>From Course Conference for UC 250-005 printed on Oct18/94 Item 67 Sep21/94 12:19 7 lines 67 responses Keenan Bora 'Paul's character item Hello there folks. I just did a little query and found that Paul is about 6000 characters away from having twice as many characters on this confer as Prof. Lawler. What I was looking for here was an idea for something to talk about that would get Paul to come back and give us one of those rant sessions. We've already done nuclear waste, so we could talk about the media, Haiti, ex-president Carter, why President Clinton is looking more and more like JFK, or any number of equally compelling topics. It's wide open. 67 responses - - - - - Sep22/94 08:46 67:1) Bruce Bielawa: Ah, but the trick will be to find a topic that Paul will rant about that will also keep Lawler quiet! :) - - - - - Sep22/94 14:28 67:2) Paul Estin: Gee, Keenan, this saves me the trouble of creating a new item I've been thinking about for some time, the "Paul rants" item. :-) Well, I don't really have anything new to rant about-- not so much because there's nothing new to rant about, but simply because I'm currently suffering from some hideous virus which Saps My Will To Stay Awake, so I'm lacking time and energy. However, I figured, no problem, I must have ranted on some topic recently on my "Rick's" mailing list. Surprisingly, though, when I took a look, the only recent rants I've had were in response to something else. So, I *am* copying one over here, but note that it's taken out of context; it's responding to comments from people named Pat and Ron and Jon, and thus does not stand alone. I'll try to fill in the "holes" later if anyone cares. (I do have earlier rants available as well, but currently on-line I have only September files.) [From September 2nd:] A few random comments on the crime bill; sorry if I repeat anything that's been said already (and probably better :-) ... To put it bluntly, the debate and passage of Crime Bill depressed the hell out of me. For most bills (including proposed Health Care changes), *someone* in Congress is representing "my side" (small-l libertarian), even if they don't do so for quite the same reasons as I would, or stress quite the same aspects. The Crime Bill had "something for everyone", which is probably a large reason why it passed. (Plus, it's an election year.) Unfortunately, I disagreed with virtually *all* of it. (1) For the anti-gun nuts, the Crime Bill contained the so-called "assault weapons ban". Pat and Ron have covered this issue already. [to GEBsters: I can try to find and summarize Pat and Ron's comments later, if you wish] (2) For the traditional Republicans and anyone else who wants to look tough, the traditional "get tough" approach-- mandatory sentences which take away judges' discretion and are inflexible to prison crowding realities, various unfunded and partially-funded federal mandates which take away from local enforcement's power and money instead of leaving them to focus on what's needed locally. (I generally prefer the evils of local and state government to the evils of federal control, because there's a bit more feedback to cut what doesn't work.) (2a) Increasing the numbers of police. As Pat already explained, there will be at best only 20,000 new cops, not 100,000, and *those* are only temporarily funded and partially funded. Some jurisdictions will hire cops and then fire them within six years (by which time the feds no longer pay *any* of the support), some will choose not to bother at all, some will funnel the money to other purposes (wherein come some of the charges of "pork"). BTW, the above info is half-remembered from the liberal Boston Globe, though they didn't mention these problems till after the bill was passed. (Jon, correct me if I'm wrong.) (3) For the traditional Democrats and anyone else who wants to "attack the roots of crime", the various big new social spending programs that duplicate existing efforts, have no means of testing efficacy, and/or are better handled by local authorities or left to private charity entirely. (The argument over "midnight basketball" was essentially a red herring-- it's small and probably the most useful part of the original bill in proportion to its costs, actually-- and in saying that, I seem to disagree with many Republicans. But no one's explained to me why even m.b. should be a *federal* issue instead of a local one.) While some people were fighting small sections of the bill, I didn't notice any legislators attacking it, in toto, as a big waste of money which will do little except increase government bureaucracy and control, and which the federal government has no business meddling in ANYWAY. (People did attack parts of the bill as "pork", which was sort of true, but not the main issue, IMHO.) It's a bill with "bi-partisan" support-- politicians of all stripes like to look "tough on crime" without worrying about (a) what the (federal) taxpayers pay, (c) what the (local) taxpayers pay, (c) whether any of the provisions actually work and how to check if they are, and especially (d) whether the federal government is acting extra-constitutionally. (To take Mahatma Gandhi's famous quote out of context: "How do you feel about the U.S. government under the Constitution?" "I think that would be a good idea.") Pat: >On a pragmatic level, I am for some forms of gun control. However, >my problem is that the forms of gun control I might be interested >in (e.g. gun registration) have a long history of being used merely >as stepping stones towards total gun confiscation in this country. >It makes it difficult to come to a compromise position. Actually, Pat, I like your idea to have training and licensing be required via a *private* organization (like the NRA), like the way skydivers have to be regulated through their own private organization. Many people I've mentioned this idea to have liked it. There are some problems, of course, but it seems like the start of a compromise position. Other random comments, not on the Crime Bill per se, but on second-hand reactions related to it: I agree that the media did a very poor job of reporting the actual measures in the Crime Bill until it was too late. And a *lot* of people got snookered. For example, I was talking to an old high school friend of mine who's *very* Republican (her dad's a politician), yet even *she* said she agreed with the assault weapons ban, until I pointed out to her how ill-defined it is and how it'll probably be a stepping stone to further gun bans ("This rifle is functionally identical to guns that have already been banned! We should ban it, too!") (Tangent: Marianne must be one of the people most delighted with my gradual swing away from liberalism since high school; back then, we were always debating opposite sides. :-) One very unpleasant experience over my vacation was at a dinner with family friends; one started a group conversation with (paraphrasing slightly) "Aren't you all delighted that the Crime Bill passed?" Now, I always hate the feeling that I'm in disagreement with everyone else present, but it's especially tough to critique a family friend who's known me since I was three years old. I couldn't *quite* remain silent-- I mumbled a few complaints under my breath, but that's about it. When I returned to Michigan, I watched an vtaped episode of Michael Moore's "TV Nation", one which focused mostly on guns. The odd thing was, to my eyes, it consisted of profiles with various sensible and well-informed gun-lovers, followed by a non-sequitur diatribe of anti-gun statistics (the usual pro-gun-control BS which Ron has so delightfully attacked on previous occasions). I don't know if Moore's usually effective propaganda abilities were on strike that day, if I just know enough not to be fooled, or if Moore got "bad luck" in running into more-erudite people than he expected. While the Congresswives- going-skeet-shooting didn't appear too bright, the gun club president, the NYC pistol gallery owner, and even the range-owning redneck-with- machine-guns-and-mortar-shells all expressed themselves well. "Mortar shell dude", for example, eloquently explained in response to the query "But what do you need automatic weapons and mortal shells for?" how, though such weaponry may not seem "necessary", the Second Amendment was created to allow people to protect themselves from an oppressive government. But he also showed how much *fun* firing a mortal shell on a range is. :-) Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan, Dept. of Psychology, Cognition and Perception Area estin@umich.edu "You know how dumb the average guy is? Well, by definition, half of them are even dumber than *that*." - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs - - - - - Sep22/94 17:25 67:8) John Lawler: So as not to increase my score, I'll merely state that I agree completely with Paul on the "crime bill". Yuk. Right up there on the oxymoron list with "military intelligence" (which we're getting a good example of in Haiti) is "congressional leadership". Though my favorite (a triple threat) remains "health care system". - - - - - Sep23/94 09:44 67:9) Bruce Bielawa: Paul: Please DO find and summarize Pat and Ron's comments on the assault weapons ban. I would probably qualify as what you call an "anti-gun nut", and would love to hear what I think. As for Gun Day at TV Nation, based on the previous paragraph you can gather that I thought it was spot on, maybe one of his best shows: I found it incredibly disturbing, I thought EVERYONE they interviewed was a monster and I can't understand how anyone could've missed the point. My loss, I guess... - - - - - Sep25/94 15:20 67:10) Paul Estin: I've looked back at what Pat and Ron said recently. Their comments aren't as complete as I'd thought (though I've still included them below), probably because the issue of gun control has been brought up multiple times previously. So, the background context goes something like this: Current gun control proposals seem to be predicated on two assumptions: (1) If you get rid of guns, you'll get rid of crime. (2) The way to get rid of guns is to ban them. There are some problems with assumption #1. True, guns are a problem in that it's easier to kill with a gun than, say, a knife. But there are plenty of people who will be happy to use whatever weapon they can get their hands on. Do you want to ban baseball bats and kitchen knives too? One *good* things about guns is that they "equalize"; non-projectile-weapons automatically give an advantage to those who are bigger, stronger, and more violent. Overall, assumption #1 has some merit, but the US is *so* far over the gun-availability saturation point that it would take 30 years of concerted effort to have much effect on the practical availability of guns, especially for those who already purchase them illegally. It has been effectively illegal to own a gun in Chicago for over a decade now, but this has had virtually no effect on criminals. It has, however, made it virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to own a gun. The result of this is that criminals know damn well that anyone they want to mug or rob is not going to own a gun. This brings us to assumption #2, which is the real problem. If someone is already purchasing and owning and using a gun illegally, why would banning or restricting legal sales have any effect? The response of gun control advocates, whenever a gun control law is passed which subsequently has either no effect or a negative effect, is to say that there should be *more* gun control. I don't see any evidence for to back up their arguments, but then, I do not trust the pro-gun-control lobby in general, because I loathe their mangling of facts and statistics. For example, one old saw is that "a gun in the house is 40 times more likely to kill someone known to the buyer as it is to kill a criminal." Ooh, sounds real convincing; one gets an image of kids accidentally getting their hands on a gun and killing themselves or siblings, or someone getting scared in the middle of the night and accidentally killing his neighbor who was trying to catch his dog. The implication is that the "40" means "40 accidental shootings of loved ones." But let's pick apart that 40-to-1 ratio. 37 or so of those 40 are intentional suicides. Now, it's hard to consider suicide a good thing, and it may well be that if those people hadn't had guns so easily, they'd have been less likely to succeed in their attempts. But in any case, it's not really relevant to the question of "Is owning a gun likely to be a good thing or a bad thing?" The "40" also includes nonaccidental deaths, including all incidents of shooting in self defense which happen to involve someone *known* to the shooter. Battered women shooting in self-defense, for example. Intruders in your house who are known to you previously, even if they're in your house trying to kill you. The "1" includes only killing total strangers. Now, let's look further at that "1". The implication is that the only successful use of a gun for self-protection in the home is an incident when an intruder is shot dead. "Merely wounded" doesn't make these statistics. Far more importantly, there is no count of intruders successfully warded off due to warning shots, or due to the mere showing of a gun, or even due to the mere knowledge that someone owns a gun. It is estimated that the number of incidents per year is around 1 to 2 million. But "Intruder scared off" does not make the headlines in the way that "Five-year-old kills sister" does, because a crime being averted is not NEWS. So, overall, the "40-to-1" statistic is as meaningless and misleading, as, for example, a pro-lifer's quoting a mother's risk of death when she gets an abortion, without mentioning that fatality from carrying-to-term is ten times more likely. It's stats like those that make me mistrust the pro-gun-control lobby. Personally, I do not own a gun, and I doubt that I ever will, because it would make me more nervous than secure to have a gun in the house. (I have done some rifle range shooting, which is kind of fun, but I have a certain personal dread of guns in the same way that I'm rather scared of playing with fireworks.) But that's my personal decision. I have no objection to other people buying guns, especially if they get trained in safe gun usage. (The NRA has excellent classes.) I do think it is possible for the government to have useful gun CONTROL (as opposed to the banning that gun "control" usually refers to)-- but current efforts do not seem to address reality or take facts into account. Now, for Pat and Ron's specific comments on the "assault weapons ban": Pat [Aug 16]: Speaking of being busy, burned-out, and demotivated, I've been writing/calling/faxing congress members doing just about everything possible to get them to vote against the "crime bill". Now, not 15 minutes ago, I see that Republicans have been meeting with Clinton on the crime bill. One hopes this means that Clinton couldn't get the votes to shove the thing down our throats. One also hopes this doesn't mean that the Republicans are about to sell out on this one. Being forced to eat the bill is one thing. Being sold out by your natural allies is another. Neither tastes very good, but one feels like a backstab. My own congressman is a likely candidate to sell out. :-) <===== For those that think I am way over the deep end in my rhetoric. I'm still mostly together. For me anyway. BTW, I think the bill wastes untold billions, erodes the rights of at least three amendments, and does precious little to fight crime. It does much to pad political pockets, however. The 100,000 police aren't funded. Much of the "prison" money isn't. The "19 assault weapons" are actually over 300 types of single-shot firearms (both rifle and handgun) many of which are widely used by civilians and police because of their safety and reliability. Of course, the ban isn't a "ban" in the strictest sense either, but I don't mind that. :-) The additional death penalties are just a silly waste of time, politics, and money. I have other problems with the bill. Available upon request. :-) Pat [Aug 28]: [text deleted] Finally, I have heard various news folks and politicians say this is a "balanced" bill. I hate to sound like the raving libertarian I am, but my idea of "balanced" isn't eroding second amendment rights (right-wing rights) along with fifth and eighth amendment rights (left-wing rights). That is a form of math with which I don't care to become accustomed. It is also why the bill was opposed by both the ACLU and the NRA (among many others). David [Sept 1]: (Note that David lives in Australia.) On the crime bill, though, I've refrained from commenting previously since I don't really know a great deal about it. But it seems to me that over all it isn't a very good package, since it looks like being designed more to fight crime than to prevent it. All the programs that potentially would have made any real progress in preventing crime were removed by the Republicans, leaving only relatively ineffectual stuff. More gloss than real solutions. I think the only good thing was the assault weapons ban. Ron: Pardon my reflex action. Tell me, what exactly is an 'assault weapon'? And was it actually banned by the Crime Bill? David: Well, the impression I got here was that this category was defined somehow in the Bill to cover a bunch of "military-style" guns. I'm not a firearms expert, so I don't know how they did this or how far-reaching the definition is. And I certainly thought the Bill had "banned" them, meaning the importation, manufacture (for non-government uses, presumably), and sale of such weapons in the USA was made illegal. I may have gotten the wrong impression. Ron: Unfortunately, you, like most of our current politicians, have a fine understanding of the term 'banned' and a poor understanding of the terms 'assault weapon' and 'military style.' There is a list of nineteen guns directly banned, and there is wording such that those 'functionally similar' to those nineteen are also banned. There is also a ban on magazines with a capacity greater than ten; however, magazines from before the ban are grandfathered. Unfortunately, 'military style' and 'assault weapon' means 'it looks frightening' and 'it has bad press.' Not that it is exceptionally potent, or concealable, or commonly used in assaults, or even commonly used by the military. The weapons on the list have been chosen with that in mind. Pat: I'll go one step further and say that the "AW" ban was sold as a bill that would ban *machine guns*. The fact, of course, is that it has nothing at all to do with machine guns. That didn't stop several politicians from saying exactly that, however. The media went along with them going even so far as to show machine guns firing as the "type" of firearm that would be banned. If Joe Kennedy is to believed (and this isn't clear), machine guns haven't been used in a crime in this country for at least a decade. Heck, one politician even used a horrible murder in his district as an example of why *machine guns* needed to be banned. Problem (A) machine guns had nothing to do with the ban. Problem (B) the murder was a knifing. >Unfortunately, 'military style' and 'assault weapon' means 'it looks >frightening' and 'it has bad press.' Not that it is exceptionally >potent, or concealable, or commonly used in assaults, or even commonly >used by the military. The weapons on the list have been chosen >with that in mind. I should also add that I believe the bill was deliberately written "poorly" so that it would capture many more firearms than the ones mentioned. At last count, it included over 300+ firearms effected-- all of which are single shot and many of which are used by police and citizens because of their reliability and safety features. Then again, they rewrote the legislation somewhat towards the end and I'm not up on exactly what they did. I think they did actually tighten it up, so the 300+ number may be high. Given that the "ban" will have no impact upon crime (which is what any self-respecting criminologist will say (such as Kellerman (anti-gun)) the only use the bill has is as (i) a political ploy that is more heat than light and (ii) a stepping stone towards the confiscation of all firearms in the US. While some folks think that (ii) is a good thing, I'm very much a Kleck pragmatist when it comes to this issue as well as a Bill of Rights person. I don't really like to pick and choose which "rights" are good as many politicians (on both sides) seem to do. That being the point of rights. I also believe that by being used in self-defense over a million times per year, guns save the lives and livelihoods of honest citizens. Actually, I didn't used to be this way. I was converted by Kleck (among others). I like to think I went from being ignorant on the issue (and thus influenced by the emotional appeals of the media) to being informed. Which is sort of odd, because there are easily many people that could stand up and give just as emotional stories about how they defended themselves or their family with the use of a firearm. They just don't seem to get coverage. I've seen precious few data-supported arguments on the anti-right to keep and bear arms side. When the anti-RKBA folks do use they data, they really twist the living heck out of it-- which is part of why it is clear to me they don't have data to support them. On a pragmatic level, I am for some forms of gun control. However, my problem is that the forms of gun control I might be interested in (e.g. gun registration) have a long history of being used merely as stepping stones towards total gun confiscation in this country. It makes it difficult to come to a compromise position. BTW, for anyone interested in the broader issue (which I suspect is very few), US News & World Report did a fairly good summary of Kleck and Kellerman about 2-3 weeks ago (sans many details). Kleck is probably the leading criminologist in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Kellerman is probably the leading criminologist anti-RKBA. What is interesting is where they don't disagree. Basically, I would say that they both agree that for most families RKBA is a good thing (or at least not a bad one). I find Kellerman's data somewhat insightful as well, but the conclusions he draws are based on some unrealistic assumptions. Such as all self-defense actions must result in someone being killed or nothing was defended. Since the primary goal of self-defense is to scare off/get rid of (not kill) an attacker, this makes little sense. - - - - - Sep25/94 20:12 67:20) Keenan Bora: yea! he's back! - - - - - Sep25/94 20:34 67:21) Keenan Bora: Yea Paul did it Sep25/94 20:12 (count) (characters) Fran Amaya 30 13012 Bruce Bielawa 345 134179 Keenan Bora 220 46119 Mike Boruta 33 14040 Alex Brown 171 40991 Julie Eisenstein 84 41625 Paul Estin 556 481875 Dan Faiver 44 20152 Gordon Fitch 36 9362 Jeff Freisthler 45 12881 Jimi Lee Haswell 12 8184 Amanda Keckonen 205 91428 Mark Knowles 121 33480 John Lawler 586 233501 Steven Manson 316 105439 Greg Ross 85 27960 Deborah Schultz 210 133879 Mike Silk 37 11457 Perry Silverschanz 695 307810 Ephraim Simon 83 39466 Brian Spiegel 130 27875 Michelle Trump 125 44657 Karen Valiquette 71 33353 Anonymous 9 3832 - - - - - Sep25/94 20:34 67:22) Keenan Bora: Pseudonymous 50 5710 Resigned/Removed 1 728 Total 4300 1922995 - - - - - Sep25/94 23:52 67:23) Paul Estin: I have more than 25% of the total? Yipe. Oh well, more rants to follow later. :-) - - - - - Sep26/94 09:36 67:24) Bruce Bielawa: Well Paul, I know very little about the specifics in any part of the Crime Bill myself, but it doesn't take much to take exception to your view on gun control, so here goes: > Current gun control proposals seem to be predicated on two assumptions: > (1) If you get rid of guns, you'll get rid of crime. I was unaware that ANY side of the issue held such simplistic views. Try: "If you get rid of guns, you'll get rid of crimes committed with guns," which is a true statement. The ASSUMPTION is more like: "If you significantly REDUCE the availability of guns, you will eventually decrease the rate of crimes committed with guns." Because this would HAVE to be enforced over a large area (say the entire country) to even begin to be effective, the correctness or incorrectness of this assumption is yet to be tested, as there has never been any such significant reduction of availability nationwide. > (2) The way to get rid of guns is to ban them. If you've got a better way of doing it, I'm all ears. It seems to me that the question isn't whether or not banning gets rid of something, but how such a ban should be enforced. - - - - - Sep26/94 10:01 67:25) Bruce Bielawa: Continuing: >> There are some problems with assumption #1. True, guns are a problem in that it's easier to kill with a gun than, say, a knife. But there are plenty of people who will be happy to use whatever weapon they can get their hands on. Do you want to ban baseball bats and kitchen knives too? Don't be ridiculous. Obviously not. >>One *good* things about guns is that they "equalize"; non-projectile-weapons automatically give an advantage to those who are bigger, stronger, and more violent. Bullshit. Just AIMING a gun (i.e. holding it steady in the desired direction while firing) requires considerable strength, concentration and practice. In other words, guns favor those who are stronger, more experienced with using guns in real situations and less phased by crisis: namely, seasoned thugs. >>Overall, assumption #1 has some merit, but the US is *so* far over the gun-availability saturation point that it would take 30 years of concerted effort to have much effect on the practical availability of guns, especially for those who already purchase them illegally. Ah yes, the old conservative cant of "the job's really big; let's just not even bother," which is used as an excuse to avoid confronting issues like the environment, the deficit, integration in the military...you name it. And I don't buy it. >>It has now been effectively illegal to own a gun in Chicago for over a decade now, but this has had virtually no effect on criminals. Aside from the fact that you don't support this claim at all, it only points to the fact that LOCAL gun control is a joke. NATIONAL gun control is the only feasibly effective route. >>It has, however, made it virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to own a gun. Perhaps. Then again, how many of us haven't ever jaywalked. People who want to own a gun in Chicago can do so easily, and therefore I daresay your next statement is most likely untrue: >>The result of this is that criminals know damn well that anyone they want to mug or rob is not going to own a gun. You've never been mugged or robbed, have you Paul? You see, when you're mugged or robbed, there's usually some element of surprise involved, and one of the first things that happens is that you are bodily restrained. If, at this time, you happen to have a gun on you, you've just donated it to your local criminal element. It's just that simple. You ask most young convicts where they got their guns, they say they stole them. Who do you think they stole them from? - - - - - Sep26/94 10:05 67:27) John Lawler: *If* you got rid of guns, which means making *no* guns available to anybody, sure, no crimes would be committed with guns. And if nobody ever robbed anybody else, there would be no more robberies. Each of these is equally likely, in my estimation. There are simply too many guns available now for any kind of ban to work, ever. Period. Just as outlawing robbery hasn't stopped it, outlawing guns won't make them go away, and outlawing drugs hasn't stopped people from using *them*, either. Prohibition is essentially dabbing at the image and attempting to wish reality away. Nobody has a better way to get rid of guns than to ban them by law, Bruce. There *isn't* any good way to get rid of guns in the U.S. We're simply going to have to learn to live with them in the mix. The fact that there's only one way to do something and that it doesn't work should suggest that the idea is wrong, rather than that we should go ahead with it. re your second and third responses (which I missed by replying to your first), there certainly is a crime problem, and it is certainly exacerbated by the easy availability of handguns in the society. But bans on legal sale of guns haven't ever lowered crime rates, even armed violent crime rates, anywhere in the U.S. Full automatic weapons have been illegal in the U.S. for 50 years or more -- federally enforced, too. Yet they're routinely used by criminals daily everywhere in the U.S. To repeat: the proposed cure doesn't work. That is an argument for not applying it. The disease is real, all right, but a lick and a promise, while a venerable American tradition, is the wrong way to go. As long as we persist in not learning the lessons of history, we will be condemned to repeat them. - - - - - Sep26/94 10:19 67:29) Bruce Bielawa: I knew I'd get shot down before I was finished! Oh well: I'll continue where I left off and attend to Lawler's comments afterwards. There seems to be a conspiracy of volume against me (I'm SUPPOSED to be doing something else, after all, and it takes time to get through all this verbiage. I assume also, by the silence on my side, that I'm gonna have to do it all alone. I'll go through with it this once, but I hope it's clear to both Paul and John that just because you lay a lot of words down that don't get challenged, it doesn't mean there aren't other points of view: People just have lives to attend to. - - - - - Sep26/94 10:26 67:30) John Lawler: Oh, of course. I got other things to do, too. But pointing out the facts (not the wishful thinking, not the emotional rhetoric -- of which there is almost as much on this topic as there is on both sides of the abortion "debate") is part of my job, at least. I'd love to see all guns gone from private ownership in the U.S. But that's even more impossible than banning "ain't" successfully. And I don't buy "sending a message" as a good reason for enacting a law. Messages must be received in order to be useful. I actually have no problem with the gun part of the "Crime Bill". It won't hurt, and there's no pressing social need I can see for having "assault-type" weapons in legal interstate commerce. But it's an exercise in futility, and won't help anything, either. And that's the *best* thing anybody can say about the Crime Bill. Boo. - - - - - Sep26/94 10:28 67:31) Bruce Bielawa: Now then: >>This brings us to assumption #2, which is the real problem. If someone is already purchasing and owning and using a gun illegally, why would banning or restricting legal sales have any effect? I don't know why this baffles everybody. There's a REASON police officers wanted this ban: If they have reason to search somebody, or their car, or a warrant to search their home, and they find a banned weapon, they can confiscate it - THE END! No bullshit. You don't think that would put even a dent in urban crime? We've never even tried it yet, how would we know? That's a simple, utterly unbureaucratic way to disarm suspected criminals, and to prevent crime before it happens, instead of figuring that we can just lock everybody up and that will make up for however many tens of thousands of tragic deaths happen every year. If there's a CHANCE it will work, (and the people on the front lines think it will,) even if it only does a LITTLE ...isn't it better than nothing? Am I crazy here or what? - - - - - Sep26/94 10:35 67:32) Bruce Bielawa: >>I don't see any evidence for to back up their [gun control advocates'] arguments, but then, I do not trust the pro-gun-control lobby in general, because I loathe their mangling of facts and statistics. As do I the ruthlessly self-interested brainwashing of America by the NRA, about how desparately important it is that purchasing Streetsweepers and Uzis as a hobby remain as convenient as possible for rural armed forces retirees while the inner cities become perpetual war zones. - - - - - Sep26/94 10:44 67:33) Bruce Bielawa: >>It's stats like these [the 40-to-1 stat which Paul thoroughly deconstructs in a previous posts, which I have no grounds to challenge: I hadn't heard of such a statistic, and am saddened that such shoddy statistics should be disseminated by such a key player in such an important issue] that make me mistrust the pro-gun-control lobby. By the same token, I trust that police officers know a hell of a lot more about what makes for effective crime prevention than the NRA, who obviously have ulterior motives for their views: I wonder how many NRA members have even BEEN to the inner city? - - - - - Sep26/94 10:44 67:34) John Lawler: Sure, that's silly. Nobody needs an Uzi. But the fact that one argument advanced by the opposition is silly doesn't mean they all are. And it certainly doesn't mean one's own position is thereby correct. And we *have* tried it. As I've pointed out, and as the anti-gun lobby has conveniently ignored, we have an "Alcohol, Tobacco, and *Firearms*" division of the Treasury Dept. precisely because the sale and personal possession of fully-automatic firearms has been illegal in this country *since before WWII*. It *HASN'T* worked. It *CAN'T* work. Note the great job this division did protecting us from the Branch Davidians? Want more? - - - - - Sep26/94 10:47 67:35) John Lawler: Again, ad hominem, Bruce. How many of the same folks who want to ban all guns have another career complaining about police violence? So what? All political debate in this country, which has free speech and a fairly rich economy, is inevitably going to get support on both sides from those who have a financial interest in the outcome. So what else is new? - - - - - Sep26/94 10:49 67:36) Steven Manson: I don't know, tanks are illegal too, and the ATF seems to have kept them out of the hands of criminals... - - - - - Sep26/94 11:04 67:37) Bruce Bielawa: (John: I sense we essentially agree: As I've said, I have nothing to say about the Crime Bill at large: I don't understand it, I get the feeling it won't do much. I'm only interested in the assault weapons ban, which you've indicated you don't have problem with, in that "it can't hurt". I tend to think that following "It *HASN'T worked" with "It *CAN'T* work" is not very useful, in that it seems to imply that difficult problems that don't seem to go away should just be ignored. Even if none of this works, we can't just give up, can we? We already imprison more people per capita than any other country. That's not going to be the ultimate answer either. From the Branch Davidian episode I got the impression that the ATF was a pretty neglected undertrained and understaffed organization. I hardly think they represent every possible manifestation of a firearm confiscation organization in this country. As for fully-automatic firearms, I know almost nothing about the differences between those and the guns banned in the Crime Bill. I can only there ARE differences or else there'd be no practical purpose of fighting for its passage. What sorts of ulterior motives are "anti-gun nuts" supposed to have, anyway? (Not counting the ones running for office...)) - - - - - Sep26/94 11:16 67:38) Bruce Bielawa: >>...I have no objection to other people buying guns, especially if they get trained in safe usage. ...but such training isn't a must for you, Paul? Would you say then that there's nothing unjust about tragedy occurring due to ignorant handling of firearms? One issue you've neglected entirely is that firearms, unlike kitchen knives and baseball bats, are potentially fatal to everyone within a half-mile radius. That's a lot of responsibility, IMO. No matter how inexperienced (or apeshit crazy) I am with my kitchen knife, someone down the block that I don't even know ISN'T going to die any time soon because of it. Not so with guns: They "equalize": NOBODY'S safe from them. Drunk driving wouldn't be outlawed if it didn't endanger innocents. - - - - - Sep26/94 11:28 67:39) Bruce Bielawa: I have little to say about Pat's comments, except that his statistic about a million cases of guns used in self-defense per year is an NRA statistic, and I seem to recall that it was just as artificially inflated as the 40-to-1 ratio discussed earlier. I would EXPECT deceit from the NRA, who, among other things, register members against their will. My father was registered FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES, before a brusque letter written in red magic marker got the message across that he wasn't interested, and would NEVER be interested, get the hell out of my life, etc.... - - - - - Sep26/94 13:00 67:40) Bruce Bielawa: Forgot one last comment: I don't understand how anti-gun-control advocates can say, in one minute, that there are too many guns out there now to have any sort of control over, and then, in another minute, wax ultra-paranoid, saying that gun control will eventually lead to total firearm confiscation! In other words, they're scared of people controlling the uncontrollable! How do you explain THAT one? - - - - - Sep26/94 13:28 67:41) Bruce Bielawa: (JL: How is wanting to ban all guns (which I do not, incidentally) inconsistent with protesting police brutality? And: Who is it that's supposed to have this shrewd under-the-table investment in gun control? The switchblade companies?! C'mon! The only people I can think of are the same people who are putting the screws to the tobacco industry: hospitals. And one way or another taxpayers are the ones who end up paying for hospitals anyway, right? So it's still just boils down to community concern. I think the vast majority of self-interested financial brute force on this issue has the NRA's name on it...) - - - - - Sep26/94 13:49 67:42) Steven Manson: Actually, if anyone stood to make money off of tobacco and firearms, it's the health care system.... - - - - - Sep26/94 15:26 67:43) Paul Estin: My, I seem to have started a firestorm! There probably isn't much point in arguing point-by-point (not that that's going to stop me :-), since it appears that there are a number of places where Bruce I probably disagree fundamentally. So let me start by highlighting what seem to be three fundamental disagreements. ** Do gun bans help? Would a *national* ban work? ** John has already done a good job of explaining the "no" position. I'll simply quote in part: > Full automatic weapons have been > illegal in the U.S. for 50 years or more -- federally enforced, too. > Yet they're routinely used by criminals daily everywhere in the U.S. .. > There are simply > too many guns available now for any kind of ban to work, ever. Period. > Just as outlawing robbery hasn't stopped it, outlawing guns won't > make them go away, and outlawing drugs hasn't stopped people from > using *them*, either. Prohibition is essentially dabbing at the > image and attempting to wish reality away. .. > To repeat: the proposed cure doesn't work. That is an argument for > not applying it. The disease is real, all right, but a lick and a > promise, while a venerable American tradition, is the wrong way to go. ** Whether it helps or not, does it *hurt* to ban guns? ** I haven't really addressed *this* issue yet, why gun bans "hurt". (1) Such bans violate Constitutionally-protected rights, and I believe that weakening *any* rights (usually in the name of some greater good which doesn't actually get achieved) weakens *all* such rights by making them easier to ignore the next time it's politically convenient. (I have a favorite rant I'll do some other time, in which I go through the Bill of Rights and show how nine of the ten amendments have been at least bent heavily, if not outright broken.) Now, my friend Ron would say that the original purpose of the Second Amendment was not about hunting and home protection, it was about ensuring that the people could rise up against an oppressive government if need be. Personally, I don't see that the right to fire mortal shells is all that critical-- though likewise, I'm not aware of mortar shells, legally acquired or otherwise, being a major weapon used in street crime. The real question is, *who* is going to do the picking and choosing, as to which rights "aren't really important" and which are? *My* objection is pragmatic-- given that gun-ban-proposing legislators have heretofore not been concerned with drawing distinctions, I don't trust them to do so in the future. (2) Pragmatically, I think that having guns around which are owned legally by well-trained people is, by and large, a good thing, one which lowers the crime rate overall. Having gun bans which make it impossible for legal ownership just means that criminals will be the only ones with guns. That's not a good a solution for preventing violence, for the same reasons it doesn't work to have an arms embargo on Bosnia, leaving the Serbs as the only ones with guns. ** When it doubt, should the government get involved? ** As a good libertarian (not a conservative , Bruce, give me a break), my default is to keep the government OUT (especially the federal government, because there it's nearly impossible to undo a mistake at the federal level once an agency is created). I need a special argument to convince me the government *should* get involved in any given issue. I think a whole lotta harm has been done by legislators wanting to "do something". Now, on to some individual points... Paul: >> There are some problems with assumption #1. True, guns are a problem in that it's easier to kill with a gun than, say, a knife. But there are plenty of people who will be happy to use whatever weapon they can get their hands on. Do you want to ban baseball bats and kitchen knives too? Bruce: > Don't be ridiculous. Obviously not. OK, *you* don't, but don't be so quick to label the suggestion as "ridiculous"... in Britain a major weapon of choice in crime was a particular knife (I think used for tiles or somesuch)... lawmakers tried to ban it; I don't know whether or not they succeeded. Heck, legislators in various places have banned or heavily regulated paint-pellet guns, spraycans, books, you name it. For any problem that arises which is perceived to cause problems, lawmakers are quick to propose a ban, even if useful uses of the product far outweigh considerations of illegal uses. That way they can "look tough" on the problem... and who cares whether the proposal actually has the desired effect? That just means they have to ban something else. >>It has now been effectively illegal to own a gun in Chicago for over a decade now, but this has had virtually no effect on criminals. > ... you don't support this claim at all ... I was trying to be brief, for once. Off the top of my head (I can dig up further details if you wish), the tale goes something like this: First, Chicago required getting a special permit from the city to be allowed to own a gun. Then, after making the procedure to receive permits successively more difficult, in 1983 they stopped issuing such permits altogether. Currently, the only way you can legally own a gun in Chicago is to (a) be a police officer, (b) have already had a permit before 1983 (which means, among other things, having yourself on file, registered with the police), or (c) to be an alderman, or get special dispensation from one. So, for the vast majority of the populace of Chicago, it's illegal to own a gun. Of course, none of this had the slightest deterrence on gun-related crime, which increased after the ban was put in place. >>This brings us to assumption #2, which is the real problem. If someone is already purchasing and owning and using a gun illegally, why would banning or restricting legal sales have any effect? > I don't know why this baffles everybody. There's a REASON police > officers wanted this ban: If they have reason to search somebody, or > their car, or a warrant to search their home, and they find a banned > weapon, they can confiscate it - THE END! No bullshit. You don't > think that would put even a dent in urban crime? We've never even > tried it yet, how would we know? But it *has* been tried. The Chicago police which few people are registered (and have been since before 1983). Anyone else isn't on file and can't show a permit, so the gun gets confiscated and the person charged. It hasn't had much effect on crime. > By the same token, I trust that police officers know a hell of a lot > more about what makes for effective crime prevention than the NRA, who > obviously have ulterior motives for their views: I wonder how many NRA > members have even BEEN to the inner city? .. > differences between those and the guns banned in the Crime Bill. I > can only there ARE differences or else there'd be no practical purpose > of fighting for its passage. What sorts of ulterior motives are > "anti-gun nuts" supposed to have, anyway? (Not counting the ones > running for office...)) This probably qualifies as yet another Fundamental Disagreement... ** How sufficient are "motivations" and "intentions" for evaluating a person or group's argument? ** While it's nice to look at someone's motives, that's not my only concern. Usually, it's not even the most important one. Maybe the NRA does have ulterior motives (though I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me what they *are*... seems to me that both sides are arguing on principle. Ulterior motives, to me, mean "will get money out of it" or somesuch). Actually, I think that, by and large, the pro-gun-control lobby people *are* sincere, well-intentioned, and with no ulterior motives... I just think they're *wrong*, is all. Good intentions aren't enough; in fact, for evaluating an argument, they're not even all that important. Be that as it may... While I certainly want to hear what police favor (though it's interesting how local police *don't* want more unfunded federal mandates, but they got stuck with 'em anyway), their word is not the be-all and end-all either. Police officers, not surprisingly, are very concerned with making their own jobs easier and safer. That doesn't always equate to what is best for protecting citizens or preventing crime. (Police are law *enforcement* officers, not crime-preventers.) Also, re: "never been to the inner city", *I* lived in Southside Chicago for five years. I had a job at a place two blocks north of Woodlawn, one of the worst neighborhoods in the country; I often walked home at 4 AM. Do *my* motivations not count, then? BTW, in answer to another question of Bruce's, no, I haven't been mugged, though several friends have and I was assaulted once, not badly. In none of the incidents were guns involved. In some of the cases the victim might have been helped by having a gun; in some not. I still wouldn't want one myself. > I have little to say about Pat's comments, except that his statistic > about a million cases of guns used in self-defense per year is an NRA > statistic, and I seem to recall that it was just as artificially > inflated as the 40-to-1 ratio discussed earlier. OK... I'm not fond of the NRA either. Now, I explained exactly where the 40-to-1 came from and why it's stupid; what's wrong with the "one million" statistic? More to the point, even if you don't believe the numbers, does the logic make sense, at least, that "successful use of a gun" should include all incidents of scaring someone away without having to fire, not just "robbers shot dead"? > Forgot one last comment: I don't understand how anti-gun-control advocates > can say, in one minute, that there are too many guns out there now to have > any sort of control over, and then, in another minute, wax ultra-paranoid, > saying that gun control will eventually lead to total firearm confiscation! > In other words, they're scared of people controlling the uncontrollable! > How do you explain THAT one? C'mon, Bruce, we already covered this one. Too many *illegal* guns, but none for *law-abiding* citizens. Similarly, George Bush made an idiotic comment in 1992 favoring the Yugoslavia arms embargo, that "there are too many guns there already." ("Sure, but the Serbs have 'em all." This is one of many reasons I was *not* a big fan of the Bush-leaguer. But I digress.) I for one would not want to possess anything illegal that police hate, not just on grounds of "I like to be a law-abiding citizen" (heck, I've copied software illegally) but also on grounds of "it could get me into big, big trouble". [Pause to calm down.] OK, now, after all of the firestorming, I'd like to try to come back to building some sort of agreement. A good question is, what if we just mandate training for gun-buyers? *That* certainly seems to be sensible gun control. The problem, as Pat pointed out, is that (historically) regulation efforts have eventually led to usurpation of rights. As I noted waaaay back in response #2 or so, though, I think there might be room for a compromise. Pat (who skydives) pointed out once that skydivers are "regulated" in that they have to be approved by a national skydiving association (I forget the exact name of it). However, the government doesn't get directly involved in setting the rules of training-- as long as the association is setting rules which seem to work, it's cool with them. And since actual skydivers comprise the association, they do a pretty good job setting up the detailed training and rules, especially since they have the motivation not to screw up and be forced to hand over regulation to legislators and bureaucrats. Pat and I think something like that might work for gun ownership. Alas, I think at this point that the NRA (which would seem like the obvious choice to provide training and oversight) has such a bad rep that liberals would never agree to such a proposal. The NRA doesn't help matters by being so adamant about opposing virtually all gun control. (I do understand their position, that (a) most gun ban proposals are not sensible, including the "assault weapons" one, and (b) even a supposedly-sensible gun ban is a slippery slope, opening the way towards unsensible ones. But I disagree with the NRA's tactics-- I think that by being hard-headed and extremist-- by not appearing to draw any distinctions themselves-- they hurt their credibility.) Also, I think we can agree that the real problem with gun-related violence is *violence*... whatever your feelings on gun-related issues, anything that reduces the root causes of violence will have more effect. The real problem with guns is that they elevate the level of problems. It's just too damn easy to hurt or kill someone with a gun, compared to other methods. (There's some study I half-remember which profiled various murderers; basically the scariest ones are those who kill using knives. With a gun, one trigger pull can do the trick. A knife murderer has to keep on slashing a victim who's bleeding, screaming, whatever... he really has to be SICK to do continue *that* to the point of death.) But I think we disagree about (1) the extent to which guns specifically are the problem, and (2) to what extent anything can actually be *done* about them that, pragmatically, will work without usurping people's rights. Finally, though the whole gun control debate is to some extent *inherently* inflammatory, part of the problem lies in the lack of moderate middle organizations. Of course, perhaps organizations *do* exist with views lying between the NRA and the [name forgotten-- the biggest anti-gun group], and it's just that the media doesn't pay any attention, because focusing on extremists is more fun. - - - - - Sep26/94 17:54 67:53) Steven Manson: :) - - - - - Sep27/94 11:57 67:54) Bruce Bielawa: Good morning! Listen, friends, I hate to prolong a discussion which both of you (JL and PE) seem intent on closing, but I'm still not satisfied with your assessments of this issue, OR your assessments of MY assessment. I shall detail my problems with them shortly. I should start by saying, however, that while I do not fancy myself the most informed person here on the subject of gun control, I do expect a little room to have my own opinion on a complicated issue. I am happy to agree to disagree, but I will not be simply dismissed as a "wishful thinking" "emotional" "anti-gun nut" by people who claim to be on the side of "the facts" without a hell of a lot more substantiation than I see here (substantiation as opposed to mere volume). For what it's worth, this HAS been an education for me; some of the points raised have forced me to rethink my position considerably, and I appreciate that challenge, as well as the fact that we continue to see eye-to-eye on many points, even as we disagree on others... - - - - - Sep27/94 14:12 67:55) Paul Estin: Looking back at what I wrote yesterday, I'd like to answer my own question as to what the ulterior motives of the NRA might be. Gun manufacturers, of course. "D'oh!" While on the subject, *any* lobbying group (including pro- and anti- gun control organizations) might well have ulterior motives along the lines of "it's fun to get on TV, have power, and influence Congresscritters." But I still don't think that it's a good idea to assume a group or individual's intentions, and then discount arguments based solely on the source. "If it's one thing I have learned, it's that in many cases the idiots are right." - Winston Churchill - - - - - Sep27/94 21:58 67:56) John Lawler: For the record, *I* think Bruce is not an emotional, wishful-thinking, anti-gun nut. And he can have any opinions he wants, as far as I'm concerned. In Ann Arbor, the academic opinions line up much more on the gun control side than on the libertarian one, which is one reason I think it deserves some attention. But I don't think people who are for gun control are crazy at all. I just think they're doomed to disappointment, whether or not gun control ever is enacted, because -- like capital punishment and mandatory sentences, it's an appealing idea that is unfortunately not likely to do any practical good. Too bad. If I thought it was at all practical, I'd support it. - - - - - Sep27/94 23:38 67:57) Paul Estin: Ditto here (re: Bruce is not an emotional gun nut). Also, from the Department of Minor Corrections... the earlier Churchill quote should have read: "The best lesson life has taught me is that the idiots in many cases are right." I quoted from memory and didn't get it quite right. - - - - - Sep28/94 11:47 67:58) Steven Manson: I liked it the other way, Paul. As far as I can tell from the foregoing, the common ground is huge. It seems to me that no one argued that fully automatic weapons ought to be available, and I don't recall reading that anyone advocated banning all guns. So basically, with this as an operating philosophy, some firearms are going to be legal, while others not. Where the line is drawn may be an issue for subsequent disscussion; hopefully this discussion will include a working definition of "assault rifle" that is somewhat more practical than the defn provided earlier by Paul. This issue having been essentially decided by mutual agreement, the question of enforcement remains as an essentially separate issue. I might guess that everyone would agree that there are people in this society that shouldn't be able to purchase guns, and also people that should have easy access to them. Again, some dividing line must be made, somewhere along the spectrum running from infants, to the retarded, to felons, to just plain folks, to police officers, to the military...again, another issue for subsequent disscussion. I would also like to hear some more concentrated arguements on each side of the registration issue. I hear again and again that people fear confiscation, but I am not certain that this is an effective argument at all. Afterall, we have to register our cars on an annual basis, and the threat of - - - - - Sep28/94 11:47 67:59) Steven Manson: confiscation seems minimal.... Lastly, I'd just like to say to Bruce: You can be an emotional gun nut if you want, it's okay with me... :) - - - - - Sep28/94 14:24 67:60) Bruce Bielawa: Okay, that's it: I hereby ban that kind of language from this conference! :) - - - - - Sep28/94 18:21 67:61) Paul Estin: I'll get to the rest later, Steve, but for now I'll just respond to: >After all, we have to register our cars on an annual basis, and the >threat of confiscation seems minimal.... False analogy. I'm not aware of any large groups who are *trying* to confiscate cars. Many (if not all) of the lobbies and politicians that are strongly pro-gun registration have as their *stated purpose* the confiscation of all guns in the US. Read a pamphlet from Handgun Control, Inc., the main lobbying group behind gun control. (I can dig up quotes if you want.) These organizations *openly state* that the gun control laws being passed at the federal level are just about getting the camel's nose in the tent. They want to get the whole camel in. I'm not aware of any powerful lobby trying to confiscate all cars and also pressing for car registration. Actually, car registration is mainly a taxation issue--though it does help in law enforcement. Note also that criminals find it easier to hide an unregistered gun than an unregistered car (though many certainly manage the latter). - - - - - Sep28/94 18:49 67:62) Steven Manson: I have a hard time believing that even a majority of registration advocates are pro-confiscation, although I realize that it would be difficult to prove or disprove your contention. But even if this is true, are we to be bullied into not taking what could be a positive and helpful step, simply because a fringe element wants to take it too far? I would much rather debate gun registration based on its merits alone, than jump to conclusions about how devisive groups are going to use it as a future political tactic. After all, there is little momentum in politics, a swing in one direction produces a backlash just as often as it produces follow through, if you get my drift. If, for example, there !were! a group which advocated confiscation of all automobiles, I sincerely hope that we wouldn't end vehicle registration just so they couldn't get their foot in the door. - - - - - Sep28/94 23:15 67:63) Keenan Bora: All that I have to say is that it sure didn't take much to get this confer heated back up! - - - - - Sep30/94 15:16 67:64) Steven Manson: Thanks fer trying, Keen! - - - - - Sep30/94 16:18 67:65) Paul Estin: Hmm. Bruce hasn't gotten his reply in yet, and I seemed "done" before, so I'm not sure what the netiquette involved is in kicking things up again. Essentially, I dug up some more info on "why gun ownership is good" that I want to post, but I don't want to post if it means either (a) cutting off Bruce or (b) re-igniting a discussion that people are burned out on. (Not to worry about ceasing debate in general, though; I've got plenty of *other* topics on which to tick people off!) The gist of information: the stats (e.g. one million successful uses of guns to defend property per year in the US) don't come from the NRA (though, not surprisingly, the NRA likes repeating them), they come from a research prof named Kleck who started off thinking he was going to prove exactly the opposite. He's written a book on gun control in general. And Kleck is *still* a good liberal in most every other way; he just thinks the liberals have it wrong when it comes to gun stats. No one else has done a similar study, so his is the only one to go on. Details to follow... *if* people care to hear them. - - - - - Sep30/94 16:51 67:66) Steven Manson: Do you have anything to say about the merits of registration by itself, Paul? If not, I'm happy to let this discussion die.... :) - - - - - Sep30/94 21:57 67:67) Bruce Bielawa: I HAD planned on continuing, but I figured the conference was going to blow up any day, so I thought I'd wait until we were all safely aboard geb.disc.