How to get the sniper

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Griff
This Reason piece about the increasing crime rates in GB goes into the differing beliefs about ones right to self defense.

The article is a good summary of the larger work by the same author published earlier this year.

It throws a strong light onto the process of creeping coercive collectivism that gun prohibitionism is a significant part of. Coerceive collectivisim is also a component of "shame culture"....see the links out of the threads here on that topic.
<blockquote><i>
Man :"Awright. It's a fair cop, but society is to blame"
Detective Parson: "Right! We'll be charging them too."
---Monty Python "Dead Bishop" shetch
</i></blockquote>

[Griff]

Originally posted by dave


Ovbiosuly an NRA propogadna piece.

(Truth be told, I thought it was a fine article. But I figured jaguar's view needed to be represented as well... )

[Xugumad]

From that article:

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991.

The British gun ban was passed 4-5 years ago.

Violent crime was 'soaring' before people's guns were taken away.'

The article is staggering in its desire to link private gun ownership and rising crime, in the process utterly disregarding cultural factors. It's strange how the article admits that general gun ownership was severely restricted by the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, but only points out that violent crime increased sharply in the 1990s. It would invalidate much of the author's argument is cultural reasons, rather than reduced private gun ownership, were to blame.

Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

Yes, if it's only murder and rape the US is ahead in, it should be OK.

As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.
The link to gun ownership being implied, and non-obvious. But as long as it's only 3.5 times, it's still OK.

The example of Britain teaches nothing, especially seeing how emotionally manipulative that article was. The examples of robbers being shot, killed, etc. in the middle of the article were injustice, rather than examples of why guns are good.

Not that the magazine itself would be biased, of course. The banner ad currently is for "The leading libertarian and conservative titles."

Unsurpringly, the author is a Professor at a Business College. With the amount of Post Hoc fallacies committed in the article, I'd find it surprising if he wasn't laughed out of any serious academic convention. The MIT link only suggests that he provides data for a research program.

Here's another example of a pro-gun Post Hoc fallacy:

"The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically. Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%."
("The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership", The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000.)

I just wonder if Malcolm is part of the DHorowitz' oft-invoked liberal academic mafia that's making life so difficult for conservatives... :-)

The article is mostly emotional manipulation with no proof of the links drawn between the statistics and the results. The meat of the article is blatant in its failure to demonstrate how widely available gun ownership would have prevented most crimes, and instead focuses on how 'unjustly' British law treats those who seek to protect themselves.

Naturally, it focuses on Britain, which is an exception to the whole situation, based on Europe. In most other European countries, gun ownership has never been an issue, and crime mirrors (to a lesser, less dramatic extent) the British experience.

But I suspect the author wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of good argument. He has a book to sell, after all.

Fine distractionary tactic, too. Instead of the thread's title of 'how to get the sniper', where general firearm ownership would have done very little, the subject is being diverted to matters of principle. Very well and good, but how exactly are more liberal gun laws in the US vs. Britain preventing a criminal or insane individual from using his probably legal firearm to kill a large number of people?

Surely at this point, concerned citizens ought to be swarming all over that sniper, knee-capping him with their nifty new Glocks. What? People are hiding in their houses, schools are being shut down, and real terror is being struck into their hearts? Why? With your trusty pistol at your side, nothing can happen to you? At this point, pro-gun advocates are claiming that if everybody was armed, they wouldn't be afraid. Which is patent nonsense: your sidearm isn't going to stop a sniper's bullet, and a murderer who is willing to kill indiscriminately and in cold blood isn't going to be stopped by the knowledge that his victim is armed.

The illusion of safety that firearms provide is all good and nice, right until the moment when somebody shatters is. Which is exactly what the sniper is doing. Period.

X.

Links: http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/posthocf.html

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Xugumad

Naturally, it focuses on Britain...

How stramge, especially since the book is called <i>Guns and Violence: The English Experience</i>. The UK is always being held up as an example of how successful gun prohibition is. The article, and the book it is based on, show how bogus that argument is.

Unsurpringly, the author is a Professor at a Business College. ..I'd find it surprising if he wasn't laughed out of any serious academic convention."

Ah, <i>Serious</i> Academics. Like Michael Bellesiles, perhaps? Or your own lofty perch in the sociology tower?

Bently is indeed "a business school" (horrors!)...but Joyce Lee Malcolm ("she" not "he") is indeed a Visiting Scholar at the MIT Securuty Studies Program, and Harvard University Press sees fit to publish her books. No one has yet found falsification and fabrication of data in her work, which distinguishes her from the Serious Academics like Bellesiles.

[Xugumad]

MaggieL
Or your own lofty perch in the sociology tower?

You choose to answer criticisms regarding his methodology with ad hominem attacks on me. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is over, since I'm not going to fall for flamebait. (I'll counter your points below)

As an aside, I've never studied sociology. (but it's the most commonly-attacked academic study subject, which you predictably pick on to attack academics as a whole)

Bently is indeed "a business school" (horrors!)

Business schools, like "Bently" [sic], don't often teach the same stringent methodology that science-focused schools do. This is what I have gathered from personal experience, not an overall judgement. And indeed, her argument is easily shown to be fallacious.

[...] is indeed a Visiting Scholar at the MIT Securuty Studies Program, and Harvard University Press sees fit to publish her books.

Name-dropping means nothing, especially in the academic world. If you use academic names as a means of support, you need to provide quality of publication at the same time. What I've seen her publish (that one article) is nothing. That an MIT "Securuty" [sic] program has her as a co-operator, and that HUP published her works means very little if the quality of the work doesn't stand up. The latest works by Francis Fukuyama were fairly irrelevant as well, even though his earlier works were highly-acclaimed in the academic world (mostly isolated to US academia). A name is nothing unless it's backed up by solid publication.

No one has yet found falsification and fabrication of data in her work

No, it's just shoddy and poorly reasoned. I never claimed it was fabricated. Your argument can be based on truths, but if it's foolish, it won't stand up. Please address the issues that her argument is based on Post Hoc fallacies, and that absolutely no proof is provided between her data and her conclusions.

You didn't address a single one of my actual points, but instead sought to bring additional, tangential individuals into the argument. Also, if you are going to crucify jaguar in another thread for his misspellings, at least make an attempt not to do the same here.

If you wish to continue this argument, and provide factual counter-points to my criticism of her methodology, please take it to email. I have no intention of dragging this thread into a flamewar.

X.

[Griff]

Originally posted by Xugumad
Fine distractionary tactic, too. Instead of the thread's title of 'how to get the sniper', where general firearm ownership would have done very little, the subject is being diverted to matters of principle. Very well and good, but how exactly are more liberal gun laws in the US vs. Britain preventing a criminal or insane individual from using his probably legal firearm to kill a large number of people?


The illusion of safety that firearms provide is all good and nice, right until the moment when somebody shatters is. Which is exactly what the sniper is doing. Period.

I assume that the nut hides himself well so a hail of return fire is unlikely, however, its made more unlikely by the supresion of carry rights in the involved region.

The illusion of safety that government provides is all good and nice, right until the moment when somebody shatters is. Which is exactly what the sniper is doing. Period.

Jag loves my prodding.

[Griff]

Originally posted by dave
Jag loves my prodding.

Shush, he's trying to study.

[MaggieL]

Well, since X doesn't want to talk here, I'll let him be. I could have sworn he'd claimed academic expertese in sociology, I must be rmisrembering.

Speaking of ad-hominem, X seemed inclinded to sniff at the author's "business college" affiliation as though she were some typing instructor. Personally I'm not particularly impressed by academic name-dropping, but I pointed out that her academic credentials are pretty much in order. Bellesiles I brought up because he's an example of what the prohibitionist "Serious Academics" (the ones X sets so much store by) have been producing on RKBA issues.

I ignored all the handwaving about post-hoc because it is is exactly that: handwaving. Absent a controlled experiment or a time machine, a charge of post-hoc can always be levelled at a historian's analysis. Bellesiles, we have the goods on, because he claimed to have evidence supporting his own prohibitionist analysis that later independant investitgation proved couldn't possibly have existed. Emory is still trying to sweep *that* one under the rug.

The point about the UK gun prohibition is that it's held up as an example of how successful gun prohibition is. Malcolm's point is that it *isn't* successful at all, and further, it has fostered abrogation of personal responsibility for self-defense to a government that can't do the job, while *prosecuting* those who actually attempt to defend themselves. Those are post-hoc conclusions too, of course, but this is politics, not physics.

Yes, I misspelled Malcolm's employer's name. I did manage to get her gender right, though....you've now blown that one twice, X.

Here, maybe this will help:


<blockquote>Professor of History, Bentley
BA, Barnard College; MA and PhD, Brandeis University.
Author of <i>To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, Guns and Violence
The English Experience</i> and a nationally recognized authority on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Primary field is early modern Europe, with emphasis on England. Research and writing focus on the impact of war on society, the popular attitude toward personal liberty, law and religion. Areas of specialization include early modern Europe, 17th Century England, colonial America, warfare in European history, Reformation, Renaissance and constitutional history. Recipient of Bentley College Award for Excellence in Research. Formerly taught at Boston University and Northeastern University. Prior consultant, National Park Service, Boston. </blockquote>

[Undertoad]

Just curious, X, what do you feel are the underlying cultural factors producing the increase in crime?

[jaguar]

Indeed i do, grow the fuck up

The article is interesting and raises some good points, even if it's use of individual cases stinks of emotional manipulation over statistical evidence, which can be done to support pretty much anything if you try hard enough. The use of the stat of 3.5 times the violent crime rate as proof of failure was a little…..curious too. The recent monash shooting has been interesting, the main fallout has been that handguns, the only thing not banned under the last gun reform bill were used and there has been a huge increase in the use of handguns in crimes and a huge drop in the use of shotguns and rifles in crimes, suggesting the bans were rather effective. There also has been a large increase in knife based weapons, suggesting oddly enough, that the effect was just to change what weapon was used. The media, particularly the more….tabloid elements have been frothing at the mouth for a blanket ban on handguns.

I still don't think people should be able to conceal-carry a Beretta Tomcat or a S&W .357 Magnum but a right I would support the right to carry some weapons, particularly non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray and legal protection for self defense. It's a thin line. Britain has gone too far, I’d agree, but I don’t think the US should be used as a model either.

[Nic Name]

Attention Entertainment Editors:

Portfolio Entertainment secures rights to life story of geographic profiler Kim Rossmo

...

Joy Rosen and Lisa Olfman, Portfolio Entertainment Presidents and
Founders, say: "Kim Rossmo is in such high demand these days. His dogged work
with the Washington sniper shootings is a clear testament to the importance of
the new, scientifically based geographic profiling technique he created.

[Griff]

The ban on non-lethals makes me wonder about the intentions of the legislators. It really does relate to an abdication of personal responsibility in favor of collective responsibility. I don't want enough cops to make us perfectly safe but that is the logical outcome of this kind of thinking.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
There also has been a large increase in knife based weapons, suggesting oddly enough, that the effect was just to change what weapon was used.

Gee, not to say "I told you so", but...I told you so. :-)

Pepper spray is a joke as a defensive weapon. Cops use it to try to subdue someone unarmed who's resisting while avoiding the legal and PR hassles of actually drawing their real weapons and without closing to physical contact.

When we had our own campus shooting pretty much identical to the Monash shooting, the perp was apprehended by two students who had to run to their cars to get their handguns. Once confronted with armed opposition, the perp surrendered.

Of course the students had to go to their cars to get their weapons because an enlightened university administration had banned legal weapons carry on-campus, and the students, being law-abiding, complied. The administration's enlightenment probably cost at least one life.