[Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases

[Ted Moffett]

This post offers a reposting of Vision2020 content from July 2007.  Some on
Vision2020 object to reposting older posts, but I thought the history of
discussion of this issue on this list is revealing.  And given that many of
the issues raised in this thread have already been parsed in detail on
Vision2020 before, there is no point in writing a new response that covers
ground I already addressed in detail, with references, in the following two
posts from July 2007.  The debate and the facts regarding firearms
regulation have not substantially changed, and a surprising number of the
same individuals are engaging now on this issue.  At least six of the
Vision2020 participants who were engaging on firearm rights/regulations on
Vision2020 in July 2007 are also now engaging on this issue on Vision2020:

dateFri, Jul 27, 2007 at 3:20 AM
subjectRe: [Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?
mailed-bygmail.com
hide details 7/27/07 Reply


Joe, Mike, Dan...

As I mentioned to someone recently, different outcomes between nations may
result from the imposition of a given firearm regulation policy.  Thus the
debate is not about a one size fits all application of social science and
criminology principles.  Firearm regulation can mean a wide variety of
differing policies. Comparisons between nations need to be carefully
considered in the total context of all critical variables in each nation
that impact outcomes.

Mike argued that violence will occur by other means if firearms are
restricted, as he referenced the Harvard study on firearms:

"Countries with very high firearms
ownership rates like Norway have low rates of murder while countries like
Luxembourg and Russia, with very low rates of ownership have much higher
rates of murder.  The criminals just use other tools."

So by cherry picking examples without filling in critical details a result
can be implied that is just what is wanted.  What does "high rates of gun
ownership" vs "low rates of gun ownership" mean in each nation?  We may be
comparing a nation with a population who enjoy a high standard of living in
a peaceful society, and rarely have any need of using the weapon for self
defense, to a nation that has low rates of firearm ownership, but murder by
other means is more common because of negative social economic conditions.
Assuming that in Luxembourg and Russia the criminals "just use other tools,"
does not prove this same outcome applies to all other nations.  And firearm
ownership needs to be correlated with gun registration and gun owner
licensing, along with a list of other variables that can influence the
effectiveness or lack thereof of firearm regulations.  Like control over the
black market in illegal weapons, for example.

The example of Finland suggests a positive outcome with high rates of gun
ownership coupled with both gun registration and gun owner licensing.  And
comparisons between Canada and the USA suggest that more aggressive gun
regulation than in the USA may be correlated with a reduction in the murder
rate, even as the "criminals just use other tools."  First, regarding
Canada:

Read below quoted from the above web site:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
"• This is underscored by comparisons of the United States and Canada. The
costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared
and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to
$195 per resident in Canada. Canada has always had stronger firearms
regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. As
a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has
more than 77 million. While there are other factors affecting murder,
suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and
the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While
the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent ( 1.3 times)
that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian
rate."
-----
Murder without guns is about the same rate as the USA, while the handgun
murder rate is 15 times higher?
These facts do not argue that even if Canada had the same firearm laws as
the USA overall, with the same number of handguns per capita, that Canada's
murder rate with handguns would increase to that of the USA, or that the
USA's murder rate would drop to that of Canada's overall rate if we had
Canada's per capita handgun rate and Canada's form of gun regulation.  It
might be that people in the USA, for a variety of reasons, are just more
inclined to murder, and minus handguns, other tools would be used, and
people in Canada would not murder with handguns that much more often, even
if in every home.
But the data presented, if correct, suggests that gun regulation and fewer
handguns in Canada is correlated with a lower overall murder rate, and that
high numbers of handguns in the USA is associated with the higher US murder
rate.  Even if in Canada other "tools" are used to attempt murder, they may
not be as lethal, thus resulting in fewer deaths.  Other weapons are often
not as convenient and effective as firearms in inflicting serious harm,
which is exactly the argument used by firearm advocates for why they are so
effective for self defense.
The chart at the website I quote above indicates that Finland has a higher
rate of firearm ownership per household than the USA (in fact Finland has
the highest rates of ownership on that chart), has both firearm registration
and licensing of gun owners, and has a much lower rate of firearm homicide,
although the firearm suicide rate is disturbing (still below the USA rate).
So if Finland is a model, we might increase firearm ownership per household,
and reduce the firearm murder rate, by requiring firearm registration and
licensing of gun owners.  And in Finland, the overall murder rate is
dramatically lower than the USA, so criminals are not bypassing gun
regulations to murder at a high rate.
I do not claim that we would have the dramatic positive outcome suggested by
Finland's high rates of gun ownership and low firearm murder rates, and much
lower overall murder rate, if we followed Finland's firearm policies here in
the USA.  As I stated at the top of this post, each nation has differing
social, economic and cultural influences that may give differing outcomes to
a given policy.

However, I continue to wonder why mandating firearm registration and
licensing of gun owners is so vehemently opposed.  This would not prevent
law abiding citizens from owning firearms for self defense, hunting or sport
shooting, though we hear over and over that gun regulation is a slippery
slope aimed at taking all firearms away, then only criminals will have
guns.  This argument is odd insofar as it argues for policies that make it
easier for criminals to acquire guns!

What is also peculiar about this argument, in its cultural context, is how
much it appears to presuppose a government that cannot be trusted to allow
law abiding citizens to keep their rights, such as those for gun ownership,
while those making this argument often support politicians who are enforcing
policies that weaken our rights, with the hysteria and scare tactics
involved in the war on drugs, weakening the Fourth Amendment protections
against unreasonable search and seizure, and now the war on terror...

Anyone who voted for W. Bush because he supports gun rights should pause and
consider what it means to have the fundamental principle of the right to
habeas corpus undermined, a result the Bush administration has pursued.

Ted Moffett
----------------------------------------
subjectRe: [Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?
mailed-bygmail.com
hide details 7/29/07 Reply

Mike et. al.

I will enumerate 5 critical issues, in responding to Mike's post:

Mike wrote "People who stress the danger of gun ownership without putting it
in context are not giving you the full story, for whatever reason."

In pursuing the full story, perhaps you can respond to each numbered point
below?

Mike wrote:

Total homicide and suicide rates around the world don't appear to be related
to the rate of firearms ownership.
----

1)  This statement is highly questionable.  There is reliable data
correlating lower or higher rates of firearm ownership in many nations with
either a lower or higher rate of murder.  Consider one example, comparing
Canada's murder rate to the USA's, where the murder rate by other means in
Canada is about equal to the USA, while the murder rate from handguns is 15
times higher in the USA than Canada.  To claim that there is no causal
relation between the 77 million hand guns in the USA (compared to the
roughly 1 million in Canada) and the 15 to 1 ratio in the handgun murder
rate between the USA and Canada requires explanation.  Perhaps no proof can
be offered that this greatly increased access to handguns in the USA is
casually related to the greatly larger US murder rate, but to prove it is
not is also problematic.

Info comparing Canada to the USA on murder and handguns:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
-------------

2)  As is often stressed by those who promote less firearm regulation,
firearms are a preferred means of self defense, because they are so
effective and convenient when needed for this purpose.  If other forms of
"tools" were as effective and convenient as firearms in inflicting enough
damage to stop an attacker, there would be no need to focus so exclusively
on firearms for this purpose.  We'd be discussing knife or baseball bat or
taser, etc. rights of ownership.  This exposes that in fact, firearm use is
associated with a higher risk this will result in death or serious injury,
compared to many other weapons that might be employed by those doing
violence.  Easy access to firearms cuts both ways, offering powerful self
defense, but also more easy access to firearms for criminals who may kill
someone without intending this level of harm in the commission of their
crime, due to the power of firearms to inflict damage.

I located research on the subject of the rate of firearms when used
inflicting death or serious injury, compared to rate of other common
"weapons" when used inflicting death or serious injury, but the information
was not available for public posting.

Mike wrote:

Firearms are dangerous, but most of the people who are being killed are
already involved in criminal behavior and the death rate among children is
very much lower than other types of accidents.
-----
3)  So criminals deaths are not to be considered in the human and financial
costs to society from firearm violence?  Consider the amount of violence
among urban youth using firearms.  Many of these youth are involved in
criminal behavior, but standing on a street corner selling dime bags of
cannabis renders someone a criminal.  Of course self defense is always
justified when confronting a violent criminal.  But why put the fuel of easy
access to firearms (at unregulated gun shows, for example) onto the fire of
underground gang and drug crime, often youth related?

Mike is not offering the shocking data on youth deaths from firearm violence
in the USA.  Youth (or someone of any age) being killed by firearm violence,
even when engaged in criminal behavior, are still human beings, with
mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and loved ones, and their
deaths are a tragedy for all of us, an expression of an out of control
culture of violence in the USA, while placing a burden upon hospital
emergency rooms, and long term medical care, when firearm violence results
in serious injury not death.  Note that by "youth" the Centers For Disease
Control web site below offers data for 10-24 year olds:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm

In 2003, 5,570 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15
each day. Of these victims, 82% were killed with firearms (CDC 2006).

4)  Regarding the Hamilton case, while you focus on the mental health issue,
and what sort of firearms he used, you do not mention that the primary
reason he should have had his firearms seized by law enforcement, was that
he was convicted in court of violent crime, attempted strangulation.

5)  I posted to this list information regarding the gun show loopholes that
make it easy for criminals and others wishing to bypass scrutiny for their
firearm purchases.  So what if there is a registry for those with mental
problems to not be allowed to purchase firearms, if the sale of firearms can
be conducted at advertised gun shows bypassing this registry?

I am curious if you would agree that gun shows should be monitored via more
strict nationwide regulations, like the strict regulation of gun shows in
California, to prevent sales to criminals, straw purchases, or purchases
that skip background checks, such as what occurs in other states that do not
have California's more strict gun show regulations?

If you did not read the post on the gun show loophole issue, please read the
information at this web link:

http://www.physorg.com/news100839164.html

------
Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081111/d3b2e5af/attachment-0001.html