ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

More guns, less crime

The left's shameless attempts to debunk and disqualify John Lott's landmark study never made much sense, because eventually, over time, the facts of the matter were bound to become readily apparent.  As, for example, the case of falling violent crime rates in Virginia shows:
In a real life demonstration of scholar John Lott's maxim "more guns, less crime," violent crime has dropped in Virginia as gun ownership has increased. According to a Fox News report, firearms sales in Virginia were 16 percent higher in 2012 over 2011 and violent crime went down by 5 percent.
This correlation between more guns and less crime hasn't just been observed once or twice.  It has been observed over and over again, just as the dozens of predictions concerning the consequences of concealed carry laws and the removal of firearms restrictions keep failing to produce the expected bloodbaths and shootouts in the suburban streets.

It also shows the intrinsically unscientific thinking of the Left. To them, it doesn't matter how well, or how poorly, a predictive model fares, because their dull and programmed minds aren't about to change no matter what happens.  Or rather, they aren't about to change until the credentialed authorities they recognize tell them to change their minds, at which point they will do so in lockstep, conveniently forgetting that they ever believed otherwise.

Labels:

236 Comments:

1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Allabaster August 07, 2013 6:19 AM  

They are the borg, not a single individual thought amongst them.

Oh well, here in the great southern land we need the state's permission for every air rifle.

I own a greater variety of rifles than I do shoes but I need to ask the state for every new one of the former.

Blogger buzzardist August 07, 2013 6:21 AM  

The only way that the left is going to make their argument work is to claim that many or most of the guns being bought in Virginia are moving to places like New York City...which is precisely what this latest war of words over Virginia is about. Mayor Bloomberg claimed that a lot of New York's guns were coming from Virginia, and that was the source of New York's problems. The Virginia governor objected, sensibly pointing to these facts about Virginia firearm sales and violent crime. Those statistics are impossible to argue against, and most liberals I've encountered tend to clam up at such numbers with a smug, "Well, I can't believe that's true." No real argument, just a refusal.

But if Bloomberg can show that the number of guns in Virginia is actually down (which they aren't) as all of the new sales and more are going to New York (which they aren't) where the guns are causing crime problems (which they aren't), then he's got an argument (which he doesn't). That more or less sums up where the left sits with respects to arguments on gun control.

Anonymous Robert in Arabia August 07, 2013 6:27 AM  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-51WR25Jb64&feature=youtu.be
good video

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, FBI Forensic Ballistics August 07, 2013 6:28 AM  

Now leftists, I really need you to change your minds.

//waves hands

This is not the gun control you are looking for.

Anonymous Burr August 07, 2013 6:36 AM  

The real explanation is more abortion less crime. The mass crime drop in the 90s was just about a generation after Roe vs. Wade. The general downtrend in crime is mostly due to the criminally prone underclass aborting and contracepting themselves at a high rate. Also, the general trend towards longer sentences for violent criminals "relocalizes" the crime from the streets to the prisons as the criminals spend a larger portion of their life behind bars.

Further, when Hispanics grow in number and displace other minorities the crime rate goes down by a lot. A lot of the places were crime has gone down are anti gun. There are other, better explanations.

Anonymous stats79 August 07, 2013 6:46 AM  

"The real explanation is more abortion less crime. "

Would like to see some stats on that claim. The poorest black population has been encouraged over the last 40 years by social welfare to have more children. Each child a poor black woman has is an increase in welfare payments. Blacks also make up a larger percentage of the US population than they did in 1960. My guess is that the poorest and most violent portion of the black population makes up most of that increase. I've heard the assertion about abortion lowering crime rates before, but even on a cursory examination of the claim it doesn't seem to hold water.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 6:54 AM  

The real explanation is more abortion less crime.

So, you believe there were more abortions in Virginia in 2012 than in 2011?

Anonymous Burr August 07, 2013 6:54 AM  

Sorry, double post on that last one

@stats79

The birth rate has pretty much dropped for everybody except for new immigrants, and it plunges even for them in a generation or two. The real revelation is the abortion rate.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Anonymous Weak August 07, 2013 6:54 AM  

Hey Burr, congratulations on just finishing reading Freakonomics! Sadly, you'll find the Ilk to be more well-read than that one book.

Anonymous Burr August 07, 2013 6:57 AM  

@VD

There were more abortions in Virginia in the 70s and 80s than there were in the 50s and 60s, hence the crime drop in the 90s and 00s.

I'm not saying abortion is the only factor, the incarceration rate is also a big one, violent criminals are locked up and kept off the street for longer.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 7:02 AM  

There were more abortions in Virginia in the 70s and 80s than there were in the 50s and 60s, hence the crime drop in the 90s and 00s.

You're avoiding the point. We're talking about a drop from 2011 to 2012. We know there was a 16 percent increase in firearms sales. For you to make your case, you need to show a relevant increase in abortions. You have not even begun to do so.

And as Weak has already pointed out, most of us are familiar with the Freakonomics perspective. I do not find their arguments convincing, or in some cases, even coherent.

Anonymous TJIC August 07, 2013 7:03 AM  

stats79: The real explanation is more abortion less crime.

VD: So, you believe there were more abortions in Virginia in 2012 than in 2011?

While I'm not partial to stats79's observation (at least not in a prescriptive sense), he is referencing an entirely plausible argument ( the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis ) that lower social-economic groups have abortions more often, and lower social-economic groups create more crime.

Points:

1) The correlation need not be perfect; a 2% drop in crime in a particular year and place need not be explained by a corresponding rise in abortion for the theory to have predictive rigor

2) I believe that there is a 15 to 20 year lag between the putative correlation between abortion and crime: the time it takes a member of the underclass to grow from fetus to childhood to prime robbery-assault-and-rape years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Anonymous TJIC August 07, 2013 7:04 AM  

The thing I find most amusing about the left is not that they are anti-scientific; it's that they are anti-scientific while thinking that they are so damned rational and scientific!

Anonymous TJIC August 07, 2013 7:06 AM  

VD: You're avoiding the point. We're talking about a drop from 2011 to 2012. We know there was a 16 percent increase in firearms sales. For you to make your case, you need to show a relevant increase in abortions.

One can easily imagine multiple causes of crime, each with their own coefficients in the equation. Just because presence of firearmss decreases crime (we are in total agreement there), does not mean that there are not other terms in the equation.

As much as I dislike abortion because it is murder and (in bulk) genocide, it is still possible that they hypothesis is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

Anonymous Burr August 07, 2013 7:06 AM  

@VD

Crime is caused by criminals. Less criminals, less crime. Are law abiding citizens shooting 5% more criminals? If not, guns are not the cause of the crime drop. The crime drop is explained by Hispanics increasing in population and other demographic trends set in motion a generation or more ago.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 7:08 AM  

he is referencing an entirely plausible argument ( the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis ) that lower social-economic groups have abortions more often, and lower social-economic groups create more crime.

Yes, I know. Everybody knows. Moreover, the abortion theorists are completely missing the primary point. Whether more guns cause less crime or not - and simply referencing abortion rates is not evidence that they do not, since abortion could be the non-causal correlation as easily as the guns - it is eminently clear that more guns do not cause more crime.

You guys are bringing a mediocre game here. You can't even begin to make your abortion case without presenting considerably more research showing better correlation with abortion than with guns. Simply citing Freakonomics serves no purpose.

Anonymous J August 07, 2013 7:10 AM  

Crime is caused by criminals. Less criminals, less crime. Are law abiding citizens shooting 5% more criminals?

Classic rookie mistake. Law-abiding citizens don't have to shoot people to reduce crime. The mere existence of more heavily armed citizens exerts a strong deterrent effect.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 7:10 AM  

Crime is caused by criminals. Less criminals, less crime. Are law abiding citizens shooting 5% more criminals?

Your logic is inept. The actual question is: is the criminal awareness of up to 16% more armed law-abiding citizens inhibiting up to 5% of criminals from taking the risk of attacking them.

Criminals aren't mindless automatons. They perform their own risk/reward calculations and more guns increases the risk for them.

Anonymous realmatt August 07, 2013 7:11 AM  

The effect has been seen in other states mysteriously after making gun ownership easier and in roughly the same amount of time. Texas I believe was a notable case If I remember correctly.

It can't all be chocked up to abortion.

Anonymous Burr August 07, 2013 7:12 AM  

@VD

Claiming that guns are not primarily responsible for the drop in crime is not the same as claiming that guns cause crime. I don't think they do.

My argument is criminals gonna criminal. Guns do not change the nature of criminals. The only way to lower crime is to lower criminals (or lock them up where they can only prey on each other).

Anonymous Burr August 07, 2013 7:15 AM  

@VD

Criminals are not making a cost/benefit analysis based on the likelihood of their victims being armed. You have said it yourself they have low future time orientation. You think people who live in the moment are checking firearm sales statistics?

Anonymous realmatt August 07, 2013 7:15 AM  

The left hates to acknowledge the mechanisms that they themselves use. I'm reminded of the story of the young male elephant killing rhino who stopped once an adult bull was introduced. Any creature worth its salt understands risk/reward.

Violent creatures require violent consequences or the threat thereof.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 07, 2013 7:19 AM  

Criminals are not making a cost/benefit analysis based on the likelihood of their victims being armed.

Burr, you can't really be that stupid.

Anonymous Hermit August 07, 2013 7:20 AM  

I couldn't easily find it, but I seem to recall Vox had a post a couple years back showing that it was statistically proven that more abortions didn't lead to less children. It's simply used as another form of birth control, and people that have aborted will still have the same amount of kids, just push it off til later.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 7:28 AM  

Criminals are not making a cost/benefit analysis based on the likelihood of their victims being armed. You have said it yourself they have low future time orientation. You think people who live in the moment are checking firearm sales statistics?

Actually, they do. I think that predators who focus on preying on the weak and defenseless pay close attention to whether people are likely to be armed or not. They can't possibly check statistics that won't be available until after the fact, but they are likely to hear about more people buying more guns, especially since the increased availability of guns will probably show up in the price of guns on the street.

If a street gun goes from $100 to $50, the average criminal is going to grasp that there are more guns around. If a cheetah or a lion can figure out not to attack the big antelope with horns, the average street thug with an IQ of 75 can figure out not to try mugging the white guy in the suit who doesn't look afraid of him and has a bulge in his pocket that might or might not be his keys.

Anonymous ??? August 07, 2013 7:30 AM  

So, if the number of people in Virginia age 15-25 did not drop (and in fact, increased) between 2010 and 2012, and the number of black people within that population did not drop either, then there is no reason to think the criminally inclined demographic has been previously culled through abortion or driven off by the influx of Hispanics.

What then accounts for the reduction in crime, if "criminals cause crime and criminals gonna criminal"?

Anonymous TJIC August 07, 2013 7:33 AM  

VD: You guys are bringing a mediocre game here. You can't even begin to make your abortion case...

Some folks here are, but leave me out of the "you guys", please.

1) I'm staunchly pro-life.
2) I'm staunchly pro-gun.

I merely think that while you, Vox, are right, you were being a bit sloppy in your argument and wanted to play Devil's advocate to get to you sharpen your point.

You can't even begin to make your abortion case without presenting
considerably more research showing better correlation with abortion
than with guns.


Is anyone arguing that abortion explains the entire delta and guns explains none of it?

One need not show that there is a better correlation with abortion in order to argue that abortion is a component. Availability of guns can have a 0.9 correlation with decreased crime and abortion a 0.3 correlation.

In fact, the abortion argument explicitly builds a multi-variate model (see table IV of the study), and includes shall issue concealed carry law.

Social science (to the degree that it's science at all) is about doing decompositions of the data and looking for "natural experiments" where conditions changed either by time or by geography.

The Donohue Levitt paper did this (see table 1 on page 18). I also find figure 3 on page 15 and figure IVa on page 20 to be quite convincing.

Anonymous Eric C August 07, 2013 7:36 AM  

Criminals are not making a cost/benefit analysis based on the likelihood of their victims being armed.

That would explain all the gun-show and police station robberies...

Anonymous p-dawg August 07, 2013 7:40 AM  

I know a lot of criminals. Hey, it happens. They tend to come from big families. You get more gubmint checks when you have more kids. The economic incentive for upwardly mobile couples is to abort. The economic incentive for handout recipients is to have more children. Here's a test you can perform yourself. Go to Sachs, Nordstroms, or some snooty store like that. Count the number of children per mother. Now go to any random Wal-Mart and record the same information. Who wants to put money on there being more average children per mother at Sachs? I'll take Wal-Mart.

Anonymous Big Bill August 07, 2013 7:44 AM  

"The real explanation is more abortion less crime."

Another Borg popsci theory since deconstructed by Sailer among others.

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 7:47 AM  

@ Allabaster
If they ever limit and liscense shoes women will rise up!

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 7:49 AM  

Is anyone arguing that abortion explains the entire delta and guns explains none of it?

Yes, the guy who said: "The real explanation is more abortion less crime."

One need not show that there is a better correlation with abortion in order to argue that abortion is a component.

True. But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that more guns are not the reason, that abortion is.

The Donohue Levitt paper did this (see table 1 on page 18). I also find figure 3 on page 15 and figure IVa on page 20 to be quite convincing.

I haven't gone through it, but so far, everything of Levitt's that I've looked at in detail has been wrong. As someone has already noted, the abortion argument is likely to fall apart because of the fact that US abortion did not reduce birth rates. Birth rates fell from 25 to 14.3 from 1950 to 1975.

As the number of abortions increased from 485k in 1970 to a peak of 1.6 million in 1990, the birth rate also INCREASED from 14.6 to 16.7.

The only way the abortion case can even potentially be made is to ignore the general abortion rate and track the actual number of black births. It's very clear that it is birth control that matters much more than abortion; if there is a causal relationship between birth control and less crime, abortion is merely a minor aspect of that.

Blogger Jimmy August 07, 2013 7:51 AM  

Over all crime rates had been declining in Virgina since 2006:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vacrime.htm

Clearly more guns doesn't add to the crime rate, but I'm less than sure that it explains the decline.

I think the more likely cause was the harsher jail sentences in the 80s and 90s. With most of the hardcore criminals not around to father or train new criminals rates dropped quite a bit.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 7:54 AM  

It also shows the intrinsically unscientific thinking of the Left. To them, it doesn't matter how well, or how poorly, a predictive model fares, because their dull and programmed minds aren't about to change no matter what happens. Or rather, they aren't about to change until the credentialed authorities they recognize tell them to change their minds, at which point they will do so in lockstep, conveniently forgetting that they ever believed otherwise.

This isn't the case, in my opinion. I think the left recognizes the limitations of models. For example, the decrease in violent crime based on increased ownership of guns, while useful, is not able to be extended to the point where the Left, including myself, would be "happy" with the violent crime rate. A 5% reduction is HUGE, it means thousands less dead, raped, or injured people.

But the end goal is not a return to historical norms, the end goal is to get to the point where violence crimes - violent gun crimes in particular - are at least at European or Scandinavian or best yet Japanese levels.

This is the limitation of the conservative/libertarian policy argument, which is, there is obviously a point where increased gun ownership no longer reduces violent crimes any *further*. Additional marginal gun sales results in corresponding drop in gun sales. However, there is a point where the increased gun supply enables idiots and half-wits to commit crimes which they previously would have not had the means to carry out.

Blogger James Higham August 07, 2013 7:56 AM  

Well done again- won't have the slightest effect on them though.

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 7:58 AM  

TJIC and Burr, you cant just make things up or spout off theories and attempt to defend them on the basis of could be. You have a state, a year and two specific statistics. If you want to attempt to say the abortion rates have some bearing on this then get to it already and site some evidence.

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 8:02 AM  

@ Jimmy did you check that against gun ownership statistics for the same time period? Because there are TWO statistics up for discussion.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 8:04 AM  

So, if the number of people in Virginia age 15-25 did not drop (and in fact, increased) between 2010 and 2012, and the number of black people within that population did not drop either, then there is no reason to think the criminally inclined demographic has been previously culled through abortion or driven off by the influx of Hispanics.

I think one possible explanation is that there are more than one subgroup within different communities. It is tempting but probably wrong to look blacks as monolithic group, same as whites, same as Hispanics.

Race is a predictor of criminal activity, but not the only one.

Anonymous TJIC August 07, 2013 8:06 AM  

VD: The only way the abortion case can even potentially be made is to ignore the general abortion rate and track the actual number of black births.

Agreed.

Carlotta: TJIC and Burr, you cant just make things up or spout off theories and attempt to defend them on the basis of could be. You have a state, a year and two specific statistics. If you want to attempt to say the abortion rates have some bearing on this then get to it already and site some evidence.

Re your request that "site [sic] some evidence", I included links before you even asked for them. Have you gone and read the paper yet?

Go read the paper and then come back and debate like an adult.

Anonymous Cinco August 07, 2013 8:06 AM  

It appears the abortion rate in VA has actually been declining since 1991!

Although I must admit that this theory made sense at the time.

Having read Freakonomics some years ago, I am a little bit rusty. I do however remember laughing my way through the section revolving around tearing down the ghettos and spreading the minorities out so that they could become successful. Such lefty logic. It literally screamed, "because equality!"

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 8:09 AM  

@ dh
Prove what you state in your last sentence. Please show evidence that links higher rates of gun ownership with higher crime rates because undesireables would also have them.

Anonymous Van August 07, 2013 8:09 AM  

Burr-

With 50 states and hundreds of localities, the experiment has been carried out dozens of times over the last 20 years. Changes in gun laws result in changes in crime rates within two years. The relationship appears to be independent of other factors that also influence crime (aging of Baby Boomers is a likely one; lower percentage of population age 20-40 -> lower crime rate).
---
I wouldn't say fear of getting shot indicates high future time orientation.

Anonymous TJIC August 07, 2013 8:17 AM  

@Cinco: I do however remember laughing my way through the section revolving around tearing down the ghettos and spreading the minorities out so that they could become successful. Such lefty logic. It literally screamed, "because equality!"

I recall reading a long form article in blue media (The NYT? The Atlantic?) five or so years back talking about two academics who studied the results of the program, and how - despite being good liberals - the evidence was so overwhelming that they soon had to admit that when you spread criminals out into the suburbs, you don't turn the criminal elements into good citizens, you just bring crime to formerly nice areas.

Ah, here it is:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals...

the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.


Go read the whole article.

Anonymous Josh August 07, 2013 8:27 AM  

http://www.isteve.com/freakonomics_fiasco.htm

Steve Sailer has a good summary of various annihilations of Levitt's theory.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 8:27 AM  

Prove what you state in your last sentence. Please show evidence that links higher rates of gun ownership with higher crime rates because undesireables would also have them.

That's not exactly what I said, I said there is a point where the increases in gun ownership would lead to a non-zero crime rate, not a net-increase from present levels. Essentially, there is a cap on the amount gun violence that gun ownership can prevent. That floor of violence, specifically gun violence, is non-zero.

It is trivial to prove this with accidental shootings:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/08/harrisburg_boy_killed_in_texas.html
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8c1e7eaf82444494a77d1bb4dd3e0a37/WA--Wounded-Women
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/217192081.html

Or:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/02/officer-who-sold-gun-to-mentally-ill-man-demoted/2614379/

VD has previously agreed that everyone including severely mentally ill or unbalanced persons should be able to buy whatever weapons they can get their hands on. Indeed, you can see cases of people who are almost never homicidal, but rather, suicidal, getting weapons which are clearly going to be used to harm themselves.

There are a few ways to prove what I am saying, one is too show that there is some link between accidental shootings and rates of gun ownership. The other is to show there is a link between mental illness and gun violence.

The first proposition is essentially circular to prove. Agree?

Anonymous daddynichol August 07, 2013 8:27 AM  

"Guns do not change the nature of criminals."

That is the dumbest comment you've made so far.

Blogger Jemison Thorsby August 07, 2013 8:28 AM  

"Or rather, they aren't about to change until the credentialed authorities they recognize tell them to change their minds, at which point they will do so in lockstep, conveniently forgetting that they ever believed otherwise."

i.e. Oceania has *always* been at war with Eurasia...

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 8:29 AM  

@ TJIC

From you wiki link that you are citing as evidence.

"The effect of legalized abortion on crime (sometimes referred to as the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis) is the theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory generally argue that since unwanted children are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime. Moreover, children born under these conditions are usually less fortunate as enough preparation was not put in place for their birth and upbringing. In particular, it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States, largely due to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, has reduced crime in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Opponents generally reject these statistics, and argue that abortion has negative effects on society or decrease in crime is brought about in other way"


Maybe you are not aware of this, but using a wiki link to a theory isnt evidence of what you propose. Not in general and not in this specific case.

Here is your quote followed by your "evidence" .
Points:1) The correlation need not be perfect; a 2% drop in crime in a particular year and place need not be explained by a corresponding rise in abortion for the theory to have predictive rigor2) I believe that there is a 15 to 20 year lag between the putative correlation between abortion and crime: the time it takes a member of the underclass to grow from fetus to childhood to prime robbery-assault-and-rape years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

1. Great, then prove it.
2. Then according to your theory you have double the years to work with that you claim are necessary to see some evidence that you are right.
3. Claiming to be pro life and attempting to push an agenda that abortion lowers crime rates wont work here.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 8:30 AM  

Over all crime rates had been declining in Virgina since 2006

And handgun sales increased 112 percent from 2006 to 2011.

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 8:33 AM  

@ dh
"This is the limitation of the conservative/libertarian policy argument, which is, there is obviously a point where increased gun ownership no longer reduces violent crimes any *further*. Additional marginal gun sales results in corresponding drop in gun sales. However, there is a point where the increased gun supply enables idiots and half-wits to commit crimes which they previously would have not had the means to carry out.  "

No, that is what you said.

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 8:35 AM  

@ dh
Are you kidding me with your examples?

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 8:36 AM  

Essentially, there is a cap on the amount gun violence that gun ownership can prevent. That floor of violence, specifically gun violence, is non-zero.

You're moving the goalposts, DH. Accidental shootings and suicides do not count as violent crime and are thus irrelevant with regards to this discussion.

Anonymous Roundtine August 07, 2013 8:42 AM  

More guns = More fun.

That's the only equation I need. Thanks Brasco Buddies!

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 8:42 AM  

You're moving the goalposts, DH. Accidental shootings and suicides do not count as violent crime and are thus irrelevant with regards to this discussion.

Are you quite sure that suicides are not included? If that's not the case, I apologize.

What is the goal posts, in terms of crazy people shooting people. I presume that claims of "I was crazy when I shot that person" is not sufficient. Would you accept say the final ruling of a court that a person was not guilty by reason of mental defect (or similar)?

Is the counter-claim that with enough gun ownership you could get to the German, Nordic, or Japaneese level of violence, and specifically, gun violence? Or is that not in scope?

(I assure you that it is in scope for Leftists, as myself. That's the end goal. If there is a way to get there through INCREASED gun ownership, by all means, happy to hear it.)

Anonymous Rally August 07, 2013 8:43 AM  

dh,

Thank you for stating the endpoint, a low crime society like Europe or Japan. Problem is that to get there from US 2013 is impossible. No amount of gun laws could possibly get there, you'd just wind up in a third world hellhole where law abiders are forbidden to carry them in a society that already has massive amounts of guns in the hands of criminals.

Only way you could get the guns out of their hands of bad guys is confiscation. How many deaths would result from a use of force on that scale? A battle the government would have virtually no chance of winning?

Run that cost benefit analysis, and our current crime rates look pretty appealing.

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly August 07, 2013 8:47 AM  

*dons his spectacles*

I agree, if there were fewer criminals, there wouldn't be so many of them. Numerically speaking.

Anonymous TJIC August 07, 2013 8:47 AM  

@Carlotta:

Maybe you are not aware of this, but using a wiki link to a theory isnt evidence of what you propose. Not in general and not in this specific case.


Carlotta,

I'm referencing the academic paper linked to from there. As you would know if you had enough reading comprehension to follow the thread above.

...or if you had read in full the comment of mine TO WHICH YOU JUST REPLIED.

I'm not sure what else you want me to do. Have you read the paper? What aspect of it do you disagree with?

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 8:48 AM  

No, that is what you said.

Right, emphasis on further. Continue the trend - gun sales continue to grow, crime continues to drop. A doubling of gun sales leads to, a 5 or 10 or whatever percentage drop in violence, and gun violence to a slightly lower number.

What is the end game? Everyone, on average, has 3-4 guns. That's one end point. Another end point is that everyone at least a handgun on them. That's another end point. In this future time, what does violent crime rates look like? Is the expectation that there comes a point when there are literally no gun deaths?

This is a genuine topic of interest, maybe NOT the right discussion for it. I see this is as the converse side of liberals who cannot accept that gun ownership itself has no negative correlation to gun violence, and most often or always provides downward pressure. It seems self-evident that there are going to be some side effects to pervasive gun ownership, those being accidental deaths, suicides that are easily enabled, and the occasional half-wit or mental patient offing a bunch of people before he is taken down. Happy to spend some time seeing what data exists to back this assertion up if it's under genuine dispute.

Anonymous Athor Pel August 07, 2013 8:49 AM  

"dh August 07, 2013 7:54 AM
...
However, there is a point where the increased gun supply enables idiots and half-wits to commit crimes which they previously would have not had the means to carry out."



What do you have against idiots and half-wits? Don't you want them to have every tool in order to improve their lot in life? If you keep denying them things just because they're idiots and half-wits then somebody is bound to start filing lawsuits, or worse, passing federal laws or regulations.
You just don't want to see darwinism in action, that's your problem.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 8:50 AM  

Is the counter-claim that with enough gun ownership you could get to the German, Nordic, or Japaneese level of violence, and specifically, gun violence? Or is that not in scope?

Well, only if you use the guns to shoot all the black people. White Americans already have violent crime rates that are virtually identical to the various European countries.

You simply can't force blacks to behave like Asians or whites. They have to get to that point on their own... and they may well do so in the next 500 years or so.

Anonymous Cinco August 07, 2013 8:50 AM  

@TJIC

Go read the whole article.

Well, I am shocked. Shocked!

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 07, 2013 8:51 AM  

There were more abortions in Virginia in the 70s and 80s than there were in the 50s and 60s, hence the crime drop in the 90s and 00s.

I'm not saying abortion is the only factor, the incarceration rate is also a big one, violent criminals are locked up and kept off the street for longer.


Let's assume that your correct in your assertion that abortion rates went up, despite not citing any evidence. You are taking a statistical fact and assuming that should those children had grown, they would have been criminals. At best, this is a fallacy because you do not know for certain if any of those children would have become criminals.

As for the incarceration rate, most people in prison are in there for non-violent offenses (like drug possession).

But since you want to speculate, I'd say that the removal of leaded gasoline is another factor in the declining crime rates.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 8:51 AM  

Thank you for stating the endpoint, a low crime society like Europe or Japan. Problem is that to get there from US 2013 is impossible. No amount of gun laws could possibly get there, you'd just wind up in a third world hellhole where law abiders are forbidden to carry them in a society that already has massive amounts of guns in the hands of criminals.

Surely, you are welcome. I disagree about the "no amount of gun laws", in that, it would require a massive cultural change. These changes happen, but not quickly. We are in the middle of one on gays in society. 50 years ago, taboo, stuff of idle gossip. Today, on the way to full legal protection and normalization into society. So, I agree with your premise in that if guns were just banned tomorrow, it would have nearly no impact and the result would be destructive. But, given time and a cultural shift, there is no reason to believe that it is literally true you can't change the picture.

Only way you could get the guns out of their hands of bad guys is confiscation. How many deaths would result from a use of force on that scale? A battle the government would have virtually no chance of winning?

It would be costly. I think they would win. But regardless, it would be bloody and not good.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 8:54 AM  

> 1) The correlation need not be perfect; a 2% drop in crime in a particular year and place need not be explained by a corresponding rise in abortion for the theory to have predictive rigor

How good does it need to be?

> I believe that there is a 15 to 20 year lag between the putative correlation between abortion and crime:

So, was there a significant increase in abortions in Virgina between 1991 and 1997?

> Are law abiding citizens shooting 5% more criminals? If not, guns are not the cause of the crime drop.

You do realize that you don't have to shoot people with guns to stop crime, don't you? The mere threat of a gun being present will often drive criminals away.

> My argument is criminals gonna criminal. Guns do not change the nature of criminals. The only way to lower crime is to lower criminals (or lock them up where they can only prey on each other).

Nonsense.

> Criminals are not making a cost/benefit analysis based on the likelihood of their victims being armed.

All the evidence, including interviews with said criminals, indicates that they do exactly that.

> One need not show that there is a better correlation with abortion in order to argue that abortion is a component.

Of course not, but no was making that argument or supporting it.

> But the end goal is not a return to historical norms, the end goal is to get to the point where violence crimes - violent gun crimes in particular - are at least at European or Scandinavian or best yet Japanese levels.

That's easy. Get rid of the current population and bring in a homogenous population of Europeans, Scandinavians, or Japanese.

Oh, you want to keep the current population? Then you have to live with that population's innate violence level.

> It is trivial to prove this with accidental shootings:

Accidental shootings are not normally considered "gun violence", dh. Any more than auto accidents are considered "car violence".

Anonymous TJIC August 07, 2013 8:54 AM  

VD: White Americans already have violent crime rates that are virtually identical to the various European countries.

Indeed. I love ("love") that leftists want us to be more like Switzerland, when we're already damned close to being like Switzerland...if Switzerland had a dangerous African underclass

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 8:56 AM  

Well, only if you use the guns to shoot all the black people. White Americans already have violent crime rates that are virtually identical to the various European countries.

I wasn't aware of that. Do you have anything to show that?

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 8:57 AM  

Accidental shootings are not normally considered "gun violence", dh. Any more than auto accidents are considered "car violence".

But they are they are considered "Car deaths", I presume. What is included in stats that talk about "gun deaths"? I was quite sure at one point I read that it includes all forms of death involve a gun, up to including if one fell off a shelf and bonked you on the head.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 8:59 AM  

You just don't want to see darwinism in action, that's your problem.


100% true. Uninterested in living in a Darwinist society.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein August 07, 2013 9:01 AM  

If a cheetah or a lion can figure out not to attack the big antelope with horns, the average street thug with an IQ of 75 can figure out not to try mugging the white guy in the suit who doesn't look afraid of him and has a bulge in his pocket that might or might not be his keys.

"Is dat a gun, or is yo cracka ass-cracka ass just happy to see me?"

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 9:04 AM  

> What is the end game? Everyone, on average, has 3-4 guns.

Somewhere between a 40%-80% gun ownership rate should be enough to cause a significant and relatively permanent drop in criminal activity. Anything above 80% will probably not be a significant factor. The optimal figure would best be determined by experimentation.

> Is the expectation that there comes a point when there are literally no gun deaths?

If guns are available, people who choose violence will use them. If they're not, they use whatever else they can get access to; knives, baseball bats, crowbars, clubs, rocks, etc. Those who choose violence will always find a way. While eliminating guns would eliminate gun deaths, it wouldn't even eliminate even the majority of those deaths (yes, this is an opinion, not a fact, but I consider it an informed opinion).

> It would be costly. I think they would win.

Only if they used the military and the military followed orders. Even then it's not a sure thing.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 9:06 AM  

> I wasn't aware of that. Do you have anything to show that?

Just compare the crime rates to white population rates in the various states, dh. It's not hard and the information is readily available. But I'm sure Vox will have a ready link for you.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 9:10 AM  

What is included in stats that talk about "gun deaths"?

Suicides and accidental shootings are included in that. But gun deaths != violent crime.

Do you have anything to show that?

Of course. Search this blog.

Anonymous zen0 August 07, 2013 9:10 AM  

In citing Japan as an ideal, dh is merely adhering to his ideology, wherein one decides to trade liberty for security, and ends up with neither.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother August 07, 2013 9:10 AM  

Dh,

Break out the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. It is all right there. The American white murder rate is almost identical to European murder rates, while minority murder rates are much higher. We have more guns that Mexico, but a lower murder rate, while Canada has less guns than we do, and has a lower overall murder rate.

What you are agitating for is a non diverse white society. Incidentally, this was also the goal of Margaret Sanger. Q.E.D.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 9:10 AM  

> What is included in stats that talk about "gun deaths"?

The discussion was about violent crime, dh, not gun deaths. :)
But I would expect gun deaths to include any death that involved the use of a gun. So both suicides and accidental shooting deaths would be included.

However, I don't consider those to be a negative reflection on guns any more than I consider accidental auto deaths or auto suicides (yes, they do happen) to be a negative reflection on automobiles.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 9:11 AM  

100% true. Uninterested in living in a Darwinist society.

I'm interested in being a trillionaire and having a concubine of 50 beautiful virgins.

People in Hell are interested in ice water.

You do realize how worthless a statement it is to state what you are interested in?

This is liberalism. You go towards an idealized goal, with no proof that you can reach it. You openly state you want to equal the gun violence statistics of Japan or the Nordic countries, without even considering that their homogeny of culture could be a reason for it, and the fact that we do not have a homogenuous US culture would prevent us from ever reaching the statistics, no matter what the law.

At what point are you going to give up trying to force us to fit your mold in the name of your idealism?

When you realize gun laws aren't enough to get to your statistical goal here?

When you realize that you will have to make the culture homogenuous on purpose in order to get to your goal?

How many atrocities and how many rights are you going to abridge in the name of your perfectionism?

At what point do you realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good?

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:13 AM  

In citing Japan as an ideal, dh is merely adhering to his ideology, wherein one decides to trade liberty for security, and ends up with neither.

Except, in Japan, you actually have security. You can freely walk about even the "poor" areas and not be in fear for you life. It is exceedingly safe.

The problem with the maxim is that it's only that. You absolutely can trade security for liberty. Go see a supermax prison. Zero liberty. 23 hours a day in a box. But guess what, you can't die EVEN IF YOU TRY TO KILL YOURSELF. If you really tried to starve yourself, they will force feed you.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:14 AM  

At what point do you realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good?

This along with the rest presume that I am living in some fantasy world. Which I am not. I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this. I am happy to examine alternative ways to get to a better outcome.

Anonymous Joe Doakes August 07, 2013 9:14 AM  

dh objects to taking "more guns, less crime" literally because he correctly points out an infinite number of guns cannot cause zero crime. It can't even cause zero gun deaths, as there always will be accidents. Fine, dh, you've made a pedantic point. But you've missed the point of this post: more guns in the hands of sane law-abiding adults doesn't mean MORE crime, which is what gun-control advocates always claim when they want to 'take guns off the streets.'

I could take 1,000 guns off the streets today, if the Minneapolis and St. Paul police departments would order all cops to return to base to drop off their weapons before going on patrol, unarmed. Would society be safer? Plainly not. So more guns on the streets In The Right Hands don't cause crime, they reduce crime, and The Right Hands for reducing crime apparently include sane law-abiding adults with carry permits, as the Virginia evidence shows.
.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 9:15 AM  

And dh, while we are talking statistics, do the higher robbery rates and non-gun violent crime statistics found regularly in gun-free paradises like the UK alter your thinking at all?

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:15 AM  

However, I don't consider those to be a negative reflection on guns any more than I consider accidental auto deaths or auto suicides (yes, they do happen) to be a negative reflection on automobiles.

The difference being we can all have a rational discussion on how to reduce automobile deaths. Well, almost rational. There is no one going around screaming about the government removing Granny's right to autolocate herself with an '88 Caddie when she has glaucoma in both eyes.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:18 AM  

dh objects to taking "more guns, less crime" literally because he correctly points out an infinite number of guns cannot cause zero crime. It can't even cause zero gun deaths, as there always will be accidents. Fine, dh, you've made a pedantic point. But you've missed the point of this post: more guns in the hands of sane law-abiding adults doesn't mean MORE crime, which is what gun-control advocates always claim when they want to 'take guns off the streets.'

Well, first, you can see that people don't accept the point. So it is not pedantic. I fully agree the liberals working against the premise of the post are being evil. They only want less guns for ideological reasons, not to achieve a rational end goal.

I see the group refusal to accept that there is a floor from which more guns cannot stop gun violence and then after that, gun deaths, to be interesting. VD has opened my eyes a bit on the racial aspect to it, which I have to read up on, apparently.

If the racial correspondence is as strong as it is made out to be, that's a highly interesting thing to consider.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 9:20 AM  

Except, in Japan, you actually have security. You can freely walk about even the "poor" areas and not be in fear for you life. It is exceedingly safe.

Homogenuous. Culture. I notice you ignored my previous point.

The problem with the maxim is that it's only that. You absolutely can trade security for liberty. Go see a supermax prison. Zero liberty. 23 hours a day in a box. But guess what, you can't die EVEN IF YOU TRY TO KILL YOURSELF.

A prison is not a closed system. It relies on resource allocations from the free market the government leeches off of. Try locking up the whole country and see how well it works.

This along with the rest presume that I am living in some fantasy world. Which I am not. I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this. I am happy to examine alternative ways to get to a better outcome.

It goes without saying that you don't believe that you are living in a fantasy world, if you didn't believe that you were right, you wouldn't be a liberal.

We know. Tell me, are your solutions likely to depend on government force?

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother August 07, 2013 9:21 AM  

Dh,

Watch the Discovery Channel Supermax shows. Those prisons are the most dangerous places in the US.

You lived through Bosnia and the horrors of that war. That war was caused by diversity. Now you are here in the US unconsciously yearning for the opposite of diversity while you simultaneously demand it

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:25 AM  

And dh, while we are talking statistics, do the higher robbery rates and non-gun violent crime statistics found regularly in gun-free paradises like the UK alter your thinking at all?

Yes, absolutely. There is a whole another argument to be made about quality of life. I.e., being a toadstool while crime goes on around you is an affront to having a decent quality of life. Having to endure not only the loss of freedom to own a gun, as well robbery, beatings, etc is a major problem. And it's one that only the right is willing to take on (see, UKIP).

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 9:25 AM  

Dh, since you are quoting Japan as an ideal, tell me, please:

What is your opinion on their rayciss immigration law? Seems it could play a role in their low crime rate...

If it did, would you support it?

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:27 AM  

You lived through Bosnia and the horrors of that war. That war was caused by diversity. Now you are here in the US unconsciously yearning for the opposite of diversity while you simultaneously demand it

I do not demand it, I am just not ready to say it can't work.

We know. Tell me, are your solutions likely to depend on government force?

I meant I am open to ways that don't depend on it. Like for example massive gun ownership. I am projecting that it's not going to get us to the end point, which is, basically no substantial gun violence. I am not convinced on that, VD has pointed me to some reading that says that if you take out the under population, we are already there (or close to it)./

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 9:28 AM  

> There is no one going around screaming about the government removing Granny's right to autolocate herself with an '88 Caddie when she has glaucoma in both eyes.

From this comment, I think it's safe to say you've never had to deal with the "grey lobby", dh. :) You might want to talk that matter over with a local state or federal level politician.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:28 AM  

A prison is not a closed system. It relies on resource allocations from the free market the government leeches off of. Try locking up the whole country and see how well it works.


True, not a good example. But Japan is. The country is essentially a big jail for the people. And it's safe, and a nice place to live. They have traded freedom for security. Big time. And as a result, you can just walk around anywhere and not be afraid to be shot.

Anonymous Porky August 07, 2013 9:28 AM  

dh: I think the left recognizes the limitations of models

Really? Google "global warming" for a little wake up call you leftist freak.

But the end goal is not a return to historical norms, the end goal is to get to the point where violence crimes - violent gun crimes in particular - are at least at European or Scandinavian or best yet Japanese levels.

Yes we all know that you leftists want everyone to be quiet little sheep. But this is always the left's argument for greater control, more power, and increased subjugation of the proles. ie: 90% reduction in auto emissions is great - BUT THE GOAL IS a 100% SMOG FREE UTOPIA so let's raise taxes again.

However, there is a point where the increased gun supply enables idiots and half-wits to commit crimes which they previously would have not had the means to carry out.

Yet another brilliant tactic of leftist control freaks like yourself. Utilize the actions af "idiots and half-wits" to justify the removal of personal constitutional rights. This was the thinking behind the leftist's genius scheme called 'fast and furious' was it not?

Here's a clue, dh. Trying to portray yourself as the "reasonable leftist" while simultaneously advocating massive scale social-engineering and destruction of personal freedoms (and putting the blame on "idiots and dimwits" who must be controlled) doesn't make you sound reasonable.

It makes you sound like a fucking Nazi.





Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:29 AM  

From this comment, I think it's safe to say you've never had to deal with the "grey lobby", dh. :) You might want to talk that matter over with a local state or federal level politician.

Its true, but it's a rational lobbying arrangement. It's not like the debate between the Brady people and the NRA, for example.

Anonymous Cinco August 07, 2013 9:31 AM  

@dh

http://voxday.blogspot.ch/2012/12/hispanic-firearms-homicide-rate.html

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-us-gun-deaths-are-high.html

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 9:31 AM  

True, not a good example. But Japan is. The country is essentially a big jail for the people. And it's safe, and a nice place to live.

Homogenuous. Culture.

It is not rocket science.

What is your opinion of their immigration law? If it reduced crime, would you support it?

Anonymous zen0 August 07, 2013 9:32 AM  

@dh
Except, in Japan, you actually have security.

Don't pretend crime has been eliminated in Japan. By population, the number of crimes rate in Japan should be less than half of the U.S., and with the elimination of guns in should be one quarter of the U.S., if your argument was true.

It is more than half.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:33 AM  

It makes you sound like a fucking Nazi.
Guess what, being called a Nazi is not the worst thing in the world.

Really? Google "global warming" for a little wake up call you leftist freak.
The same can be said who believe that there is no feedback loop on pollution and environmental conditions. The contortions you will go to avoid those discussions are comical.

Yes we all know that you leftists want everyone to be quiet little sheep. But this is always the left's argument for greater control, more power, and increased subjugation of the proles. ie: 90% reduction in auto emissions is great - BUT THE GOAL IS a 100% SMOG FREE UTOPIA so let's raise taxes again.

The difference is that there is a chunk of the left who is willing to cite a policy goal, and try to achieve that policy goal. The opposing side, who will engage in a discussion, are unlikely to cite a policy goal, and really have no inclination to get there. Saying that I am for greater control, more power, etc is not untrue. Unlike the right, I would like power to be used to achieve goals. The rights recent track record on the use of power is as bad, or worse, than the left. The non-sensical exercises in military power, for example, are both gross and unjustified. Pointing out that the left is willing to use control and government power to achieve a policy goal is neither ground breaking or novel, at this point.

Anonymous Josh August 07, 2013 9:34 AM  

Doesn't Japan have the Yakuza running around killing people?

Anonymous Godfrey August 07, 2013 9:34 AM  

"...Or rather, they aren't about to change until the credentialed authorities they recognize tell them to change their minds, at which point they will do so in lockstep, conveniently forgetting that they ever believed otherwise." VD




Hilarious spot-on truth

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 9:34 AM  

@ TJIC
Do you mean the paper regarding the theory that I specifically noted when I quoted fron your link?

The OP is referencing a specific topic and two specific statistics. You are claiming that abortion rates have have had an effect on them.

Great show us. How did abortion rates in this state in the time frame you claim cause the crime rate statistic differential for the two years cited.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 9:34 AM  

What is your opinion of their immigration law? If it reduced crime, would you support it?


As a basis, it is impossibly stupid that we have the border arrangement we do have. It must be closed. Legal immigration - I tend to agree with Vox it must be on the level of 1 part per thousand. And limited to people who want to be Americans.

Anonymous DH August 07, 2013 9:41 AM  

Don't pretend crime has been eliminated in Japan. By population, the number of crimes rate in Japan should be less than half of the U.S., and with the elimination of guns in should be one quarter of the U.S., if your argument was true.

It is more than half.


Agreed. It is not a perfect society by any means. Economically, is a good example. A crime still happens.

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 9:41 AM  

"It makes you sound like a fucking Nazi. Guess what, being called a Nazi is not the worst thing in the world."

And there you go. Interesting coming after the story you shared. Or should I say ironic?

Anonymous Carlotta August 07, 2013 9:42 AM  

@ dh
Feel free to move to Japan.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 9:43 AM  

The same can be said who believe that there is no feedback loop on pollution and environmental conditions.

Show us a shred of proof of these positive feedback loops that warmers keep predicting, but never happen.

Is that positive feedback loop hiding in the ocean in "hotspots", last I checked?

Your faith in positive feedback loops belies your ideology. Considering the earth has been here for billions of years, it seems likely that negative feedback loops are far more common than positive ones.

Do you think you could balance an egg on its edge for 1 billion years?

That is how I see the global warmers' claims of positive feedback, particularly since they have no proof of them.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 9:50 AM  

> But Japan is. The country is essentially a big jail for the people. And it's safe, and a nice place to live. They have traded freedom for security.

That's the problem, dh. If you want Japan, you have to replace us with Japanese. We're not Japanese, we're American. There is no way to get the crime rate of a homogenous Japanese population from a non-homogenous American one.

And the people on this blog are, by and large, not the source of the violent crime statistics. In fact, being armed, we probably reduce it in the areas in which we live.

Not that I'm significantly well armed in comparison to my neighbors. We only have 3 guns in our house. :( Most of the families in my area probably own significantly more.

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2013 9:53 AM  

"The real explanation is more abortion less crime. The mass crime drop in the 90s was just about a generation after Roe vs. Wade."

Actually, not.

For this thesis to actually be correct, crime should have started dropping in the late 1980s (when the first set of post-RvWers would be reaching their mid-to-late teens, the age when most habitual criminals start being criminals). It didn't. The closer correlation with the crime rate drop in the mid-to-late 1990s is the loosening of gun laws in the various states and the dying down of the so-called "Crack Wars."

Anonymous DonReynolds August 07, 2013 9:54 AM  

What seems to go missing, Vox, is to state the EXPLICIT instead of leaving it implied. The criminal element is not going to bother to obtain firearms LEGALLY and the law abiding citizenry will ordinarily obtain their firearms LEGALLY. When the citizens are more armed LEGALLY that does not mean that the criminal element are LESS ARMED.....in fact, they may be even more so. But what is clearly apparent, the criminal element are LESS LIKELY or LESS WILLING to use firearms to commit crimes when armed citizens may be waiting around every street corner.

In the opposite case, when only criminals have firearms, they have no reason to be reluctant to use their firearms to commit crimes on an unarmed citizenry. Much of the advantage of using a firearm to commit a crime can be quickly lost when they become a walking free-fire zone (fair game) for every butt-in-sky and "innocent bystander" in the neighborhood. Thus, we observe the tendency of mass murderers to select gun-free zones, such as schools and movie theaters, as targets.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 9:54 AM  

> The closer correlation with the crime rate drop in the mid-to-late 1990s is the loosening of gun laws in the various states and the dying down of the so-called "Crack Wars."

And the aging of the baby boom generation, which by that point had started dropping out of the prime criminal years.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 9:55 AM  

Agreed. It is not a perfect society by any means.

So, it seems your goal is not yet met. Not perfect enough.

How would you improve Japan, dh? Further control those rubes to get those stats down more?

Just like you try to explain to us that as long as guns are out there, gun violence will exist, (so you advocate strong gun control in the name of this perfectionist ideal), we are trying to explain to you that excessive use of Government control causes unintended consequences you cannot avoid.

You mocked us for not blindly believing in positive feedback loops. To a progressive, the belief in such loops is key to their ideology. The world is constantly teetering on the edge of some invisible abyss that only the enlightened left can see. Typical thought pattern of them.

Funny how the left never comes to a conclusion that they would get the best results from a hands-off approach. Almost as if ideology is what motivates them.

Anonymous O.C. August 07, 2013 9:57 AM  

@Joe Doakes: "I could take 1,000 guns off the streets today, if the Minneapolis and St. Paul police departments would order all cops to return to base to drop off their weapons before going on patrol, unarmed. Would society be safer?"

Considering the MPLS and STP cops I've known: yes.

Or at least a lot of family dogs would be safer.

Anonymous Huh August 07, 2013 10:01 AM  

"The difference is that there is a chunk of the left who is willing to cite a policy goal, and try to achieve that policy goal. The opposing side, who will engage in a discussion, are unlikely to cite a policy goal, and really have no inclination to get there."

Say what now?

The Left's opponents have a policy goal - it is called "liberty". and the problem is not so much how to get there, but the fact that the Left is constantly, relentlessly moving us away from it.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni August 07, 2013 10:09 AM  

dh:

"If the racial correspondence is as strong as it is made out to be, that's a highly interesting thing to consider."

And here we see the utter ignorance of someone who thinks he has considered all the factors in the effect of gun control on crime and is qualified to make an argument on the subject. I wonder if he knows that in Switzerlnd there is a gun - a *gasp* "assault rifle"! - in every house with an adult male citizen living in it. Could that consideration affect the argument? What's the violent gun crime rate in Switzerland? What's the racial composition of the population?

Anonymous Porky August 07, 2013 10:11 AM  

Guess what, being called a Nazi is not the worst thing in the world.

True, they made tremendous advances in the medical knowledge of head trauma, hypothermia, and the artificial conjoining of twins.

The same can be said who believe that there is no feedback loop on pollution and environmental conditions. The contortions you will go to avoid those discussions are comical.
I'm willing, but since your very first retort was nothing more than an exercise in finger-pointing I suspect the argument is not going to go well for you.

The difference is that there is a chunk of the left who is willing to cite a policy goal, and try to achieve that policy goal. The opposing side, who will engage in a discussion, are unlikely to cite a policy goal, and really have no inclination to get there.
Finally we get to the heart of the matter. All a leftist needs to justify any and all experimentation on a human subject is "a policy goal". Want to remove gun rights? Safety is the policy goal. Want to sterilize retarded people? Intelligence is the policy goal. Want to expose peeople to horrible diseases? Public health is the policy goal. Want to dunk hundreds of citizens in icy water until they die? Maritime safety is the policy goal.

Dh, the government which governs least, governs best. I think it was Thoreau who reasoned that the government that does not govern at all is therefore the best government of all.

But this manifest advice falls on deaf ears when it is offered to elitist control freaks like yourself who actually think that giving more money and power to the single most corrupt entity ever known by mankind (GOTUS) is a good idea.







Anonymous DonReynolds August 07, 2013 10:12 AM  

dh...."As a basis, it is impossibly stupid that we have the border arrangement we do have. It must be closed. Legal immigration - I tend to agree with Vox it must be on the level of 1 part per thousand. And limited to people who want to be Americans."

It does not matter what foreign citizens want. American immigration laws and policies must be, and historically have been, what is best for the USA and its citizens......and not what foreign citizens want it to be.

Specifically, that immigrants have financial means or skills/abilities that would enable them to support themselves, are relatively young and healthy (physically able to work, fit and free of communicable illnesses), exhibit no sociopathologies (criminal tendencies, mental illness, antisocial behavior), be friendly to the American way of life and capable of assimilation (no communists, war criminals, revolutionaries, homosexuals, anarchists, or unfriendly foreign infiltrators), willing and capable of learning to speak, read and write in American English. But in the end, they were allowed into the country because they were an asset and benefit to the USA. We needed them, not the other way around.

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2013 10:14 AM  

"Criminals are not making a cost/benefit analysis based on the likelihood of their victims being armed."

Actually, they do. There are several studies done where incarcerees have been specifically asked about this, and they say that the likelihood of a potential victim being armed is actually a major factor in deciding whether to commit a crime.

Anonymous Porky August 07, 2013 10:17 AM  

How would you improve Japan, dh?

Simple. It's the old Henry Ford axiom. How much governmental power would it take to satisfy dh's need to control the behavior of others?

Just a little more.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 10:18 AM  

Dh has no proof of positive feedback loops, which he believes in, yet ignores racial and cultural statistics in the gun control debate.

Priceless. Wasn't dh saying something about contortions? Oh, the irony.

Anonymous boxty August 07, 2013 10:21 AM  

@dh:

Steve Sailor did an analysis on gun crime stats that show U.S. gun crimes are as low as European gun crime rates when you exclude blacks and hispanics. You can find it at his blog.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 10:21 AM  

To clarify, climactic positive feedback loops, mainly, the one that predicts c02 will increase water vapor and drown us all in a wave of increasing heat.

Funny, the scientists who claim this have little idea how cloud formation works. Clouds...reflect radiation. So, water vapor increasing could just trap more heat...or it could end up reflecting more back into space than it traps.

The Earth has been here 6 billion years. Look how much co2 has fluctuated in that time period. I'm going with the second explanation. If the first were true, this boat would have came off its rails by now.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 10:29 AM  

Let's spend megatrillions of dollars of wealth to reduce co2 and water vapor, when we don't even understand how clouds form!

Because science!

Heh. Ever notice that the equator is where there is more or less a constant band of cloud formation?

Hmm. Sorry for going OT a bit, but I do think the climate nonsense is a wonderful example of leftist insanity of thought. Their natural inclination to look for positive feedbacks to correct extends far beyond climate.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 07, 2013 10:34 AM  

The RKBA is actually an intrinsic prerequisite to having any rights at all. The existence of ANY rights necessarily implies the existence of a right to defend that right, and therefore a right to own the means of defense. Without the right to defend your rights, those other rights are not rights at all, but merely privileges, to be taken away any time a criminal or the government sees fit.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 10:35 AM  

Finally we get to the heart of the matter. All a leftist needs to justify any and all experimentation on a human subject is "a policy goal". Want to remove gun rights? Safety is the policy goal. Want to sterilize retarded people? Intelligence is the policy goal. Want to expose peeople to horrible diseases? Public health is the policy goal. Want to dunk hundreds of citizens in icy water until they die? Maritime safety is the policy goal.

Yes. We agree on this. Liberty is not the only goal of a leftist. It's on the list, but below safety. It should not come as a surprise that leftists and the right don't value the same things.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 10:36 AM  

Steve Sailor did an analysis on gun crime stats that show U.S. gun crimes are as low as European gun crime rates when you exclude blacks and hispanics. You can find it at his blog.


I have it bookmarked, thank you.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 10:38 AM  

Dh has no proof of positive feedback loops, which he believes in, yet ignores racial and cultural statistics in the gun control debate.

Priceless. Wasn't dh saying something about contortions? Oh, the irony.


You know, I usually don't bring this up, it's not something I ever post on, because I don't follow it or know anything about it. So, I would just give up on this. Sorry. It sounds like you know a lot about it.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 10:40 AM  

Simple. It's the old Henry Ford axiom. How much governmental power would it take to satisfy dh's need to control the behavior of others?

I think it's often true, but not always true. My first preference is to solve policy problems using methods that are not expansive. And that do not impact liberty.

And I also typically support far smaller policy goals than some. There are a lot of leftists who are in this boat. I honestly don't care if low-breed minorities kill each other all day long or not. Keep it out of my enclave.

Anonymous Laz August 07, 2013 10:53 AM  

"Except, in Japan, you actually have security. You can freely walk about even the "poor" areas and not be in fear for you life. It is exceedingly safe."

With the progressive party now in power in Japan it's only a matter of time before they ruin that country too.

"The problem with the maxim is that it's only that. You absolutely can trade security for liberty. Go see a supermax prison. Zero liberty. 23 hours a day in a box. But guess what, you can't die EVEN IF YOU TRY TO KILL YOURSELF. If you really tried to starve yourself, they will force feed you."

lol @ thinking prisons are safe.

" There is no one going around screaming about the government removing Granny's right to autolocate herself with an '88 Caddie when she has glaucoma in both eyes."

Yes there are. In this state you have to go in for the driving test every 2 years after reaching a certain age.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 07, 2013 10:55 AM  

I also get annoyed at how the left uses dishonest terminology to describe what they want. For instance, they bleat constantly about wanting a "Gun Ban". When they do not want, and have never wanted a bona-fide "Gun Ban", and I can only think of a couple places in the world which may have possibly had an actual "Gun Ban", such as (possibly) medieval Japan, and the forbidden island of Hawaii.

A 'ban' means that nobody, regardless of who they are or what their position is status is, is legally (at least in theory) allowed to do or own the action or object that is 'banned'. For instance, most countries have a 'ban' on murder.

What the Leftists actually want to enact would be much more accurately described as a gun MONOPOLY. They want to take guns away from most people, but permit the wealthy (either directly or by proxy agents) and elite, and various politicians and government agents to continue to be able to own guns.

Of course calling what they want by it's true name, a "gun monopoly" doesn't sound all cute and fuzzy like calling it a 'gun ban' does.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 10:56 AM  

Dh, you are honest, more honest than most statists. I have a respect for you that I lack for the vast majority on your side.

Your problem is that you blindly trust the credentialed soothsayers of the Cathedral without checking their claims for yourself. This in and of itself is a recipe for corruption, and the Cathedral has had ample time for this corruption to fully imbed itself.

The Ivy League has been influencing and warping our nation since the Unitarians first took over Harvard near the turn of the 18th century. Our society has survived despite the corruption of the Government they helped mold, not because of it.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 10:59 AM  

In an interview by Breitbart News yesterday, Virginia gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe (Democrat) actually came out and said (verbatim): "Gun Violence Going down is not the issue!"

He is pro "assault weapons" ban but refuses to discuss gun control. The only thing he will say is "I am a strong 2nd amendment supporter ... fishin' and huntin' and skeet shootin'" (he is from New York state, wonder where those "g's" went??)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aule_iIEvD8

You know whenever they say "I am a strong 2nd amendment supporter" they are all about getting guns out of the hands of the citizens asap.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2013 11:06 AM  

"The Earth has been here 6 billion years. Look how much co2 has fluctuated in that time period. I'm going with the second explanation. If the first were true, this boat would have came off its rails by now."

Yep. The simple fact that we're here means the positive feedback models are almost certainly wrong.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 11:06 AM  

DH bringing up Japan at this point is pretty disingenuous. We hashed that to death several months ago.

Japan as zero freedom. Zero! They have to submit to regular home inspections/checks for weapons. Their safety was bought 100% for the price of their freedom.

If that's what you aspire to, you need to live where other people have those same values. The USA was founded on freedom and at the end of the day, our freedom can be re-captured if only 3% of us are able and willing to fight for it. That's how many citizens fought the British when they came for our weapons and our freedom in 1776.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 11:07 AM  

Japan as zero freedom. Zero! They have to submit to regular home inspections/checks for weapons. Their safety was bought 100% for the price of their freedom.

SO?

If that's what you aspire to, you need to live where other people have those same values. The USA was founded on freedom and at the end of the day, our freedom can be re-captured if only 3% of us are able and willing to fight for it. That's how many citizens fought the British when they came for our weapons and our freedom in 1776.

Right, but what if the 3% aren't willing?

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 07, 2013 11:09 AM  

dh wrote: **VD has previously agreed that everyone including severely mentally ill or unbalanced persons should be able to buy whatever weapons they can get their hands on. Indeed, you can see cases of people who are almost never homicidal, but rather, suicidal, getting weapons which are clearly going to be used to harm themselves.**

dh, the problem with not allowing people who are 'mentally ill' to own guns, is that the government in this country, along with their pet psychiatrist, has shown an unpleasant tendency in recent time to get any behavior they happen not to like labelled as a 'mental illness'. The government (deliberately) does not distinguish at all between mental illnesses which are likely to be violent without provocation and those that are not. As things are now, a man who voluntarily checks himself into a mental hospital for a few months and is diagnosed with 'depression' because his wife just died, loses his right to own a gun for the rest of his life, because he was 'mentally ill'.

A question to the religious people on the board, who support not allowing the 'mentally ill' to own guns: What happens if the government at some point gets belief in a religion classified as a 'mental illness'? Now you can't own a gun...

I would support the right of religious people to own a gun, however much I might disagree with certain of their beliefs, so long as they did not try to use violence to either force me to believe as they did, or comply with the behavior dictated by their beliefs. I doubt the leftists would, despite their bleating of 'tolerance' they are remarkably intolerant towards anyone they disagree with.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 11:17 AM  

Here you go, DH. US firearm homicide rate by race:

12.5 US-Black, 6.8 US-Latin, 0.32 US-White.

This is based on the assumption that Hispanic victims indicate Hispanic killers. This is not ALWAYS true, obviously, but is usually true and is a statistically reasonable assumption.

Note that the white rate is comparable to Holland, which is 0.33.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 11:17 AM  

Japan as zero freedom. Zero! They have to submit to regular home inspections/checks for weapons. Their safety was bought 100% for the price of their freedom.

SO?

So, would you allow the police to come into your home where your wife and children live and sleep and "inspect" your private property for weapons? In order to assure that is done to all of your neighbors as well? In order to assure that NO ONE in your immediate vicinity has guns?

Knowing full well of course that "some people" (not you) are privileged and do not have to submit to such invasions of privacy? And that some of those "some people" have guns?

Lefty logic boggles the mind. I'd never make trade-offs like this. I have too much self-respect. I am sure more and more that's what separates me from people like you.



Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 11:17 AM  

SO?

Can you prove to us that these draconian control measures are what has reduced their crime, and not other factors?

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 11:21 AM  

I will never understand how people like DH can openly call for wide governmental measures to inspect our homes for weapons, as if the person living beside him is more of a threat to his safety then a monopoly on violence that is a government.

That government you are relying on to perform these inspections has much, much more concentrated power and potential for abuse then that person beside you who owns a gun.

Quick, who's killed more? Governments ordering people to kill with weapons, or people doing it on their own?

(Jeopardy music)

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 11:25 AM  

"wide governmental measures to inspect our homes for weapons, as if the person living beside him is more of a threat to his safety then a monopoly on violence that is a government."

boy, if that doesn't hit the nail on the head. the lefties and their obsessive paranoia about their neighbors and the people in their community. they are all the enemy! power to the state! use the state to control the enemy.

really scary stuff, that. beyond scary.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 07, 2013 11:29 AM  

dh wrote: **True, not a good example. But Japan is. The country is essentially a big jail for the people. And it's safe, and a nice place to live. They have traded freedom for security. Big time. And as a result, you can just walk around anywhere and not be afraid to be shot.**

Something similiar sometimes happens in nature. If you put birds on a nice lovely tropical island with no native predators, they can walk around anywhere and not be afraid of being eaten.

It sounds very good.

The only problem is that an ability that is not needed for survival, tends to get lost over evolutionary time periods. Birds that have existed for enough generations on lovely islands with no predators, eventually lose their ability to fly, or their fear of strange animals, or both.

Now put some cats or rats on the island, and watch just how fast those birds go extinct...

Blogger haus frau August 07, 2013 11:33 AM  

They have a visceral abhorrence of the piece of hardware that is a gun and an even deeper fear of individuals acting on their own judgment. The liberal believe that only government actors can be trusted with guns is nothing more than an extension of "because credentials".

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 11:37 AM  

Good point, Ann. I do believe this is why progressives believe in their two tier caste system, and why dh still believes in the dictates of the Cathedral.

They know they are breeding survival traits out of the public, so they culture an elite to retain these traits.

The same traits they seek to take from us because of the danger we pose, they *rely on* to run the system from the top

Where they fall off the tuna boat is that they refuse to understand that the stupider and more naive they make the public, the more the incentive and danger for abuse and corruption. The more potential to take advantage of the naiveté of the public.

They cannot escape this feedback loop.

Blogger Cinco August 07, 2013 11:40 AM  

The only problem is that an ability that is not needed for survival, tends to get lost over evolutionary time periods. Birds that have existed for enough generations on lovely islands with no predators, eventually lose their ability to fly, or their fear of strange animals, or both.

Now you went and did it. You were doing so well too...




Anonymous DonReynolds August 07, 2013 11:42 AM  

mina smith..."He is pro "assault weapons" ban but refuses to discuss gun control. The only thing he will say is "I am a strong 2nd amendment supporter ... fishin' and huntin' and skeet shootin'"

The second amendment does not guarantee the right to fishin' and huntin' and skeet shootin'....in fact, it has nothing to do with fishing at all. I could be wrong, so just read it yourself. It also does not distinguish between "assault weapons", pistols, rifles, or shotguns.

Blogger buzzardist August 07, 2013 11:44 AM  

Japan as zero freedom. Zero! They have to submit to regular home inspections/checks for weapons. Their safety was bought 100% for the price of their freedom.

Having lived in Japan for a number of years, this bit about home inspections and weapon checks is entirely news to me.

I agree that Japan has developed a very different balance from America regarding liberty and security. But Japan also started from a very different place culturally. Whereas the Anglo-Saxon tradition that gave root to America valued an armed populace that fight back against tyrants, Japan's culture has always been much more hierarchical. Only samurai were allowed to carry swords, and not much has changed today. Police have guns. The Self-Defense Force has guns. A few hunters who shoot wild animals for public safety reasons have guns. But it's strictly regulated who can have weapons, just as it has been in Japan for centuries.

That said, many Japanese people actually value privacy far above how many Americans value it, and the Japanese people are not tolerating a massive domestic spying infrastructure in the way that Americans are. Japanese people put up with a lot of government intrusion in their lives, but they also don't have a militarized police force that blasts down their doors in the middle of the night, nor do they have child protective services that rip kids away from parents and make them wards of the state on rumor and innuendo. I once rolled my eyes at how much government intrusion Japanese people were willing to accept, but more and more I'm recognizing that Americans put up with just as much, often of a more sinister variety.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2013 11:50 AM  

"wide governmental measures to inspect our homes for weapons, as if the person living beside him is more of a threat to his safety then a monopoly on violence that is a government."

I see it exactly the other way. There is a small chance that even given our vast government, I will have a violent encounter with the government (especially Federal). It is much larger chance I will have a problem with a crazy neighbor.

On the other hand, it is zero chance my neighbor will slaughter half the country, and a non-zero chance that the government will.

Anonymous tungsten August 07, 2013 11:50 AM  

Wow, just wow!

I've rarely seen a better example than this post's discussion with dh to illustrate the full wisdom of Vox's tactic to utterly win an argument by simply keeping an opponent talking until they reveal both their total ignorance of the subject they began by pontificating on, and their batshit crazy craven evil mindset and larger goals.

I wish I could frame this entire post and comment chain and hang it on my wall.

Anonymous Ann Morgan August 07, 2013 11:55 AM  

haus frau wrote: ** The liberal believe that only government actors can be trusted with guns is nothing more than an extension of "because credentials". **

Unless the credentials involve some sort of objective test, which anyone can take, regardless of whether they are part of some 'elite' group or not, then saying that "I can own a gun because the credentials say I can" is pretty much circular, if the elite group you happen to belong to is granting the 'credentials' to their own members, then functionally, the statement is no different than "I can own a gun because *I* say I can".

Anonymous VryeDenker August 07, 2013 12:09 PM  

A small woman will never be more equal to a large would-be rapist than when she can shoot his dick off. Why do liberals hate women?

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 12:13 PM  

> It is much larger chance I will have a problem with a crazy neighbor.

I'm not sure, given the increases in no knock drug raids over the years, that that's true any more, dh. Admittedly, those are usually joint local/federal operations, not the feds acting alone.

> On the other hand, it is zero chance my neighbor will slaughter half the country, and a non-zero chance that the government will.

And armed neighbors reduce that non-zero chance (to what degree is debatable). Decisions, decisions. :)

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2013 12:16 PM  

> Why do liberals hate women?

This brings to mind a tee-shirt I saw one time. It had a woman holding a gun. It said "So many men, so few bullets". I wonder how the converse or racially equivalent converse of that would be greeted. Well, actually I don't. I know. But it's an interesting intellectual exercise.

Blogger Joshua_D August 07, 2013 12:21 PM  

VryeDenker August 07, 2013 12:09 PM

A small woman will never be more equal to a large would-be rapist than when she can shoot his dick off. Why do liberals hate women?


If a potential rape victim has a gun, the rapist will most surely take it from her and then rape her and maybe kill her, with her own gun! It's better to be raped and stay alive than to be raped and murdered, don't you think?

So, given the likely chance that the rape victim will be murdered as well, we must remove that option from her, which also means we must remove the option for her to defend herself with the gun and not get raped.

This is how we prioritize the situation:

1. raped and alive, because woman doesn't have a gun
2. raped and dead, because woman had a gun that attacker took and murdered her with after raping her
3. not raped and alive because woman had a gun and shot criminal rapist

We're shooting for number one here.

/sarc

Anonymous Holmwood August 07, 2013 12:28 PM  

Even more than the abortion issue and demographic shift by population group, there's simply the issue of an aging population. All things being equal, gun murders are likely to be in decline.

I am mildly amused that after arguing that epidemiology is not science, you turn around and suggest that rejection of repeated correlation is unscientific.

Surely multiple states correlation between crime and gun availability is as scientific or unscientific as multiple state correlation between a treatment type and outcomes.

(NB- I make no claim that such exists for vaccines; it likely generally does not at present as historically vaccines have tended to be applied nation-wide at the same time, and comparing different nations is considerably more problematic than similar neighboring regions of a single nation)

[I]t is eminently clear that more guns do not cause more crime
That I buy. More guns = less crime? Not so sure. Maybe.

Certainly Switzerland has a great many guns, and quite low crime.

Gary Kleck (who is a left-wing anti-gun Democrat) comes to a slightly different conclusion than that of Lott: crime rates are generally not influenced by legal gun availability.

Interestingly, last I checked, he had the intellectual integrity to then state that it is logical to permit relatively free firearms ownership since it would make no difference either way, and it was best to choose something that increased individual freedom.

A seemingly uncommon view for a Democrat these days.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 12:34 PM  

I am mildly amused that after arguing that epidemiology is not science, you turn around and suggest that rejection of repeated correlation is unscientific.

You shouldn't be. There is a material difference between successful predictive models and ex post facto observations of correlations. And while predictive models are not science, the rejection of them is indicative of unscientific thinking.

Scientific thinking is not science either....

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2013 12:34 PM  

"There is a small chance that even given our vast government, I will have a violent encounter with the government (especially Federal). It is much larger chance I will have a problem with a crazy neighbor."

Every one of the 100+ million victims killed by government atrocities over the past century probably thought the same thing.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 1:07 PM  

DonReynolds August 07, 2013 11:42 AM: It ain't me that need the schoolin', it be the Governor wanna be.

Anonymous Harsh August 07, 2013 1:08 PM  

Japan as zero freedom. Zero! They have to submit to regular home inspections/checks for weapons. Their safety was bought 100% for the price of their freedom.

Yeah no, this isn't true. Article 35 of the Constitution of Japan prohibits this.

"The right of all persons to be secure in their homes, papers and effects against entries, searches and seizures shall not be impaired except upon warrant issued for adequate cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized, or except as provided by Article 33. 2) Each search or seizure shall be made upon separate warrant issued by a competent judicial officer."

Anonymous Feh August 07, 2013 1:09 PM  

Where they fall off the tuna boat is that they refuse to understand that the stupider and more naive they make the public, the more the incentive and danger for abuse and corruption. The more potential to take advantage of the naiveté of the public.

Are you kidding? Progressives WANT the public to be stupid and naive exactly so that they can be abused, victimized, and milked. There is nothing more dangerous to the progressive dream of a state-run utopia than an intelligent, well-informed population.

Anonymous . August 07, 2013 1:11 PM  

There is a small chance that even given our vast government, I will have a violent encounter with the government (especially Federal). It is much larger chance I will have a problem with a crazy neighbor.

Which is why you should want to have a gun to protect yourself!

Protecting yourself from a crazy neighbor is actually feasible. Libertarian dreams of rebelling against the government are simply stupid.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 1:13 PM  

More guns = less crime.

Widely peer reviewed, tons of data points analyzed. John Lott's book is the bible on gun vs crime statistics.

To date no one has been able to refute any of the data or the conclusions.

Anonymous Porky August 07, 2013 1:15 PM  

dh: "There is a small chance that even given our vast government, I will have a violent encounter with the government (especially Federal). It is much larger chance I will have a problem with a crazy neighbor."

Riiiight. Lol!

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Anne Frank, George Orwell, Wang Dan, Vatey Seng, etc.

...they were all just worried about the drunk redneck next door who was taking people away in the night by the millions and killing them en masse. Yep.

I've just concluded that you are either a complete idiot or a disingenuous prick since your arguments are too stupid to take seriously.

I'm leaning toward the latter conclusion.







Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 1:18 PM  

I was mainly talking about low church Progressives, Feh.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben August 07, 2013 1:24 PM  

., you're stupid. You realize that the afghanis have been fighting the army to a stalemate for over 10 years?

Even if it's futile, it's better to die defending yourself than being murdered in a concentration camp.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 1:25 PM  

"The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything."

Zero freedom. However you want to qualify it.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother August 07, 2013 1:29 PM  

The most amazing point of this whole discussion is we are having it with a man who lived through the terrible harvest of diversity and totalitarianism, yet still supports both concepts as long as they perform to his satisfaction.

Anonymous Porky August 07, 2013 1:32 PM  

"My first preference is to solve policy problems using methods that are not expansive. And that do not impact liberty."

Well, you are no different from the great leftist murderers of history. Lenin said "It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed".

It's not the leftist's first preference that concerns us. It's always the leftist's second or third or fourth preference that becomes the problem.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 1:33 PM  

The most amazing point of this whole discussion is we are having it with a man who lived through the terrible harvest of diversity and totalitarianism, yet still supports both concepts as long as they perform to his satisfaction.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I wonder if it has some kind of similarity to a gambling addiction? It seems very similar to that tendency to go for just one more hand or to take one more chance to try to increase your profit.

Anonymous ZhukovG August 07, 2013 1:35 PM  

Dh,

Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that your views are based less on ideology and more on personal experience. I was wondering if you remember anything of life in Yugoslavia, before it fell apart into its constituent nations?

It would certainly explain a great deal, as Yugoslavians under Tito did enjoy a period of peace and security nearly without equal in the history of that part of the Balkans.

Anonymous Catan August 07, 2013 1:38 PM  

The gambling addiction analogy makes more and more sense the more I think about it.

The matter how much we try to show him that the odds are against him, he still says, "but I could still win! There's still a percentage chance that I could come out of this a big winner! The right benevolent leader COULD get elected, absolute power doesn't HAVE to corrupt!"

As long as that possibility of him getting everything he wants still exists in his selfish mind, he will not give up his ideology.

Anonymous Gecko August 07, 2013 1:44 PM  

I blame Wolfenstein 3D and Doom for the decline of violence.

Anonymous Porky August 07, 2013 1:44 PM  

I wonder if it has some kind of similarity to a gambling addiction? It seems very similar to that tendency to go for just one more hand or to take one more chance to try to increase your profit.

I've often wondered if leftists are exhibiting some mass form of the sunk cost effect. It explains a lot.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2013 1:45 PM  

"Libertarian dreams of rebelling against the government are simply stupid."

Agreed. Why rebel against something that's destroying itself?

Anonymous civilServant August 07, 2013 1:50 PM  

more guns and less crime

One notes the constant shootings in Chicago. Is their problem too few guns? Would more guns result in fewer shootings?

Anonymous Eric C August 07, 2013 1:53 PM  

"One notes the constant shootings in Chicago. Is their problem too few guns? Would more guns result in fewer shootings?"

Yes, fewer shootings if the guns are in the right hands. Concealed carry is coming to Illinois. You will see the same results as elsewhere in the US. No blood bath, decrease in crime. QED.

Or in the case Chicago and other big cities, you could greatly reduce shootings by selectively disarming certain demographic groups.

Anonymous Holmwood August 07, 2013 2:01 PM  

You shouldn't be. There is a material difference between successful predictive models and ex post facto observations of correlations.
Sure, but epidemiology can be used to test the validity of a predictive model. Granted, very frequently it is not, and there it perhaps does indeed approach the level of augury.

Scientific thinking is not science either....True.

Anonymous civilServant August 07, 2013 2:02 PM  

if the guns are in the right hands.

Ah. Who could disagree?

selectively disarming certain demographic groups.

And how would we credential these groups? Birth certificate? Eyeball? One drop of blood?

Anonymous . August 07, 2013 2:06 PM  

., you're stupid. You realize that the afghanis have been fighting the army to a stalemate for over 10 years?

You are stupid indeed if you think that has any bearing on libertarians in the USA.

Anonymous Harsh August 07, 2013 2:06 PM  

"The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything."

Zero freedom. However you want to qualify it.


No, sorry, I don't know where you got that quote but it certainly isn't anything I experienced while living there. Nor did my Japanese ex-wife ever bring it up. Nor did I hear anything like that from the dozen or so Japanese friends I had for the ten years I lived in New York.

If this was such a common practice, why was my residence never visited in the two plus years I lived there? Japanese still have a deep mistrust of gaijin so surely I would have a been a priority for these house visits. I never even got stopped on the streets by the police and asked for my residence card (which they do reportedly do).

This is admittedly anecdotal evidence but I never experienced anything remotely like you describe, nor have I heard anything like that from the many Americans I know who worked and studied there or indeed the many native Japanese I've known.

I'm not saying Japan is some great land of individual freedom, it certainly is not, but when you say they have "zero freedom" I have to say that you have not one clue as to what you're talking about.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 07, 2013 2:09 PM  

more guns and less crime

civilServant...."One notes the constant shootings in Chicago. Is their problem too few guns? Would more guns result in fewer shootings?"

I see you want to confuse the issue by saying that shootings are crimes. If a mugger is shot while trying to rob someone in a parking lot at the mall. That is not a crime, but that is a shooting. If a rapist is shot by his would-be victim, that is not a crime, but that is a shooting. When George Zimmerman shot his attacker, it was not a crime..... You get the idea.

But to answer your semi-question: Yes, if the citizens had more guns in Chicago, there would be less crime....and facing an armed citizenry, the criminal element would be less likely to repeat their crimes.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 2:10 PM  

Japan is not a place I have studied no. It has been brought up many times on this very blog that Japan has no guns because Japan has very little freedom. This is also a verifiable fact if one peruses data widely available on the Internet.

Am I interested enough in Japan to know every detail about their lack of freedom? No. I am interested enough to know that their level of freedom is not even a tiny percent of the amount and type of freedom we enjoy and expect here in the USA.

And that is all I need to know.

Anonymous civilServant August 07, 2013 2:20 PM  

Yes, if the citizens had more guns

Ah. So it is not "more guns less crime" but rather "more armed citizens less crime." Perhaps we need to credential citizens so we know who to permit bearing of arms. Yes?

As an aside. One notes that blacks shooting blacks is the single largest component of shooting statistics. Perhaps this should be factored in to any solution?

Anonymous Harsh August 07, 2013 2:20 PM  

@mina smith

Now you're changing your argument. You said "zero freedom" and now you're saying "very little freedom." Which is it? How do you define very little freedom?

To repeat, I don't for a minute think that Japan is the greatest country when it comes to individual freedoms but they are far from the worst. Be that as it may, you really don't seem to know anything about the country or what you're talking about. Just parroting what other people have said here isn't really an argument. If you have evidence to back up your assertions, let's hear it, but as I've actually been to the country, you're going to have to really convince me with some good evidence.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 2:21 PM  

I live very close to Chicago and moved from the city itself to my little farm about 15 years ago.

Chicago is a cesspool. Mostly because of corruption, mismanagement and wrong headed leadership courtesy of several decades of Democrats (witness Detroit for a comparable situation.)

Our Chief of Police is a drunk and a certifiable imbecile. The Police and the State do not at any level enforce any of the current, existing gun laws - they only desire to pile on more. The difference being the current laws are mainly directed at criminals ("those poor inner city boys - they are just acting out because they have no hope and no opportunities!") and the new laws they'd like to get passed are all directed at law-abiding citizens.

For some strange reason they think that restricting law-abiding citizens rights to guns and ammunition are going to impact what criminals do with their illegal guns. Duh. Typical liberal thinking.

Meanwhile of all of the illegal guns used in crimes in Chicago something less than 4% of those illegal gun uses are prosecuted. And they wonder why there is so much gun crime!! These people are total idiots.

Just wait till our conceal carry next year. My prediction is once criminals realize anyone could potentially be armed and maybe a few muggers or rapists get shot in the face, crime will "mysteriously" start going down. The Democrats will of course attribute this to some stupid program they put in place, and completely ignore the link between "more guns = less crime"

Of course the rate at which inner city boys are routinely shooting and killing each other over drugs and turf won't change at all. But, no one really seems to care about that anyway. Do they?

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 2:27 PM  

Harsh: In case you didn't notice, I don't give a rat's ass about Japan.

I live in the United States and here we have a right and an expectation to a certain amount of freedom. Using Japan's low rate of "gun crime" to highlight how wrong the US gun laws are is a disingenuous argument because they have no expectation of freedom of any equivalent to ours.

Japan trades freedom for safety and that is something most US citizens are unwilling to do. Which is why the comparison is invalid.

That is my point and there is no need to go further into the details about Japan to make it.

Anonymous log August 07, 2013 2:29 PM  


If a street gun goes from $100 to $50, the average criminal is going to grasp that there are more guns around.


I would love to see evidence for this claim. I'm doubting it mightily.

Anonymous Harsh August 07, 2013 2:34 PM  

Harsh: In case you didn't notice, I don't give a rat's ass about Japan.

I live in the United States and here we have a right and an expectation to a certain amount of freedom. Using Japan's low rate of "gun crime" to highlight how wrong the US gun laws are is a disingenuous argument because they have no expectation of freedom of any equivalent to ours.

Japan trades freedom for safety and that is something most US citizens are unwilling to do. Which is why the comparison is invalid.

That is my point and there is no need to go further into the details about Japan to make it.


You have now crossed over into "ranting like an idiot" territory.

Anonymous Larry August 07, 2013 2:37 PM  

Japan trades freedom for safety and that is something most US citizens are unwilling to do.

Now THAT's funny right there.
I don't care who you are...

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 2:40 PM  

Not really. I have produced enough evidence to prove my very basic point.

Because you don't like it and it doesn't jive with your one-person, anecdotal evidence you are attempting to bully me into a debate about details that are unnecessary for me to provide my point.

Why don't you go find a "debate about freedom in Japan" blog and engage someone who is interested in the level of detail you obviously desperately need to explore today?

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 2:44 PM  

"Japan trades freedom for safety and that is something most US citizens are unwilling to do."

Larry: yes sorry. you are right. most US citizens do seem willing to trade freedom for safety and they are actively working to do so every day.

I probably should have said "that is something that US 2nd amendment/constitution supporters and similar-minded freedom lovers are unwilling to do"

Anonymous Harsh August 07, 2013 2:46 PM  

Not really. I have produced enough evidence to prove my very basic point.

Actually you've produced none that I'm aware of. You keep making baseless assertions and saying that's evidence.

Why don't you go find a "debate about freedom in Japan" blog and engage someone who is interested in the level of detail you obviously desperately need to explore today?

Your continue to misconstrue my point either out of dishonesty or plain stupidity. I'm not arguing that Japan is a bastion of freedom, in fact I pointed out twice that I didn't think that was so. I merely asked you to defend two assertions, that Japanese have "zero freedom" and that the police go house-to-house seizing weapons.

So which is it? Are you a liar or just a moron?

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 2:59 PM  

"Your continue to misconstrue my point either out of dishonesty or plain stupidity."

I am not misconstruing your point at any level. I don't even care about your point. You're taking issue with my point and attempting to bully me into providing supporting data for a general statement that is widely known and easily verifiable to be a fact.

Japan's citizens have less freedom than do US citizens - some would quantify it as "Zero" - some would quantify it simply as "Less". I guess it depends very much on your definitions of "zero" and "less" and adjust as necessary for individual perceptions (note to self: debate on definitions of "zero" and "less" coming in 3 - 2 - 1) We have a constitution that memorializes our freedoms. Japan does not.

I don't need to know any more about Japan to prove my point. Sorry. You can continue to jump up and down, pound your fist, stamp your feet and call me names. It is quite enjoyable watching a temper tantrum in action.

Anonymous Thomas August 07, 2013 3:12 PM  

@dh "There is a small chance that even given our vast government, I will have a violent encounter with the government (especially Federal)."




Ah... but the odds are quickly growing each day aren't they.

You best make friends with your neighbors. Unless you're politically connected, you'll need friends soon.



Anonymous Harsh August 07, 2013 3:13 PM  

You're taking issue with my point and attempting to bully me into providing supporting data for a general statement that is widely known and easily verifiable to be a fact.

Then please condescend to verify it for me.

Japan's citizens have less freedom than do US citizens

I never asserted that Japanese have more freedoms than we do.

- some would quantify it as "Zero" - some would quantify it simply as "Less". I guess it depends very much on your definitions of "zero" and "less" and adjust as necessary for individual perceptions (note to self: debate on definitions of "zero" and "less" coming in 3 - 2 - 1)

This is nonsense. Zero quite clearly means none.

We have a constitution that memorializes our freedoms. Japan does not.

You are utterly and completely clueless on this point. Go here and skip down to Chapter III.

I don't need to know any more about Japan to prove my point.

Actually, you do. You've been asked to defend an assertion. Read the FAQ.

Sorry. You can continue to jump up and down, pound your fist, stamp your feet and call me names. It is quite enjoyable watching a temper tantrum in action.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm asking you to defend your arguments and respond with rants.

I am not misconstruing your point at any level. I don't even care about your point.

Then why do you keep replying?

Anonymous Papapete August 07, 2013 3:21 PM  

To the point of criminals not doing a risk analysis, that is refuted by the experience in Florida. After Florida passed its shall-issue concealed carry law there was a wave of tourists in rental cars being carjacked which was duly reported in the national news. What was not reported was that total number of carjackings didn't change significantly, but the targets shifted from locals who had a 1 in 4 chance of being armed to tourists driving rental cars and thus were almost surely disarmed, the reasoning being that they almost certainly flew in and thus would be unable to carry. The criminals realized this and preyed on the disarmed rather than the possibly armed. Of course after the story hit the news more criminals began to copycat since they knew a good thing when they saw it.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 3:24 PM  

This took me about 10 minutes to assemble. Google search: ["gun crime" japan]
...Because I can't stand whiney babies. And to prove that any rational adult could have done the same in 20 minutes or so. It's obvious you do not fall into that category.

David Kopel's detailed assessment of Japan, its culture of submissiveness and lack of freedom and gun control.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
[Copyright © 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong; David B. Kopel. Originally published as 2 Asia Pac. L. Rev. 26-52 (1993). Permission for WWW use at this cite generously granted by the author. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from Subscription Dept., Longman Asia Ltd., 18/F Cornwall House, Taikoo Place, 979 King's Road, Hong Kong. David Kopel is author of the book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? available from Amazon.com.]

According to "The Atlantic" (07/2012): "David Kopel's landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current."

David Kopel's work is referenced in this National Crimial Justice Reference Service article:
NCJ Number: NCJ 160198
Title: Gun Control in Other Nations: An Overview (From Gun Control, P 238-242, 1992, Charles P Cozic, ed. -- See NCJ-160164)
Author(s): C A Carter-Yamauchi
Date Published: 1992

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=160198
"Comparisons of United States crime rates with those of other countries fail to consider the vast historical, social, legal, and cultural factors that contribute to the differences in crime rates. In an article that examined Japanese gun laws and crime rates, for example, David B. Kopel asserts that "Gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority." Besides the police and the military in Japan, only hunters are allowed to possess guns, and that possession is strictly limited; hunters must store their rifles or shotguns in a locker when not hunting. Civilians are forbidden to possess handguns, and even the possession of a starter's pistol is allowed only under certain detailed conditions. However in Switzerland, where high-powered guns are readily available and citizens are encouraged to have firearms in their homes, the murder rate is a fraction of that in the United States. After reviewing Switzerland's stable, integrated community structures and the many factors that contribute to the intergenerational harmony that exists in Switzerland to inhibit age separation, alienation, and growth of a separate youth culture, David B. Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli conclude: "Guns in themselves are not a cause of crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel. Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate." Thus, in the absence of controlling for the historical, legal, social, and cultural differences in international comparisons of gun-related violence, any inference that crime-rate differences are attributable to differences in firearm availability is gratuitous."

Reference statement: "Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority." ALSO KNOWN AS ZERO OR VERY LITTLE FREEDOM, certainly a LOT less than US citizens expect to enjoy. I categorize it as ZERO. You may categorize it as LESS. Perceptions.

I see you moved on, predictably to attempting to debate the difference between Zero and Less. Very tiresome.

I consider this matter with you closed.

Anonymous Harsh August 07, 2013 3:26 PM  

You're taking issue with my point and attempting to bully me into providing supporting data for a general statement that is widely known and easily verifiable to be a fact.

And to make a point here, it's impossible for me to bully you because there is no way for me to coerce you. You can simply ignore my posts. You are misusing that word in an attempt to make me look like the bad guy.

Anonymous Thomas August 07, 2013 3:30 PM  

This issue clearly reveals the split amongst people. The statist trusts the State and fears his neighbor and the libertarian trusts his neighbor and fears the State.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2013 3:30 PM  

You're taking issue with my point and attempting to bully me into providing supporting data for a general statement that is widely known and easily verifiable to be a fact.

1. Stop whining. Asking you to support your assertions is not bullying.
2. If it is easily verified, then verify it.

Anonymous Harsh August 07, 2013 3:33 PM  

@mina smith

Are you really that dense? I never argued any of those points. I simply asked you to provide proof for your assertions that the Japanese police go door-to-door searching for weapons. You have not done so. Please immediately refrain from accusing me of arguing that Japan has greater freedoms than we do.

At this point I can only conclude that you are either a) very young b) functionally retarded, or c) having a little joke at Harsh's expense. If the latter is the case, then ha ha, I get it. I get jokes.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 3:36 PM  

Harsh: I do not rant, I respond to debate topics bluntly and without emotion. I make my point and if you do not understand it I make it again until you do.

There is only one of us in this little discussion who is emotional and argumentative and that is you.

I have posted the supporting information that you have asked for only to prove exactly what I said over and over: My statement about Japan and their lack of freedom and how it relates to gun control is generally well-known and easily verifiable fact.

You now have both the data you wanted / asked for as well as proof that the fact that US citizens enjoy much more freedom than do Japanese citizens and they trade freedom for safety is both true and a generalization that should not require detailed facts to support.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 3:44 PM  

I am stupid? Then you are a liar and willfully obtuse.

What I said was
"They have to submit to regular home inspections/checks for weapons."

From David Kopel's article - read it as you like. I read it as "the police will come to my home and if weapons are found, they will be seized." and "the police will come to my home yearly". and "the police will do whatever the hell they want because the citizens have no expectation of the right to privacy or freedom."

If it does not equate to a regular home inspection and weapon check to you, well, clearly we have a definition problem.


III. A Police State

Illegal gun possession, like illegal drug possession, is a consensual offense. There is no victim to complain to the police. Accordingly, in order to find illegal guns, the Japanese police are given broad search and seizure powers. The basic firearms law permits a policeman to search a person's belongings if the officer judges there is 'sufficient suspicion that a person is carrying a fire-arm, a sword or a knife' or if he judges that a person 'is likely to endanger life or body of other persons judging reasonably from his abnormal behavior or any other surrounding circumstances'.[32] Once a weapon is found, the policeman may confiscate it. Even if the confiscation is later admitted to be an error, the firearm is sometimes not returned.[33](p.29)

In practice, the special law for weapons searches is not necessary, since the police routinely search at will. They ask suspicious characters to show them what is in their purse or sack.[34] In the rare cases where a policeman's search (for a gun or any other contraband) is ruled illegal, it hardly matters; the Japanese courts permit the use of illegally seized evidence.[35] And legal rules aside, Japanese, both criminals and ordinary citizens, are much the more willing than their American counterparts to consent to searches and to answer questions from the police.[36]

'Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police...' explains the Japanese National Police Agency. In twice-a-year visit, officers fill out Residence Information Cards about who lives where and which family member to contact in case of emergency, what relation people in the house have to each other, what kind of work they do, if they work late, and what kind of cars they own.[37] The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure that no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.[38]
...
There is no right to bear arms in Japan. In practical terms, there is no right to privacy against police searches. Other Western-style rights designed to protect citizens from a police state are also non-existent or feeble in Japan.

Blogger mina smith August 07, 2013 3:47 PM  

VD August 07, 2013 3:30 PM: Done.

1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts