by hilzoy
This is horrific:
"A gunman invaded an immigration services center in downtown Binghamton, N.Y., during citizenship classes on Friday and shot 13 people to death and critically wounded 4 others before killing himself in a paroxysm of violence that turned a quiet civic setting into scenes of carnage and chaos.
The killing began around 10:30 a.m. and was over in minutes, witnesses said, but the ordeal lasted up to three hours for those trapped inside the American Civic Association as heavily armed police officers, sheriff’s deputies and state troopers threw up a cordon of firepower outside and waited in a silence of uncertainty.
Finally, officers who had not fired a shot closed in and found a sprawl of bodies in a classroom, 37 terrified survivors cowering in closets and a boiler room and, in an office, the dead gunman, identified as Jiverly Wong, 42, a Vietnamese immigrant who lived in nearby Johnson City."
"I felt fairly sure that if my friend ever did try to kill someone, it would be with a gun. He's not particularly strong or athletic, and he has very little physical confidence, so killing people by means that require either strength or dexterity seemed unlikely. That left, mainly, guns. Moreover, this particular person is not very street-smart; if I had to rank my friends by how likely they are to succeed at obtaining an illegal firearm, he'd be pretty close to last. And he didn't have a gun when this started. So it seemed to me that if I could keep him from getting a gun license, I would make it much, much less likely that he'd end up killing people.
So I called the gun licensing board in his jurisdiction. I didn't expect them to deny him a gun license on my say-so, and would in fact have been pretty appalled if they had. But I had a fairly extensive collection of emails in which he discussed what he wanted to do at considerable length, so I offered to send them the emails, and also to allow them whatever access they needed in order to verify that these emails had in fact been sent to me. If they couldn't spare the resources (this friend lived over a thousand miles away, so that seemed likely), I also offered to let them choose a forensic computer person to do it, and to pay the tab. I also offered to pay for a psychiatrist of their choosing to evaluate the emails and determine whether or not the person who wrote them was indeed a threat. Because I thought: while it would be awful if I could get them to deny someone a gun license just by making unsubstantiated claims about his sanity, surely there must be some provision for denying a gun license to someone who is demonstrably homicidal.
Guess what? There isn't. Or so that particular gun licensing board told me. If someone has committed a felony, they said, he can be denied a license. But if they are merely insane and homicidal, there's nothing anyone can do.
And that's just wrong."
I still think so. This is not about the general issue of gun control. I don't have strong views about gun control, at least if we're talking about rifles and handguns, as opposed to mortars or rocket-propelled grenades. I am not saying this as the opening salvo in a ban to criminalize the private possession of firearms. This is not the entering edge of any wedge, or the first step down a slippery slope. I just think that there should be some process, with safeguards and due process to guard against abuse, that makes it possible to prevent someone who from getting a gun when there is clear evidence that that person is homicidal.
I had my moment of horror some time ago, when I heard about one shooter, and recognized the last name. And I thought, my god, it can't be.
But it was.
Second cousin, once removed; someone who was at family parties on that side. A kid who played with the other kids younger than I.
I hadn't talked to him in many years, but I got cold, and my world turned darker.
We still don't talk about what happened, only about what his father went through, after.
Posted by: Fraud Guy | April 04, 2009 at 12:43 AM
// I just think that there should be some process, with safeguards and due process to guard against abuse, that makes it possible to prevent someone who from getting a gun when there is clear evidence that that person is homicidal.//
Why just stop them from getting a gun? Other devices make murder easier. Knives, cars, power tools, various poisons, water, baseball bats, and many other objects can easily be used to kill someone. If there is "clear evidence" that a person is homicidal shouldn't he be locked up? Or at least put into a mental institute for help.
We shouldn't wait for the actual homicide to occur if the likelihood exists beforehand. Clearly intent is formed before the deed - in fact, intent is one of the elements necessary for a murder conviction, I believe. So we should weed out people when their is "clear evidence" that they have intent. What is clear evidence. Certainly if they say, "I'm going to kill you" they have expressed intent. Someone who says, "I could've killed him", has not expressed intent but is close. That person should submit to retraining sessions at least. If someone says "I made a killing in Las Vegas" he should be detained until it can be proven that he did not kill someone.
It's important that we do these things "with proper safeguards and due process" of course.
And lock the capitalists up too because they have been killing by proxy all their lives.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 04, 2009 at 12:50 AM
//I hadn't talked to him in many years,//
Clearly it is your fault. He felt alienated from society. His own relatives wouldn't even talk to him. You should be locked up too.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 04, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Lefty reads a paper: "Oh that's awful, we should make a law."
Righty reads the paper: "Oh that's awful."
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 04, 2009 at 12:58 AM
d'd'd: "You should be locked up too."
Be careful. The posting rules are watching.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 04, 2009 at 01:14 AM
In addition to the awful crime, I found this disturbing:
Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.
Posted by: jrudkis | April 04, 2009 at 01:29 AM
Is it just me, or has there been a noticeable up-tick in shooting/murder sprees lately?
Posted by: Dave C (the uppity newcomer) | April 04, 2009 at 01:38 AM
Stuttering dave, apparently you missed this:
I felt fairly sure that if my friend ever did try to kill someone, it would be with a gun. He's not particularly strong or athletic, and he has very little physical confidence, so killing people by means that require either strength or dexterity seemed unlikely. That left, mainly, guns.
I know it's only the FIRST SENTENCE of the quote, so it's easy to overlook... Sheesh.
Posted by: Jeff | April 04, 2009 at 02:07 AM
Dave/Frank,
Go [posting rule violation] yourself. But before you do, answer me this: how many mass murders with "baseball bats" have you ever heard of?
I have known several NRA types in real life. I've seen them mount their RKBA soap-box after every mass shooting hits the news, usually before the bodies get cold and certainly long before any "lefty" proposes to "make a law". Their snark is way better than yours, but their paranoia is similar: any law that might keep psychologically sick people from obtaining guns would be insupportably oppressive.
Well, [expletive]. If the big, bad government went into a public place every few months and shot a dozen random people, that would be insupportably oppressive. If the government had it in its power to prevent a mass shooting every few months, and refused to do it, sane people would be demanding to know the reason why. Gun fetishists, on the other hand ...
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | April 04, 2009 at 02:36 AM
Tony P - Just to be clear, your above post was not directed at me, was it?
Posted by: Dave C (the uppity newcomer) | April 04, 2009 at 02:40 AM
While it seems perfectly logical for the average American to ignore Canada, it has always puzzled me why American academics don't routinely compare the Canadian experience. After all, we essentially have the same British roots. I guess your base is those who rebelled, and ours the victims of the American revolution. Perhaps the fact that Canada evolved into an independent state accounts for some difference in perspective. Why is the homicide rate in Canada so much lower than US?
The answer seems obvious to me- the ready availability of guns. If you really wanted to stop these kind of atrocities you'd get rid of the guns that make them possible. Take away the guns and these multiple killings would be so much less likely to occur, because it would be physically impractical for someone to kill a dozen with the knife/baseball bat.
You also have a war going on in Mexico. How is it carried on? with guns which originated in the US. (Many gun deaths in Canada are caused by guns smuggled in from US.)
Cigarettes are taxed with the rationale that the tax offsets the health care costs of smoking. Has anyone suggested the same principle should be incorporated into the price of guns and ammunition? Those Americans who want their guns should pay the costs occasioned by the guns.
Posted by: Johnny Canuck | April 04, 2009 at 02:54 AM
Dave C, I'm not Tony P, but I feel confident he was addressing D'd'dave, the Dave with the incendiary, hyperbolical, and counterfactual comments.
Johnny Canuck, I don't know what the answers are about what causes the American murder rate, but even though I am not well informed I would pretty much guarantee that you're not correct when you say that "American academics don't routinely compare the Canadian experience." I'm quite sure that American academics do frequently compare different societies within the US, compare the US to Canada, and make comparisons to still other countries. You might also be interested in this table that I found from a quick Google - according to the table, gun ownership is much higher in the US than in other countries examined (4x that of Canada), but gun violence is even higher (10x that of Canada) - which may only suggest that the problem isn't so much widespread guns as it is essentially unregulated guns; but I'm sure that the academics you deride have thought much more deeply and with much more information than I have and have their own explanations; some of them may even agree with each other.
Posted by: Warren Terra | April 04, 2009 at 03:50 AM
Good job you can't kill someone with a strawman, or d'd'd'dave would finish us all off.
As a specific response to him, here is one contrast from from the UK in 1996. Mentally ill man with machete runs amok in school: seven children and adults severely injured. Man with handguns runs amok in school: seventeen children and adults killed.
Notice any difference?
Posted by: magistra | April 04, 2009 at 04:43 AM
We keep dancing around the mental health issues. If you think getting regular physical health care is often dicey, think about trying to find a psychiatrist or psychologist for someone who has troubles. And what managed care must have done to that.
For a mentally ill person, its a multiple whammy: the mental illness prevents regular employment which provides health insurance that provides payment for therapy and medicine. Sometimes even a working person can't pay for insurance and therapy because the job doesn't cover it. So people are untreated and people die.
With this recession, so many people who are tenously hanging on are losing their health insurance, their access to meds, their supportive daily routine, and subsequently their links to reality.
Posted by: Carol | April 04, 2009 at 04:51 AM
Carol: So true. A basic psychological test would be a very good idea for a firearm permit, but if it doesn't come with the chance at care for those in need, it would become one more way to let people with privilege have their guns and others not.
The US's extreme social inequality and its fascination with guns and violence feed each other. Claims of guns playing a major crime deterrence role are apparently all compromised when not outright fraudulent, leaving us with offensive uses. Guns multiply the gap between criminal and victim, strengthening whatever's wrong in the perpetrator--mental illness, or allegedly sane bigotry and fear, or anything at all that thrives on the prospect of violence to other human beings. Health care goes right along with gun control in bringing about a society that's good for most of the people living in it.
Posted by: Lupita N | April 04, 2009 at 05:37 AM
" Why is the homicide rate in Canada so much lower than US?"
Well, the US is a big, heterogeneous country, and you should remember that, while the homicide rate is insanely higher in some places in the US, it's actually lower than Canada in other places.
And those other places tend to have high rates of gun ownership, so it's hard to make the case that gun ownership is driving the difference, unless you deliberately do a rather crude analysis to avoid noticing those local differences.
"Claims of guns playing a major crime deterrence role are apparently all compromised when not outright fraudulent,"
They're all disputed by people who like gun control. I'm not certain that's quite the same thing as "compromised".
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 04, 2009 at 09:04 AM
Why just stop them from getting a gun?
Guns have exactly one use, which is to do grievous bodily harm. The other things you mention have other proper uses. None of them, in fact, make murder easier than a firearm does.
Point and click, dude. Nothing simpler.
But since you mention it, I'd be fine with denying homicidal people access to poisons, and I'd be fine with involuntary commitment to a psychiatric institution.
Talk about how all you can think about these days is blowing some folks away? Meet my friends in the white coats.
In fact, were I ever to get to that point I hope someone would make sure I ended up in the same place. I'd consider it a personal favor and an act of generous human concern.
Have you ever gone as far for a friend in distress as hilzoy did for her friend?
No need to make an answer here, just answer that for yourself.
As a personal aside, allow me to mention that you're not bringing much to the table these days. Your comments used to be better than this.
Posted by: russell | April 04, 2009 at 09:09 AM
it's worth noting one typical piece of nra sophistry that the dumber dave duly dittoes.
it's the differential-lethality two-step.
when someone kills a bunch of people with a gun, then all of the gun-nuts come out from under their rocks to tell us that guns are no more lethal than "knives, cars, power-tools, various poisons," and so on.
but when they want to tell us why they need unrestricted access to guns, then all of a sudden guns are the only thing that can help stave off tyranny, defeat the evil invaders (wolverines!) and protect us from roving gangs of people who look different.
really? only guns stand between us and slavery?
i thought you said knives would do. or cars. or baseball bats. surely as long as we have free access to those lethal weapons, that gives us everything we need to keep tyranny at bay, doesn't it? so having a gun is not vital to liberty after all, is it? so i assume that you will be happy to sell off your guns, provided you're allowed to keep your baseball bats, various poisons, and rolled-up newspapers, right? and you certainly won't mind guns being subject to licensing and registration similar to that other, super-lethal weapon, the automobile, right?
but, no; now it will be time for the other part of the two-step again. now they will tell us that when the jack-booted federal thugs come to oppress them, only guns will allow a lone patriot to defeat the army of statist enslavers.
let's leave the nra and its robots to their two-step. what's the real truth here?
guns are uniquely lethal. there is no other legal object that this guy could have put into a satchel around his neck, walked into a building, and killed 13 other people with such speed and ease. cars, bats, and poisons just won't do it.
that's why i support sensible legislation to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, and to license their owners as we do with cars.
guns are also uniquely effective and convenient. that's one reason why i myself have owned guns (both long guns and handguns) in the past, and why i would oppose any general ban on gun ownership.
neither i nor any liberal that i know wants to "outlaw guns".
but i sure wish we could get rid of that particular piece of bad, dishonest gun-nut sophistry.
Posted by: kid bitzer | April 04, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Dave C,
Rest assured: it was d'd'd'dave (formerly, Frank) I was addressing.
kid bitzer,
To the "lethality two-step" we can also add another piece of gun-fetishist sophistry. The 2nd Amendment, my NRA friends tell me, is what guarantees the rest of the Bill of Rights. I keep asking them for examples of gun-toting patriots resisting government oppression such as Japanese internment or Jim Crow. No joy.
The gun nuts' bottom line is: we need guns to defend our individual right to own guns. You have to admit, their logic is flawless on that.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | April 04, 2009 at 10:53 AM
"Well, the US is a big, heterogeneous country, and you should remember that, while the homicide rate is insanely higher in some places in the US, it's actually lower than Canada in other places."
Exactly. Toronto has a much higher murder rate than Dixville Notch, New Hampshire. I'd like to see some pointy headed academic try and explain that inconvenient fact, at least before they don their jackboots and try to replace my AR-15 with a butter knife.
Also, if 'global warming' were real, why was it so cold this past winter? Hmm...
Posted by: laxel | April 04, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Just a pet-peeve:
"shooting/murder sprees"
Shopping sprees certainly.
"Murder rampages" sounds about right.
Although sometimes shopping sprees at Wal Mart turn into trampling rampages.
I suppose a person could start out on a shopping spree one fine Spring day, lose their temper, go on a murder rampage, and finish their shopping spree while the sales are on, and then go home and hide d'd'd'ddave's n'n'n'nail g'gg''g' gun and act like nothing had happened.
During the Korean Spree, I took out an entire machine gun nest with nothing but a hacksaw and a plastic Honey-Bear dispenser filled with wild clover honey.
I remember the days when the Russkies tried to build an entire Home Depot of high-end power tools in Cuba. We had U2 photos of claw hammers and staple guns lined up ready to go.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 04, 2009 at 11:02 AM
"Guns have exactly one use, which is to do grievous bodily harm."
I was all with the right liberal side on this thread, until I got here, but this is nonsense, Russell: guns are important in rural areas where there's dangerous wild game, and they're great for target practice, and they also have a place in limited circumstances for self-protection. Then there's also the sport of hunting, which have no interest in, and many people find distasteful, but which is nonetheless an ancient tradition (and useful for some for food-gathering).
Lots of people just enjoy target practice; there's nothing illegitimate about it.
There are plenty of excellent arguments for a number of sorts of gun control, and there are plenty of lousy arguments. "Guns have only one purpose" is one of the lousiest. Because it's laughably untrue. ("I don't like what you do, so it doesn't exist" is not a good argument.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 11:19 AM
To answer x's question above, yes, there have been a number of mass shooting murders recently. Several of them have happened with almost no notice; none has stayed in the news outside the local area for more than a few days.
The only reason I'm aware of this is that I happened to read this column a few weeks ago, after the Alabama rampage.
hide d'd'd'ddave's n'n'n'nail g'gg''g' gun and act like nothing had happened
John Thullen Top Ten candidate.
Posted by: Nell | April 04, 2009 at 11:23 AM
If gun control eliminates one of these mass killings a year, wouldn't that be worth it?
This isn't about making it hard for hunters to hunt. This is about making it hard for killers to kill.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | April 04, 2009 at 11:36 AM
"If gun control eliminates one of these mass killings a year, wouldn't that be worth it?"
This is a terrible argument, too.
First, it doesn't define "gun control," a term that subsumes an endless number of possibly policies, so it's useless.
Second, it's an argument that applies equally well to cutting off people's hands, or any of an endless list of equal absurdities.
For instance: if making everyone register at their local police station, and have to carry identifying papers at all times, eliminates one of these mass killings a year, wouldn't that be worth it?
If giving everyone an electronic ID tage, and making them have to wear it at all times, eliminates one of these mass killings a year, wouldn't that be worth it?
Etc. No, that's not an argument that does other than go a few inches and drop dead of uselessness.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Gary is right. A lot of the arguments being offered up here for various types of gun control are pretty bad. That's not to say that there aren't any good arguments, just that not many of them are being made here.
Of course, some of the pro-gun stuff is equally crap. I've encountered few issues where the arguments on both sides are so often so weak.
Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where it's virtually impossible to have a calm, rational debate, because both sides are so passionate. And what makes this worse than other such issues is how it seems (to me, anyway) that if you're not on one extreme or the other, both extremes will vilify and marginalize you.
Posted by: tgirsch | April 04, 2009 at 12:17 PM
"If you think getting regular physical health care is often dicey, think about trying to find a psychiatrist or psychologist for someone who has troubles. And what managed care must have done to that."
This is true. One very lucky thing about my friend: he had enough money to be able to pay for psychiatric care. The problem was talking him into going, and making sure I had the name of a very good psychiatrist all ready (in a city a couple of thousand miles away), not arranging payment. If he had had to depend on community health centers or whatever the psychiatric equivalent of the care Gary describes on his blog -- well, I don't really want to think about that.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 04, 2009 at 12:33 PM
My own personal position on gun control gains me little favor with many: I don't care very much. I don't see any likelihood of any national laws much stricter than requiring registration and training/licensing, and mildly limited who can own a gun, and mildly limiting types of guns that can be owned in various circumstances, passing in the foreseeable future, and I don't see even the most stringent likely such law having all that much effect on either the number of guns available, legal and illegal, to people who want them, or having all that much effect on crime.
So I don't see it as an issue worth much energy or caring about, from either side. Unpopular as this view is.
Myself, I'm inclined to leave it to states and counties and muncipalities: circumstances in America vary wildly, and I don't see it as making any sense to have the same gun laws for a rural county in Montana as in Manhattan.
And, again, because of this, there's always going to be a lot of fungibility in guns flowing from one place in America to another.
So basically, I think those all hot and bothered about how their guns will be confiscated, and those all hot and bothered to ban guns or strictly limit them so as to save lives, are largely, other than on the margins, wasting their time and energy on an issue where there will be no likely large-scale change, other than on the margins, and what change that might happen will make little difference, other than on the margins.
Oh, and I'm personally fine with requiring people to pass a safety/usage test before being allowed to own a gun -- I think that would be wise -- but otherwise largely allowing people who aren't in excluded categories (felons, people with severe mental illness), to be issued licenses for handguns, shotguns, and rifles, after passing such a test and background check, without further need to demonstrate "need."
But that's me, and as I said, I really don't care all that much, one way or another.
Brett and the gun NRA/gun enthusiasts' arguments about how they need their guns to stave of the government, and defend their rights, are nonsense. Personal arms are useless in such circumstances, and there's never been a sign of anyone trying to use them to defend actual rights, let alone successfully.
But arguments for severe gun control in America largely aren't much better: even if somehow a majority became convinced that a program of major confiscation was in order, it would work only mildly better than drug prohibition. You could noticiably cut down on ownership of guns, but most people who really really really want one will still be able to get one.
And, honestly, horrible as a massacre of a couple of dozen people is, and horrible as it would be if we had one a week, it wouldn't come close to the 35,000+ people a year who die in auto fatalities. Wanna save lives? If you're numerate, you're going to look at plenty of other places than at guns.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 12:47 PM
"I keep asking them for examples of gun-toting patriots resisting government oppression such as Japanese internment or Jim Crow. No joy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)>The battle of Athens?
"Gary is right. A lot of the arguments being offered up here for various types of gun control are pretty bad. That's not to say that there aren't any good arguments, just that not many of them are being made here.
Of course, some of the pro-gun stuff is equally crap. I've encountered few issues where the arguments on both sides are so often so weak."
Here's a suggestion: Where the arguments on both sides are weak, the side that wants to be left the hell alone should prevail. In this case, that would be the gun owners.
"Exactly. Toronto has a much higher murder rate than Dixeville Notch, New Hampshire."
Toronto has a much higher murder rate than a large swath of the US. Whole states are safer. But, you know what? Canada differs from the US on a long list of factors, not just the availability of firearms. Given that violent crime rates vary by several orders of magnitude from place to place in the US, even when the availability of firearms is roughly constant, the least that can be said about this, is that, even if availability of guns is "a" factor in murder rates, the US demonstrates that other factors are enormously more influential. As in, hundreds to thousands of times more powerful.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 04, 2009 at 12:49 PM
the side that wants to be left the hell alone should prevail. In this case, that would be the gun owners.
i will assert that not wanting to be shot by unhinged wingnut #2864 is a stronger form of wanting "to be left the hell alone".
Posted by: cleek | April 04, 2009 at 12:57 PM
"If he had had to depend on community health centers or whatever the psychiatric equivalent of the care Gary describes on his blog -- well, I don't really want to think about that."
I really really dislike Raleigh compared to Boulder: I miss the mountains, I miss the compactness, I miss the excellent bus system, I miss the caucus politics, I miss a lot of things. I hate the awful bus system, and the heat, here.
But here in Wake County, I'm seeing a psychiatrist for presciptions as necessary, and a therapist every week, who comes to where I live, paid for by the State (as run through the non-profit Easter Seals agency).
In contrast, in Boulder, the local poor people's medical clinic was accessible, and one could get an appointment within a couple of weeks at worst, within a week or less at best, but here it seems to be every three months, and since the buses only run once an hour, so taking two buses takes two hours or so each way, it's a long trip. But there was no long-term mental health care available that I could find (I was on a couple of wait lists that didn't pan out).
But I'm immensely grateful for the mental health care here.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 01:04 PM
Gary: I'm glad. I was thinking of your recent post about having gone to an appointment now, and the next one, with the tests, being in June. I'm glad that shrinks, in particular, are less problematic.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 04, 2009 at 01:12 PM
"My own personal position on gun control gains me little favor with many: I don't care very much."
Exactly how I feel, in every detail. I could repeat Gary's arguments, but I'll just stick with "ditto".
Posted by: Donald Johnson | April 04, 2009 at 01:31 PM
Re: Sensible gun regulation
When thinking of reducing gun violence through regulation think: automobiles.
Central registries for weapons; licenses and liability insurance for owners; and 'rules of the road' for safe storage and handling. This is low low hanging fruit that every automobile user can immediately identify with.
There are two types of gun violence that could be dramatically reduced: those facilitated by impulse; and those aided by opportunism. Impulse - suicide, domestic violence, immaturity, mental stability, etc. Opportunism - guns used in crimes are often obtained in car thefts or residential burglaries, where the weapon is inadequately secured.
Gun Risks are comparable to Car risks. Think about it.
Posted by: Porcupine_Pal | April 04, 2009 at 01:57 PM
"Gun Risks are comparable to Car risks."
That's my thought, save that cars cause ten times more harm in America. Of course, it can be argued that they do a hundred times more good, so that the trade-off is acceptable.
Personally I'd rather see a lot more mass transit, and a lot more zoning design to make it useful.
But the extremists on both sides of the gun issue will never accept the car analogy: the most gunphobic will continue to claim that guns "only have one purpose" and need to be banned, and a high proportion of gun-owners have been trained by the NRA to not agree to the faintest compromise, because they "know" it will lead inevitably to a slippery slope of confiscation. And, ideologically, it's a limitation of their inalienable rights, etc.
Neither of these two mindsets is going away any time soon.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 02:15 PM
"Toronto has a much higher murder rate than a large swath of the US. Whole states are safer."
Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Iowa and New Hampshire appear to be the only states with a lower homicide rate than Toronto.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2007
"[Toronto's] metropolitan homicide rate in 2006 was lower than every American city with a population above 500,000.... And of the seventy-two American cities with populations over 250,000, Toronto's 2006 metropolitan homicide rate (1.8 per 100,000) was lower than every other city except for Plano, Texas—the wealthiest city in the United States—which had a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000.
http://torontoist.com/2008/07/metrocide_a_tale_of_sixty_cities.php
Posted by: Johnny Canuck | April 04, 2009 at 02:33 PM
" Why is the homicide rate in Canada so much lower than US?"
Well, the US is a big, heterogeneous country
Do you realize how "heterogeneous" Toronto is?
# The top five visible minority groups in Toronto were:
* South Asian at 298,372 or 12.0 per cent of our population;
* Chinese at 283,075 or 11.4 per cent;
* Black at 208,555 or 8.4 per cent;
* Filipino at 102,555 or 4.1 per cent;
* Latin American at 64,860 or 2.6 per cent.
Posted by: Johnny Canuck | April 04, 2009 at 02:41 PM
..."extremists on both sides of the gun issue will never accept the car analogy..."
I wonder.
The Supreme Court has found a personal right to a gun under the 2d Amendment... removing the extremes on both sides - those who fear confiscation, and those who crave it.
Politicians will pass any legislation that advances a legislator's prospects. A sleeping public made an easy target for the NRA. Let's think about the NRA. It exists to extract money from its constituents. If liability insurance were required of gun owners, the NRA would be the most likely first entrant into that segment of the insurance market. It already provides liability insurance to gun ranges through some sort of captive.
ALL, literally all of us drive cars. We spend a lot of money and time going through the legal hoops that responsible car ownership entails. We do it because we understand the benefits of auto regulation.
(Picture a US without auto regulation. NYC had to cope with it early last century.) Comparable gun regulation should be an easy sale to the auto driving public, and to responsible gun owners as well.
This really would work.
Posted by: Porcupine_Pal | April 04, 2009 at 03:27 PM
"ALL, literally all of us drive cars."
This isn't true. Just saying. Many people in large cities don't. I don't. (I wish I did have a license, down here, and could afford even a junker.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 04:29 PM
it's true, I am prone to exaggeration.
But still.....
Posted by: Porcupine_Pal | April 04, 2009 at 04:35 PM
35% of drivers responsible for auto fatalities are unlicensed. link 14% of drivers nationally are uninsured: in California, it is 25%. link
Even with required training, licensing, insurance, and registration, those who do not wish to follow the law simply don't. And auto accidents are generally unintentional, as opposed to the intentional acts with guns. I would assume that the self selection of those who do not follow the law would be greater for the intentional acts.
I think that treating guns like cars and requiring licensing, training, and insurance would be next to useless to addressing situations like this.
Posted by: jrudkis | April 04, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Where the arguments on both sides are weak, the side that wants to be left the hell alone should prevail. In this case, that would be the gun owners.
Yes, those 13 dead immigrants should have just left the gun owners the hell alone.
Posted by: now_what | April 04, 2009 at 05:09 PM
Yes, those 13 dead immigrants should have just left the gun owners the hell alone.
meddling bystanders!
Posted by: cleek | April 04, 2009 at 05:45 PM
I think that treating guns like cars and requiring licensing, training, and insurance would be next to useless to addressing situations like this.
You might be right if we treat guns exactly like automobiles. But consider an alternative: what if possession of a gun, starting from its manufacture, required a license and insurance? Possession without insurance would be punished with long prison terms and the seizure of all assets. Committing a crime with a gun would lead to massive payments by the insurer.
Gun manufacturers would not sell to anyone without going to great lengths to ensure that those buyers were properly insured. If you're a boring guy with no history of violence, getting insurance is cheap. But insurance can be revoked, so if hilzoy contacts the firearm insurance companies and starts voicing concerns, they now have a big incentive to investigate since they're on the hook for millions of dollars in damages if her friend decides to go on a shooting spree. Likewise, if you start abusing your spouse and they get a restraining order against you, your insurance might go up. Presumably, you could get a reduction in exchange for getting evaluated by a psychiatrist.
The point is, having a gun increases risks. For some people, that increased risk is insignificant but for others it is extremely high. We need to price that risk and start transferring it through a market: that's what insurance is all about. This will not eliminate criminal uses of guns or firearm accidents, but it will reduce them and it will ensure that the costs of those accidents are borne by people who insist on keeping guns in direct proportion to the danger they pose to society.
Posted by: Turbulence | April 04, 2009 at 06:12 PM
But consider an alternative: what if possession of a gun, starting from its manufacture, required a license and insurance?
Rubbish. If rich people have the right to own guns, poor people do too.
Posted by: now_what | April 04, 2009 at 06:17 PM
Rubbish. If rich people have the right to own guns, poor people do too.
I live in a state where insurance is required to drive. The voters here have decided that those too poor to pay for insurance do not have the right to drive. I see no reason why guns should be any different.
In any event, the sufficiently rich right now enjoy all sorts of privileges denied the poor, including access to weaponry of all sorts.
Posted by: Turbulence | April 04, 2009 at 06:27 PM
I live in a state where insurance is required to drive
I live in a state where I witnessed in court a judge refusing to impose penalties for driving without insurance because, as he said, he was not doing the insurance companies' job for them.
If rich people have the right to own guns, poor people do too.
Posted by: now_what | April 04, 2009 at 06:35 PM
guns are important in rural areas where there's dangerous wild game, and they're great for target practice, and they also have a place in limited circumstances for self-protection. Then there's also the sport of hunting
Wild game, hunting, and self-protection all fall under 'grievous bodily harm'. If you disagree, ask any varmint that's been on the wrong end of a AR-15.
Folks generally don't hunt with baseball bats.
Target practice is arguable, although 'practice for what?' comes right to mind as a reply.
Posted by: russell | April 04, 2009 at 06:43 PM
If rich people have the right to own guns, poor people do too.
Is having a right the same as having absolutely no restrictions on that right? Are poor people entitled to the same freedom of speech that rich newspaper owners are? Must the government ban newspaper printing if it is unable to provide every citizen with their very own printing press?
Posted by: Turbulence | April 04, 2009 at 06:47 PM
I think you guys are missing the point. My comments were not about gun control and neither were hilzoys. Her comments and mine were about discovering and squashing intent before a crime occurs.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | April 04, 2009 at 06:49 PM
Must the government ban newspaper printing if it is unable to provide every citizen with their very own printing press?
Every citizen has access to their very own printing press, they are available at any library.
If rich people have the right to own guns, poor people do too.
Posted by: now_what | April 04, 2009 at 06:53 PM
I think you guys are missing the point.
I would be surprised if anyone here still cares what you think.
Posted by: now_what | April 04, 2009 at 06:55 PM
"Target practice is arguable, although 'practice for what?' comes right to mind as a reply."
For fun, for one thing. Lots of people shoot guns at targets for fun.
It may not be your thing (and I only did it a handful of times as a kid), but it's a fact that tons of people do this.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 06:57 PM
Her comments and mine were about discovering and squashing intent before a crime occurs.
Oh absolutely, we would never squash intent before a crime occurs. That's why if you call up the FBI/CIA/NSA and explain that you have strong reason to believe that a particular agent has been compromised, they'll hang up the phone without even hearing you out. Just like if you called up a school and explained that one of the teachers had confided in you that they wanted to molest children, the school would do absolutely nothing. In both cases, it is much better to react to problems rather than investigate and avoid them in the first place.
As always dave, you bring such a keen insight into how organizations function.
Posted by: Turbulence | April 04, 2009 at 06:58 PM
Every citizen has access to their very own printing press, they are available at any library.
A photocopier is really not equivalent to the publishing power afforded to the owners of the New York Times for example. In some abstract sense, they both allow one to "publish", but a guy with a copier has vastly less power to practically exercise his free speech rights than the owner of a large newspaper.
Then again, under my proposal, every citizen would have the right to own toy guns. A toy gun is to a real gun as a copy machine is to the NYT.
If rich people have the right to own guns, poor people do too.
If rich people have the right to fly airplanes, than poor people do to, even if they can't afford flight school!
You can keep repeating this statement without actually engaging my arguments but it just makes you look silly.
Posted by: Turbulence | April 04, 2009 at 07:03 PM
A photocopier is really not equivalent to the publishing power afforded to the owners of the New York Times for example.
The guy with the photocopier isn't going bankrupt as we speak, he has a business model that actually works.
If rich people have the right to own guns, poor people do too.
You can keep repeating your statements too, your reflexive defense of the rich and powerful.
I'll keep fighting back, I'm that way.
Posted by: now_what | April 04, 2009 at 07:10 PM
"In some abstract sense, they both allow one to 'publish', but a guy with a copier has vastly less power to practically exercise his free speech rights than the owner of a large newspaper."
This is true, but seems irrelevant to a consideration of free speech rights as traditionally and legally defined and used in the U.S.: there's a guarantee of free speech, within various limits specified by the law, but there's no guarantee of a right to a specific degree of publishing resources.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 07:13 PM
Just to be clear now_what, do you oppose all mandatory insurance laws? Including those for doctors and other professionals? Do you oppose all laws that impose any kind of financial requirement on workers (like laws requiring expensive medical school educations for those seeking to practice medicine)?
If rich people have the right to own guns, poor people do too.
Having a right is not the same thing as being permitted to exercise it. I have the right to voice my opinion, but not in your living room at 3am.
Posted by: Turbulence | April 04, 2009 at 07:16 PM
Just to be clear now_what, do you oppose all mandatory insurance laws?
The person being required to buy the insurance should be the person whose assets are at risk.
Poor people don't have assets at risk. They don't need insurance.
Having a right is not the same thing as being permitted to exercise it
That's just stupid.
Posted by: now_what | April 04, 2009 at 07:23 PM
"You can keep repeating your statements too, your reflexive defense of the rich and powerful."
Now you're mind-reading.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 07:32 PM
The person being required to buy the insurance should be the person whose assets are at risk.
Why do you believe this?
Moreover, do you think that pedestrians should have to pay for insurance to protect them from the risks of bad drivers? What about people riding buses or taxis? Should I have to purchase bad doctor insurance to protect myself from incompetent doctors with insufficient assets?
That's just stupid.
You're right. I intended to write that having a right is not the same as being permitted to exercise it without any restriction. See the aforementioned TPM restrictions.
Posted by: Turbulence | April 04, 2009 at 07:33 PM
"Having a right is not the same thing as being permitted to exercise it. I have the right to voice my opinion, but not in your living room at 3am."
Response: "That's just stupid."
It's perfectly correct: there are many conditions under which your free speech rights are limited by law, such as when commiting libel, inciting to riot, violating noise ordinances, violating litter ordinances, marching without a permit where required, and so on.
Similarly, the recently found individual right to a gun is not at all held to be unlimited.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 07:34 PM
do you think that pedestrians should have to pay for insurance to protect them from the risks of bad drivers?
The person with assets at risk should pay the insurance. That's the nature of insurance. Poor people have no assets. They need no insurance.
If I'm a rich pedestrian who normally walks around in an area frequented by bad drivers with no assets, yes, I'm going to buy the bad driver insurance.
Gary: there are many conditions under which your free speech rights are limited by law
See the above clarification by Turbulence.
Posted by: now_what | April 04, 2009 at 07:48 PM
I'm a gun owner, hunter of sorts (don't go every year now that I live in California instead of Alaska) and just purchased a hand gun and am in the 10-day waiting period. I don't consider myself a "gun nut" and support reasonable restrictions on purchasing guns. I didn't mind the ten-day wait and am glad there are some questions asked.
Hilzoy's point is well-taken. I do recall being asked if I had ever been a mental health patient but not whether I am actually crazy but just not diagnosed. A psych eval before every purchase seems a bit much, but it would seem fine to add a "if your friend thinks your homicidal and/or nuts and has reasonable proof you won't get your gun anytime soon" clause.
In response to Tony P., the NRA "nuts" he describes are not typical NRA members or gun owners. There are many that simply enjoy hunting or target practice, enjoy the safety programs and education sponsored by the NRA and so forth.
Gary Farber is on the money politically.
And until someone weeds out the influence of gang activity (especially drug gang activity) and criminality in general, I don't think general statistics do much good.
Regarding the automobile deaths argument, a large portion of those are alcohol related (around 40%, I think). Alcohol is often involved in violent crimes and homicides. But we don't talk about prohibition.
Posted by: bc | April 04, 2009 at 07:50 PM
I live in a state where I witnessed in court a judge refusing to impose penalties for driving without insurance because, as he said, he was not doing the insurance companies' job for them.
It would be fascinating to know which state that was, given that
http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/vehicleratings/a/blautominimum.htm>this chart implies that all 50 states have liability insurance requirements for car registration.
If the judge had said he wasn't going to do the registrars' work for them, or the motor vehicles department's work for it, his statement might have made more sense. As it stands, I'm a bit puzzled to know what he meant. Is there a state where the law requires the insurance companies to monitor car owners and make sure they have insurance?
Also puzzling in this context is the statement that The person with assets at risk should pay the insurance. That's the nature of insurance. Poor people have no assets. They need no insurance.
The liability insurance required for car registration is to protect other people's assets. Maybe you meant that "poor people" shouldn't be required to protect other people's assets, but the fact is that if they want to own a car, the law requires that they do, because a car can wreak serious havoc on assets not owned by the car's owner.
Posted by: JanieM | April 04, 2009 at 08:12 PM
I should have written "if they want to register a car...." You can own a car without buying insurance for it, but if you want to take it on the road you're supposed to register it, which -- at least where I live -- means showing proof of insurance.
Like everything else, people manage to circumvent this requirement and take uninsured cars on the road. That doesn't make it legal, or (in my opinion) right.
Posted by: JanieM | April 04, 2009 at 08:16 PM
etsto be very much at risk.It seems to me that on a public policy basis (if not perhaps on a NRA-tinged "the Tree of Liberty must be watered ..." basis) a very good case could be made for strong regulation of gun ownership, including registation, competency tests for licensing, trigger locks or gun cabinets, and, yes, including insurance.
That said, for all that I find your disparagement of gun owners' having any responsibilities profoundly unconvincing, I'm not sure how much such insurance would cost; although far too many legal guns are involved in horrific accidents and acts of violence, we are awash in a sea of guns, such that the per-gun cost of insurance for such incidents could conceivably not be too high - although if gun owners were forced to qualify for discounts by keeping their noses clean, much as car owners are, then some benefits might result.
Um, just how are you defining "assets"? A car owner's insurance covers not only the car and the people and possessions in it, but also those injured by the car, and they certainly aren't the car owner's "assets". If someone is using a gun unwisely, let alone maliciously, in my vicinity, then I consider my assPosted by: Warren Terra | April 04, 2009 at 08:50 PM
Of course gun owners have responsibility: They have the precise same responsibility anybody exercising a civil liberty has: To not exercise it abusively. But what we gun owners don't have, is the responsibility to submit to all sorts of crazy demands premised on the notion that we're all ticking time bombs who have to be incapacitated because we can't be trusted.
You don't demand that people go around wearing ball gags on the theory that they might otherwise falsely cry fire in a crowded theater. Why think you're entitled to impose firearms regulations of the same order?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 04, 2009 at 10:07 PM
"You don't demand that people go around wearing ball gags on the theory that they might otherwise falsely cry fire in a crowded theater. Why think you're entitled to impose firearms regulations of the same order?"
I don't know exactly what you consider to be "of the same order," but I'd suggest that guns are, in fact, much more capable of killing people by going off both accidentally and intentionally than mouths and typing fingers are.
There are actually discernible differences between guns and our tools of communication.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 10:17 PM
A domestic`disturbance in Pittsburgh, once my fair city, ended up with three cops shot dead, at last count.
The gunman apparently was afraid President Obama was going to take his guns away so he thought he'd go on a shooting/murder spree before it was too late.
You don't want to waste bullets. They get moldy.
In other news, self-described rodeo clown Glenn Beck slipped and fell in his local Bed, Bath, and Beheaded while taking advantage of the two-for-one demagogue white sale and was accidentally scalped by a cheap but effective vegetable-slicing mandolin.
But seriously folks, Glenn Beck just encouraged and enabled the murder of three cops in Pennsylvania.
Bill O'Reilly is outraged because he didn't think of it first and Beck is hurting his ratings.
Is Ann Coulter air traffic controlling any hijacked airplanes into the FOX studios tonight? The nose of an empty (only the guilty should be butchered) 747 coming through the window and plowing through the three solid inches of clown makeup covering Beck's face would make for some fine live T.V... Ailes, thta's a heads up.
Beck's fantasy of FEMA rounding up conservatives and placing them in detention camps and taxing their estates has better come true soon before one of Beck's minions puts a bullet in Obama.
I challenge Glenn Beck to a fight in the street. Any time, any place.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 04, 2009 at 10:18 PM
"There are actually discernible differences between guns and our tools of communication."
They're just not terribly relevant to the question of whether you can impose restrictions on innocent, demonstrably safe exercises of a civil liberty in order to inconvenience criminals.
You look at the list of regulations of speech, and the thing that leaps out at you is that they regulate speech conduct that directly harms, or has a high probability of harming, people.
Firearms related activities of that character have been heavily regulated or illegal for a century or more. Assault with a firearm, negligent discharge. Today we're not talking about banning conduct that has a high probability of harm, we're talking about banning conduct which almost never results in harm, in order to inconvenience people with criminal intent. Arbitrary design restrictions, things like that.
There's an additional problem, which is that gun control has a history, and it's not a history of good faith. It's about as sensible to expect gun control to be rationally administered to avoid unnecessarily restricting gun owners' rights, as it was to expect separate but equal to be equal.
I hope some day the courts will recognize that history of bad faith, the way they did with racial regulations.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 04, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Posted by: Warren Terra | April 04, 2009 at 10:46 PM
"Today we're not talking about banning conduct that has a high probability of harm, we're talking about banning conduct which almost never results in harm, in order to inconvenience people with criminal intent."
We are? Could you quote what "we're" talking about, and clarify who said it, please? Because as usual, I've only seen you write in generalities, and if "we're" talking about something specific, I'd like to know who here said it and what it was.
Hilzoy's post, as a reminder, says this: "I just think that there should be some process, with safeguards and due process to guard against abuse, that makes it possible to prevent someone who from getting a gun when there is clear evidence that that person is homicidal."
So what is it that "we're" talking about that's "of the same order" as making "people go around wearing ball gags," and "banning conduct which almost never results in harm"?
Thanks, Brett.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 11:07 PM
What "bad faith" are you referring to, specifically, of such a nature?
Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not aware of what you're referring to: you're asserting that gun-owners have been treated similarly to victims of Jim Crow laws?Posted by: Gary Farber | April 04, 2009 at 11:13 PM
There's an additional problem, which is that gun control has a history, and it's not a history of good faith.
please, share that history with us.
Posted by: cleek | April 05, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Should we also require some kind of mental evaluation of registered voters to insure they are not likely to vote for some insane renagade who as president will send thousands off to fight an illegal war?
Posted by: Old Soldier | April 05, 2009 at 01:06 AM
I'm wondering where Brett will be moving to that has gun laws that are, from his perspective, better than the US.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | April 05, 2009 at 02:05 AM
There is something basically wrong with any school of thought that looks at the unprovoked murder of innocent people and rushes to say "Of course you can't want to do anything that might prevent repetitions of this. We're in favor of anything as long as we protect the right of unstable people to get the most effective force multipliers available in our society." I remember when there were perfunctory and sometimes maybe even sincere expressions of grief at the losses and concern about helping improve troubled situations, but these days that's all socialism, apparently.
Posted by: Lupita N | April 05, 2009 at 02:22 AM
"Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not aware of what you're referring to: you're asserting that gun-owners have been treated similarly to victims of Jim Crow laws?"
Gary, gun control isn't just "similar to Jim Crow", it started out as PART OF Jim Crow, and only later did gun controllers get around to being equal opportunity deniers of rights.
"There is something basically wrong with any school of thought that looks at the unprovoked murder of innocent people and rushes to say "Of course you can't want to do anything that might prevent repetitions of this."
There's something basically wrong with a school of thought that says, "Yay! An unprovoked murder of innocent people! Let's use it to attack that civil liberty we don't like, again!"
Do anything? We can do plenty of "things". They just can't be violations of civil liberties.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 05, 2009 at 03:00 AM
There's something basically wrong with a school of thought that says, "Yay! An unprovoked murder of innocent people! Let's use it to attack that civil liberty we don't like, again!"
There's something basically wrong with the school of thought that says unregulated gun ownership is a civil liberty.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 05, 2009 at 03:55 AM
The comparison to driving licenses and cars makes sense except for one basic problem: the 2nd Amendment forbids an outright ban on guns. There is no right to drive or register a car.
We have a constitutionally guaranteed right to gun ownership, which courts have found may be restricted by the state only under certain conditions where the state shows a compelling interest in doing so.
The sort of restrictions that can apply, I would think, would be much like the list Warren Terra describes: "firearm registration, competency tests for licensing, trigger locks or gun cabinets, and... regulation of the militarization of personal firearms, most prominently in clip size and certain types of armor-piercing weapons."
Legally speaking, the question of whether any or all of these are legitimate restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights is a matter for the courts. I can certainly understand there are reasonable arguments for both sides.
Politically speaking, I agree with Gary: there just isn't, hasn't been, and likely won't ever be, any significant constituency for any regulation beyond those and obviously a lot of bipartisan opposition to even going that far.
Anything further would probably legally require a new amendment to repeal the 2nd, and we all know that is just not going to happen.
We have no such right to drive; it is a privelege to be granted or withheld by any state as they see fit. The states are basically on their own as far as their requirements for drivers and all states have their various registration requirements to operate a motor vehicle on the state's roads. Yes, people sometimes do break the law and drive unlicensed, unregistered, or uninsured. It's pretty much always poor people, though it also includes people who really shouldn't drive anyway- like multiple DUI's, for example.
At one point in my younger years, I did all three. My reason in each case was economic: I was flat broke from working a crappy job, no employment prospects close to home, and living paycheck to paycheck. At one point, I couldn't afford to meet the financial requirements to legally drive (couldn't buy insurance, so couldn't renew the registration, got caught with expired tag and couldn't pay the fine so my license was suspended), but if I didn't drive I couldn't work at all.
I'm guessing that judge mentioned above is basically sympathetic to the idea that people struggling to make ends meet and let their car insurance slip because they're broke are never going to be able to buy the insurance they need if he hits them with the max fine as well. I had a judge waive my fine for just that reason on the condition that I show 6 months insurance prepaid before the appearance date. (It helps to call the clerk's office before any appearance. She steered me right. Thanks again, SLO county!)
Too bad we live in a country where a basic necessity, transportation to work, is a privelege and not a right and in most places there are no viable alternatives thanks to our public collective decision not to build any. But that's a whole 'nother issue, isn't it?
Posted by: AndYnot? | April 05, 2009 at 05:28 AM
So what were we talking about again?
As for Hilzoy's original post, I'm a bit skeptical. I'd need a lot more detailed description of the safeguards mentioned before I'd be ok with our psychological care system making decisions about any of my rights- whether owning a handgun or not being involuntarily committed. Maybe my past diagnosis of clinical depression, now under treatment, wouldn't be enough to trigger any alarms. For now.
We've already got a problem in Nevada about involuntary commitment: untrained medical personel or police can decide on the spot that someone poses a danger and that person can be held in psychiatric hospital for observation and evaluation for 3 days. At the end of that time, the hospital decides if he or she can be released. The problem is that these are private for-profit hospitals who have every financial incentive to commit people against their will, especially if insurance is paying. I don't trust this state, at least, to make any decisions about my mental state without abusing that power.
And finally, on the homicide rate. That our gun ownership rate is 4x that of Canada's but our homicide rate is 10x, that's because, unlike Canadians, we're basically scared $%$@less of each other all the time. In no small part thanks to our "if it bleeds it leads" news coverage and to the fearmongers who insist that anyone different is dangerous.
It's a vicious circle: irrational fear of "the others" drives gun ownership. Rational fear of being shot in turn feeds it as well. We all live with a subliminal (usually) fear that at any time we could be killed by a gunshot. It could be a mugger, burglar, spouse or ex, drunk neighbor, crazy stranger, careless target shooter, or gangsters' strays. Every stranger we encounter, whether on a city street corner or a suburban parking lot or a lonely country road, is a potential shooter. It's not necessarily a consious fear, but it is there beneath the surface.
I noticed this last summer living in Japan. The week before I left, I literally dodged bullets in my old neighborhood when some idiot emptied a pistol down my cul-de-sac. Then while there, I got word that my own cousin, young, drunk, and stupid, had been arrested for killing an 18 year old over a dumb high school beef. With an AK 47. The next person I hear say that assault rifles aren't used in crimes is getting kicked in the groin. That kind of thing just doesn't happen in Japan. They've got crime, they've got violent crime even. But they don't have guns- so their homicide right is lower than any large US city.
I have no solution. Guns are and will remain a part of American life and therefore gun violence will remain so as well. It's sad but true. We either accept and find our own ways to deal with the fear or we leave.
And yes, rampages are becoming more common.
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904030025
Funny how each of them is an isolated incident and only a few bloggers have noticed that the increased incidence coincides with a huge upsurge in violent paranoia and even calls for civil insurrection, not just from the usual fringe cranks, but from mainstream commenters with TV and radio audiences in the millions. These a-holes are deliberately feeding the paranoia to ensure big audiences. Worse, knowing that the country is filled with unhinged, well-armed crazies who only need a target and a motive, they point to liberals as targets and patriotic duty as a motive.
Posted by: AndYnot? | April 05, 2009 at 05:35 AM
Ok, just one more thing...
Gary, you cannot compare deaths from car accidents to deaths from murder. Frankly, it's a bit disgusting.
There is a tremendous qualitative difference between the threat of dying in a car accident, which you can mitigate by wearing a seatbelt, driving defensively, or just not driving at all, and being gunned down by some random stranger. You have no protection against the latter and it can happen anytime anywhere. At work. At home. In your yard. On the street.
There is whole other level of fear involved: an accident, whether with a car or a gun, is just that. Stuff happens. The only blame, if any, is for negligence.
But a murderous rampage is someone, some human being, making a conscious decision that you need to die and then makes it so. Maybe because you're a liberal. Or an immigrant. Or you're dressed funny. Or you work for someone they hate. Or you just look like you do. How can anyone mitigate that threat?
Posted by: AndYnot? | April 05, 2009 at 05:47 AM
AndYnot?: We've already got a problem in Nevada about involuntary commitment: untrained medical personel or police can decide on the spot that someone poses a danger and that person can be held in psychiatric hospital for observation and evaluation for 3 days. At the end of that time, the hospital decides if he or she can be released. The problem is that these are private for-profit hospitals who have every financial incentive to commit people against their will, especially if insurance is paying. I don't trust this state, at least, to make any decisions about my mental state without abusing that power.
But we're not talking about the state having the power to curtail your liberty, or put you a private for-profit hospital. Only about the state having the power to prevent you from buying a gun, if in the estimation of (say) a medical professional and a judge, you would use the gun to harm other people.
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. Switzerland also has a low gun-related homicide and gun-related accident rate. In Switzerland, just as Hilzoy thinks would be sane were the case in the US, a person can be banned from gun ownership if due process determines that they will be a danger to themselves or to others if they are allowed to own a gun.
For some reason, the Swiss government feels that in a country with a citizen army where military service is regarded as an obligation of citizenship and where people routinely own guns, it makes sense to regulate gun ownership and gun use.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 05, 2009 at 05:49 AM
"There's something basically wrong with the school of thought that says unregulated gun ownership is a civil liberty."
Jes, this will shock you, but the definition of "civil liberty" is not "stuff that Jesurgislac approves of". Contrary to the ACLU, it's not even, "Stuff that Nadine Strossen approves of". Civil liberties are rights guaranteed against the government by the Constituiton, and the Constitution damned well does guarantee a right to own firearms.
"But we're not talking about the state having the power to curtail your liberty, or put you a private for-profit hospital. Only about the state having the power to prevent you from buying a gun, if in the estimation of (say) a medical professional and a judge, you would use the gun to harm other people."
Again, owning a gun IS A CIVIL LIBERTY. And we keep getting told we shouldn't fear it being taken away, but it would go a long way towards making that fear genuinely irrational, rather than just inconvenient to gun controlers, if 'liberals' would admit that it's a civil liberty, and treat it like one.
You don't have to go crawling to the government for permission to exercise a civil liberty. The government can't take it away from you by a pro-forma action that doesn't involve a jury trial.
Stop trying to treat this right like a privilege, and we'll stop thinking you want to take it away.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 05, 2009 at 08:54 AM
Hilzoy, if you genuinely think an adult is too dangerous to own guns, then the appropriate response IS to seek their civil commitment, ideally voluntary, involuntary if that's not possible.
A person who's too dangerous to own guns is too dangerous to drive cars, too dangerous to stand next to people in line for the subway, too dangerous to be allowed to do umpteen different things that are routine parts of life.
Now, I happen to think that involuntary commitment is too easy for something that's functionally indistinguishable from imprisonment for a crime, and so convenient to a government that wants to imprison people without trial. But that's a separate matter from whether or not it's the appropriate route to go with somebody who is genuinely too dangerous to be allowed out on their own.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 05, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Lots of people shoot guns at targets for fun.
Noted. I stand corrected, guns can be used for a purpose other than inflicting bodily harm. They can be used to shoot target.
Her comments and mine were about discovering and squashing intent before a crime occurs.
No, her comment was about responding to a clear statement of intent. The intent is to murder, and the response is to remove the ability to carry the intent out.
And yes, the best time to do that is before the crime occurs.
You don't have to go crawling to the government for permission to exercise a civil liberty.
There are many, many jurisdictions in the US where it is dead easy to get a firearm. The places where it is difficult, or even just inconvenient, to get a firearm tend to be places where there are public safety concerns that argue against ready and unregulated access to firearms.
Net/net the US is one of the easiest places on earth to get a gun. To talk about the US as a place where you have to 'go crawling to the government' to get a firearm is an extraordinary overstatement, and just makes you sound like a crank.
There are very few rights granted in the Constitution and its amendments that are not subject to reasonable limits based on an overriding concern for the public interest. Maybe none. Speech, right to assemble, right for your person and property to be free from search and seizure, all can be and are routinely curtailed to serve a broader public interest.
To hilzoy's original point: there are, in fact, lots of ways to recognize people who are prone to violence. There is no need to get all 'Minority Report' about it. Some folks have actual histories of violent behavior. Some folks are members of organizations that openly call for the violent overthrow of the US government, or call for and plan for programs of violence against specific other groups of people. Some folks telegraph their intentions quite clearly, through obsessive talking or writing about the violent damage they want to do.
I hold with a fairly conservative reading of the 2nd Amendment, and believe that the founders very much intended for private ownership of firearms to be a curb against tyrannical exercise of power by the state. Odd, that, for a lefty, but there you have it.
But I see absolutely no problem with denying gun ownership to people who clearly demonstrate a desire, willingness, or intent to harm other people. Not only is it, IMO, legitimate to do that before a violent act is committed, we should make every effort to do so before a violent act is committed.
It's hard for me to conceive of an argument to the contrary.
Posted by: russell | April 05, 2009 at 09:43 AM
Brett: Civil liberties are rights guaranteed against the government by the Constituiton, and the Constitution damned well does guarantee a right to own firearms.
No. The Constitution guarantees a right to a well-regulated militia - a situation similar to Switzerland, where they can and do deny people gun ownership if those people are incapable of making use of those guns sensibly. I seem to recall us having this discussion before, though.
russell: I hold with a fairly conservative reading of the 2nd Amendment, and believe that the founders very much intended for private ownership of firearms to be a curb against tyrannical exercise of power by the state. Odd, that, for a lefty, but there you have it.
I don't see how anyone gets that out of the 2nd Amendment. I see how the firearms industry wants to get that out of the 2nd Amendment. But an amendment allowing for private individuals to bear arms in a well-regulated militia is in no way a means for individuals to curb the tyrannical exercise of power by the state. George W. Bush's appointment by the Supreme Court was not challenged by private ownership of firearms; nor was his illegal program of warrantless wiretapping; nor was the sacking of US Attorneys for failing to do the will of the Bush administration. Where individuals attempt to challenge the power of the state with firearms, we don't see a curbing of state power; we see people getting killed, without any damage to the power of the state.
You can more sensibly challenge the power of the state via free and fair elections and an independent judicial system: a nation, as they used to say, ruled by laws, not men. Rifles just won't do it.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 05, 2009 at 10:07 AM
While I recognize that the Constitution was the result of political action which necessitated compromises that were, in places, unpalatable to most, it seems fundamentally unsound to argue that the 2nd Amendment contains some accommmodation to sedition by securing a private right to gun ownership - when it simultaneously spells out conditions under which criminal convictions for sedition may occur.
But these arguments are, for the foreseeable future, mooted by the SC decision which affirms that there is, albeit for another reason, a right of private gun ownership.
In retrospect, I think that the SC has done those who favor sensible gun regulation a favor by declaring this right of ownership.
The decision eliminates the NRA's and gun owners' fears of state confiscation. It has also resolved the drive, on the other extreme, to confiscate all guns. What remains of these fringes are unreasoning paranoia or the endorsement of illegal behavior.
Sensible gun regulation remains, more firmly than ever, the default middle position. The Car/Gun analogy is apt, precisely so.
Central registries/certificates of title; licenses for guns and owners with proof of financial responsiblity/liability insurance; and 'rules of the road' for safe storage and use of guns is, as they say, a no brainer.
E.g. I leave the keys in my car - the law imputes liability to me when someone drives it away and causes harm. I negligently entrust my car to an irresponsible driver, the law imputes liability for harm to me.
E.g. The private market for insurance will act as a significant moderator of behavior. Premiums for an Uzi will, presumably, be higher than a single shot.22. (Most building codes in the US are the product of the private insurance market.)
Consider it......please.
Posted by: Porcupine_Pal | April 05, 2009 at 10:15 AM
It is true that we have the right to own a gun and have it accidentally discharge and shoot someone.
It is also true that it is a privilege to receive healthcare for gunshot wounds.
Why can't people get this straight, since it follows the internal logic of the universe as parsed by the Founders?
Posted by: John Thullen | April 05, 2009 at 10:20 AM
And we keep getting told we shouldn't fear it being taken away, but it would go a long way towards making that fear genuinely irrational,
the fear will never go away because the GOP needs it as a tool to rally the party faithful.
Posted by: cleek | April 05, 2009 at 10:59 AM
"No. The Constitution guarantees a right to a well-regulated militia"
Jes, you appear to have missed District of Columbia v. Heller. (Here is a short news account version.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 05, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I invite you to peruse the text of Federalist #46, penned by publius. It does tend to illustrate the thinking of Madison, and I doubt he was operating in a vacuum.
Excerpt:
So, it's not as if no one was thinking about that sort of thing, back then. Nor is it that Madison was uninvolved in the process of composing the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
What the modern-day analogue of state militias might be is a slightly different topic.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Fine, Slarti. Obviously, if - say 150 years ago - the tyrannical power of the federal government had attempted to curb the right of individual states to leave the union, the right of individuals to bear arms would have stopped that from happening, and the states that wanted to secede would have done so.
Clearly proven by historical circumstance. Yes indeed.
*wanders off, shaking head*
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 05, 2009 at 12:00 PM
She appears not to have actually read the 2nd amendment, either, which says no such thing.
John, I can understand the appeal of humor as a rhetorical tactic: It doesn't require you to be in any way right to work, unlike reason and evidence. But I'm not sure I think that's a point in it's favor.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | April 05, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Unfortunately, Madison may have overlooked that a substantial portion of the citizenry might just agree with the government and support it in arms. He did say quite a few things about the government's power stems from the people, though. I'm not sure that the northern states would have been successful in preventing secession, had they not had popular support in doing so.
I'm practically inviting some kind of correction from Gary, I know. Opportunities for learning abound.
Again, this is not an area that I know any regardable quality of opinion in, but: you're changing your argument. First, it was that an amendment allowing for private individuals to bear arms in a well-regulated militia is in no way a means for individuals to curb the tyrannical exercise of power by the state. That appears not to be the case. Now your argument is (or appears to be): FALE.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Again, this is not an area that I have any regardable quality of opinion
PIMF. GTG.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Slartibartfast, my point was only that trying to argue that the right to bear arms protects your civil liberties against the federal government, without actually being able to point to any instance in, say, the past two centuries in which it has actually done so, does kind of - you'd think! - undercut that argument.
Or not. It could be a nuclear Iran kind of thing: it's impossible to discuss because the facts become invisible. Ben is Glory. Glory is Ben. Is everyone here very stoned?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 05, 2009 at 12:33 PM
As Benjamin Franklin said, when asked what the Founders had wrought, after the Constitutional Convention:
"A punchline, if you can remember it."
Posted by: John Thullen | April 05, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Sure. Political theory is notoriously tricky to prove, sometimes, in advance of actual implementation. Also notoriously tricky to prove decades after.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 05, 2009 at 12:54 PM