Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Did you mean to say muzzle loading muskets instead of breech loading muskets? Muzzle loaders are the slow shooting variety. And as for rapid fire weapons a pair of revolvers, such as were prevalent in America since before the civil war of 1860, are quite rapid fire enough for mayhem among a group of unarmed people.

Posted by Brad at March 23, 2005 08:50 AM

Yes, I've fixed it--thanks.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 23, 2005 08:54 AM

Even muzzle-loaders can be used effectively, though it defies logic. If I recall correctly, a few years ago, some nut down in Texas drove his pickup through the front window of a coffee shop and ended up killing something like 7 people with a muzzle-loading rifle.

Presumably, if people are trapped and unable to get out or too scared to defend themselves, even a 90-second reload time isn't enough to prevent mass killing.

Posted by John Breen III at March 23, 2005 09:21 AM

Nice take on the situation Rand, I agree with your thesis.

It's far to easy to blame problems like this on "youth culture", and every generation has thought that the younger generation is somehow degraded compared to theirs. If you look hard enough though, you can find many examples of killer kids killing their parents and/or schoolmates 100 years ago or more. It's not a problem unique to our culture, although our culture may make it a little easier.

Posted by Kevin at March 23, 2005 10:12 AM

read Gangs of New York (no not the movie) and tell me that todays 'youth' culture is more violent than in the past.

Posted by dave at March 23, 2005 11:11 AM

No other country in the Western world has a problem with school kids walking into their schools and blowing away the other kids they go to school with guns.

This is problem only found in the US. It doesn't happen in Canada, New Zealand, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Spain and on and on.

Maybe it really is a problem with unique US causes and for once you guys will have to ask why is this happening in our schools and in no other schools across the West.

And the idea of saying this not surprising given the population of America is akin to saying mass murder in schools is just a statistical nuisance, and that's as dumb as calling terrorism a nuisance.

Posted by Dad at March 23, 2005 12:45 PM

> Hugh is making a couple assumptions here for which he provides no basis. First,
> that these types of incidents are more prevalent today than they've been
> at various times in the past

Perhaps Hugh is old enough to remember the days when students routinely brought hunting rifles to school.

Posted by at March 23, 2005 12:58 PM

Dad said:
"No other country in the Western world has a problem with school kids walking into their schools and blowing away the other kids they go to school with guns."

I refer you to:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/26/germany.shooting/

Here's the first paragraph:

"Throughout the night and into Saturday, shocked and grieving residents in the German city of Erfurt laid flowers and candles outside the school where a shooting rampage left 18 dead."

So given that your hypothesis is demonstrably incorrect, it's fair to say that your conclusions are equally erroneous.

By the way, the article also says:

"Germany already has strict laws governing the right to a gun, but experts say the country is awash with illegal weapons smuggled into the country from eastern Europe and the Balkans. "

And come on, it took me 5 seconds and only 1 search on Google to find this counter-example. If you want to blast the US culture, youth, gun ownership, whatever, at least make a better effort of it.

-S

Posted by Stephen Kohls at March 23, 2005 01:25 PM

Dad,
perhaps these incidents don't happen in other countries because of their gun control laws. However, before you tout that as an unallayed advantage, l suggest you consider the violent crime rates in the countries you mention. Go think of the miscarriages of justice leading to things like Tony Martin spending more time in jail than the career criminal who robbed him- or the fact that people in places like England who try to defend themselves get in legal trouble sometimes- that is madness!

Posted by Rick C at March 23, 2005 01:27 PM

> "Throughout the night and into Saturday, shocked and grieving residents
> in the German city of Erfurt laid flowers and candles outside the school where
> a shooting rampage left 18 dead."

I also recall German youth being involved in a little shooting spree called "World War II." There are also more recent exmaples, like ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 23, 2005 02:46 PM

> perhaps these incidents don't happen in other countries because of their gun control laws.

Except that those historically low crime rates predate gun control. In the early 1890's, for example, England averaged only one handgun homicide per year, out of population of 30 million. Gun control was instituted in England not because of the crime rate but for political reasons -- fear that labor unions and arnarchists would use guns.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 23, 2005 02:57 PM

It's really not wise to make observations about human nature -- even American human nature -- based upon such a small sample size. The Minnesota killings, like the Columbine ones, while tragic, are pretty infrequent.

For instance, if you cut out a few urban districts, the crime problem in the United States is not that much different from the UK.

One of the reasons I subscribe to a number of libertarian positions is simply because government micromanagement of the general population doesn't really get at the problems that are cited to justify that micromanagement.

Posted by Chuck Divine at March 23, 2005 04:04 PM

The firearms used in the reservation shooting were stolen police firearms taken from the perps grandfather after he killed him. His grandfather was a police officer.

Also note these were conventional firearms and not so-called assault weapons yet his kill ratio was on the very high side of the average for these type of events.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 23, 2005 04:52 PM

If it was true that gun free zones didn't lower the chance for someone getting shot dead, they wouldn't bother to screen people for guns everytime your President goes someplace. Wouldn't you think?

Regarding todays crime rates, I see several causes.

Too much idle body time is one. Probably the major one. Our body really wasn't made for sitting all day in front of the TV, or in front of a desk. We are genetically the same as our hunter gatherer forefathers. I do light exercise regularly to satisfy that biomechanical constraint.
The ancient Greeks and Romans knew that. Mens sana in corpore sano.

Lack of sunshine or an improper diet can also be causes. Especially lack of sunshine. People spend an awful lot of time indoors now. People's diets used to be even more unbalanced in the XIXth century.

Another problem is the proliferation of psychotropic drugs. The importance of the effect depends on the side effects of the drug in question.

I still think having a restrictive gun ownership policy is good because, in spite of not fighting the causes of violence per se, it minimizes the harmful side effects. Much the same as an Aspirin will lower a potentially letal fever but not actually cure the cause of the fever.

Posted by Gojira at March 23, 2005 05:37 PM

If it was true that gun free zones didn't lower the chance for someone getting shot dead, they wouldn't bother to screen people for guns everytime your President goes someplace. Wouldn't you think?

That's not a very useful analogy, since you apparently want to compare the head of state, or whom there is only one, with limited access, to millions of schoolchildren. There is such a thing, politically correct though it may be, as a cost/benefit ratio.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 23, 2005 05:44 PM

"I still think having a restrictive gun ownership policy is good because, in spite of not fighting the causes of violence per se, it minimizes the harmful side effects. Much the same as an Aspirin will lower a potentially letal fever but not actually cure the cause of the fever."

It would be as if the aspirin has a %25 chance of giving you a fatal disease at some point in the future because it compromises your bodies long term internal defenses.

The problem with gun control is it is political snake oil. There is not one shred of evidence it works, just a collection of post hoc, proctor hoc arguments.

Posted by at March 23, 2005 06:07 PM

"If it was true that gun free zones didn't lower the chance for someone getting shot dead, they wouldn't bother to screen people for guns everytime your President goes someplace. Wouldn't you think?"

That is one of the most assinine non-sequtirs I have read in a while.

How many schools have active secret service protection?

You are comparing actual security to an abstract theroretical gun free school zone which has pretty signs to warn people not to bring guns in.

Funny how someone hell bent on murder ignores such feel good laws that have no real detererent effect.

All gun free shool zones are are unarmed victimization zones.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 23, 2005 06:11 PM

Looks like handgun prohibition in Britian is working so well!!!!!!!!!

"Gun crime amongst the young in cities like London, Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham is growing as at drugs-related turf war creates the sort of cocaine-fuelled gun violence which exploded on the streets of America in the 1980s. The number of firearms offences in Britain has increased almost 40% from 4,903 in 1997 to 6,843 in 2000, still small fry in comparison with America but the trend is worrying.

We live in a country where it is virtually impossible to buy a gun legally, but nearly 300,000 illegal guns remain in circulation.

In 1981 the American overall gun crime rate was 8.7 times the rate in England and Wales. In 1995 it was only 5.7 times and by 2002 it was 3.5 times. The two are on a path to converge."

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 23, 2005 06:17 PM

Lizzie Borden, with an axe,
Gave her father forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done,
She gave her mother forty-one.

How old is that? You tell me.

Gojira, you don't seem to be thinking. The zone around the President is very, very far from gun-free. You should assume that one out of every three males, and one out of every four females, within ten yards of the President is armed. They simply don't care for competition.

And the only reason people use guns in this sort of situation is the glamorization of firearms the Left indulges itself in. If anybody really wants a high body count and lots of TV time, bolting a steel pipe to the front bumper of a pickup, going downtown, and mowing down pedestrians, street people, and the occasional cop would result in a higher body count than anything one could do with an autoloading firearm outside a full sports stadium. Having murder weapon and getaway vehicle in one handy package could be useful, mm?

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at March 23, 2005 06:36 PM

The problem with gun control is it is political snake oil. There is not one shred of evidence it works, just a collection of post hoc, proctor hoc arguments.

Just look at the violent crime rate in the western european countries with such a policy. Contrary to what you may think guns in general population use will not make you safer. Just ask the Iraqis.

If there are criminals with weapons, the answer is not to give weapons to everyone, but to remove the weapons from the criminals. This presuming there is a democratically controlled professional police force, which is the case.

Ric: Sure, the bodyguards are packing. That is the whole point isn't it? Delegation of safety to professionals, rather than giving a weapon to any bozo.

The pickup is a good idea in theory. But the thing is, contrary to what some of you may think, most shooting sprees are done for a reason, with particular targets in mind, even if some others get along for the ride. Just killing whoever happens to be passing on the street is usually not enough. They want to get someone they have a reason to hate, even if that reason is trifle and insignificant to anyone else but the murderer.

For some reason these persons keep killing parents, teachers, ex-bosses, etc. Authority figures.

Oh there are more strange cases, like that woman who killed a group of people with her SUV because she wanted to get out of the driveway and they were in the way. I have seen people purposedly run over dogs for the same reason, some managing to roll over their vehicle in the process. But that is usually because they have little care for others, some steam, and the moment happened to present itself. You do not see people planning this sort of thing a long time in advance.

Opportunity makes the thief. Sometimes it also makes the murderer.

Posted by Gojira at March 24, 2005 01:18 PM

People living in rural areas are particularly
vulnerable to gun control. It's difficult
for police to cover diffusely occupied areas;
practically speaking rural residents are on
their own when it comes to violent crime.

Since guns and self-defense have become illegal
in the United Kingdom, Clockwork Orange-like
events have become much more common.

I do think it's true that simply having guns
around makes it more likely that they will
be used. A significant percentage of deaths
in the U.S. are within families and in most
cases the act is obviously impulsive.

On the other hand Switzerland somehow manages
to have a very low murder rate despite the
fact that most males have, and are required
to have, semi-automatic weapons in their
home. One would think the occasional nut
going on the rampage would put the Swiss murder
rate way above their neighbors. Somehow it
doesn't.

It's also a good question just why it is
that the absence of guns would lower the
impulsive murder rate within families? After
all there is no shortage of objects lying around
that could be used to murder. I think part
of the reason may be that people, especially
when angry, lack imagination and that the
most common alternative, knives, is less
effective at killing at people.

But knives still, frequently, do kill people,
and in perhaps inevitable progression knives
are now illegal for young people in England
to own and the mere possession of such can
send one to prison for many years.

It's not difficult to find states in the
United States that have more guns than people
and yet have violent death rates very close
to, or even under, or just above England.

As I said above I do suspect these states
are paying a price for their guns, that
their violent death rates would be even
lower without them. But on the other hand
their burglary rates are substantially below
that of England and their home invasion rates
while the homeowner is present are radically
below the english standard. Guns really
do deter certain kinds of crime. The knowledge
that the homeowner, might, or probably does
have a weapon definitely affects criminal
behavior.

What I'm trying to work up to here is that
a simple comparison of death rates misses
a lot. A death where someone is first
tortured and then killed by a sadist off
the street is somehow worse than one spouse
killing another. In the one situation the
victim is nearly completely helpless while
in the other the victim actually had quite
a lot of influence. Further some percentage
of deaths in the U.S. are actually self-defense,
possibly these should be counted as
positive events. Certainly they shouldn't
be treated the same as a murder in europe.

Beyond that there is the question of how
much positive value we should assign to
crimes such as burglaries that are deterred.

It's a value judgement but I'm pretty
sure that when we compare similar societies
and try to add up these intangibles, that
the gun-owning society is by a significant
margin the preferable situation.

Posted by Mark Amerman at March 24, 2005 03:36 PM

"Just look at the violent crime rate in the western european countries with such a policy."

Thank you for falling so easily into my post hoc, proctor hoc trap. You obvioulsy need schooling on what that phrase means.

What evidence do you provide that Europe's violent crime rate is a result of that policy and not a coincedental happenstance?

Contrary to what you may think guns in general population use will not make you safer. Just ask the Iraqis.

And what evidence do you have that it has made them less safe? It seems some armed Iraqis took out some 'insurgents' the other day when they formed an impromptu well regulated militia. I have never seen a war zone where small arms were not easy to find in spite on any local ordinances.

These are the post hoc proctor hoc arguments I was referring to. Those european nations had low crime rates before they enacted stirngent gun control laws.

"If there are criminals with weapons, the answer is not to give weapons to everyone, but to remove the weapons from the criminals. This presuming there is a democratically controlled professional police force, which is the case."

The answer is to remove the phucking criminals from society, not dumbing down freedom so we can endure the criminal element.

If it is a choice between the Second Amendment and enhanced use of the death penality for criminals and enhanced prison sentences, I know which I favor. My freedom and life is worth far more than a felon's.

I live in a rural area with a crime rate as low or lower than most european countries and proabally 10+% of the local households have military style semiautomatic rifles. I don't know if you have been paying attention (I suspect not) but the overwhelming bulk of violent crime in the US is concentrated into a geographically infintesimally small metropolitan area constituting less than 2% of the surface area of the CONUS.

The last three murders in my area were with a piece of pipe, a hypodermic needle and a bow and arrow. I think that is the grand total since 1988 or so.

You might also find it interesting that the areas in the US with the highest violent crime also has the most strignent gun control laws if you find post hoc, proctor hoc arguments compelling.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 24, 2005 05:08 PM

"On the other hand Switzerland somehow manages
to have a very low murder rate despite the
fact that most males have, and are required
to have, semi-automatic weapons in their
home. One would think the occasional nut
going on the rampage would put the Swiss murder
rate way above their neighbors. Somehow it
doesn't."

Actually, the Swiss are issued and keep at home SIG 550 caliber 5.56mm fully automatic real asaault rifles, not semi-auto look alikes.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 24, 2005 05:11 PM

As I said earlier, gun control is snake oil. It is consumed by people incapable of critical though who seek an easy solution to a complex problem. There is no hard evidence to be presented to support its sucess because none exists.

Read and learn:

"Notes on National Academy Report

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

From the assault weapons ban to the Brady Act to one-gun-a-month restrictions to gun locks, nothing worked. (Something that I have been the first person to investigate empirically for many of these laws, and I also had been unable to find evidence that they reduced violent crime.)

The study was not the work of gun-control opponents. The panel was set up during the Clinton administration, and of its members whose views on guns were publicly known before their appointments all but one had favored gun control. Something that I wrote up about the panel three years ago is still relevant.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 24, 2005 05:35 PM

In Switzerland only the members of the militia (think permanent conscripted army) can have a automatic weapon. The weapon is assigned and they may keep 20 rounds of ammunition stored under lock and key. Failure to store weapons properly is punished.

Civilians may not own automatic or semi-automatic weapons. People with a criminal record may not own any firearms.

For more info see this.

The society is rich and isolated. Even then crap like this can happen. Which caused their regulations for civilian weapons to change.

Still, France and Germany manage to have lower firearm homicide rates while being more liberal with immigration. Try reading about the hoops you have to jump to get Swiss nationality someday.

Posted by Gojira at March 24, 2005 06:17 PM

And almost all male citizens of adult age constitute this Militia.

"Civilians may not own automatic or semi-automatic weapons."

WRONG! You just love being wrong do you Gojiria?

"Today, enlisted men are issued M57 automatic assault rifles and officers are given pistol, Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use. (Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)

After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation. Starting in the 1994, the government will give ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.

When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.

Reservists are encouraged to buy military ammunition (7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols, which is sold at cost by the government, for target practice Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidised, but are subiect to no sales controls. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.

Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun. "

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/swiss-1.htm

"People with a criminal record may not own any firearms."

I have no problem with that.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 24, 2005 06:27 PM

Yes, and they have a higher violent crime rate involving firearms than the Germans and French.

Posted by Gojira at March 24, 2005 06:40 PM

"Yes, and they have a higher violent crime rate involving firearms than the Germans and French."

Not that much. Boy, you do like to keep grasping at straws when you get schooled.

Posted by at March 24, 2005 07:35 PM

William Antrim Bonney was not a troubled youngster lashing out, but one of the fighters in the losing side (probably in fact the good guys) in a land war. He continued fighting after the land grab succeeded, and for this was labeled an outlaw.

Posted by triticale at March 25, 2005 12:06 PM

Post a comment