tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7254374626993427249..comments2024-03-28T12:24:02.367-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Guns vs Cameras - which are "equalizers" that can prevent tragedy? Plus transparency newsDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5528396391777249932015-10-13T21:46:04.605-07:002015-10-13T21:46:04.605-07:00David,
You make great points in your blog post, a...David,<br /><br />You make great points in your blog post, and I agree with nearly all of them. I regret my nitpicketiness kept me from starting out my reply that way. The mass murders and how they are covered, in general really chaps my hide. I totally agree that when someone commits mass murder they've lost any right to acknowledgement by society. <br /><br />The relative rarity of these events combined with the equal rarity of civilians carrying makes it hard to create a large sample of clear cases. It seems like a good thing that we don't have hordes of armed citizens stopping hordes of maniacs shooting up public places. I'm glad I had trouble finding clear examples for you to shoot down. <br /><br />Sorry if I didn't help engender the kind of conversation you'd hope to see on this post. But I do have a few more things to say about it, so I'll do it <a href="http://netalkstonemself.blogspot.com/2015/10/guns-david-brin-and-meeting-your-heroes.html#So_Oops" rel="nofollow"><br />here</a>.gollorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125202279631838609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17410532221438502182015-10-10T12:08:52.713-07:002015-10-10T12:08:52.713-07:00I wrote the above piece.I wrote the above piece.Deuxglassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7777698371782361502015-10-10T12:08:02.603-07:002015-10-10T12:08:02.603-07:00Dr. Brin,
Gun ownership has been in decline for m...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />Gun ownership has been in decline for many years now. Only 32% of households own guns vs 50% in the early 1980’s. Gun sales are up but those sales are concentrated into fewer hands. Instead of a couple of guns enthusiasts now own ten each. The trend is down and will continue to decline. To build a consensus we should concentrate on limiting the total number of guns each citizen can own rather than trying to find common ground on the principle of gun ownership in itself which will always be contentious and ultimately self-defeating. Policy-makers who have gun-owning constituencies should be made to see that they are on the wrong end of the trend of overall gun ownership and that sooner or later the non-gun owners will vote them out if they make this their main political platform. This will induce them to compromise. You can definitely make a case for the citizen to have the right to carry arms but it is easier to come up with a compromise limiting the number each citizen has the right to own than to try to force a ban or something close. It is a small step but can be one policy-makers can swallow. It gives them a way out of the gridlock we have now. Agree to the general principle but also agree to limit the number. When the holdouts see that their voter base is starting to be reduced to those who own ridiculous amounts of guns clearly over and above what any reasonable person needs then maybe they will be conducive to comprise. That is the way to go. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51204114093494360632015-10-10T10:31:53.588-07:002015-10-10T10:31:53.588-07:00I agree with Jim Wright's ideas on adding the ...I agree with Jim Wright's ideas on adding the NRA's own gun safety rules to law. It seems close to positive sum thinking as well as compromise. As pointed out previously.<br />In this essay:<br />http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html<br /><br />I can't do better.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21538202287197123592015-10-10T10:19:42.492-07:002015-10-10T10:19:42.492-07:00I note that even here, no one discusses the topic ...I note that even here, no one discusses the topic that I keep raising… of how to craft a compromise that is positive sum, giving all side not what they want, but what they need.<br /><br />Et tu? Even hère? After years of harranguing about positive sum thinking?<br /><br />Never mind. I've got a new posting up. Continue arguing here if you like. I have put out milk and cookies. But I am moving…<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26355688718561355952015-10-10T09:15:49.721-07:002015-10-10T09:15:49.721-07:00Juniper,
Yep. If you want to kill yourself a gun ...Juniper,<br /><br />Yep. If you want to kill yourself a gun gives you the best success rate, no question there. Suicide by car is really hard to distinguish from just an accident. Insurance companies know this but really can't quantify it as in "Death of a Salesman".Deuxglassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19866136069858384622015-10-10T09:06:04.371-07:002015-10-10T09:06:04.371-07:00Duncan Caincross,
Since you mentioned facts if yo...Duncan Caincross,<br /><br />Since you mentioned facts if you look at the number of deaths from mass shootings and correct them for population you find the US in the center of the pack of developed countries in mass shooting deaths PER CAPITA on par with Switzerland and way below Finland . These figures show that restrictive gun control will not lower mass shooting. Mass shooting is a completely different problem from gun control. I am for more restrictive controls but it sickens me to see public figures using them in a cynical manner to forward their own agendas instead of addressing the real problem.<br />Deuxglassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19290350049499413592015-10-10T08:51:28.923-07:002015-10-10T08:51:28.923-07:00Deuxglass, I was spurred to mention the auto death...Deuxglass, I was spurred to mention the auto deaths by locumranch's 9:54, mostly. I'll assume suicide by car, and assault by vehicle resulting in death, are fairly rare. I hope so! It is reported in the states when it occurs.<br /><br />On the same topic but separate, I will repost this with a stronger recommendation, as it has seriously interesting numbers:<br />http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/04/24/accidental-v-intentional-fatal/ Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84355380225506812382015-10-10T08:35:14.427-07:002015-10-10T08:35:14.427-07:00Jumper,
When I said mass killing by auto I was re...Jumper,<br /><br />When I said mass killing by auto I was referring to some incidences in France where people have deliberately driven into a crowd at very high speed resulting in several deaths including children. It has happened several times and of course in the media these people are referred to as crazy and have mental problems. Stuff like this doesn't make the headlines in the US but it does here. <br /><br />I believe you are thinking of suicide by car and not mass murder by car.Deuxglassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87181702090146082162015-10-10T08:34:07.179-07:002015-10-10T08:34:07.179-07:00Dr. Brin,
"Cameras are so much better than g...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />"Cameras are so much better than guns. You may be the quickest draw. But that does not make you win. And if you made a mistake, you can apologize."<br /><br />As a general rule I would agree with this statement pretty emphatically. As a general rule I don't like doing anything that can't be undone if it turns out to deliver unintended consequences I didn't want. But there's a subset of people who would not see this as an either/or proposition. They would see both as a means to glory and a way to spread their propaganda. Terrorists film themselves killing their enemies, racist lunatics take pictures of their enraged visages with firearms and post them on the internet, etc. The proliferation of electronic communication creates a platform for decent human beings to disseminate their decency, but it also provides the same opportunity for the loonies and the slimeballs, to say nothing of what happens when juveniles get camera phones (so much for rational actor models). <br /><br />Not everyone who commits murder is insane - violence is a strategy, like a professor I knew who once had his vacation flight cancelled and was rushed off the plane because some company executive took a million-dollar life insurance policy out on his wife then put a bomb on the plane. There's a difference between insane and evil. As difficult as it can be to identify those who need mental health treatment, there seems to be even less we can do about assholes like that until they actually commit the crime and there is a body count. I strongly suspect that culture does play a big role in determining how many assholes there are in society - meaning selfish scumbags who would blow up a passenger jet to collect the insurance money and similar analogs. American culture tends to glorify the rich and successful, on the one hand, then turn a blind eye to the means by which they became rich and successful, even glorifying those who did it by behaving badly, whether it's movies that give glory to gangsters or TV that paints administrators who fire all their employees.<br /><br />Perhaps we need more human decency memes, more awards and attention for those who demonstrate human decency rather than excellence in screwing your fellow human being. It might help to counter the negativity bias malaise of our times. At most high schools in America athletes are given trophies and medals, but virtually nothing is done to honor those who perform academically in what are supposed to be academic institutions. I started making little medallions for students who do well on research projects in my classes to counter that, though when I make similar suggestions to administration or even most teachers I get a lot of pats on the back and "great idea" but little action. Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91910504208273325212015-10-10T08:21:34.751-07:002015-10-10T08:21:34.751-07:00There is one difference between auto accidents and...There is one difference between auto accidents and gun killings, of course, the vast majority of auto deaths are accident and gun killings aren't. See<br />http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/04/24/accidental-v-intentional-fatal/<br />There is a belief that deliberate acts and accidents are qualitatively different and that the deliberate acts may somehow be more amenable to prevention.<br /><br />I really liked reading the proposition that "bear arms" means "serve." I have never heard it put that way and will think about this some more.<br /><br />There are many controls on guns which are not even part of the debate and ought to be, such as stricter laws on allowing minors access to guns, or diagnosed mentally ill people, or especially, drunks (legally drunk) handling firearms - even in their own homes, if discharge can penetrate walls, such as apartment buildings.<br /><br />Not all suicide is an act of a mentally ill person. Some people come to rational reasons. See Hemingway.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90761572416271617462015-10-10T07:11:49.323-07:002015-10-10T07:11:49.323-07:00Duncan Caincross,
There have been mass killings i...Duncan Caincross,<br /><br />There have been mass killings in Germany, Norway, France, China, Thailand and many others not to mention what we see in Africa. Sometimes they used guns, sometimes cars, sometimes knives, sometimes by fire and sometimes just a bomb. The American culture is not unique in that. Other cultures have the same problem as we do concerning these types of individuals. It has also happened in Australia after guns were reduced. Deliberately setting fires seems to be the new wave there. You look at the facts. They are there and easily accessible. We as a culture are more violent than some but by no means are mass killings limited the US. As for suicides guns are used but each country has their own preferred methods for that. You are right in one thing, gun accidents are a big problem.Deuxglassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91262606033501482262015-10-10T07:05:33.921-07:002015-10-10T07:05:33.921-07:00Cameras are so much better than guns. You may be ...Cameras are so much better than guns. You may be the quickest draw. But that does not make you win. And if you made a mistake, you can apologize.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2545252260321627622015-10-10T04:26:40.817-07:002015-10-10T04:26:40.817-07:00'Mental illness' is a vague term that coul...'Mental illness' is a vague term that could be applied to just about everyone at some point in their lives. A bit like colds: We all get the blues, but some unfortunates have chronic fatigue syndrome.<br /><br />The thing with guns is that the advantage goes to whoever pulls first. That, I think, is why the 'armed bystander' is such a weak protection, and a poor argument for carrying.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47159035955077111822015-10-10T03:34:21.371-07:002015-10-10T03:34:21.371-07:00Hi Deuxglass
Nice theory
Shame about the facts
...Hi Deuxglass<br /><br />Nice theory <br />Shame about the facts<br /><br />Other cultures simply don't have the mass killings - take away the guns and the vast majority of the massacres go away<br />We even have a country that actually did do that (Australia)<br /><br />Then you have all of the other gun deaths,<br />Accidents, Suicides, <br />duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10820384115154467962015-10-10T02:33:15.661-07:002015-10-10T02:33:15.661-07:00I think I will wade into the gun regulation area.
...I think I will wade into the gun regulation area.<br /><br />The real question is not whether gun control or cameras are the answer but rather how to prevent random mass killings. In the US the preferred method seems to be by guns but people in other cultures prefer to use other means to kill such as knives or running a car in a crowd. If all guns were banned I don’t think it would make much of a difference to those who want to kill in mass. There are many other ways to do it. The perpetrators of these killings planned their acts well ahead in time. The gun is the means and not reason. With a little thought they can come up with many ways to do the same thing. Banning guns could lower the incidence of murder by temporary rage and anger but it would not affect those who want to kill many people all at once nor would it affect gun use by criminals who already have the means to acquire them without going through background checks. Using the example of the mass shooting as a reason for gun control is just transposing the problem and is intellectually dishonest yet so many people fall into this reasoning. I am for stricter gun control but let’s compare apples with apples and not oranges. <br /><br />Are these individuals sane? Clearly their behavior is not normal but our society throws around the word insane in the most irresponsible way. I would say the only truly insane are schizophrenics and only for the ones most heavily touched at that. These people can plan their acts in a most logical and methodic way. In this they are not insane but their motives are. Joseph Conrad in “Heart of Darkness” accurately describes this type of individual when he said Kurtz was sane but his soul was sick. I can’t think of a better description. How can you spot and heal a sick soul before another tragedy occurs? <br />Deuxglassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10067056526325400812015-10-10T02:28:28.980-07:002015-10-10T02:28:28.980-07:00Thanks for this amazing article.Both guns and came...Thanks for this amazing article.Both guns and cameras if not being used properly can be harmful for others as well as yourself. The guns are supposed to be the means of safety and only be used when your existence or survival is endangered. It is not a status symbol and should not be used to bribe, threaten or for attempting crime. In America the no of guns is vast but then you can simply visit any <a href="http://www.bostonfirearms.com" rel="nofollow">Firearms safety training classes</a> and get one for yourself. So the people needs to be trained well and moral duties should be taught to them before allowing them to use that Gun.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12455779831351440576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24690853860913475852015-10-09T21:02:54.059-07:002015-10-09T21:02:54.059-07:00DB- Now that you mention it, two of my sisters are...DB- Now that you mention it, two of my sisters are that way inclined as well. I make up for the rest by being spectacularly and undeniably wrong as often as possible. Wishing you good dreams- Susan Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11833534213203846430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80416304453666767882015-10-09T20:09:01.871-07:002015-10-09T20:09:01.871-07:00Notice Mr. Blank Reg never offers a citation we ca...Notice Mr. Blank Reg never offers a citation we can check, just hearsay. The earlier "Uber guy" citation does offer a link… that is weak and lurid, and, because it is an uber-guy it is clearly very recent. And nearly all the so-called armed-citizen-savior situations take place in environs and situations that are either interpersonal or gang shootouts or crimes other than mass-slayer events. <br /><br /> Still, I will admit that… "not one example, ever," may be wrong. I am occasionally forced to back off of such challenges when confronted by a counter example. (Though never once a counter-example showing Supply Side "voodoo economics having ever worked, once, ever and I mean ever.)<br /><br />So? Such single point counter examples only mean it's still ALMOST none. And those who point to one case and then say "see? It pays to flood the streets with guns!" are flaming-illogical dopes. As for those who cal ME a "leftist" ??? They prove thereby they cannot even be bothered yo learn a thing before spouting off.<br /><br />AND YET… to make things absolutely clear I do NOT object to gun ownership or even concealed carry permits. (Open carry is an aggressive act by genuine SOBs with the sole intention of scaring and intimidating their neighbors.) I have no objection to there even being large numbers of quietly armed, licensed and very well trained and insured civilians with discreetly hidden private weapons! If they have been vetted, background checked, taken extensive classes, and above all satisfied an insurance company etc that they are calm grownups, then in fact, their presence might… just might… add more to our safety than detract from it. (Even better, you have to train to be a reserve police officer and spend 5 days a year on shared patrol.)<br /><br />That is very different than what EITHER the far-left or the mad entire-right want. Yet it is sensible, treating weapons the same as cars. The only reason anyone could possibly object to this is the "slippery slope" fantasy. And I offer up a unique and satisfying solution to that in my Jefferson Rifle essay.<br /><br />===<br />Susam W thank you. Yes, it's mostly males who insist that they are never wrong… though I was raised by a woman who indulged in that firm belief. It is a reason we have civilization. <br /><br /><br />db exhausted on the roadDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79185232230171661632015-10-09T18:40:57.387-07:002015-10-09T18:40:57.387-07:00@ locumranch: Regarding compassion fatigue let me ...@ locumranch: Regarding compassion fatigue let me say ‘thank you’ as one of the people saved by people like you. It’s a small thing to say, but I’m alive and damn thankful to a number of people I can barely recall.<br /><br />Let me also suggest that a person who is suffering compassion fatigue isn’t in the best position to evaluate the successes going on around them. My first kidney doctor got the tough job of telling me of my dire circumstances. I’m in a lot better shape now two years later, but he doesn’t know and probably never will. For all he knows, I’m already dead. For all he knows, I could be alive and ungratefully miserable. There were many plausible futures that lay ahead of us after the brief time he helped me, but he has no information regarding which one came true and no financial motivation to find out. He might not even have the right frame of mind to understand the information even if he had it. He barely knew me and I wasn’t exactly at my best.<br /><br />Be cautious when assigning motivations to all of us. The average is a fiction that is useful at times, but fails when you look at individuals and their minutia. The ‘you all’ group is diverse, so while behavioral averages might work in well understood settings, they won’t predict us all. Small sets of people can diverge enough to change everything for good or bad. If you want to recognize some here as belonging to a small set, you’d be on safe ground making the claim. If you want to argue we are wrong about what can be done, though, I’m just going to offer you a hug to deal with your fatigue and then smile and wait for you to return to sanity.<br /><br />Regarding our hard medical criteria for mental illness, I suspect most everyone would qualify as ill if we include danger to others. Therefore, it is a stupid metric without a great deal of supporting diagnostic measures, right? Our most recent evolutionary advances can probably be tied back to stupid things we did and managed to survive well enough to have a few kids to carry on the traits. For example, why would anyone have the ability to digest cow’s milk? Hmpf. Some ancestral fools decided to live far to the north off of poor quality grain and too little sunlight. Sounds to me like they were dangers to themselves AND others. We (plural meant as singular) survived it, though. Humanity changed. An armed society might not be a polite society now, but it will be if we keep trying over a few generations. WE will be the ancestral fools if so.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76088362210374832212015-10-09T15:19:06.974-07:002015-10-09T15:19:06.974-07:00Suicide and Guns
Guns are a much more efficient wa...Suicide and Guns<br />Guns are a much more efficient way to actually kill yourself,<br />Other methods have much lower "success rates" <br />As a lot of attempted suicides don't do it again<br />One of the effects of guns should be to increase the actual suicide rate<br /><br />I had a look at suicide by country<br />If the guns in the USA cause greater success (in suicide) then I would expect to see higher suicide figures<br />It's a bit woollier than that<br />Countries that have "honorable suicide" as part of their culture top the table<br />(like Japan at 18/100,000)<br />Countries that have a lot of church pressure against suicide are at the bottom<br />(Like the UAE at 3/100,000)<br />So I compared the USA to the UK<br />The US suicide rate is 12/100,000 double the UK one at 6/100,000<br /><br />Then to Italy because the US is a LOT more religious than the Brits <br />Italy - 4/100,000<br /><br />So I would say that the evidence is that guns effectively increase the suicide rate in the USA by between 2 and 3 times<br /><br />A bit less than the survival rates would predict<br />duncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91289269585625258512015-10-09T13:53:41.785-07:002015-10-09T13:53:41.785-07:00I have mentioned it before, but perhaps uniquely a...I have mentioned it before, but perhaps uniquely among this community I have actually been held at gunpoint (my wife and one month old son too) by robbers who a short time later actually did murder somebody in a heist gone bad. It makes me less fond of guns than the average conservative I suppose.<br /><br />If one of my hot headed friends had a concealed carry weapon things could have gone badly indeed. Or, in an alternate reality, had somebody walked in the front door at the wrong moment and the robbers panicked and opened fire, maybe a couple of well timed shots would have saved our lives. Don't know. Don't ever want to be there again.<br /><br />These were not crazy people, just desperate druggies. It was over in about two minutes. I could tell you a few things about how disparate eye witness observations are...<br /><br />Not sure what locum is asking me to comment on. But I will say that the percentage of ER visits for suicidal thought/action/plan/attempt is very large and very heterogenous. Maybe 10 percent are serious risks. <br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33845372988182420032015-10-09T13:45:38.507-07:002015-10-09T13:45:38.507-07:00'Danger to self' and/or 'danger to oth...<br /><br />'Danger to self' and/or 'danger to others' is currently considered a 'hard' medical criteria for mental illness, whereas current medical estimates for 'soft' mental illness vary from a (chronic) 34% to (acute) 50% of the total Western societal population, so much so up to 50% of the opinions expressed here are certifiably insane, especially those that deviate more than 1 SD from the undecided moderate mean, which (in turn) suggests that risk-aversion, cowardice and apathy are the only true reflections of what is now considered modern sanity. Tacitus & any mental health professional can confirm these numbers if they care to. <br /><br />So, whether you choose to self-categorise as "y'all" or "m'you", "f'you", because it means "f'all" to those compassion-fatigued failed idealists who are past caring.<br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28040171737780439062015-10-09T12:05:00.384-07:002015-10-09T12:05:00.384-07:00English needs an extra second person pronoun. Mayb...English needs an extra second person pronoun. Maybe two.<br /><br />you all = y'all (plural you)<br />everyone as one = m'you (plural you referring to group thinking mob)<br />Are there more?<br /><br />@locumranch: You are asserting behaviors for m'you. I don't believe you are correct. If your intent was to assert them for y'all, you can't be correct because populations are inherently diverse. Like you said earlier, we aren't all the same.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33436516979877580752015-10-09T12:04:27.706-07:002015-10-09T12:04:27.706-07:00Hey CNC- Good points.
Still, is it fair to say onl...Hey CNC- Good points.<br />Still, is it fair to say only the mentally ill ever experience a (potentially passing) moment of despair? If so, why does the U.S. have so very many more mentally ill people than other first-world democracies?<br />Thanks-Susan Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11833534213203846430noreply@blogger.com