a bizarre way. What do you think they are trying to say by that? Do you now believe that American families who exercise their 2nd amendment rights are armed to the teeth with high-tech weaponry? Do you think that gun-owning American families have portraits done in which their guns feature in a prominent way?

Paul,

Absolutely! I didn't say most of the crime was committed by immigrants, but was suggesting as you quote,'we also have crime committed by immigrants'. In addition to the scum we already have, there is now additional people out there committing crime which pushes up the crime rate.

'do you personally think that gun ownership actually lowers crime or does it merely give a false sense of security?'

Of course it doesnt. It merely provides the false sense of security. That the UK can still report most of its heinous crimes in one or two news bulletins is proof of that. When you get to the US level of a murder no longer being big news then you know youre in trouble.

Human animals, JJ,

The UK has 800% of the violent crime rate of the USA.

Violent crime in the US is falling, but rising in the UK

Within the USA, states that have introduced right-to-carry laws (laws allowing citizens to carry handguns in public for self-defence) have seen dramatic falls in crime rates. Florida, the first state to introduce such a law, saw a 36% decrease in the homicide rate, a 37% decrease in the firearm homicide rate, and a 41% decrease in the handgun homicide rate. Many other states have seen similar falls.

People excercising right-to-carry laws in the USA, are the second most peaceful demographic in the country, second only to religous ministers.

Some states, on introducing right-to-carry laws, started programs to track crimes involving those excercising the law. The programs were shut down soon afterwards as there were not enough incidents to track.

Before the UK introduced tough gun laws, it had an extremely high rate of gun ownership and an extremely low rate of gun murders. The US, at the same time, had an equally hgih rate of gun ownership but a very high rate of gun murders.

Now that tough gun control has been introduced in the UK, gun ownership has fallen dramatically whilst gun murders have increased dramatically

Since the UK gun bans of the 1980s, gun homicides have increased by 1,000% (one thousand).

Since the UK handgun bans of 1996 and 1997, handgun murders have doubled

Legal gun ownership in the UK has halved in the past 30 years. Over the same period, gun murders have increased by 1,000% (one thousand).

Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe and the most civillian firepower per capita in the world. It also has the second lowest murder rate in the world.

Columbia has a total prohibition on firearms. It also has the highest rate of murder in the world.

Within the USA, District of Columbia has a complete prohibition on firearms. It has the highest rate of murder in the Union.

North Dakota allows its citizens to own machineguns and to carry guns openly or concealed in public places. It has the lowest rate of murder in the Union.

Maryland was given an A- by the Brady Campaign (US anti-gun group) signifying that it's gun laws are about as restrictive as can be. It has the second highest rate of murder in the Union.

Vermont was given a D- by the Brady Campaign, on account of it having NO gun laws (anything goes). It has the second lowest rate of murder in the Union.

Every year in the USA, between one and two million crimes are prevented through the use of firearms. Only a tiny fractions of these incidents involve a gun being fired.

Around 11,000 people are killed by guns in the US each year. Most of these are suicides. Many are accidents on hunting trips (which constitutes about 1% of all fatal accidents) and many more are criminals shot in self-defence. The majority that are left are gang murders in inner cities, using illegal guns.

Cynical Lib: I think we've done these statistics before and pointed out some of the wild assumptions among your claims. If I recall you aren't from the U.S. so that might account for your lack of understanding as to where the guns are coming from in Washington D.C., or the other factors that contribute to Vermont's murder rate. And since we know you aren't pulling these slanted facts out of thin air, perhaps you'll note the source of your statistics so we can enjoy where they come from.

Sources:

Home Office
British Crime Survey
CIA
Center for Disease Control
FBI
National Center for Health Statistics
Various university studies
Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence
American Association of Suicidology
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
nationmaster.com

I meant source that selectively cites those sites.

Er, I found them myself on the websites of those organisations or on medical and national (or international) statistics sites (sometimes I had to work stuff out, like the US works in rates per 100,000 and we work in rates per 10,000, stuff like that). Oh and I used Google to get the current populations of the US and USA, not sure what source it uses but I'm guessing its a census or something, I can check if you like. As far as I know nothing comes from a pro-gun lobby group or anything. And even if it did, so what? We don't exactly say the evidence against creationism is crap because scientists came up with it...

It's a waste of time, CL. We've given them links, charts, graphs, studies - it doesn't matter.

They don't WANT to believe it - so they won't. It's better that 81 y/old men get beat half to death with no means of self defense - because they really MEAN well with their stupid laws prohibiting self defense of any kind.

I am all for self defense. However, I would be concerned that in Wild West scenario favored by the American NRA that the gentleman would as likely have had a handgun turned on him, and may not have been in a position to use it anyway (shoot while getting off his bus) without harming other innocents.

I would hope that a real threat of serious punishment would have served to deter the crime, and if not, would have at least provided society with a measure of justice.

Agree with Mahons on this one. An 81 year old man would need considerable forewarning of a physical attack to be able to draw, aim and fire a handgun.
Bear in mind that here in NI, dozens of armed police officers were gunned down in various locations by PIRA. Virtually none had time to return fire despite being professionally trained.

Regarding CL's statistics, a figure of 11000 firearm deaths per annum is little short of staggering. Even if a large percentage of these were indeed suicides, the gun is an all too readily available suicide method, capable of being used at a moment's notice, whereas more 'traditional' suicide methods require considerably more effort and fortitude. I would contend that many of these suicides would not have happened had a firearm not been available.

Add to this the entirely unnecessary, if relatively rare mass shootings (columbine etc), equally unnecessary deaths during 'hunting tips' (ie taking potshots at furry animals) and domestic incidents ending in shootings and you have a culture which would be entirely better off without 'personal weaponry.'

By contrast, the numbers of gun-related deaths in the UK is miniscule. No doubt CL can enlighten us as to the exact number last year, but I would be very surprised if it reached triple figures.

HA,

Would that include those shootings of innocents by the police?

The have been some fifteen of those in the past five years!...

Mahons,

The initial purpose of gun ownership, other than for some supposed sport related use, must surely be for personal protection 'while at home', - 'in your own little castle', as it were.

Now you are right to suppose that an elderly person would not likely be very 'quick on the draw', however, any criminal, knowing that the occupant of a property, may be armed, and 'trigger happy', would surely deter any oportunist housebreaker.

Mind you, many of the elderly are so deaf they probably wouldn't even hear someone breaking in, but, of course, it isn't only the elderly who would be armed.

The overall effect of armed householders would be to minimise burglary, as has been shown wherever gun ownership is allowed.

The matter of an 'old boy' getting shot while alighting a bus, is just a straw man, suggested to confuse the overall issue of gunownership.

The street is the police force's domain, as far as protection of the public is concerned, and no, it would not be good to have 'public inspired' wild west shoot-outs on a regular basis, and in fact, they don't happen that often - not even in America.

Unfortunately, we don't have the threat of 'serious punishment' to act as a deterrent, nor do our judiciary have any sense of societal justice.

Fiddle those figures all you like Libertarian man. Your idea of freefall society where anything goes and guns are cool is playing out nicely for all to see today, tosser.

"I am all for self defense. However, I would be concerned that in Wild West scenario favored by the American NRA that the gentleman would as likely have had a handgun turned on him, and may not have been in a position to use it anyway (shoot while getting off his bus) without harming other innocents."

I am pleased we can agree that self-defence, in and of itself, is legitimate. A small point, but the NRA of America is actually a pretty timid creature. It's by far the biggest pro-gun group but it actually supports a lot of gun control measures. I think you'd be more right in referring to JPFO or a 'no compromise' group of that nature.

Regardless, the 'Wild West' or 'blood in the streets'
point was made many times during the rise of right-to-carry laws in the USA and I can understand the concern, but it just never happened. Wherever citizens have been allowed to go armed, the predicted jumps in violent crime, the predicted shoot outs and road rage murders all failed to materialise. Instead, most saw drops in crime.

For the record, what, in your opinion constitutes 'Wild West'? Do you mean, as in Vermont, where anyone can buy a gun and go about his business with it under his shirt? Or do you include places like North Dakota where the police give you a permit?

I don't think you really give the man enough credit. Most people, regardless of age, can identify a threat, draw a concealed pistol and aim in less than two seconds. This is enough to prevent violence in the vast majority of cases - its pretty rare to actually have to shoot a bad guy. When it does happen, well, I'm not aware of any case of someone excercising a right-to-carry law and hitting an innocent person instead of a bad guy. Maybe there's a case out there somewhere, but statistically insignificant in a country of 300 million. The biggest concern with older shooters is eyesight which can make aiming slow, but modern hi-visibility sights and systems like Crimson Trace along with modern glasses and contacts which are fine for defensive pistol ranges mean that seniors are basically at no disadvantage, as they used to be (in fact, the fastest pistol shooter in the world is 52 years old, my father is 59 and can put six shots from a revolver into a man-sized target at 25 meters with no difficulty, the winner of last year's Queen's Prize, which is the civillian marksmansip championship in the UK, was in his eighties, though I forget the exact age). That's with firearms of course. With fists and feet they don't have a chance against groups of young men, even when they are unarmed, which is certainly not a guarantee in Britain.

"I would hope that a real threat of serious punishment would have served to deter the crime, and if not, would have at least provided society with a measure of justice."

I share you hope but sadly the threat of prison is never enough to stop all murders. Of course, no system or plan or law or anything will eliminate all murders, but tough sentences can prevent some, the real possibility of getting shot can deter others, and when crimes do happen an armed citizen has a chance where an unarmed citizen has effectively none. A gun is not a magical device that guarantees that you will never be murdered, just as a seatbelt is no guarantee of not dying in a car crash, but it's a tool that can save innocent lives in the majority of cases (yes seatbelts aren't used to kill innocents very often but guns are, but in both cases there is a net benefit).

Human Animals,

"a figure of 11000 firearm deaths per annum is little short of staggering"

It is a big number but then the USA is an enormous place with a gigantic population. Every American statistic is big when you look at literal numbers instead of rates per x. It should be noted that the actual figure is less than half what is widely published by anti-gun groups. Still big, but you can see why I take my figures seriously when people lie like that and get away with it.

"By contrast, the numbers of gun-related deaths in the UK is miniscule."

Equally, Britain has a miniscule population when compared to the USA. Comparing literal numbers tells us nothing.

Even looking at the rate of gun crime tells us little because someone killed with a gun is not twice as dead as someone killed with a knife. Switzerland, for instance, has a higher rate of gun murder than the UK but a far lower rate of murder overall. Where would you rather live?

"Even if a large percentage of these were indeed suicides, the gun is an all too readily available suicide method, capable of being used at a moment's notice, whereas more 'traditional' suicide methods require considerably more effort and fortitude. I would contend that many of these suicides would not have happened had a firearm not been available."

If I remember correctly it's a little under two thirds. Certainly over 50%. You recognise that other methods are available and that many such methods require more forethought. Perhaps, but many methods are extremely simple: slitting your wrists, jumping in front of a bus or train or out of a window for instance. Don't take my word for it though, according to the World Health Organisation the USA has the 46th highest rate of suicide in the world. Countries with higher suicide rates include China, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Cuba, Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, Japan and Russia. All of which have gun control as tough, tougher or almost as tough as the UK (China and Cuba, the two dictatorships, having the toughest gun control of the lot, for obvious reasons).

"Add to this the entirely unnecessary, if relatively rare mass shootings (columbine etc)"

Not to belittle these tradgedies, but they are included in the overall figures and actually constitute a tiny fraction of gun deaths in the USA. It might interest you to know that in modern US history, since 'gun free zones' have been introduced, there has been no mass shooting that I know of outside of such a 'gun free zone'. A number of potential mass shootings have been averted by armed citizens - usually not resulting even in the death of the would-be-perpetrator.

"equally unnecessary deaths during 'hunting tips' (ie taking potshots at furry animals)"

Clearly you're anti-hunting but that's not the issue - you don't want to ban cars because there are deaths in accidents? For perspective, the average American (many of whom hunt) is twice as likely to choke to death than he is to die from an accidental gunshot (you would be pretty much in the clear as, presumaly, you don't hunt). He is about fourty five times more likely to die in an automobile accident. I could go on. Of the causes of accidental death published, firearms are the lowest, and constitute about 1% of all accidental deaths. Hunting aside, shooting is the safest sport in America, second only to chess. I could go on but it's really a straw man - if we can decide that guns are otherwise ok, like cars, then we're not going to ban them because of some accidents. Equally, if we do decide to ban them, it's not going to be because of accidents.

"and domestic incidents ending in shootings and you have a culture which would be entirely better off without 'personal weaponry."

Of the non-suicide-non-gang-non-accident shootings, domestic murders are the most common. They are also the most unavoidable type of murder. If a guy who's go it in him finds out his wife is cheating on him, he's gonna kill her no matter what.

Of course, we knew all this before. With all due respect, you've only broken down the number and told us how aweful people dying is (though you did leave out defensive shootings). As much as I agree, it doesn't make gun control work. The great body of empirical and scientific evidence suggests that gun control almost universally fails to reduce the rate of murder and I can concieve of no logical argument that can explain how gun control might reduce the murder rate nor that can reconcile prohibition and discrimination on the basis of age and disabiltiy with a free and liberal society.

If nothing else, I hope that we can at least recognise the merits of eiher sides point of view and leave the debate without muttering "what a nutcase" under our breaths?

JJ,

"Fiddle those figures all you like Libertarian man. Your idea of freefall society where anything goes and guns are cool is playing out nicely for all to see today, tosser."

Perhaps you would like to give me some evidence of fiddling or publicly admit that you are a liar who makes unfounded accusations and ad hominen attacks to substitute for the meaningful debate or empirical evidence that he is unable to produce? You can email me the apology or post it up here publicly, I don't mind.

CL - do you have any knowledge of Vermont?

I think a neutral person would happily admit that the so-called right to carry laws have not in fact resulted in a significant drop in crime in the overall jurisdictions in which they have been voted in.

A for the two second drill you suggest, I don't want the average citizen making a two second decision on whether or not to fire a gun in a public place. Police officers have far more training and undergo more review, and they still make mistakes. Hell, the general public can't even use cell phones without being aggravating, never mind guns. It is one thing to be compelled to overhear someone's cell phone call, quite another to be in proximity of what they determine is a threatening situation.

Mahons, you didn't answer my question. I will be gracious and still reply though:

"CL - do you have any knowledge of Vermont?"

In what way? I have a cousin who lives there (also has an apartment in NYC) and I've studied data on it but I've not been there yet (planning to go next year perhaps depending on money, along with Maine, NYC and New Hampshire).

"I think a neutral person would happily admit that the so-called right to carry laws have not in fact resulted in a significant drop in crime in the overall jurisdictions in which they have been voted in."

Even if this were true, why should we care what some random person on the street thinks about the effects of right-to-carry laws? If crime has fallen, it's fallen. Nothing they say changes that. Does correlation equal causation? No, but there's certainly no correlation between right-to-carry and increases in crime so at the very least they don't make things worse and at best there's very strong evidence to suggest they can contribute to or even cause falls in crime rates.

"A for the two second drill you suggest, I don't want the average citizen making a two second decision on whether or not to fire a gun in a public place."

So... you object to guns because they can't be used quickly enough so they won't save you, but also because they can be used too quickly and so people get accidentally shot? :S If the former were true then there'd be no succesful stories of self-defence with firearms, but there are hundreds of thousands each year. And if the latter were true, why has no one ever been accidentally shot by a CCW holder because he thought an innocent was a threat?

I should point out that what I mentioned was not a drill. It's the time an average person can succesfuly (i.e. not screw it up) identify a threat, draw from concealed and aim (it's quicker if it's not concealed). I never said shoot. The vast majority of cases where guns have prevented a crime never see shot fired: the gun is aimed, the attacker retreats. $10 of crack money just isn't worth it. It's not like people are taught that they must decide within two seconds, that's just how fast the average person can do it.

"Police officers have far more training and undergo more review, and they still make mistakes."

On the average this is not correct. The average CCW holder spends more time practicing with firearms than the average police officer. The reviewing process is basically the same for police officers and civillians (not including SWAT teams etc). The only substantial difference is that cops qualify every year usually, CCW holders vary from state to state, anything from 1 to 10 years. While cops often shoot people accidentally, CCW holders just don't. Maybe because they train more, maybe because they don't deliberately put themselves into high-risk situations like police officers do, who knows.

Almsot 46,000 people die in accidents on America's roads every year. As far as I can tell, none die from CCW accidents. Why are CCW permits so terrible and drivers lisences are not? Both cars and guns serve useful purposes, both can kill innocent people if you screw up, but one does kill a lot of people and the other doesn't, why focus on the one that doesn't kill any innocent people?

If CCW permits required holders to do the exact same qualification tests etc as police officers, would you support them? Do you oppose drivers lisences because applicants do not do the same training as police officers? Cops can drive fast and get into car chases, but with guns cops also need to be able to do room-to-room searches, hostage situations etc, hostile entries etc.

Do you have any knowledge of CCW schools like Thunder Ranch?

CL: If you want a question answered I'll be happy to try, but a helpful hint might be to limit yourself to entries that have less words than War and Peace. What question are you referring to?

In regard to your 8:31pm the following:

1. Try to get to Vermont. It is beautiful, and has some of the best rural land in New England. The folks talk funny like they do in Boston, but they drive much better.

2. I am not talking about perception. I don't think there is sufficent evidence to support the claim that right to carry laws have resulted in reduced crime.

3. I don't have an issue with guns per se.

4. When I said cops were better trained and more subject to review I am not comparing them to some catergory of gun owner but to the population at large.

5. The car analogy is one of those fake arguments tha tthe gun lobby throws out. I wouldn't be suprised if more people drown in their bathtub (although more than 10,000 a year might be high) than die from handgun violence. That isn't the point. One is necessary, the other is not.

CL,

Here is a study that shows that more guns is associated with more homicides:

Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.

link

Frank,

I've not got access to the full report to refuting it based on a blurb is difficult. Also, it uses regression analysis and even if I did I don't (yet) have the traning to assess that kind of complicated mathematical model.

However, Harvard (the same university) has just this month published a study that shows that there is no correlation between gun ownership and murder.

LINK

In addition, you will note that the research you posted is funded by the Joyce Foundation - an anti-gun lobby group and authored by Hemenway, who is in turn funded by George Soros, a millionaire who funds anti-gun groups and research. In fairness, the study I posted above was co-authored by a member of the Second Amendmend Research Foundation. And here we find the impossibilities of finding neutral research! There's dozens more studies out there, I won't bother to post them, that one was just in my head as it came out recently.

What we do know for certain, however, is that without regresion analysis there is no correlation. Obviously it's possible, using RA to create any statistics you want and since few people understand it, it's easy to get away with. As I say, I don't know exactly how they did anything but they do mention corrections for alcohol consumption. It's quite possible that this has distorted the data because metropolitan areas like Cali consume much more wine and spirits than areas like Wyoming, which drink more beer which has much less alcohol in it (especially since this is American beer). Another problem is that they looked only at gun ownership not gun laws and a third is that even if their study was flawless, they have done nothing to look at causation: a casual correlation is not causation. Finally, even if their study is flawless and there is a correlation, is it reverse correlation? The econometricist Franklin Fisher famously observed that Russian peasants murdered their doctors after they realised that there was more sickness in areas with lots of doctors. Of course, the doctors went to the areas with the most sick people, not the other way around. Equally, people in areas with lots of murders will be more enclined to buy guns than they might otherwise have been.

CL,

"However, Harvard (the same university) has just this month published a study that shows that there is no correlation between gun ownership and murder."

Well I will read that in more detail later but at a glance I notice that it compares different countries and it seems to include Russia as an example. Makes me wonder how they controlled for obvious differences.

By the way the study you referenced is available in full here

"What we do know for certain, however, is that without regresion analysis there is no correlation. Obviously it's possible, using RA to create any statistics you want"

No it isn't. You can say the data is flawed or the methodology is flawed and you can even say they found a correlation by chance (many studies about parenting are like this) but it's not astrology.

I don't really buy the notion that the research was bought and paid for. This is a classic right wing ad hom - by all means be sceptical if you it's bought and paid for, but then let's hear what's wrong with it? However if there are multiple conflicting studies as you say (e.g. as there are about effects of daycare on children) this is a good clue that there is no relationship to be found, and/or some fundamentally wrong assumptions are made.

"Equally, people in areas with lots of murders will be more enclined to buy guns than they might otherwise have been."

Yes, but the study did speak to that as far as I remember. Although the correlation was to all homicides I think there was control for gun-related homicide.

It seems to me a no-brainer that more guns means more people killed by guns, however. It's obviously easier to get a gun where there are more guns. It's certainly easier to get a gun in the USA than it is here (I can't go down to Tescos and get one). At best I would expect no effect, rather than a positive effect from guns. Still I am open to evidence to the contrary and I know that these things are often unintuitive. My instinct is also that if anyone has a gun then I want one, but I can see the argument for controls also.

Mahons,

The question I had asked was: "For the record, what, in your opinion constitutes 'Wild West'? Do you mean, as in Vermont, where anyone can buy a gun and go about his business with it under his shirt? Or do you include places like North Dakota where the police give virtually any law abiding responsible citizen a permit (not on drugs, not mentally defective, not a felon etc) or California where only victims of crime can get permits?"

"1. Try to get to Vermont. It is beautiful, and has some of the best rural land in New England. The folks talk funny like they do in Boston, but they drive much better."

I will, I've seen pictures and it looks amazing. I'm hoping to live in either Maine or New Hampshire (the former having better scenery, the latter bettter work opportunities) and I'd also love to visit Texas and Tennese and a few other places.

"2. I am not talking about perception. I don't think there is sufficent evidence to support the claim that right to carry laws have resulted in reduced crime."

Hm, odd waying of saying it :S

"3. I don't have an issue with guns per se."

Just with carrying them in public?

"4. When I said cops were better trained and more subject to review I am not comparing them to some catergory of gun owner but to the population at large."

Well obviously, but the population at large aren't the people carrying guns. Even Vermont and Alaska where you don't even need a permit they don't have trouble with it. On the whole I think the sort of people who want to legally carry guns are the people who will put in the range time and go to schools and stuff.

"5. The car analogy is one of those fake arguments tha tthe gun lobby throws out. I wouldn't be suprised if more people drown in their bathtub (although more than 10,000 a year might be high) than die from handgun violence. That isn't the point. One is necessary, the other is not. "

Firearms accidents are 0.8% of all accidental deaths, drownings are 3.9% so about 5 times as many people drown accidentally than are accidentally killed by guns. This with 48 of the 50 states allowing CCW.

Why are guns not necessary? Cars are necessary to make travel easier, to allow for motorsports and other forms of reacreational driving, to collect and so on. Equally, firearms are necessary to make self-defence easier and to deter crime, for shooting sports and other forms of reacreation shooting, for vermin, pest and animal population control, for collecting etc. People are killed with both, but more with cars than with guns. You correctly point out that people drown in baths, but we don't need baths, we could use showers. Why not ban baths?

CL,

"People are killed with both, but more with cars than with guns. "

The rate of death from gun use is obviously far greater than the rate of death from car use.

Hundreds of millions of people use cars every day in the USA, some of them several times a day and for many hours. How does that compare with gun use?

Not only that but cars feature many engineering features that have by and large been refined over the years to make people safer (crumple zones, seat belts, airbags, etc). Guns by comparison are actually designed to do tremendous damage to people, and have been refined over the years to do more of it.

Frank,

What's special about Russia? They have a police state with far more power than their US counterparts. They have tough gun control and low gun ownership, they have gangs, but not like those in the USA...

"No it isn't. You can say the data is flawed or the methodology is flawed and you can even say they found a correlation by chance (many studies about parenting are like this) but it's not astrology."

What are you saying no to? That there's no correlation (there isn't, I can draw you a graph if you like) or that it's possible to do anything with regressive analysis? As I say I've not studied it in depth, but it seems to me that you can basically make data show whatever you like with it. It's necessary for many studies of course, but it requires careful peer review to be valid because you or I just don't know that kind of maths. I know previous studies by this guy have been debunked by peer review, but I've not seen any analysis of this specific study from other statisticians.

"I don't really buy the notion that the research was bought and paid for. This is a classic right wing ad hom"

If you read above, people claimed my statistics were from pro-gun groups and therefore invalid, or that I had fiddled them. I agree that just because someone holds a view or is funded in a certain way does not invalidate their research - obviously the people interested in this sort of research are the pro and anti gun groups. There's dozens of studies that have shown guns either to have no noticeable effect or to have a reducing effect on crime, but I'm not sure it's helpful for you or I to stufy them. All use complicated mathematics, as does the anti-gun research. I think at that point I have to throw up my hands and say "until I've done econometrics at university, I'm not qualified to be critiqing this stuff, I'll stick with straight data".

"Yes, but the study did speak to that as far as I remember. Although the correlation was to all homicides I think there was control for gun-related homicide.

It seems to me a no-brainer that more guns means more people killed by guns, however. It's obviously easier to get a gun where there are more guns. It's certainly easier to get a gun in the USA than it is here (I can't go down to Tescos and get one). At best I would expect no effect, rather than a positive effect from guns. Still I am open to evidence to the contrary and I know that these things are often unintuitive. My instinct is also that if anyone has a gun then I want one, but I can see the argument for controls also."

As far as I know the data included defensive shootings in homicide. So all the rapists shot in Wyoming and Alaska, go towards those states' murder total.

With the addition of an "all things being equal" disclaimer, I'd agree with the first sentence of your second paragraph. Guns are a popular method of murder so if they are there murderers will probably use them. However, it is my conviction that extremely few people become murderers when they would not otherwise have done so because of the legality of firearms. It's possible that some gang members murder because they have guns when they might not otherwise have done so, but these are the people who use illegal guns. Also, there were gang wars in medieval cities and in ancient Rome using swords and clubs. I'm not sure even that is a significant factor. In addition, this small number is likely to be cancelled out by the lives saved through defensive use of firearms - provided that it's legal. By that I mean that, California, for instance, has quite a lot of guns but these are mostly long shotguns and bolt action rifles, not suitable for self-defence and ordinary people cannot carry their guns in public. In the UK, guns have to be kept locked up and certainly can't be carried in public, so despite there being about 800,000 gun owners, their guns have basically no effect on reducing crime. They might do if they could be kept unlocked and carried (well, with the handgun ban even carrying guns isn't practical).

One study I know of that shows more guns equaling less crime isthe invetively titled More Guns Less Crime by John Lott. The book containing the study is available online and there's an interview with him here.

Logically speaking, I think of it something like this: only a tiny percent of people are ever going to be violent criminals, even when guns are freely available or even given out for free by the government. Most of those who want guns will get them illegally - they're willing to murder, they're willing to break gun laws. and the practical difficultues imposed by gun laws are relatively small. The vast majority of people however will never be violent criminals. Even if we suppose only 10% of violent criminals will have guns under gun control, the other 90% will have knives or bats or whatever and at the very least will be young and fit. Most people are not young and fit and are unarmed under gun control. If we abolish gun control, only a small number of criminals will become armed who were not before, but a very large number of law abiding people will become armed who were not before.

I don't think there's anything particularlly wrong with 'everyone else has got one, I want one' but I don't think it actually happens. States that allow CCW only see betwen 2 and 5 percent of people actually get permits. That number is slowly growing, especially amongst women, but I don't think you're going to see 50% carry in the forseeable future.

"The rate of death from gun use is obviously far greater than the rate of death from car use."

Hundreds of millions of people use cars every day in the USA, some of them several times a day and for many hours. How does that compare with gun use?

The rate of car death is far far greater than the gun death rate or gun accident death rate. When adjusted for frequency of use? I have no idea.

However, I'd guess about 3% of Americans carry CCW, that's 1 million people, virtually all of them do it all day everyday, and I'm not aware of anybody every dying from a CCW accident.

Millions more hunt and shoot regularly. Per hour, shooting is the safest sport in the US after chess but I don't know about hunting, that will be more dangerous but certainly not as dangerous as cars.

"Not only that but cars feature many engineering features that have by and large been refined over the years to make people safer (crumple zones, seat belts, airbags, etc). Guns by comparison are actually designed to do tremendous damage to people, and have been refined over the years to do more of it."

Guns features a miriad of safety features: magazine safeties, frame safeties, grip safeties, trigger safeties, concealed hammers, double action triggers, double action only triggers, internl locks, external locks, trigger locks, safety cases and cabinets, holsters (stops trigger being pulled), lamps and lasers (identify targets in the dark), omproved sights and night-sites help with making sure you don't miss, frangible ammunition and hollowpoint bullets prevent over-penetration (when a bullet goes through a wall), supressers prevent hearing damage and beavertails prevent hammerbite.

Training has also improved like you wouldn't believe. When CCW started out, you just learned basic gun safety, shot a few targets and that was it. Now people go on week-long intensive training courses, have one-to-one tuition lessons and stuff like that, and a whole lot of it focusses on safety. The NRA and other groups run safety campaigns and so on and so forth.

CL,

"What are you saying no to? That there's no correlation (there isn't, I can draw you a graph if you like) or that it's possible to do anything with regressive analysis?"

The latter. The fact that people are biased and tend to find the patterns they want to see is a good reason to look at the cold data and the assumptions and controls behind the studies.

"As I say I've not studied it in depth, but it seems to me that you can basically make data show whatever you like with it."

Sort of. You can have a poorly designed study. You can have bad assumptions. You can cherrypick data. You can find chance correlations if you look at enough variables. Here's a hilarious example where Sean Gleeson shows that visitors to his blog live longer, are more likely to win the olympics, cause their countries to have more coastline, and reduce the incidence of malaria and homicide). If do you a meta-analysis of a lot of studies that all show opposite conclusions you can be suspicious (Judith Rich Harris more or less demolished the entire field of developmental psychology when she did that in "The Nurture Assumption"). But what you cannot do is fool the data, or fool nature.

I think that in the gun debate we have a lot of people on both sides with some reasonable hypotheses but none of them have been able to show it conclusively. Re Lott, and guns in general you'll find a lot of counterargument on Tim Lambert's site (also here).

Frank,

When I said you could do anything with data, it is my understanding that in this study they do not look at raw data, as I have above. They deliberately distort the data with mathematical models that attempt to adjust for various factors to produce a 'like with like' comparisons. However, there are a million ways to do this for any given variable, all producing different results. How much weight, for instance, do we give to population density? Too much and, even if it is incorrect, the data will show guns causing crime. Too little and it will show the opposite, even if it's not true.

CL,

"They deliberately distort the data with mathematical models that attempt to adjust for various factors to produce a 'like with like' comparisons."

Shame on them for attempting to produce a like with like comparison! I don't think the study you linked to could be accused of this :-)

The thing is that the assumptions and adjustments can be examined and criticised - THEN you can call them distortions (if they are).

"However, there are a million ways to do this for any given variable, all producing different results. How much weight, for instance, do we give to population density? Too much and, even if it is incorrect, the data will show guns causing crime. Too little and it will show the opposite, even if it's not true."

Well if you want to say that all studies are worthless then how shall we decide the issue. Tarot guards? A shootout? :-)

Are there any restrictions on guns that you think are reasonable?

Also, are there any restrictions on guns that you think would be reasonable if it could be shown that possession of guns puts other (innocent) people at risk?