Posted by Jay Livingston
I concluded the previous post by asking for civility from commenters. Instead, I got the all too familiar belligerence (“if you dared to tell the truth,” “Instead of ‘thinking’ why not actually do some research, eh.” “Shoddy research, insinuations and obvious bias.”).
I said I would delete comments that violate common norms of civility. Any maybe I should have done that and moved on. But I’m responding and letting the comment stand
- The UK has a higher rate of violent crime than does the US
- Chicago has a high murder rate because of the many gang-related killings.
On the first point: Start from the essential fact that the murder rate in the UK is a fraction of the US murder rate. That might be because the British are just a less violent society. But no. According to the commenter the UK is more violent, not less (I’ll accept his assertion, though I haven’t checked the data). How can Britain be more violent and yet have less murder? The obvious answer is that their violence is not lethal, and it’s not lethal because the weapons they have at hand are less deadly. The British are concerned about knives – knives, not guns – presumably because guns are not so prevalent and hence not so much a problem.
On the second: The Christian Science Monitor quote provided by the commenter says,
Chicago's gang problem is greater than that in either New York City or Los Angeles, according to Philip Cook . . . . 81 percent of [Chicago] homicides in the first seven months of this year were gang-related, which Mr. Cook says confirms his research that despite policing efforts, gun access is flourishing among Chicago’s gangs.As I said in my original post, US cities, even those with a thinner gang presence than Chicago, have higher murder rates than London. Los Angeles, the city mentioned in contrast to gang-ridden Chicago, has a population half that of London. Yet it had more than four times as many teen murders from guns alone, making its rate of teen murder nearly ten times that of London.
Also, note why, according to Philip Cook, a gang problem makes for higher murder rates:
gun access is flourishing among Chicago's gangsNew York has a lower rate of teen homicide because it has less of a gang problem. Cook’s argument is
- Less gangs, less guns
- Less guns, less teen homicide
The gunslingers are arguing that guns in the hands of someone with good intentions make it easier for him to achieve good ends (all that defending and protecting). But it’s equally true, probably more so, that guns in the hands of a person with bad intentions make it easier and more likely for him to achieve bad ends. Like murder.
That was my point in the original post. The London chavs and other blokes may be as numerous and vicious as the nasty youths in our cities, maybe more so. But they don’t have guns. Therefore, London has a much lower rate of teen homicide.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteI concluded the previous post be asking for civility from commenters. ”
It appears your definition of civility is greatly different from mine.
Could it be your definition includes groveling at your learned feet, unquestioning acceptance of your every statement and general fawning over your august personage?
It certainly seems that way.
But I’m responding and letting the comment stand just because it’s so fucking stupid because it includes two relevant facts:
You certainly don't model what you request, now do you Sparky?
You want to discuss civility but you seem to take every opportunity to bash gun owners. So be it.
The obvious answer is that their violence is not lethal, and it’s not lethal because the weapons they have at hand are less deadly.
Are you now an expert on deadly weapons?
Can you show evidence that a knife is less deadly than a firearm?
The law certainly does not treat them differently.
The British are concerned about knives – knives, not guns – presumably because guns are not so prevalent and hence not so much a problem.
The British, not all that long ago, were just as concerned about firearms. Now they are concerned about knives. Even worse they are concerned about the victims of violence fighting back. Research (there is that word again) the current practice of charging victims of violence with crimes because they fought back or fought back too hard.
How can Britain be more violent and yet have less murder? ...hand are less deadly.
Once again there is a logical disconnect in your thought process.
Did you ever consider it is less lethal because the British people are conditioned not to fight back? To simply give into any threat or intimidation of violence?
A 1982 British survey found fifty-nine percent of attempted burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN16] The Wall Street Journal reported:
Compared with London, New York is downright safe in one category: burglary. In London, where many homes have been burglarized half a dozen times, and where psychologists specialize in treating children traumatized by such thefts, the rate is nearly twice as high as in the Big Apple. And burglars here increasingly prefer ... intruders have little to fear from unarmed residents. [FN17]
In Britain, seventy-seven percent of the population was afraid of burglary in 1994, compared to sixty percent in 1987. [ In the Republic of Ireland, criminologists report that burglars have little reluctance about attacking an occupied residence. [FN21]
As an example that is a citation from Dave Koppel's article from a decade ago.
http://davekopel.org/2a/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm
It is possible for a country to be more violent(100,000 assaults and 1 murder) than another country (20,000 assaults and 2 murders).
I don’t know why the Second Amendment boys get so annoyed when someone points out that guns are far more powerful and deadly than other weapons.
There you go with another example of civility, right?
Maybe we get annoyed because just about every time it is pointed out is accompanied by a call to restrict our rights, Eh Sparky.
And you do not talk about the benefits of firearm ownership either...The number of rapes, robberies, assaults and murder prevented. You seem to focus only on the negative.
That was my point in the original post. The London chavs and other blokes may be as numerous and vicious as the nasty youths in our cities, maybe more so. But they don’t have guns. Therefore, London has a much lower rate of teen homicide.
Again you seem to be drawing a conclusion not supported by the facts in evidence.
Could there be other reasons why the Chavs and Yobs aren't as lethal besides the lack of firearms?
Absolutely.
And you haven't proven or even presented evidence that firearm access is the only reason they aren't more lethal.
There could be a societal pressure against homicide, could there not?
So have you engaged in Reasoned Discourse already?
ReplyDeleteAmong the factors determining murder rates, levels of gun ownership is among the most overstated and least reliable, in Mauser’s view. “There is no empirical support for the claim that gun ownership is related to violence rates,” he says.
ReplyDeletehttp://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/01/the-lowdown-on-crime-in-canada%E2%80%94compared-to-other-countries/
I asked about Reasoned Discourse because my original reply has not shown up yet.
Bob S. Your original comment wound up in the spam filter (which I didn't even know existed till now). Maybe that was because of its length. I restored it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for pulling it out of the spam filter Jay.
ReplyDeleteCare to respond to it?
Respaond? No. If you don’t think a gun is more deadly than a knife, there’s nothing I could do to convince you. I’ll just remain glad that you’re in charge of procurement for the DoD. We’d save a lot of money but lose a lot of wars.
ReplyDeleteJay,
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing the issue.
Stabbing a person is just as lethal as shooting a person.
Is it as convenient - no, a person has to get closer to stab someone.
Out of all the issues I raised, you focus on that one in order to avoid answering.
I am not surprised to see your double standard displayed.
You request civility yet you do not give it yourself. You post but tend not to respond to comments.
On August 12th, Faye had this to say
I ask: what does it say about us, especially sociologists, that we were so willing to believe this about the poor without any solid data?
I asked that you show reliable data to back up what you said. You haven't exactly been able to do that have you?
On the 13th, she ended a comment with this:
Of course, we can guess, we can use history and predict, but it’s not the same has having reliable data, so we (certainly us sociologists) should not write as if it were.
So where is your reliable data that it is the mere presence of a firearm that makes a society more lethal or more violent?
Seems to me Jay presented the data. You just choose to ignore it and posit the absurd idea that the lower British homicide rate is--am I getting this right?--because the British people are conditioned not to fight back.
ReplyDeleteNo. I hadn't considered that. And now that I do, I think you might be insane. If that's the best you can do, logic wise, in refuting what Jay said, there's little point to further discussion.
Have you ever hung out or drunk with working-class Brits?
PCM,
ReplyDeleteExactly what data did Jay present?
That there are fewer homicides in the U.K.- Yes.
That there is more violence in the U.K. - Yes.
Now exactly what data did he present to back up his opinion that it is the prevalence of firearms that makes the U.K. less lethal?
Not a single bit of evidence or data.
Again Jay compares the homicide rates of London, New York and Chicago.
Is there a bit of evidence to suggest causation between firearm availability and homicide rates?
I didn't see any evidence.
Could there be other factors at work besides that?
Look again at the comment I made at 4:09
“There is no empirical support for the claim that gun ownership is related to violence rates,” he says.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/01/the-lowdown-on-crime-in-canada%E2%80%94compared-to-other-countries/
While this is in Canada, it is comparable to other studies regarding other countries.
Evidence not feelings or thoughts. Jay is supposed to be a sociologist and therefore should be presenting his data right?
That was my point in the original post. The London chavs and other blokes may be as numerous and vicious as the nasty youths in our cities, maybe more so. But they don’t have guns. Therefore, London has a much lower rate of teen homicide.
He offers an unsupported opinion.
I'm calling on him to show that it is only the lack of firearms that makes them less lethal.
So far he has failed to do so.
Peter, thanks for the support and the clarity (focusing on the issue in the post). But I had hoped that my plea for civility would steer commenters away from suggestions that other particpants in the discussion are insane.
ReplyDeleteComparing homicide rates and gun ownership across countries is complicated. The ceterus paribus proviso gets swamped because there are too many other things that aren't equal. Legal ownership of your army rifle, which apparently there's a lot of in Switzerland, is not the same as illegal ownership of powerful handguns among Chicago gangbangers.
My point, to state it yet again, is that guns make those kids more dangerous, i.e., more deadly.
In any case, what may be true at the level of nations may not be true at some other level -- for example gangs.
Imagine that you could have your choice of two gangs in your neighborhood, gangs with equally nasty members. The Jets have a stockpile of 9mm handguns, a few sawed-off shotguns, and the occasional AK-47. The Sharks have a wide variety of knives. Which gang would you most want to keep out of your neighborhood?
Do I have data to prove that gangs with guns kill more people than do gangs without guns? No, not offhand. I assume that the Philip Cook research quoted twice in this thread had evidence of that for the reasons I stated. But no, I haven't checked that research.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteFirst, show me where I've hinted or implied you are insane.
I personally think you are making an attack on me to hide your lack of proof.
Imagine that you could have your choice of two gangs in your neighborhood, gangs with equally nasty members. The Jets have a stockpile of 9mm handguns, a few sawed-off shotguns, and the occasional AK-47. The Sharks have a wide variety of knives. Which gang would you most want to keep out of your neighborhood?
The answer is it depends.
The Sharks could be vicious thugs that are out to rape, kill or maim anyone and everyone while the Jets just want to sell drugs and rob warehouses.
Now which one do you want to have in your neighborhood?
You have presented no evidence that is the presence or lack of firearms that is causing the greater level of homicide.
NONE.
First, show me where I've hinted or implied you are insane.
ReplyDeleteCould you not tell from the context of the paragraph that I wasn't talking about you? Did you not read PCM's comment?
The Sharks could be vicious thugs . . ..
Did you not read what I wrote: "gangs with equally nasty members."
Let me make it clearer: gangs that are identical except for one thing -- the Jets have lots of guns, the Sharks have lots of knives. Which is more likely to yield higher numbers of homicides?
Jay,
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for thinking you were talking to me.
Frankly I ignored most of what PCM had to say.
Did you not read what I wrote: "gangs with equally nasty members."
You are trying to move the goal posts.
First you want to claim that firearms are the difference, now you want to stipulate a situation where the only difference is the firearms in order to prove your point.
The problem of course lies in the fact that you haven't shown a shred of evidence that the gangs in London are just as nasty as the gangs in Chicago (or L.A. -- which has nearly as strict gun control as Chicago).
So why don't you prove your point...show some evidence that the gangs are all the same?
That there aren't other social factors involved in the levels of lethality.
So why don't you prove your point...show some evidence that the gangs are all the same?
ReplyDeleteThis is my last try. I wasn't saying that all gangs were the same. I was suggesting a "thought experiment," a hypothetical. That's why I began by saying "imagine." IF we had two gangs that were identical on all but one independent variable (in this case, that variable would be type of weapon), what difference in the dependent variable (homicides) would we expect. My guess is that the gang with guns would generate more homicides than would the gang with knives.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteStop trying to change the subject.
You originally postulated that the homicide rates were dependent upon the availability of firearms.
These both support the idea that more guns make for more murder.
Right?
Now it is fairly simple.
I'm asking you to show evidence that your original assumption was true.