Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting

[littlebabyjesus]

As I said, LBJ, I used the 1994 figures as a courtesy to advocates of gun control, since they're the most favorable to the gun control position. I'm addressing your strongest case.

But you're not really addressing it. Throwing out a figure of 65,000 'defensive' gun uses is useless without a breakdown of how the guns were used, what the outcomes were, and what the likely outcomes would have been sans-gun.

It's meaningless otherwise. Of those 65,000, how many were people who pulled a gun to defend themselves and were promptly shot dead? That figure, in and of itself, proves nothing at all.

 

[8den]

I used the 2013 CDC figures.

While your 65,000 is extrapolated from a sample group of 60,000 people telephone survey from 1994

Respondents may also be unclear about how long ago the events transpired (which may lead to the well-known phenomenon of "telescoping"). In principle, telescoping can cause estimates to be too high or too low. Respondents either may mistakenly report on events that occurred outside of the recall period or may fail to report events that happened during the recall period but are mistakenly remembered to have occurred outside of the time frame in question. In practice, the former seems to dominate. As Skogan (1990, p. 262) notes, in criminal victimization surveys telescoping can increase estimates "by between 40 and 50% depending on the time of crime; the inflation rate is greatest for violent crimes and those (often more serious) that were reported to the police." Surveys such as the NCVS attempt to address this problem by exploiting the fact that sampled households are interviewed every 6 months; the results of the first interview are used to "bound" the reference period that is asked about on the follow-up survey. Telephone surveys that interview respondents only once are obviously not able to make this correction. The incentives to intentionally misreport will depend on the behavior or experience in question. Some questions may ask respondents to report illegal behaviors that they or others have engaged in, in which case respondents may be further dissuaded from accurately reporting for fear of possible legal action if the survey data is shared with law enforcement. For example, previous research suggests that assaults by family or friends are underreported in surveys (Skogan, 1981). In the case of defensive gun use, some respondents who actually experience a DGU may have incentives to misreport intentionally (report a false negative) because of concerns about the legality or legitimacy of their gun uses. They may have been carrying the gun illegally at the time or involved in drug dealing or other illicit activity. Or they may simply be unsure of whether they had

Each defensive gun user is asked to assess the likelihood that someone would have been killed had a gun not been used defensively. The results implied that 629,000 lives were "likely," "somewhat likely," or "very likely" saved through the DGU (95% confidence of 196,000 to 1,062,000). In comparison, data gathered by the FBI indicated 21,100 actual homicides in 1994 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995). Even if we assume that only 1 of every 10 respondents was correct in believing that the gun use saved a life, the NSPOF estimates would imply that around three-quarters of all potentially fatal attacks are prevented by a gun-wielding citizen. More likely, either respondents are inventing the DGUs that they report or people who use guns against people are very poor at judging the danger that they or others face. The latter possibility calls into question the social benefits of these gun uses, a point to which we return below.

Survey estimates for the annual number of DGUs have been offered as a measure of the protective value of private gun ownership and carrying. Because several recent estimates from household survey data suggest that there are millions of DGUs each year, some have argued that widespread gun ownership and carrying are effective in reducing injury from criminal victimization. It is therefore important for public officials to be aware that estimates of the prevalence of DGU based on data of the sort analyzed here appear to suffer from a large positive bias and greatly overstate the prevalence of DGU. Further, these data do not provide sufficient information to 128 Cook and Ludwig Defensive Gun Uses 129 distinguish between virtuous and objectionable uses. Hence these estimates contribute little to evaluating the benefits of widespread gun ownership and carrying.

Hence your 65,000 figure is full of crap.

I'd go by cold hard fact of the number of homicides using guns in the US which is a very clear and verifiable figure. There is no possible justification for the prevalence of firearms in the US because the US dominants the developed world in firearms homicides.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ah, don't get me started on telephone surveys...

'Hello, I'd like to talk to you about guns...'

Do you a) hang up, b) say oh yes, I'll talk to you for half an hour?

Not self-selecting at all, that group, oh no. And totally impartial and fair, their own accounts of their actions.

I'll give you another real-world eg of 'defensive gun use' . When I lived in the us, we were playing some loud music in our house one night. Our neighbour came round to ask us to turn it down. With a gun in his hand. Defensive gun use - another of the 65,000.

 

[Azrael]

MrsDoyle, you're assuming that there'd be no significant increase in death if the people who used guns defensively were disarmed, and that a significant proportion of the murders committed by guns wouldn't be committed by other means.

All this is assuming that any gun control policies you support are effective in drying up the black market, and getting guns out the hands of criminals. Which specific policies d'you think will work, and why?

We've not even addressed the ethical question of whether it's better that people suffer violent assault than commit justifiable homicide.

LBJ, we do the best with the data available. The NCVS was non-anonymous, which deters people from admitted to "defensive gun usages" that are, in effect, crimes; and it didn't even ask about DGU unless a person independently said that they were a victim of a crime. Both count against false-positives, and a lot of genuine-positives. This is the data favored by gun control groups for good reason.

What alternative source of data would you like to see used to estimate the frequency of armed self-defense? Any, or should be just say "We don't know," and discount this issue altogether.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't care any more. I've been sucked into discussing this on your terms. But your terms are rotten.

The whole point of this, as the Brazilian campaigners for disarmament working in the favelas stress, is that you need to imagine a different state of affairs and see what you can do to produce that different state. In the US case, first you need to acknowledge such a thing as a society with common interests across everyone, then you ask 'how the fuck did we get here and how can we get away from here?'

 

[8den]

What alternative source of data would you like to see used to estimate the frequency of armed self-defense? Any, or should be just say "We don't know," and discount this issue altogether.

Police reports.

 

[8den]

All this is assuming that any gun control policies you support are effective in drying up the black market, and getting guns out the hands of criminals. Which specific policies d'you think will work, and why?

The policy that was implimented in Australia

We've not even addressed the ethical question of whether it's better that people suffer violent assault than commit justifiable homicide.

The US leads the world (developed world) in gun related homicides mass shootings, and school shootings, shouldn't you try and reduce all these things?

 

[MrsDoyle]

look around the developed world and tell me why then, in all the other countries that are developmentally comparable (ie: not Africa or the middle east or Russia or eastern Europe) has it worked? And it's not just disarming the defensive gun owners, it's denying the opportunity to tool up legally and go on a spraying bullets spree to all citizens

OF COURSE the black market will never go, it hasn't here; lots and lots of underworld guns in uk, but firearms deaths are negligible, and other violent homicides are not massively high either. (sorry no stats but I'm sure others do)

you seem to just dismiss the possibility that there are any 'casual' "I had a gun so I used it" type incidents...despite all the children shooting other children incidents

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why has what worked? Are you comparing the US with Switzerland again? You do know that in Switzerland, many of those guns are owned by men who have been conscripted into the Swiss army and are legally obliged to keep a gun at home? I'm not advocating the Swiss system at all, but it is an example of a society in which guns are kept as part of a society-wide system of responsibility - conscription into a 'citizen army'. They're not tooling up to defend themselves from their neighbours - quite the reverse in fact, the whole idea of a 'citizen army' is that you are tooling up to stand together with your neighbours. As far from the US as you could possibly imagine.

Edit:

Sorry, ranting against a badly read post. I thought Azrael was off on one again.

Soz.

But I'll leave that up. Anyone comparing the US with other big gun-owning countries like Switzerland is only making the case for the US fucked-up-ness, really. The very fact that the comparable places are not the likes of Switzerland but Brazil or South Africa ought to make anyone in the US pause for thought.

 

[Azrael]

I don't care any more. I've been sucked into discussing this on your terms. But your terms are rotten.

My terms? I've been arguing it on the terms most favorable to gun control, using the data favored by advocates of gun control! I've used federal govt. data from 1994 (U.S. pop. 263 million), drawn from a survey criticized by many criminologists (including those who advocate gun control), against crime data from 2013 (pop. 316 million). I couldn't have been more generous to the gun control position.

The whole point of this, as the Brazilian campaigners for disarmament working in the favelas stress, is that you need to imagine a different state of affairs and see what you can do to produce that different state. In the US case, first you need to acknowledge such a thing as a society with common interests across everyone, then you ask 'how the fuck did we get here and how can we get away from here?'

I never denied that society's interdependent, nor that we've obligations to one another; and I've nothing but contempt for the Hobbesian image of selfish, atomized individuals advocated by neoliberal zealots.

I don't need to imagine a different state of affairs, we can see it in Europe (across nations with liberal and restrictive gun laws), and in the peaceful states of the union (again, regardless of gun laws). It tells me that combating deprivation, poverty, broken homes, prejudice, lack of opportunity, and every other malign influence that stops people from fulfilling their potential is something done largely independent of gun laws. I've not denied that specific gun control is justifiable or effective; but it's, at best, the lesser part of the problem.

 

[MrsDoyle]

ok Azrael, let me put it another way:
Q: what would you see happening if the US managed to take guns completely out of the deprived communities, focus policing there to enforce it hardline and thus completely deny the opportunity for firearms violence?

(please don't answer with 'but it would never happen' try to suspend your disbelief and imagine it has)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My terms? I've been arguing it on the terms most favorable to gun control, using the data favored by advocates of gun control! I've used federal govt. data from 1994 (U.S. pop. 263 million), drawn from a survey criticized by many criminologists (including those who advocate gun control), against crime data from 2013 (pop. 316 million). I couldn't have been more generous to the gun control position.

I never denied that society's interdependent, nor that we've obligations to one another; and I've nothing but contempt for the Hobbesian image of selfish, atomized individuals advocated by neoliberal zealots.

I don't need to imagine a different state of affairs, we can see it in Europe (across nations with liberal and restrictive gun laws), and in the peaceful states of the union (again, regardless of gun laws). It tells me that combating deprivation, poverty, broken homes, prejudice, lack of opportunity, and every other malign influence that stops people from fulfilling their potential is something done largely independent of gun laws. I've not denied that specific gun control is justifiable or effective; but it's, at best, the lesser part of the problem.

But that's the whole point. Any society, whether it is the US or Brazil or South Africa or Honduras, in which large numbers of people feel the need to arm themselves against other members of that same society is fucked-up. That situation is not some kind of freedom. It is the opposite of freedom.

 

[Azrael]

Why has what worked? Are you comparing the US with Switzerland again? You do know that in Switzerland, many of those guns are owned by men who have been conscripted into the Swiss army and are legally obliged to keep a gun at home? I'm not advocating the Swiss system at all, but it is an example of a society in which guns are kept as part of a society-wide system of responsibility - conscription into a 'citizen army'. They're not tooling up to defend themselves from their neighbours - quite the reverse in fact, the whole idea of a 'citizen army' is that you are tooling up to stand together with your neighbours. As far from the US as you could possibly imagine.

Edit:

Sorry, ranting against a badly read post. I thought Azrael was off on one again.

Soz.

But I'll leave that up. Anyone comparing the US with other big gun-owning countries like Switzerland is only making the case for the US fucked-up-ness, really. The very fact that the comparable places are not the likes of Switzerland but Brazil or South Africa ought to make anyone in the US pause for thought.

Interestingly, our positions aren't that far apart. We both agree that glib comparisons of gun laws are unhelpful, and we both agree that cultural factors besides guns are crucial.

The Swiss militia tradition is close to what the Second Amendment, written in the context of the Revolutionary War and the minutemen, originally referred to: an armed, trained citizenry united in common defense, both of the nation, and of one another. Mutual defense of the self and others from criminal violence isn't in opposition to that common responsibility, it's a component of it.

I would disagree that America's closer to South Africa and Brazil than it is Switzerland: the Brazilian murder rate's in the low 30s per 100,000, as is South Africa's; no, America doesn't enjoy Switzerland's enviable rate of less than one murder per 100,000, but violent crime's been falling for decades, and at around 4.5 per 100,000, its murder rate is much closer to Switzerland's than it is to those other nations.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I would disagree that America's closer to South Africa and Brazil than it is Switzerland: the Brazilian murder rate's in the low 30s per 100,000, as is South Africa's; no, America doesn't enjoy Switzerland's enviable rate of less than one murder per 100,000, but violent crime's been falling for decades, and at around 4.5 per 100,000, its murder rate is much closer to Switzerland's than it is to those other nations.

This has been posted earlier. The US is a big place with large regional variations. Parts of the US are just like the bad bits of South Africa and Brazil. Whole states are like them - Louisiana, for instance.

 

[Azrael]

But that's the whole point. Any society, whether it is the US or Brazil or South Africa or Honduras, in which large numbers of people feel the need to arm themselves against other members of that same society is fucked-up. That situation is not some kind of freedom. It is the opposite of freedom.

Violent career criminals in effect operate outside society. They've formed their own subculture, with its own code. Saying that doesn't seek to dehumanize them: most any of us, if born amidst the deprivation many grew up in, could follow the same path; it does, however, accept that, to defend society from violence, extreme methods may be unavoidable.

Guns aren't the answer any more than they're the problem. The answer is in healing deprivation, which must be done collectively, and can't be imposed by force. Prisons won't fix it anymore than guns will. But social healing takes time, and until it's done, people have the right to defend themselves and others. It may well be fucked-up, but doesn't make it wrong.

 

[MrsDoyle]

(wants to think Azrael is typing a long response to my question, really doubts he is from his two most recent posts)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Mutual defense of the self and others from criminal violence isn't in opposition to that common responsibility, it's a component of it..

No, here is where we fundamentally disagree. The criminal violence comes from within, and from within a particular and peculiarly atomised society in which there is often no sense of community beyond immediate family at all. This isn't mutual defence. It's individual defence. Nothing like Switzerland, hence its results are nothing like Switzerland's results.

 

[Azrael]

ok Azrael, let me put it another way:
Q: what would you see happening if the US managed to take guns completely out of the deprived communities, focus policing there to enforce it hardline and thus completely deny the opportunity for firearms violence?

(please don't answer with 'but it would never happen' try to suspend your disbelief and imagine it has)

Disarming criminals in deprived communities, if it's even possible, would require a brutal police dragnet, action that would, inevitably, lead to a lot of deaths, many of them innocents caught in the crossfire. You'd almost certainly have to suspend Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. I could never agree with such tactics.

But say, arguendo, that they're used, and succeed in drying up the black market supply of guns. Gangs would use knives, clubs, shanks, and other weapons. The death toll would, probably, be lower, but it would still be a miserable, hopeless situation, one in which anyone physically weak or disabled would, being disarmed, have no hope of defending themselves.

In short, a different kind of dystopia.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Violent career criminals in effect operate outside society. They've formed their own subculture, with its own code. Saying that doesn't seek to dehumanize them: most any of us, if born amidst the deprivation many grew up in, could follow the same path; it does, however, accept that, to defend society from violence, extreme methods may be unavoidable.

Guns aren't the answer any more than they're the problem. The answer is in healing deprivation, which must be done collectively, and can't be imposed by force. Prisons won't fix it anymore than guns will. But social healing takes time, and until it's done, people have the right to defend themselves and others. It may well be fucked-up, but doesn't make it wrong.

Ok well here we probably do agree to some degree in the sense that gun controls in and of themselves are not going to solve the conditions that produce the violence in the first place. Addressing those conditions isn't so easy.

In the meantime, does disarmament of society form a part of a wider society-based solution? Unless you're a mad phildwyer-type who thinks the government will get you if you don't have a gun (and that having a gun will protect you from the government if they want to get you, which is equally mad), how could your answer not be yes'.

 

[Azrael]

(wants to think Azrael is typing a long response to my question, really doubts he is from his two most recent posts)

Ahem.

No, here is where we fundamentally disagree. The criminal violence comes from within, and from within a particular and peculiarly atomised society in which there is often no sense of community beyond immediate family at all. This isn't mutual defence. It's individual defence. Nothing like Switzerland, hence its results are nothing like Switzerland's results.

Actually I'd agree with that, a crucial mark of deprivation is that deprived areas have little if any sense of community, and are viewed as Other by people lucky enough to live outside the area. Many residents feel abandoned, many grow up in broken homes, and seek a substitute for family and community in gangs, which offer friendship, a sense of purpose, and feelings of respect. Many people aren't gangbanging because they're evil, but because they've been starved of the love, resources, positive influences, and sense of hope that we all need to thrive.

 

[MrsDoyle]

thanks for the answer Azrael and sure, as I'm sure you'd agree; in any war, including the one against guns there will be some casualties. Interesting though that you seem to see the gunless gangs then trying to disarm the weaker community members who would be defenceless sans guns. My take on that hypothetical situation is that once the communities are mass death weapon free, there would be more opportunity for reform as those advocating and delivering that reform would be able to carry out the reforms.

In 2004 I visited an Employment Retention and Advancement programme in South Compton LA (yes, that Compton) the local government had brought in the programme as a trial, there were armed guards at the office doors and metal detectors, anyone caught carrying either arms or drugs was denied the help. We spoke to participants and heard about their journeys, about how their work coaches were seen as angels and had enabled them to turn their lives around by believing in them and supporting them to get work and take training opportunities to advance in that work. Several had been gang bangers and had in some cases struggled to leave that culture but the self worth they had gained from the programme and from working was their motivator.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Actually I'd agree with that, a crucial mark of deprivation is that deprived areas have little if any sense of community, and are viewed as Other by people lucky enough to live outside the area. Many residents feel abandoned, many grow up in broken homes, and seek a substitute for family and community in gangs, which offer friendship, a sense of purpose, and feelings of respect. Many people aren't gangbanging because they're evil, but because they've been starved of the love, resources, positive influences, and sense of hope that we all need to thrive.

yes, we can agree on this. That's the difference, imo, between being a deprived area and just being poor. It's possible to be poor but have a coherent sense of community and actually be ok in many important ways.

Said areas of deprivation can only exist, though, in contrast to areas of wealth. Hence this kind of breakdown of society happens in places of extreme inequality. Inequality is, in and of itself, evil.

 

[Azrael]

Ok well here we probably do agree to some degree in the sense that gun controls in and of themselves are not going to solve the conditions that produce the violence in the first place. Addressing those conditions isn't so easy.

In the meantime, does disarmament of society form a part of a wider society-based solution? Unless you're a mad phildwyer-type who thinks the government will get you if you don't have a gun (and that having a gun will protect you from the government if they want to get you, which is equally mad), how could your answer not be yes'.

Sheeit, the resident Prepper, forgotten him!

While I distrust all concentrations of power, I'm not remotely interested in the "gubment's gonna get me!" paranoia. It's not any part of the militia tradition that gave birth to the Second Amendment, and it's even less compelling than target shooting as an argument to own deadly weapons.

I disagree with the "disarmament of society" because legal guns aren't causing those pockets of SA and Brazil-level violence, and yes, most all black market guns started off as legal guns, but they're already in circulation. How would this mass-disarmament of criminals even be accomplished without horrific casualties? If it were somehow accomplished, how would physically weaker people have any chance of defending themselves? Even the strongest person would be hard-pressed to do so.

 

[MrsDoyle]

especially inequality of opportunity and there we are brought full circle back to the inequality of opportunity in accessing firearms in different nations.....

oh and by the way I had to roll my eyes at Azrael 's horror at "many innocents being caught in the crossfire" given the title of this thread

 

[littlebabyjesus]

thanks for the answer Azrael and sure, as I'm sure you'd agree; in any war, including the one against guns there will be some casualties. Interesting though that you seem to see the gunless gangs then trying to disarm the weaker community members who would be defenceless sans guns. My take on that hypothetical situation is that once the communities are mass death weapon free, there would be more opportunity for reform as those advocating and delivering that reform would be able to carry out the reforms.

In 2004 I visited an Employment Retention and Advancement programme in South Compton LA (yes, that Compton) the local government had brought in the programme as a trial, there were armed guards at the office doors and metal detectors, anyone caught carrying either arms or drugs was denied the help. We spoke to participants and heard about their journeys, about how their work coaches were seen as angels and had enabled them to turn their lives around by believing in them and supporting them to get work and take training opportunities to advance in that work. Several had been gang bangers and had in some cases struggled to leave that culture but the self worth they had gained from the programme and from working was their motivator.

I liked this, but I hate the notion of a 'work coach'. When you sign on here in the UK, you get assigned a 'coach' now. I would rail against that, tbh. Do-gooders making assumptions, or in the case of the dole here, cunts being cunts.

 

[Azrael]

thanks for the answer Azrael and sure, as I'm sure you'd agree; in any war, including the one against guns there will be some casualties. Interesting though that you seem to see the gunless gangs then trying to disarm the weaker community members who would be defenceless sans guns. My take on that hypothetical situation is that once the communities are mass death weapon free, there would be more opportunity for reform as those advocating and delivering that reform would be able to carry out the reforms.

In 2004 I visited an Employment Retention and Advancement programme in South Compton LA (yes, that Compton) the local government had brought in the programme as a trial, there were armed guards at the office doors and metal detectors, anyone caught carrying either arms or drugs was denied the help. We spoke to participants and heard about their journeys, about how their work coaches were seen as angels and had enabled them to turn their lives around by believing in them and supporting them to get work and take training opportunities to advance in that work. Several had been gang bangers and had in some cases struggled to leave that culture but the self worth they had gained from the programme and from working was their motivator.

Liked for the second paragraph, which I agree with 100%.

Regarding the first, the body count from the kind of dragnet that'd be needed to sweep up illegal guns would go way beyond "some casualties." Once gangs got word of what was happening, they'd try to bolt with their weapons and their product. To have any hope of stopping them escaping with the guns you're trying to seize, police would have to seal off the area, in effect kettling an entire neighborhood.

Even if that was ruled out, and the current law followed, many would die while the police were executing no-knock warrants, and many illegal guns would go undetected for lack of probable cause. In either case, there'd be mass panic. To have any hope of succeeding despite that, you'd have to mount this operation nationally, and simultaneously, with no prior warning.

This cure would be way, way worse than the disease.

 

[MrsDoyle]

I liked this, but I hate the notion of a 'work coach'. When you sign on here in the UK, you get assigned a 'coach' now. I would rail against that, tbh. Do-gooders making assumptions, or in the case of the dole here, cunts being cunts.

yeah, it was an American concept, the 'coach/athlete' model, supporting a sense of resilience, self-reliance and responsibility in the participants - but no, I don't like it much either.

 

[Azrael]

I liked this, but I hate the notion of a 'work coach'. When you sign on here in the UK, you get assigned a 'coach' now. I would rail against that, tbh. Do-gooders making assumptions, or in the case of the dole here, cunts being cunts.

Given the praise heaped on them by the people they were tasked with helping, it sounds like they were actually helping, not subjecting the residents to Atos-style cuntery.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Given the praise heaped on them by the people they were tasked with helping, it sounds like they were actually helping, not subjecting the residents to Atos-style cuntery.

True. But obviously any such report doesn't quote the people who said 'fuck off'.

 

[DownwardDog]

ok Azrael, let me put it another way:
Q: what would you see happening if the US managed to take guns completely out of the deprived communities, focus policing there to enforce it hardline and thus completely deny the opportunity for firearms violence?

What would happen would be an even more massive transfer of power from the people to the state.

When they kick in your front door, how will you come? With your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?