January 19, 2011

The NYT picks up part of my diavlog with Glenn Loury...

... the gun control part.

29 comments:

Pastafarian said...

That's the kind of gun control debate I'd expect from the NYT: On one side, someone in favor of gun control. On the other, someone who's ambivalent, and doesn't care much one way or the other.

PaulV said...

Is gun control the ability to hit what you aim for?

Calypso Facto said...

If Urban Dictionary is any indication, I don't think you want to be in a "diav" log.

PaulV said...

Is www.ready.gov the place to find what kind of piece to buy and how to shoot straight?

Scott M said...

I see a lot of strong arguments for the link and am open to the opposing point of view (I just don't think it makes much sense). I also note that we're in the "worst economic" times since the depression, but crime isn't spiking through the roof. This would seem to lay low one of the old pillars of the argument about why there's so much crime in low-income areas.

The police are not around to protect you. They are there to clean up afterward, anywhere from 10 minutes on up afterward.

The one and only time I've reached for (but not pulled) my weapon, the potential attacker saw the motion and immediately ceased running at me, turned, and ran right into three cops a half block away. As it turned out, he had two blades on him. This man lives in a state where he knows people carry concealed. When he saw my hands and body posture, he made the correct assumption and a potentially serious crime was averted.

Lincolntf said...

The Left's position on gun control is perfect in it's simplicity. They believe that Government should control all the firearms and that Leftists should control all the Government.

All the weapons and power concentrated in one political Party, what could possibly go wrong?

Pastafarian said...

ScottM, your story highlights one of the great fallacies of the gun control argument: Mr. Loury mentions that the statistics to back up the "more guns, less crime" claim are "spotty", and that there don't seem to be that many instances of an armed man subduing an attacker.

But how do you measure all of the crimes that are averted by the outline of a holster under a jacket?

I liked Althouse's squirming expression near the end, when Loury said "Perhaps we disagree on that." I don't think they really disagree too much at all. Her argument against gun control: Well, there's already a law against murder, so gun control would be superfluous; and we already have our pro-gun culture, so "what are you going to do?", with a shrug.

Blistering defense, Professor.

Not one mention by either about the second amendment, in a 4 minute discussion about gun control, where one is a constitutional law professor. (And you, a professor!)

Comrade X said...

Too much speech. Too many guns. It would be shorter to discuss the amendments Loury agrees with.

Lucien said...

There seems to be a lot of denial of the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right -- or at least a widespread failure to really internalize that fact.

Once one begins to view the exercise of that right in the same way that one views the exercise of one's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or to be free from self-incrimination, questions about things like whether someone afflicted with mental illness should have their fundamental constitutional rights limited becomes of their unfortunate disability take on a different focus.

Liiekwise, questions about whether more or fewer people exercising their right to keep and bear arms increases or decreases crime, or accidental injury, seem less relevant; and observations along the lines of "what do you need a high capacity automatic pistol for -- they are not used for hunting?" seem positively ludicrous.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

PaulV said...

Is gun control the ability to hit what you aim for?

No, but the 'well regulated' in 'well regulated militia' is.

asdg123 said...

How about this from gun control:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/18/1988787/store-clerks-shoots-robbery-suspects.html

I'll bet the next guy that plans a robbery in Charlotte will think twice before robbing that Subway.

Scott M said...

I've read (struggling for the author) a very good argument based on then-contemporary letters and essays that "well-regulated" can mean the same as what we would call well-equipped. That adds a bit of an obtuse facet to the whole debate, does it not?

Capt. Schmoe said...

Didn't take long for the race card to be played did it?

Coketown said...

Like "civility," gun control was a theme the New York Times desperately hoped would naturally arise from the Arizona shooting--but it didn't. Not even a shooting could stoke the fires of a gun control debate. So the Times is determined to provide the flints, the kindle, the kerosene, the wood. Come hell or high water, we will have a fucking debate on gun control!

Robert said...

Ah, the good professor hasn't "heard of too many instances in which gun owners prevent crimes by sh"using" their weapons"...Hmmm, of course not! Doesn't fit the lame stream media' narrative, so they rarely report those instances even though the FBI admits as amny as a million crimes a year are prevented by pyvt gun owners, many simply by showing the bad guys they're armed1

Also, its highly ironic for a black man to rail against gun control! Its the black community that has been historically victimized and guns have deliberately been denied to free blacks since Reconstruction---that was a key point of many gun control laws passed in the South during 1870's and 1880's.

How many midnight lynchings of innocent blacks would have been avoided by a shot-gun toting black man, when the Klan rode up to his house to do "vengence"? Thousands??

We do know that ever since Heller, the crime rate in DC has dropped, (as predicted by Dr. John Lott), since the g bad guys can no longer count on "un-armed" victims. Just like every where elsr Lott has studided: MOre Guns? Less Crime!

Phil 3:14 said...

This was one of the odder parts of the diavlog. Prof. Loury seemed more energized by the topic than Prof. Althouse. (Prof. what were you looking down at?) It doesn't work too well as a "stand alone" piece.

My concern with guns has always been the lethality issue. Yes a knife can kill, but with great difficulty at five feet. and once I've used the knife I'm disarmed (unless I can pull out another). Mr. Loughner had 30 lethal weapons in his possession as he pulled the trigger.

Now having said all of that, he violated no AZ laws in having the gun. I still haven't heard that he would have violated any other states' laws

PaulV said...

Not shock to find out that
Ignorance is blis is ignorant that under English common law the right to selfdefense and bear arms existed and that the milita was expected to bring their own arms

PaulV said...

Crimes foiled is valid stat, hard to find stats on crimes prevented.
They are prevented every day as the decease in crimes under carry laws proves

PaulV said...

MLK, Jr., had a gun and had gun owners protect his nhouse and family. For some reason the local sheriff, a democrat like Dubnik, would not issue the minister a carry permit. But Eleanor Rooselvelt had her carry permit and a piece given her by Secret Service

Scott M said...

and once I've used the knife I'm disarmed (unless I can pull out another).

How so unless you throw it (which is a really, really bad idea in the really real world)?

Mr. Loughner had 30 lethal weapons in his possession as he pulled the trigger.

It's nitpicking on my part, but you know that's not true. Bullets, by themselves (since you must count them by themselves to get to your total) are fairly difficult to make lethal.

bagoh20 said...

Not many instances of armed citizens preventing a crime?

A crime not happening is not exactly a "if it bleeds it leads" kind of story. It could be happening on your street today and you would probably not hear about it.

"When he saw my hands and body posture, he made the correct assumption and a potentially serious crime was averted."

I suspect the crime was simply delayed. If he made the bigger mistake, then it might have been prevented forever. Maybe next time he'll threaten a cop. They tend to shoot first these days. From what I've been readng lately, I think current police policy makes the cops generally more dangerous than legally armed citizens.

BJM said...

Not all predators are human.

A cougar is tracking deer in our neighborhood. It's been seen repeatedly for the last three days. I saw it in our lower meadow near the creek yesterday. It slinked uphill into the contigous oak forest that encompass ours and five other properties.

The official response? That's what cougars do; call us when it eats Fifi or threatens little Susie or Grandma.

Cougars assess their prey for a few days, this one may be watching a target other than deer. We won't know until it makes a move.

Those of us who are armed are alert but not overly concerned, those who are not are panicked, especially those with young children.

Tens of millions of us live on the edge of wilderness reserves or in rural areas where self-defense is not a political talking point.

BJM said...

@asdg123

Or this Subway which was near our home.

There had been a spate of armed robberies in the shopping centers along I595 from the turnpike to alligator alley, they pretty much ceased after this incident.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

PaulV said...

Not shock to find out that
Ignorance is blis is ignorant that under English common law the right to selfdefense and bear arms existed and that the milita was expected to bring their own arms


Paul- try re-reading what I wrote, without the assumption that I am pro-gun-control.

Hint- 'well regulated' is a synonym for 'well trained'

Synova said...

"I've read (struggling for the author) a very good argument based on then-contemporary letters and essays that "well-regulated" can mean the same as what we would call well-equipped. That adds a bit of an obtuse facet to the whole debate, does it not?"

That progression of meaning for the word would make sense. Regulation would require something that wasn't substandard and variously reliable.

In any case, it's a rather nice argument... "nice" meaning to have an exact and finely tuned understanding. ;-)

dick said...

Those in favor of gun control as practiced in NYC or Boston or Chicago really frost me. I am 70 with severe emphysema. How am I to protect myself from attack by some young stud who decides he needs my wallet and credit card more than I do. I live 5 blocks from a police station and yet I would bet that if I called the cops it would take at least 10 minutes for them to show up in which case I am dead. How is Pref Loury going to protect me or people like me.

He also needs to check the crime stats for gun crimes in Boston some time. Since they banned guns the crime stats for crimes committed using guns has gone way up. If I remember correctly the same is true of Chicago. Kinda shows that when guns are banned only criminals will have guns.

I also find it funny how many of those who are all for gun control have guns of their own or else bodyguards who carry guns. I remember when Sean Penn who has been for gun control loudly reported that two handguns were stolen from his parked car.

Kirk Parker said...

Scott M, the reason you may be struggling to recall the writer is that's a pretty well-known aspect, so lots of people have made that point.

HT said...

Ann advocated increased teaching of critical thinking. She also pooh pooh'ed both gun control and calls for more "civil language." But she wants an increase in locking up certain mentally ill people. I'd like to hear much much more about that. If she is for critical thinking I think I have a right to ask how that would play out precisely.

Kirk Parker said...

Phil 3:14, a knife fight is nothing like what you imagine. Fast and deadly, and no the knife doesn't unremoveably stick in the victim.