Why am I no longer an anarchist

[teo123]

Controlling borders and the black market is a complex issue.

So, if we cannot guarantee it's only the good guys who have a gun... Why not let everybody have a gun? Similar to free speech: the reason we allow free speech is because censorship cannot guarantee it's (only) the truth-sayers who will speak, so we allow everybody to say what they wish.

[brimstoneSalad]

In game theory, that would create a greater incentive to avoid conflict. Much more so than your increasing guns violence decline theory.
With guns, it's the person who shoots first who lives and the more conflict averse who dies -- it creates the opposite incentive.

You can apply game theory to economics because people tend to be relatively rational when doing economic transactions, but you cannot apply game theory to violent crime. If violent criminals were rational, they wouldn't be violent criminals. Guns definitely act much more as a psychological deterrent than knives do, even though your victim being armed with a knife is about as dangerous as your victim being armed with a gun.

ORGANIZED crime is actually economic. Career criminals are not always entirely irrational.

The people who are not organized and rational have more trouble acquiring firearms illegally. They're impulsive. Developing those connections takes time and some measure of reputation.

Controlling borders and the black market is a complex issue.

So, if we cannot guarantee it's only the good guys who have a gun... Why not let everybody have a gun? Similar to free speech: the reason we allow free speech is because censorship cannot guarantee it's (only) the truth-sayers who will speak, so we allow everybody to say what they wish.

Organized crime will likely work out the logistics; prohibitions increase COST. Any increase in cost of firearms reduces usage for rational actors such as cartels. At a certain point, it no longer makes sense to arm the entire supply chain, and you can see a reduction in violence particularly at the street.

These are not all or nothing propositions. Just like with increasing price of meat. It's about hitting demand and the downstream consequences.

Armed police will always acquire licensed firearms very easily. You can tip the balance and change the economics with controls even if they are imperfect.
For instance, if police perceive the probability of a suspect having a gun to go down from 50% to 1%, the officer is much less likely to shoot an innocent person with a cell phone.
Lower chance of your competition having guns also means any drug dealing gang needs to be less armed.

There are many variables to consider, so you can't really just make blanket assumptions like that.
The same, incidentally, for free speech. Chilling effect on liars (e.g. Fox news, through law suits) can be useful to help tip the balance in information wars. It's going to be even more important as lies begin spreading using AI and deep fakes.

[teo123]

The people who are not organized and rational have more trouble acquiring firearms illegally. They're impulsive. Developing those connections takes time and some measure of reputation.

Probably, but those who are hurt the most by gun control are those who quickly need to acquire a firearm for self defense. It's the people who need to defend themselves but don't want to break the law.

Any increase in cost of firearms reduces usage for rational actors such as cartels.

What are "cartels"?

For instance, if police perceive the probability of a suspect having a gun to go down from 50% to 1%, the officer is much less likely to shoot an innocent person with a cell phone.

Maybe, but you cannot use one big government policy (the police) to justify another (gun control).

[teo123]

@brimstoneSalad, I am interested, what do you think about the famous Gary Kleck's study about defensive gun use? Gary Kleck found via telephone survey (random number dialing) that around 400'000 people in the USA believe that, this year, gun saved their life. That is, they claim to have used a gun defensively and they think that, if they didn't have a gun, they would have been dead. In order to claim that gun prohibition would be effective, we would need to suppose that 90% of them are mistaken (as guns kill only around 40'000 people per year in the USA). That doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption, does it?

[teo123]

Controlling borders and the black market is a complex issue.

So, why trust the government to deal with it properly? I think governments should deal with relatively simple issues, such as superbacteria caused by the egg industry or denial-of-service attacks made possible by ISPs incorrectly setting up their DNS servers. There the government action can hardly backfire. With gun control, it's easy to see how government actions can backfire, and that's why government should not deal with violent crime.
Besides, I thought you were pro-open-borders, just like most of the social scientists, including economists (who are often right-wing). Why aren't you?

[teo123]

@Red, what do you think about the Gary Kleck's research on defensive gun use? To me it seems like it's the best available data on whether gun control would work to reduce violent crime, and that it strongly suggests it wouldn't. It's, as far as I know, the only study that tries to estimate how many lives are saved by guns each year in the US, and it estimates it to be around 400'000. That is, around 400'000 people in US claim that in the past year they used a gun defensively, and they think they would have died if they hadn't had a gun. For comparison, guns kill less than 50'000 people in the US each year. In order to claim that gun prohibition would be effective, we would need to suppose that 90% of those 400'000 people are mistaken. That doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption, does it?

[Red]

@Red, what do you think about the Gary Kleck's research on defensive gun use? To me it seems like it's the best available data on whether gun control would work to reduce violent crime, and that it strongly suggests it wouldn't. It's, as far as I know, the only study that tries to estimate how many lives are saved by guns each year in the US, and it estimates it to be around 400'000. That is, around 400'000 people in US claim that in the past year they used a gun defensively, and they think they would have died if they hadn't had a gun. For comparison, guns kill less than 50'000 people in the US each year. In order to claim that gun prohibition would be effective, we would need to suppose that 90% of those 400'000 people are mistaken. That doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption, does it?

idk brah brah let's ask ChatGPT

Gary Kleck's research on defensive gun use (DGU), particularly his 1995 study with Marc Gertz, has been one of the most cited and debated pieces of evidence in the gun control discussion. The study estimated that there are approximately 2.5 million DGUs in the United States per year, a figure significantly higher than the number of crimes committed with guns. It's important to note, however, that the 400,000 figure you mentioned, regarding people believing they would have died without a gun, is a derivative interpretation and not a direct finding from Kleck's study. Kleck's main argument was broader, focusing on the frequency of DGU.

Critics of Kleck's research have raised several concerns regarding methodology and interpretation:

1. **Survey Methodology:** Some critics argue that the method of data collection, which relies on self-reported telephone surveys, may introduce biases. Respondents might overreport DGU incidents either because of misinterpretation of situations as more threatening than they were or due to the social desirability bias, where individuals report what they believe is more socially acceptable or makes them look better.

2. **Estimation Variability:** Other studies on DGU have reported significantly lower estimates. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), for example, annually reports DGU numbers that are much lower than Kleck's estimates. The discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy and reliability of estimating DGUs based on self-reports.

3. **Defensive vs. Aggressive Use:** Critics also point out that the study does not sufficiently differentiate between defensive use and instances where a gun might have been used to escalate a conflict. There's an ongoing debate about whether the presence of a gun increases the likelihood of violence or if it indeed acts as a deterrent in many cases.

4. **Effectiveness of Gun Control:** The argument against gun control based on Kleck's research assumes that all DGUs are effective in preventing crime or death. However, this does not account for potential preventative measures that could reduce the need for DGU in the first place, such as improved socio-economic conditions, better law enforcement strategies, and other forms of crime prevention.

5. **Comparison with Other Countries:** Comparisons with other countries that have stricter gun control laws and significantly lower rates of gun-related deaths suggest that gun control can effectively reduce violent crime and gun deaths. Critics argue that focusing solely on DGU ignores the broader impacts of gun prevalence on societal safety and public health.

In conclusion, while Kleck's research contributes important data to the discussion on gun control and defensive gun use, it represents one perspective in a complex debate. The effectiveness of gun control in reducing violent crime needs to be assessed by considering a broad range of evidence, including but not limited to DGU estimates. This includes looking at international examples, trends in gun violence and crime before and after the enactment of gun laws, and research into the causes and preventative factors of violence.

[brimstoneSalad]

Probably, but those who are hurt the most by gun control are those who quickly need to acquire a firearm for self defense. It's the people who need to defend themselves but don't want to break the law.

This is a rare event, principally out of Hollywood movies. Most perceived needs for defense would be battered women, but such escapes are normally planned. Also, having a gun doesn't necessarily make somebody safer; statistically as I understand it a woman using a gun for self defense is more likely to have it taken from her and used against her.

Maybe, but you cannot use one big government policy (the police) to justify another (gun control).

Most police should not have guns either.

Guns are pretty much just useful in war or on a wild west frontier. Beyond that they're like a pacifier for adults, making them feel safe while offering little to no real protection and adding additional risk.

Regarding that phone survey you mentioned, of course I would expect people to be far in excess of 99% in error there. Most cases would likely be robberies where the person feared for his or her life but was in actual fact not in mortal danger; the thief wants your stuff, not a murder investigation. People only fear what would have happened, and do not have realistic risk assessment.

[teo123]

Some critics argue that the method of data collection, which relies on self-reported telephone surveys, may introduce biases.

While there are a few sources of bias in the study (telescoping...), none of them would explain why it would get the order of magnitude wrong. Studies on telescoping generally find that telescoping increases the apparent frequency of events by around 20%, not nearly enough to explain away an error of an order of magnitude. Furthermore, it's not a-priori obvious why an overestimate is more likely than an underestimate. Don't you think it is possible that quite a few people are forgetting the DGU events or choose not to talk about them with a stranger on the phone?

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), for example, annually reports DGU numbers that are much lower than Kleck's estimates.

NCVS is notoriously unreliable in estimating the frequencies of crimes, as was explained in the Gary Kleck's paper. It vastly underestimates the problem of domestic violence, so why would you expect it to correctly estimate DGUs?

There's an ongoing debate about whether the presence of a gun increases the likelihood of violence or if it indeed acts as a deterrent in many cases.

And it's a pseudoscientific debate, much like the debate about the Flat Earth.

However, this does not account for potential preventative measures that could reduce the need for DGU in the first place, such as improved socio-economic conditions, better law enforcement strategies, and other forms of crime prevention.

Sure, but you need to understand that gun control won't by itself improve socio-economic conditions. In fact, it will probably make them worse because gun control means higher taxes. As for law enforcement strategies... Look, I think that murder should be legal.

Comparisons with other countries that have stricter gun control laws and significantly lower rates of gun-related deaths suggest that gun control can effectively reduce violent crime and gun deaths.

I don't find the evidence from other countries particularly convincing. The government statistics in the UK, as well as the public perception, show that the violent crime has been increasing as the gun control gets more and more strict, rather than decreasing. And while the violent crime in Australia has been decreasing over time, it's not as if new gun control laws are followed by a sharp decrease in violent crime.

trends in gun violence and crime before and after the enactment of gun laws

The problem with such studies is that the signal-to-noise ratio is too low.

This is a rare event, principally out of Hollywood movies.

How do you know? Gary Kleck's study would suggest it is a relatively common event.

statistically as I understand it a woman using a gun for self defense is more likely to have it taken from her and used against her.

As far as I understand it, it's a myth, much like the myth that alternative forms of self defense (fake guns and eye-irritating sprays) are as effective as guns.

Beyond that they're like a pacifier for adults, making them feel safe while offering little to no real protection and adding additional risk.

It does offer real protection. People who carry guns are much less likely to have crime completed against them than people using alternative forms of self-defense.

Regarding that phone survey you mentioned, of course I would expect people to be far in excess of 99% in error there.

Well, keep in mind that the vast majority of people who used a gun in self-defense don't think their life was actually in danger. If I remember correctly, only around 16% of them do.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is a rare event, principally out of Hollywood movies.

How do you know? Gary Kleck's study would suggest it is a relatively common event.

His conclusions are statistically absurd. Most people neither carry guns nor die by violence. And cases of justifiable homicide are very rare.
You'd have to speculate that people somehow knew to have their guns nearby when in mortal danger to ward it off, that they almost never fire it in doing so, and despite that virtually all criminals flee rather than using their own weapons.

That both indicates an implausible degree of precognition, and is the opposite of the game theory solution to that confrontation: the correct defensive use of a gun against an adversary with a gun committing a crime against you is to shoot first to kill and as quickly as possible, so the criminal doesn't shoot you. And for the criminal, it's to shoot you to death as quickly as possible when you reveal you have a gun.
Kind of like the prisoner's dilemma. The Nash equilibrium is shoot.

This isn't a topic I'm particularly interested in, but if you want to argue it I suggest you find some known statistics that make it seem remotely plausible that the opposite of what is indicated by game theory is the dominant behavior. Yours is not the null hypothesis here, so it's your job to produce such extraordinary evidence if you want to argue for this.

The only time a gun is realistically useful is in an extended situation of infrastructure breakdown due to disaster or war wherein you're defending your hoard of resources (if you're a prepper) against neighbors who are life or death desperate for them -- they will choose the house without the armed protector if you make it known you are armed.

As far as I understand it, it's a myth, much like the myth that alternative forms of self defense (fake guns and eye-irritating sprays) are as effective as guns.

The statistic relates to gun ownership by women. I don't know if specific situations (e.g. outside the home in a purse) are covered.
A gun used by a woman against an unarmed adult male assailant at close range will likely be taken from her simply because it's very easy to do so (given the safe assumption that the man is significantly stronger physically).

I would expect a fake or unloaded gun to be very dangerous in getting yourself shot.
Again, consider game theory here.

Pepper spray is a bit more than an eye irritating spray. I don't know the statistics on its utility in self defense, it probably isn't that helpful either.
The best thing for self defense for a woman is knowing how to defeat common grapples to effect an escape.

It does offer real protection. People who carry guns are much less likely to have crime completed against them than people using alternative forms of self-defense.

You're probably less likely to have your wallet stolen, in exchange for a drastically higher chance of dying.

If the contents of your wallet are worth dying for, then perhaps gun ownership makes sense for you.

As I understand it, studies have found a higher chance of being killed in a robbery when you have a gun in the house, although the difference is small and may not be statistically meaningful given the sample size of the studies.
In terms of game theory, again, it makes sense.

A gun makes sense if you're protecting something the assailant wants that's worth dying for.
Not a lot of people breaking into homes to steal children into sex trafficking, so I doubt that most gun owners have anything they would steal that's worth dying to stop them.


This is all very silly, and I don't know why "pro-gun" is the next conspiracy theory train you've hopped on Teo.

That said, hand gun violence against the average person (non-suicide and not domestic violence from a gun in the house) is rare and close to the threat level of sharks and lightning. There's not much of a point worrying about it either way because it's mostly killing off conservatives who have the guns to begin with.
High powered assault weapons are another issue due to mass shootings in schools, which beyond the small chance of death causes many millions of children and parents to feel unsafe with public education. Anxiety isn't nothing when it's that many people. To argue in comparative favor of hand guns, if it makes people feel better and they aren't worried about the high chance of killing themselves (or their children doing it)...