A question…
… for gun-owners (and others, too).
This is the first I’ve heard of this idea, and it’s got me well stumped.
16 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
2dogs on Policy Libertarianism vs. Stru… 
Jim Fryar on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
taxpayer on Ransom Demands 
Joseph Clark on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
Fleeced on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
Ma sealake on A new political force – … 
papachango on Fred Nile did not have relatio… 
Jarrah on Shame 
Fermista on Fred Nile did not have relatio…
Catallaxy Files- Labor lost the economic debateLenore Taylor in the SMH. One of the first fights inside the ALP will be about why it so comprehensively lost the economic debate during the election campaign. Very senior figures are asking why Labor didn’t talk louder and sooner about its achievements in managing the country through the global economic crisis. With the national [...]
- Open Forum September 4, 2010
- Wots this then?Peter Martin has set out the types of ‘error’ Treasury identified in the Coalition policy costings. The Charter of Budget Honesty sets out guidelines for election costings, in order to make sure they are done on the same basis. One forbids the counting of proceeds from expected ”second-round effects” such as a saving on the [...]
- Labor lost the economic debate
- Andrew Norton
- Graduates three years onGraduate Careers Australia has released Beyond Graduation 2009, a follow-up survey three years on of graduates they first surveyed in 2006. A few points of interest on topics of particular interest to me: * The proportion of their sample who were overseas had doubled from 3.2% to 6.8%, which means that they will not be [...]
- How well-known are think-tanks?I received a letter today from John Roskam, executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, outlining the organisation’s recent successes (and it has indeed flourished under his leadership). He included with the letter what I think is the first ever survey of think-tank name recognition. Though as John points out in the letter the [...]
- The financial benefits of higher educationThe ABS has an interesting new publication out today on the financial benefits of higher education. ABS anlayst Hui Wei uses data from the 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006 censuses to provide estimates of rates of return for investment in higher education. In the figure below, the rates are based on post-tax earnings [...]
- Graduates three years on
- IPA news
- Government: who needs it? September 2, 2010The election result isn't all bad. If you own shares, you shouldn't be unhappy we don't have a government yet. That's...
- Gillard likely to cop expansive Green agenda August 31, 2010Julia Gillard says that neither party has convinced Australia that it alone has won the right to govern and that "our...
- The cost of fighting the cost of living August 31, 2010Despite both major parties claiming they'll fight to stop increases in the cost of living, neither are likely to deliver...
- Government: who needs it? September 2, 2010
There’s actually several ideas there SL, so I’m not sure if I’ve picked the one you were referring to.
Assuming it’s the one about witnesses being less intimidated in the US due to having both the right and a practical means of self-defence, I think it has to be true.
More than 50% of burglaries in the UK are “hot”, meaning the occupants of the premises are home at the time. The corresponding figure in the US is 13%. The reason for the difference is that burglars in the US fear armed homeowners much more.
In the UK, as in Australia, it is illegal to own a gun for self defence and very dodgy to try and use one. In most of the US, now including Washington DC, ownership of a gun for self defence at home is pretty much untouchable and 40 or 41 states also issue permits for concealed carry. In addition, a number of US states have passed so-called “castle doctrine” laws which give the home owner a right to shoot burglars.
I think gun availability also helps explain why the US has a much lower rate of crime than the UK. The only crime that is higher is murder, which some claim is a consequence of the different approaches to control of drugs.
I might add that I disagree with Reason’s remarkably sceptical take on the Heller decision. It might be a long way short of complete victory but it is certainly a very important move in the right direction. It’s also as much as anyone could hope to get from SCOTUS on the issue.
Interesting theory.
To clarify for other readers — the theory is that legal gun ownership for self-defence makes people feel more confident in their ability to defend themselves. Therefore, in countries with legal gun ownership for self-defence, people would be more willing to be a witness against a dangerous criminal.
Sounds plausable, but pretty hard to show.
The theory seems to indicate that people do not trust the government to be able to protect them against dangerous criminals in an emergency. This is an issue that people need to consider if they are to learn a sympathy with the self-defence argument.
I heard it suggested a while ago that Australia should introduce self-defence as a legitimate reason for gun ownership for people who live 1 hour (or something similar) from police response. An interesting suggestion.
Having to wait 59 minutes for police assistance whilst somebody is killing your family seems somewhat depressing.
I agree Terje… but the point of the suggestion was to subtely open up people’s minds to the usefullness of personal self-defence as a genuine alternative to government protection.
Yes I can see that. However rather than define it at 60 minutes it should be defined at 58 minutes to really hammer home the point.
Hmmm… you can live pretty close, and a response could still easily be “an hour away”
Hammering home a subtle point seems rather novel, even if I do say so myself.
You could always argue De minimis non curat Lex if the police were slightly nearer than the cut off.
I could argue that. But it would be a bit disingenuous as I don’t know what it means. For all I know, you would have me ordering a pepperoni pizza, which isn’t a very strong argument…
“The law does not concern itself with trifles”.
[...] Interesting chat on this going on over at the ALS. This entry was written by skepticlawyer, posted on at 7:24 am, filed under Defence, Economics, [...]
Pingback by skepticlawyer » ‘I won’t testify. I’m afraid’ | June 28, 2008 |
Pizza is always a reasonable argument.
How do you retort the argument that I always come across when discussing this issue with others that here in Australia our laws have been a smashing success since that we haven’t had any major mass shootings since Port Arthur?
No, we’ve had attempted ones (Monash) and Sydney in the last decade in paticular has had an steep increase in gun related crime.
We had virtually no gun regulation in the 1950s and no mass shootings.
The criminologists who backed the NFA now say it is counterproductive.
Furthermore, look at the trends in gun violence since Federation.
A very enlightening paper:
http://www.ssaasa.org.au/pdf/Baker-McPhedran_critique_of_chapman_et_al.pdf
Also see:
Trends in Violent
Death and Firearms,
1915-94, Australian Institute of Criminology
Crime, Safety and Firearms
Injury 2000 Prevention and Management, Australian Institute of Criminology
wikipedia, crime in Australia 1900-1999
1st AIC article, wikipedia:
Over the 100+ years of Australian crime records, there is no relationship between the level of gun regulation and the crime rate. They appear to be uncorrelated.
Second AIC article:
The rate of gun homicides and homicides in general appears to be almost perfectly cointegrated – that is guns actually don’t affect the crime rate at all. They are simply a means to an ends.
The OECD data is widely available elsewhere. Over the panel (time and corss section), there is no apparent correlation.
See Peter Whelan’s CLASS (Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters) webpage for more.
Another site: Gun Facts Version 4.2
Dr Don Weatherburn, Head NSW Criminologist and NFA architect said the gun laws had no effect on crime last year. He doubts the value of laws he proposed.
Alex – you could try asking them how many mass shootings there were in Tasmania in the many decades prior to Port Arthur and how it was possible to have so few mass shootings in those years given the previous laws. Note however that if there is a mass shooting in Tasmania next week it won’t be used by gun control advocates as reason to abondon their argument. Quite the contrary no doubt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Australian_mass_murders
Outside combat zones mass shootings are rare events. As such they are not generally amenable to statistical analysis of annual figures. Which is why the serious studies generally focus on the more workable annual data relating to homicide and gun related homicide. And what we know in Australia is that we enjoyed a downward trend in both figures both before and after 1996. And that some of the lowest rates of homicide and gun related homicide occured during the 1940s when guns were far more prevalent in the population than they are today.
On a personal note a mass shooting is believed to have been averted in my neighbourhood a couple of months ago. My parents passed by the point of intended action a few minutes before police intervened. The man concerned was supposedly carrying 3 clips, each with ten rounds of ammunition. Ironically any such mass shooting plans that the man may have had were averted because he was shot dead using a gun.
Some years ago, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that knife attacks were on the rise. I think we still have the same number of homicides, but people just use different weapons.
And Switzerland has military ‘service’, where switzettes learn how to kill people, and they are even allowed to take weapons home with them! How come I never heard of any Swiss massacre? Do they cover them up very well, or do they not have massacres despite all those weapons? are the swiss just naturally more peace-loving?, or are they well-trained in gun maintainence, and they know their neighbours have guns, so any robber is running a real risk of death or serious injury, and knows it? Whilst I disagree with compulsory service, Switzerland gives us a counter-example of a gun-heavy culture that is light on fatalities and injuries.