Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I have been arguing with pro gun advocates online since 2004.

In that time, gun regulation in the US remained inadequate and over 160,000 people in the US have been murdered by guns since. The annual toll is growing too.

Still, since I'm not GE, I can admit "the other side's" concerns. Reality is more interesting than partisan politicking.

So, in some dangerous areas in the US, especially those growing infrastructure black spots in the US, the weak may need to carry heat. It should be said there's nowhere in Australia and many other more civilised western countries where one would be safer with a gun.

Further, in the absence of humane euthanasia and assisted dying laws, owning a gun provides an option for the terminally ill. Then again, it also provides a too-easy option for the depressed. Most people who have been unsuccessful suicide later say they are glad to have survived.

Another small pro of gun proliferation, albeit a questionable one. About a third of the US believed that the country is heading towards civil war. Having a gun might be handy in that instance too, but their preponderance in US society would also seem to make such a war more likely (if everyone is armed, all it takes is the murder of a talismanic figure to set it off).

[GE Morton]

It should be noted that over half the homicides in the US are committed by blacks, who make up 13% of the population (now wait for the cries of "racism" from the PC crowd).

Yes? Is that it?

Educational disadvantage

Poverty

Unemployment

Race prejudice

The above parameters of disadvantage apply to both white and black people. The causes of homicide should be established without reference to the criminal's appearance.

Well, a criminal's appearance is pretty hard to ignore. "Black," however, denotes more than appearance; it denotes a subculture (of which, it should also be noted, not all African-Americans are members). So it is reasonable to ask whether there may not be factors in play in that subculture which lead to high rates of crime, and perhaps to unemployment and poverty also (there is no doubt that crime rates and poverty rates, at least in the US, are correlated).

The only educational disadvantages blacks suffer are those deriving from conditions in the home, not from shortcomings of the schools. Those conditions, arguably, arise from the same cultural factors.

Race prejudice presents a chicken-and-egg problem: Prejudice undoubtedly exists. But does the prejudice cause the poverty and provoke crime, or do those hypothetical cultural factors, which the white majority deem deplorable and destructive, provoke the prejudice?

[Steve3007]

Race prejudice presents a chicken-and-egg problem: Prejudice undoubtedly exists. But does the prejudice cause the poverty and provoke crime, or do those hypothetical cultural factors, which the white majority deem deplorable and destructive, provoke the prejudice?

I think it's these kinds of "chicken and egg" problems that often cause people to advocate the interventions of governments, using taxation, that you have indicated you regard as unacceptable and counterproductive infringements of individual liberty.

From your previous words, I think you would probably argue that if a person comes from a background in which the virtuous circles of parental responsibility, valuing education, material success, and low crime rates are mostly absent, government led help is not the answer and will ultimately simply entrench dependence. Better to leave it to the market. The market will then ensure that those with sufficient get-up-and-go to to break out of the vicious circle of parental irresponsibility, not valuing education, material poverty and high crime rates will have been selected for by this tough environment for their determination and work ethic and will ultimately therefore be well placed to out-compete their pampered and privileged rivals once they do break out. Eventually their offspring, in turn, will become pampered and privileged and will be out-competed by the next rising stars, honed and selected by the school of hard knocks and the university of life. Thus the monopolies are continually overturned.

Hence, for example, those of us in "The West" who have grown up in an environment of relative comfort, with welfare systems that mean not working does not lead to anything close to starvation, may well ultimately be out-competed by those from countries like India who, due to endemic poverty, have not lost the appreciation of the need to work very hard for initially low rewards in order to succeed.

That, as I understand it, is the theory.

Arguments usually centre around evidence as to whether this actually works in practice, which depend partly on arguments over the extent to which it's ever been properly tried.

The arguments about gun control appear to be largely an extension of this broader argument.

[Belindi]

GE Morton wrote:

The only educational disadvantages blacks suffer are those deriving from conditions in the home, not from shortcomings of the schools. Those conditions, arguably, arise from the same cultural factors.

It's true the educational disadvantages are those of the home. The educational disadvantages are a combination of family culture , peer culture, and material disadvantage such as perennial unemployment. I think perennial unemployment has to be addressed and sorted so the children can at least have a quiet room to do homework in, and parents who are not forever discouraged and excluded. The schools can then educate the children in alternative cultural attitudes.

[GE Morton]

If what I said above is clearly not true, as you've claimed here, then surely a very large proportion of the people around me where I live (a town in south east England) would feel a strong need to own a gun for their personal protection? But that doesn't appear to be true. The idea of feeling the need to carry a gun for personal protection would sound absurd to them. Why is that, I wonder?

Not enough info. Is the rate of gun crime in your town high?

I've read some research that says 44% of US citizens personally know somebody who has been a victim of gun crime and a further 25% say that they or their family have been threatened with a gun at least once. Are you really saying that this has absolutely nothing to do with the number of "self-defensive" weapons in the environment?

Yes (though I'm dubious of those statistics). Gun crimes and threats are obviously not committed with guns kept for defensive purposes. If few people in a community are ever victims of gun crimes or threats, they will not care how many people in the community own guns.

In London, as you may have read, there is a well publicised problem with knife crime, as a result of which many young people who move in certain circles feel the need to carry knives in order to protect themselves against the other young people who feel that same need to carry knives. Again, it seems like common sense to try to deal with this problem by, among other things, reducing the number of knives being carried, and not by advocating that more and more people should carry knives. Doesn't it?

No, it doesn't make sense. The rational way to deal with that problem is to remove those who commit knife crimes from the streets, and keep them off the streets. Then the perceived need to carry defensive knives will abate.

In the US the 6-year recidivism rate for inmates released from state prisons is 79%.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf

"Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record."

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

The obvious, most effective means of preventing these crimes is to keep the perpetrators off the streets, permanently. It would cut the homicide rate at least in half.

That's a commonly used argument, but I think it's largely a straw man because as far as I'm aware almost nobody in the US is advocating the complete banning of fireaems ownership in the US, and for good reason. There are already far too many guns in circulation for that. Similarly very few people advocate total unilateral nuclear disarmament. De-escalation in a conflict situation obviously needs to be gradual and proportionate.

Well, how does one de-escalate unless by banning guns? The only other way I can think of is by reducing the fear of crime. The only way to accomplish that is by reducing the actual incidence of crime, and the only way to accomplish that is to remove criminals from the streets

The analogy [between nations and individuals] doesn't quite work. Reducing the numbers of missiles, tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, etc., may reduce the risks of war. Reducing the number of firearms will not necessarily reduce the risk of crime, for two reasons --- you will not likely be able to disarm the criminals; they will not voluntarily surrender their weapons, and we have no good information as to who has them and where they are.

If this were true then societies in which gun ownership among the law abiding public was relatively rare would be awash with criminals carrying guns and taking full advantage of their arms race lead. But this isn't the case. Of course some criminals in those societies use guns, but not as much as in societies where being armed with a gun is the norm.

That first statement is a non sequitur. The streets would not be awash with criminals, with or without guns, if whatever factors predispose or provoke criminal behavior are rare or absent. But it is true that criminals will use guns if they are easier to obtain.

Criminals aren't a different species from law abiding citizens. They're subject to the same fears and motivations as the rest of us.

They are the same species, but I'm not sure about the fears and motivations. I suspect those are quite different.

If you think that the criminals will never reduce their use of weapons then you would have to conclude that the side we regard as the bad guys in arms limitation treaties wouldn't do so either.

The only reason nations agree to do so, and actually do so, is because those treaties always have some verification mechanism ("trust but verify"). No such agreement with criminals is possible --- or even conceivable --- and no method of verification is available. A government is an organized body that speaks with one voice. Criminals are free agents, not organized, not unified, and 99% of them would not even come to the table, much less agree to any "arms limitation" proposal.

[Steve3007]

Not enough info. Is the rate of gun crime in your town high?

As far as I'm aware there is no gun crime in my town and virtually nobody owns a gun. I don't know whether those two things are in any way related. Perhaps not. I presume there are some farmers here or there who own shotguns and a very small number of people who use guns recreationally, but I doubt whether anybody has a gun in their house for the purpose of self defence. The idea would be considered absurd, like something from a Hollywood movie. Maybe it's irrational to consider it absurd and we should all arm ourselves. But I think that would illegal. Maybe our individual rights are being unjustifiably infringed by the fact that it is illegal, even if we choose not to do it.

Yes (though I'm dubious of those statistics). Gun crimes and threats are obviously not committed with guns kept for defensive purposes. If few people in a community are ever victims of gun crimes or threats, they will not care how many people in the community own guns.

You might think me/us irrational, but I would care very much and I'm pretty sure almost everyone I know would too. I would very much not like it to become the norm in the society where I live for a large proportion of the population to own guns because I have the irrational feeling (which perhaps you would show me is not backed by hard evidence) that if that became the norm then the gun crime would eventually follow. "How could the gun crime possibly follow if all those guns are owned for the purpose of defence?" you might ask. I don't know. I guess I'm being irrational to think that it would?

But if I were a criminal and guns became more freely available and I knew that a large proportion of the people I plan on wronging were armed, and the police were also routinely armed with guns, I think I'd seriously consider arming myself with a gun. If not, given the risks of carrying a gun (of getting caught carrying it and of the consequences if I use it on somebody), I probably would be less inclined to do so. You might claim that since I'm not a criminal I don't share any of their fears or other motives so it's not valid for me to try to put myself in their position like this. If you did claim that I'd disagree.

No, it doesn't make sense. The rational way to deal with that problem is to remove those who commit knife crimes from the streets, and keep them off the streets. Then the perceived need to carry defensive knives will abate.

That is what does in fact happen. When a person with a knife stabs somebody else they are imprisoned. So far, in London, at least according to News reports, this has not stopped others from carrying knives. I guess you might say that it would do if those people were put in prison for the rest of their lives (or killed) rather than just two or three decades.

Well, how does one de-escalate unless by banning guns? The only other way I can think of is by reducing the fear of crime. The only way to accomplish that is by reducing the actual incidence of crime, and the only way to accomplish that is to remove criminals from the streets

Obviously removing criminals from the streets is a way to reduce the incidence of crime, but is it really the only way to reduce the incidence of crime? Is there really no role at all for actions which reduce the motivation to commit crime and try to create an environment in which crime is less likely to happen, other than by imprisoning people after the crime has been committed? I understand that, due to your views on individual liberty, you would think it immoral to take any of those actions if they in any way impose restrictions on law abiding people against their will (by, for example, taxing them a bit more or restricting their liberties before a crime has been committed) but that's different from the issue of whether those actions might be in any way effective.

That first statement is a non sequitur. The streets would not be awash with criminals, with or without guns, if whatever factors predispose or provoke criminal behavior are rare or absent. But it is true that criminals will use guns if they are easier to obtain.

And if there are a very, very large number of legally owned guns, bought for the purpose of defence, do you think that makes guns easier to obtain by criminals? Or harder? Or makes no difference at all?

They are the same species, but I'm not sure about the fears and motivations. I suspect those are quite different.

We all have a variety of motivations for our actions. But such things as acquisitiveness and fear are, I would say, common to criminals and non-criminals to a large degree. Illegally carrying either a knife or a gun, or any other weapon, is a risk. The more effective the weapon, the greater the risk. I think criminals, just like me, are not without the ability to assess risk versus reward; cost versus benefit.

The only reason nations agree to do so, and actually do so, is because those treaties always have some verification mechanism ("trust but verify"). No such agreement with criminals is possible --- or even conceivable --- and no method of verification is available. A government is an organized body that speaks with one voice. Criminals are free agents, not organized, not unified, and 99% of them would not even come to the table, much less agree to any "arms limitation" proposal.

Yes, fair point.

When discussing this subject previously I have usually come to the conclusion that in the US, at least, there is no point in trying to reduce the number of guns in circulation for the reasons you've give here and it probably is best for law abiding US citizens to just make sure they're armed at least as well as the criminals, to have armed guards posted in schools and so on, and that the incidence of gun crime is a price worth paying for the preservation of individual liberty. That's the way it works there. Each to their own.

[LuckyR]

Not enough info. Is the rate of gun crime in your town high?

As far as I'm aware there is no gun crime in my town and virtually nobody owns a gun. I don't know whether those two things are in any way related. Perhaps not. I presume there are some farmers here or there who own shotguns and a very small number of people who use guns recreationally, but I doubt whether anybody has a gun in their house for the purpose of self defence. The idea would be considered absurd, like something from a Hollywood movie. Maybe it's irrational to consider it absurd and we should all arm ourselves. But I think that would illegal. Maybe our individual rights are being unjustifiably infringed by the fact that it is illegal, even if we choose not to do it.

Yes (though I'm dubious of those statistics). Gun crimes and threats are obviously not committed with guns kept for defensive purposes. If few people in a community are ever victims of gun crimes or threats, they will not care how many people in the community own guns.

You might think me/us irrational, but I would care very much and I'm pretty sure almost everyone I know would too. I would very much not like it to become the norm in the society where I live for a large proportion of the population to own guns because I have the irrational feeling (which perhaps you would show me is not backed by hard evidence) that if that became the norm then the gun crime would eventually follow. "How could the gun crime possibly follow if all those guns are owned for the purpose of defence?" you might ask. I don't know. I guess I'm being irrational to think that it would?

But if I were a criminal and guns became more freely available and I knew that a large proportion of the people I plan on wronging were armed, and the police were also routinely armed with guns, I think I'd seriously consider arming myself with a gun. If not, given the risks of carrying a gun (of getting caught carrying it and of the consequences if I use it on somebody), I probably would be less inclined to do so. You might claim that since I'm not a criminal I don't share any of their fears or other motives so it's not valid for me to try to put myself in their position like this. If you did claim that I'd disagree.

No, it doesn't make sense. The rational way to deal with that problem is to remove those who commit knife crimes from the streets, and keep them off the streets. Then the perceived need to carry defensive knives will abate.

That is what does in fact happen. When a person with a knife stabs somebody else they are imprisoned. So far, in London, at least according to News reports, this has not stopped others from carrying knives. I guess you might say that it would do if those people were put in prison for the rest of their lives (or killed) rather than just two or three decades.

Well, how does one de-escalate unless by banning guns? The only other way I can think of is by reducing the fear of crime. The only way to accomplish that is by reducing the actual incidence of crime, and the only way to accomplish that is to remove criminals from the streets

Obviously removing criminals from the streets is a way to reduce the incidence of crime, but is it really the only way to reduce the incidence of crime? Is there really no role at all for actions which reduce the motivation to commit crime and try to create an environment in which crime is less likely to happen, other than by imprisoning people after the crime has been committed? I understand that, due to your views on individual liberty, you would think it immoral to take any of those actions if they in any way impose restrictions on law abiding people against their will (by, for example, taxing them a bit more or restricting their liberties before a crime has been committed) but that's different from the issue of whether those actions might be in any way effective.

That first statement is a non sequitur. The streets would not be awash with criminals, with or without guns, if whatever factors predispose or provoke criminal behavior are rare or absent. But it is true that criminals will use guns if they are easier to obtain.

And if there are a very, very large number of legally owned guns, bought for the purpose of defence, do you think that makes guns easier to obtain by criminals? Or harder? Or makes no difference at all?

They are the same species, but I'm not sure about the fears and motivations. I suspect those are quite different.

We all have a variety of motivations for our actions. But such things as acquisitiveness and fear are, I would say, common to criminals and non-criminals to a large degree. Illegally carrying either a knife or a gun, or any other weapon, is a risk. The more effective the weapon, the greater the risk. I think criminals, just like me, are not without the ability to assess risk versus reward; cost versus benefit.

The only reason nations agree to do so, and actually do so, is because those treaties always have some verification mechanism ("trust but verify"). No such agreement with criminals is possible --- or even conceivable --- and no method of verification is available. A government is an organized body that speaks with one voice. Criminals are free agents, not organized, not unified, and 99% of them would not even come to the table, much less agree to any "arms limitation" proposal.

Yes, fair point.

When discussing this subject previously I have usually come to the conclusion that in the US, at least, there is no point in trying to reduce the number of guns in circulation for the reasons you've give here and it probably is best for law abiding US citizens to just make sure they're armed at least as well as the criminals, to have armed guards posted in schools and so on, and that the incidence of gun crime is a price worth paying for the preservation of individual liberty. That's the way it works there. Each to their own.

Not quite. The best way to avoid gun crime is not your own gun, it is to live in a neighborhood with low gun crime rates. Those who live in those areas who don't own guns also avoid the risk of gun accidents and more lethal suicide rates. That is superior to your proposal.

[Felix]

Steve 3007: When discussing this subject previously I have usually come to the conclusion that in the US, at least, there is no point in trying to reduce the number of guns in circulation.

That is the answer that U.S. gun manufacturers and their lobbyists would like people to believe. However, in actuality, there is good reason to believe that common sense measures such as background checks, proper licensing and permits, and restricting access to high powered assault weapons and their magazines, with these measures instituted on the federal level rather than in the state-to-state piece-meal fashion they have been, will dramatically reduce gun violence - just as it has in European countries. Obviously the social conditions that engender gun violence need to be addressed too.

[GE Morton]

No, it doesn't make sense. The rational way to deal with that problem is to remove those who commit knife crimes from the streets, and keep them off the streets. Then the perceived need to carry defensive knives will abate.

That is what does in fact happen. When a person with a knife stabs somebody else they are imprisoned. So far, in London, at least according to News reports, this has not stopped others from carrying knives. I guess you might say that it would do if those people were put in prison for the rest of their lives (or killed) rather than just two or three decades.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US average jail/prison sentences are measured in months, not decades. The prisons have revolving doors; the streets are crawling with recidivists with 3, 5, even 10 prior convictions. They commit about 2/3 of all crimes committed on any given day.

Obviously removing criminals from the streets is a way to reduce the incidence of crime, but is it really the only way to reduce the incidence of crime? Is there really no role at all for actions which reduce the motivation to commit crime and try to create an environment in which crime is less likely to happen, other than by imprisoning people after the crime has been committed?

None that I know of. All manner of "rehabilitation" schemes have been tried and implemented in virtually all US prisons. The best of them reduce recidivism by about 25% (which means that instead of 79% of released inmates becoming recidivists, only 60% do). Those programs also have a down side: completing a "rehabilitation" program usually means earlier parole/release. But since most "rehabilitated" parolees nevertheless continue their criminal ways, the net effect is more criminals set loose on the streets.

I understand that, due to your views on individual liberty, you would think it immoral to take any of those actions if they in any way impose restrictions on law abiding people against their will (by, for example, taxing them a bit more or restricting their liberties before a crime has been committed) but that's different from the issue of whether those actions might be in any way effective.

Yes. For libertarians (and, I think, for any moral philosopher) moral considerations always trump pragmatic ones. Infringing anyone's freedom per force reduces his welfare. And reducing anyone's welfare who has not reduced anyone else's --- who has harmed no one --- is prima facie immoral. Responses to crime must be focused on the persons who actually commit the crimes, not upon the tools they use, most of which are kept by innocent third parties and used for perfectly lawful and moral purposes.

And, as, we've been discussing, the pragmatic arguments are dubious on their merits.

And if there are a very, very large number of legally owned guns, bought for the purpose of defence, do you think that makes guns easier to obtain by criminals? Or harder? Or makes no difference at all?

Yes, it does make it easier. As I've said before, as long as is legal for some persons to own guns and illegal for others, there will be a black market in guns. And, of course, if there were no guns there would be no gun crime, just as if there were no automobiles there would be no traffic fatalities. But we don't ban automobiles because some of them might be driven by drunks or used as getaway cars in bank robberies.

When discussing this subject previously I have usually come to the conclusion that in the US, at least, there is no point in trying to reduce the number of guns in circulation for the reasons you've give here and it probably is best for law abiding US citizens to just make sure they're armed at least as well as the criminals, to have armed guards posted in schools and so on, and that the incidence of gun crime is a price worth paying for the preservation of individual liberty. That's the way it works there. Each to their own.

Well, I disagree with the premises, but not with the conclusion. There is no need to pay that price to preserve individual liberty. We can preserve liberty and reduce crime, by determinedly removing criminals from our midst

[GE Morton]

However, in actuality, there is good reason to believe that common sense measures such as background checks, proper licensing and permits, and restricting access to high powered assault weapons and their magazines, with these measures instituted on the federal level rather than in the state-to-state piece-meal fashion they have been, will dramatically reduce gun violence - just as it has in European countries.

No. Regulations of that sort, though some of them may be useful, have not "dramatically reduced gun violence" in any European country. Most of those countries had very low rates of gun violence even before such regulations were enacted (if they were). And while universal background checks appear to reduce gun violence by 15-20%, they have nowhere near eliminated it. Why? because persons prevented from buying guns legally will get them illegally.

"State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15% lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18% reduction in homicide rates.

"In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and 'stand your ground' laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide."

https://www.futurity.org/universal-back ... s-2126472/

I agree with universal background checks. But don't expect them to solve the problem.

Obviously the social conditions that engender gun violence need to be addressed too.

What "social conditions" are those? Don't confuse correlation with causation.

[GE Morton]

In the previous post I said, "Well, I disagree with the premises, but not with the conclusion."

It should have said, "agree with the premises."

[Steve3007]

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US average jail/prison sentences are measured in months, not decades.

For the kinds of crimes we were talking about, murder using a weapon like a gun or a knife, murderers in the UK get a life sentence, which does not necessarily mean that they spend the rest of their life in prison but it does mean that, once released, they spend the rest of their life on parole. On average (I've read) those who are released on parole as part of a life sentence have served 16 years in jail. Those who are convicted of carrying a knife in circumstances that are deemed to be threatening, but who haven't actually harmed anyone with it yet, apparently get between 6 months and 4 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47507456

On the subject of rising knife crime in London and the consequent rise in the number of people carrying knives for (they would presumably all claim) self defense, I haven't had a chance to dig into the statistics properly but I don't think the murders using knives are mostly caused by people who have murdered before, been sent to prison and then been released. The murderers generally look too young for that to be true. They appear to be largely young people committing murders in their capacity as gang members for such things as territorial or revenge reasons.

[Steve3007]

A quick google of the murder recidivism rate in England and Wales (Scotland being measured separately due its devolved government) seems to show that, in the 10 years between 2000/1 and 2010/11, about 30 convicted killers killed again. And apparently in the year leading up to March 2011, in England and Wales, there were a total of 636 unlawful killings, up from 608 the previous year.

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227

[Steve3007]

Here's quite an interesting more recent report on reoffending rates in London:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... tation.pdf

As I guess one would expect, the reoffending rate varies greatly depending on the type of crime. Theft has the highest reoffending rate (51% in England and Wales overall, 44% in London). For "violent crimes against the person" it was 26% in England and Wales overall and 21% in London. This rate was apparently significantly greater than the rate just over a decade earlier. In 2005 it was 16% in London. And 75% of all knife crime murder offenders were under 25, male, British and black.

What, if anything, we make of all that I don't know.

[GE Morton]

Here's quite an interesting more recent report on reoffending rates in London:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... tation.pdf

As I guess one would expect, the reoffending rate varies greatly depending on the type of crime. Theft has the highest reoffending rate (51% in England and Wales overall, 44% in London). For "violent crimes against the person" it was 26% in England and Wales overall and 21% in London. This rate was apparently significantly greater than the rate just over a decade earlier. In 2005 it was 16% in London. And 75% of all knife crime murder offenders were under 25, male, British and black.

What, if anything, we make of all that I don't know.

Different countries report recidivism within different periods. The US Justice Dept has previously used 5 years, but the most recent report gives figures for 3 years, 6 years, and 9 years. The rates I quoted above were for 6 years. I believe the UK reports for 3 years, though the report you cited doesn't specify a period.

This statement was interesting: "Adult offenders with 11+ previous offences make up 38% of all adult offenders in the cohort, but committed over 75% of all adult proven reoffences."

Sounds much like the US. Forces the question: "Why are persons with 11 previous offenses still loose on the streets?"