Scientific American’s gun error

As someone who lives in The Netherlands, I used to be a proponent of very strict gun control. Here in The Netherlands almost no one has a gun. Gun shops are hard to find. It seems to work out well for our country.<p>Then again, I visited Israel 3 times in the past and what's interesting is that lots of people, soldiers in the IDF have guns. You pretty much see guns everywhere. Yet at the same time, you don't have the fear that someone will randomly start shooting people.<p>Last week I came across the following article, that brings up some interesting points on why Israel has far fewer, if any, of the shooting incidents we see in the United States: <a href="http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/119408/why-israel-has-no-newtowns" rel="nofollow">http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/119408/why...</a><p>In short, the article brings up the following points:<p>- "An armed society ... is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. It may be a bit odd to think of Israeli society as polite, but when it comes to guns it is. When everyone has a gun, guns are no longer seen as talismans by weak, frightened, and unstable men seeking a sense of self-validation, but as killing machines that are to be handled with the utmost caution and care."<p>- "Rather than spend fortunes and ruin lives in a futile attempt to eradicate every last trigger in America, we would do well to follow Israel’s example and educate gun owners about their rights and responsibilities, so as to foster a culture of sensible and mindful gun ownership. Go to any shooting range in Israel, as a soldier or a civilian, and the instructor is likely to talk about responsibility even before he or she begin to cover the basics of shooting."<p>- "In Israel, still a somewhat socialist country, mental health services are ready available, for free, to anyone. And because so many young Israelis undergo traumatic experiences in the course of their military service, a whole host of nonprofit organizations are on hand to provide counseling and treatment."<p>Perhaps the 3rd point is the most important one.

Gun control advocates cite statistics of the kind "how many deaths are caused by guns" as justification for more gun control. Frankly, whatever the statistic is, it is too high. But that is not the point.<p>But in order to successfully make an argument along the lines of "more gun control will save lives", they must also cite statistics of the kind "how many lives are saved by guns". Obviously, if guns cause the death of 12000 people yearly and save the lives of 100000 people yearly, gun control is a bad idea. On the other hand, if they only save the lives of 100 people yearly, it might be a good idea after all. I have yet to see a single article on the internet citing such a number. Why is it so hard to find such a statistic?<p>The number of lives saved by guns (not counting police and military guns) is quite impossible to count. One might succeed in counting the number of cases where guns are used in self-defense, even though these cases usually go unnoticed. But how do you count the number of cases where the would-be perpetrator chooses not to commit the crime on account of a gun being present in defense of the would-be victim? Or doesn't even start to think about the crime?<p>This is a classic case of Bastiat's "that which is not seen". Because the statistic cannot be calculated, people do not take it into account. But they should if they want to make an effective argument for more gun control based on statistics.<p>Because the relevant statistics cannot be calculated, statistics should not be used in policy debates such as the one about gun control. Rather, let us reason about the unseen consequences of the actions of individuals as well as of the government. Without involving emotional arguments from either side.

<p><pre><code> "Based on this, framework, one model for the per-capita gun death rate D would be D = V * G * k, where V is the average tendency toward violence and G is availability of guns, with killing power k factored in." </code></pre> Ah yes, the old "write an article based on a model that you made up apparently without validation and then accuse everyone else of not citing evidence".

1) Am I crazy/ignorant for thinking that his formula seems like an arbitrary way to make his argument appear more technical than it is?<p>2) I really, really get frustrated when editorializers make the leap from correlation to causation without hard evidence.

"<i>Fewer</i> guns means <i>fewer</i> deaths from guns"<p>Note that the word "less" doesn't feature once in the linked article.

What if the causality runs the other way, and more violent social environments inspire gun ownership?<p>Are there other confounding variables that we aren't allowed to think about?<p>Also, fewer.

I love the articles and commentary comparing US gun laws to other countries in the world. There is no comparision and the US will never have gun laws similar to other nations. Any discussion on banning weapons is moot considering that the 2nd amendment exists and has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times in numerous ways. Given the high requirements to repeal a portion of the constitution that will never happen.<p>I even wonder if another "assault weapon" ban would hold up if challenged considering the Supreme Court overturned both DC's and Chicago's handgun bans?<p>The previous assault weapons ban was a joke anyway just labeling certain features as evil and banning them if you had too many evil features on a gun.<p>Maybe limiting magazine size could do some "good" but I find it hard to believe changing magazines takes any significant amount of time if the shooter has any experience with the weapon.

I don't think there's anything surprising about the stats. The more gun violence around me, the more likely I am to own a gun for self defense. I don't see evidence of causation in the other direction. (For what it's worth, I favor gun control, but I don't like seeing it pushed with bad stats)

This is a bullshit article. Why are we trying to minimize "gun deaths?" What the article doesn't mention is that most of those are suicides that would just do it another way if they were less readily available.<p>Violent crime in the UK is 4x what it is in the US yet there are less gun deaths because of the strict gun control. Who gives a shit if guns are involved or not?

&#62; Less guns means less deaths from guns<p>(groan) s/less/fewer/<p>Use "less" for continuous quantities. <i>Less water</i>.<p>Use "fewer" for enumerable things. <i>Fewer gallons of water</i>.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less</a>

Is this supposed to be some kind of revelatory finding? Let's say there were only one gun in the world; how would that affect deaths from guns?

For a look at more data (and different conclusions) see: <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Kate...</a>

The other side: More Guns, Less Crime - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime</a>

Where are the figures for government-caused deaths by guns?<p>Here's an idea. If we want less guns, perhaps we should stop manufacturing them to sell to government.

An assault weapons ban will do little for the murder rate in the US. The US has 17k murders annually, 13k of those are committed with firearms, and 11k of those are committed with handguns. Only 2k out of 13k are committed with longarms (which aren't just assault weapons) - this assault weapons debate is a waste of hot air for both sides, and isn't going to have a meaningful affect on either the real issues or the security theatre.

After reading this, I remain unconvinced that legislation like "limits on magazine capacity and regulation of ammunition sales" will make Alaskans desire gun ownership, and shoot each other, at rates more like New Jerseyans.