Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The theme on this blog has been that France is doing just about everything wrong: They coddle the criminals; they are 10% Muslim, many of them alienated blacks; they have riots bordering on insurrection; they have insane gun control laws; etc. But despite all of these failings and disasters, the homicide rate in France is only one-fifth of that in the United States. Our mistakes, whatever they are, are much bigger than their mistakes. Certainly if the homicide ratio were the other way around, i.e. five times higher in France than in the US, the right blogosphere would say that it vindicates them.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 7, 2007 08:29 PM

I wonder if France, like Britan, only counts a homicide if they actually catch ther perpatrator. This would make that stat off by about 50%

The oft-quoted stats for Britan are not comparible for this reason.

Give France time. Like Britan, they are on the road to catching up real quick thanks to their new sub-populations.

" But despite all of these failings and disasters, the homicide rate in France is only one-fifth of that in the United States."

Actually, it is only slightly less than half, your numbers are wrong or are out of date.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 7, 2007 08:45 PM

The theme on this blog has been that France is doing just about everything wrong.

Only to people who don't actually read this blog much, and are extremely selective in their reading of it. Or who don't know what the word "theme" means...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 7, 2007 09:12 PM

Only to people who don't actually read this blog much, and are extremely selective in their reading of it.

Okay, fine, not the only theme, but certainly a theme. This is inane hair-splitting. The real point is that for whatever reason, and despite copious criticism here, France has a much lower homicide rate than the US.

Meanwhile:

I wonder if

This is an apt intro for a lot of citation-free speculation.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 7, 2007 10:41 PM

Mr Harris, in the U.S. you are free to remain unarmed if an armed burglar breaks in to your place. Some of us will be armed and far better trained in firearms than the burglar, and the old saying will apply: "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
The U.S. is also a bigger country than France, so any mistakes we make are likely to be bigger. Just because we make bigger mistakes than France, does not mean we should make the same mistakes that France does.

Posted by Stewart at December 7, 2007 11:39 PM

Well said Stewart. I don't understand Americans who for the most part are descended from Europeans, who left Europe, who are so enamored of European gub'ments, their laws and their liberal ideals. If you like steak, you don't go to a seafood restaurant.

Jim,
If you like all things European, move there. Don't try to drag those of us who like it here, make that LOVE IT HERE, don't drag us over to the European way of doing things. And like Stewart said, I'll keep my guns thanks. If you don't want to incur the cost of firearms, ammunition, training and practice, then you have a right to do that. I refer you to the 2nd Amendment for my right to do the opposite.

I'm a little bit surprised by this actually. Don't they teach anything about WWII, the Nazis or the Vichy Government in French schools? The first thing the Nazi / Vichy government did was disarm the citizenry. Perhaps the Fresh Prince of Andorra had sub-par tutors as a lad.

Posted by Steve at December 8, 2007 07:30 AM

If you like all things European, move there.

I don't like all things European. I like the homicide rate in France better than the homicide rate in the United States. That's not all things, it's just one thing. That isn't by itself enough reason to move there. But it is a reason not to lecture them about how "idiotic" they are about violent crime. Since after all, they're doing better with this issue than we are.

Don't they teach anything about WWII, the Nazis or the Vichy Government in French schools?

I wouldn't know what they teach in French schools. If you would like to teach anything on any topic, you should have reliable citations.

Meanwhile:

Mr Harris, in the U.S. you are free to remain unarmed if an armed burglar breaks in to your place.

Did I ask for your advice?

The U.S. is also a bigger country than France, so any mistakes we make are likely to be bigger.

No, you're not taking fractions properly. It's not the total number of homicides that is five times as high in the US as in France, it's the homicide rate per person.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 09:12 AM

I like the homicide rate in France better than the homicide rate in the United States.

And your evidence that their homicide rate has anything whatsoever to do with their attitude toward guns, or their gun laws is...?

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 8, 2007 09:16 AM

And your evidence that their homicide rate has anything whatsoever to do with their attitude toward guns, or their gun laws is...?

All I have to say about it is that they must be doing something right, if their homicide rate is only 1/5 of that in the United States. At worst, their current gun laws haven't set them back all that much. Their Islamic "insurrection" (as you call it) has also not hit them as hard as murder in general hits the US.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 09:25 AM

I just want to know what Britan is.

That's all.

Posted by Offside at December 8, 2007 09:26 AM

All I have to say about it is that they must be doing something right, if their homicide rate is only 1/5 of that in the United States.

Yes, that is all you have to say. You offer no evidence whatsoever that it's because of their gun laws. For all you know, making their gun laws less restrictive might reduce the rate further.

Hint: there are many other differences between France and the US than gun laws and the Second Amendment.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 8, 2007 09:32 AM

You offer no evidence whatsoever that it's because of their gun laws. For all you know, making their gun laws less restrictive might reduce the rate further.

And for all you know, it's the opposite. I'm not here to prove anything one way or the other about gun control. You're the one who went out on a limb by saying that French leaders are idiotic. My answer to that is: Don't pass judgment on countries that you don't understand.

There are many other differences between France and the US than gun laws and the Second Amendment.

That's true. However, you and the column you cite have bashed them for several things that would make their homicide rate much higher than in the US: releasing criminals, gun laws, hostile Muslims. And yet their homicide rate is much lower. If you wanted credibility, you would temper your bad-mouthing with the acknowledgment that all of their attitude flaws regarding homicide add up to less than ours.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 09:43 AM

"All I have to say about it is that they must be doing something right,..."

Which is only "citation free speculation".

Thanx for playing. Have an ice day.

Posted by Billy Beck at December 8, 2007 09:48 AM

"It's not the total number of homicides that is five times as high in the US as in France, it's the homicide rate per person."

This is an apt intro for a lot of citation-free speculation.

I think everything you have posted to date has been citation free Jim.

It is 2.47 times the US rate according to reported statistics.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

And again, if they count their homicides like GBR does, it might be as bad as Americas.

Jim,

If you want to avoid beign shot, avoid associating with known felons and avoid being a know felon. Over half of the homicides in the US are by a convicted felon against another convicted felon. Former NYC Police Detective Patrick Rogers referres to these homicides as "TFB" or Too F*****g Bad.

Stay out of the inner cities and do not deal in drugs.

Do those simple things and your chances of being murdered drop immensely.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 8, 2007 09:59 AM

Keep in mind that US homicide rates are skewed by the extraordinarily high murder rates in US cities/states where gun control is strictest. Were there no "gun-free" zones in the US, judging by statistics, overall murder rates would be greatly reduced.

Ironic, ain't it?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at December 8, 2007 10:14 AM

You're the one who went out on a limb by saying that French leaders are idiotic. My answer to that is: Don't pass judgment on countries that you don't understand.

I didn't "go out on a limb" at all. And I'll pass judgment on anyone, and anything, that I choose. Including your poor arguments, or lack of arguments at all. That's why I have a blog. Sarkozy's comment remains idiotic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 8, 2007 10:16 AM

It is 2.47 times the US rate according to reported statistics.

That's one messed up calculation...

Posted by at December 8, 2007 10:22 AM

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

This is much better; now we can have a non-trivial conversation. I did give references, cited above, but when I just double-checked them, it seems that read the homicide rate for the US in the wrong year. So that was my mistake. I had seen this "NationMaster" table too, but I had rejected it as incomplete and out of date. (Incomplete because it is only murders, not non-negligent homicide; and out of date because it is for 2000.) But it will do. The ratio there is 1/2.47.

Still, the qualitative point remains. Why would France have 2/5 as many murders per person as the US, when they have committed so many greivous sins of public safety?

Former NYC Police Detective Patrick Rogers referres to these homicides as "TFB" or Too F*****g Bad.

So here is one possible answer. If public sentiment is so callous that we don't even mind a big fraction of homicides in the US, then it's no surprise that there are a lot more of them. As I said, I'm not here to prove anything one way or the other about gun laws, but it does raise questions about the end purpose of the well-armed approach. Is it that fewer people will be killed, or that we will be more satisfied with who gets killed?

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 10:31 AM

And I'll pass judgment on anyone, and anything, that I choose.

Obviously you have and you will. I didn't say that it wasn't your right. All I said was that if you wanted credibility, you wouldn't pass judgment on countries that you don't understand.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 10:36 AM

As I said, I'm not here to prove anything one way or the other about gun laws, but it does raise questions about the end purpose of the well-armed approach. Is it that fewer people will be killed, or that we will be more satisfied with who gets killed?

Likely both. Given that there are killers among us, I am in fact more satisfied when they are killed than when they get to kill other people. I would think that most sane people would be.

Over the long run, removing from the population people who kill and steal without remorse (and even with joy) will reduce the overall incidents of murder, not to mention theft. The notion that depriving trained and law-abiding civilians of firearms makes them "safer" is ludicrous, regardless of the homicide rate in France.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 8, 2007 10:37 AM

All I said was that if you wanted credibility, you wouldn't pass judgment on countries that you don't understand.

I'm not that worried about whether Jim Harris considers me credible. I'm in fact supremely indifferent to it. The people that matter consider me so, as far as I know.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 8, 2007 10:42 AM

Me: Is it that fewer people will be killed, or that we will be more satisfied with who gets killed?

Rand: Likely both.

The former doesn't look all that likely, given how many more homicides there are in the US (per person) than in France or many other countries. Or at best, that it stops far short of whatever it is that France is doing right.

As for the latter, if removing certain elements from society with homicide is a good thing, then maybe our homicide rate should be even higher? For instance, what if we outright legalized homicide of convicted felons? According to data, there are about 200,000 felony convictions per year for violent crimes such as murder, rape, and assault; and another 300,000 for different types of stealing. So if there are a half-million non-drug felony convictions per year, but only 17,000 homicides, there is a lot of room to expand.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 10:49 AM

Why should my constitutional and natural rights be infringed because felons chose to kill one another?

If you really are all that weepy-eyed about tangos whacking each other, I suggest you fight to have the War on Drugs brought to an end. I suspect the homicide rate would drop over 50%.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 8, 2007 10:54 AM

I wouldn't know what they teach in French schools. If you would like to teach anything on any topic, you should have reliable citations.

I did not attempt to teach anything. I asked a question, ergo the punctuation I used, it was a question mark. I am not aware of a system for citations of questions I ask. Is that a French thing?

On the topic of all things European, perhaps you were tarred with a wide brush by me. But my experience with people who quote homicide rate differences between the U.S. and some European country is that they are also usually also all for a European style government run medical system, government operated transportation system that sub-plants cars, and most of these people are also crazy for European courts and laws.

If that is not you, I apologize. I would however still be surprised given that you seem dead set against anything American, or at least you seem so when you comment here.

As to Rand's credibility, it's his blog and his dime. He can claim to be King of the Pickles, it's his right to do so on his blog. Jim, I'm sure there are blogs out there where the arguments you've raised here would be considered credible. There are others where your comments would be torn to shreds by people who found them completely fallacious.

This is, evidently, one of those blogs.

Posted by Steve at December 8, 2007 06:45 PM

But my experience with people who quote homicide rate differences between the U.S. and some European country

I quoted the homicide rate in France because it's germane to the post. Rand said that their crime policies are "idiotic" --- how idiotic can they be if they have so much less murder than we do?

also all for a European style government run medical system

That's a somewhat sweeping change of topic, but since you mention it: First, there isn't just one "European style" of medical system; they are generally different in different countries. Second, according to BusinessWeek, France spends only 10.7% of its GDP on health care, while the US spends 16% of a much higher per-capita GDP. And yet, according to the same article, France gets better results in terms of life expectancy, hospital beds, etc. But that's just France, not "Europe". And as BusinessWeek says, their medical system is not very different from the American Medicare; the big difference is that everyone is eligible.

government operated transportation system that [supplants] cars

I have experienced the transportation system in France and it's not all that great. On the other hand, gasoline taxes are much higher in Europe than in the US. Even the reliably conservative Greg Mankiw has said that it would be wiser to tax gasoline than wages.

most of these people are also crazy for European courts and laws.

There is nothing particularly wrong with American courts and laws in principle. The problem in practice is that the American justice system blows hot and cold. Often they punish people far out of proportion with the crime; and often they don't punish people at all when they do terrible things. Procedurally, though, the American system is fine, better than in much of Europe.

Either way, the basic point is that America does have things to learn from other countries; but that's not a reason to leave this place. Just as I might say, wow, I could really learn a lot from Clint Eastwood about a lot of things; but that doesn't mean that I would want to be him.

He can claim to be King of the Pickles

Sure, he might as well. I like that phrase!

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 07:19 PM

Rand said that their crime policies are "idiotic"

I said nothing about France's crime policies. I commented on Sarkozy's foolish statement.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 8, 2007 07:29 PM

I would however still be surprised given that you seem dead set against anything American

Also let me expand on this specifically. There is American and there is un-American. I am dead-set against un-American things done in the name of America. Google is a great American institution and I am all for it. The basic criminal trial system --- jury of 12 and all that --- is not perfect, but it is still a great American institution and I am all for it. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are great American institutions and I am all for them. Walmart, too, is more good than bad and I am for it (with qualifications).

But waterboarding and the prison camp at Guantanamo are deeply and outrageously un-American and I am completely against them. And so should you be. How un-American are they? For example, in 1983 a sheriff in Texas named James C. Parker was convicted of torturing jailed suspects by waterboarding them. He got 10 years in prison. At his sentencing, the judge said that Parker's methods would "embarrass a dictator". That judge was a true American. Now, unfortunately, we have an executive branch that is not embarrassed by the same methods, although it is cowardly enough to shred videotapes.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 07:32 PM

An old but sadly true quip: Gun control laws, occupational health and safety for criminals.

Posted by Peter at December 8, 2007 07:49 PM

Rand -- do you have any work experience with source coding or data compression?

If you have a source where there are a small number of distinct messages with a high rate of recurrence, p is large, log(1/p) is small as is the information rate sum p log(1/p). This holds true even if the recurring messages are textually long and that novel messages that would stimulate intelligent discussion occur with annoyingly small probability.

All you would need is a table of memes that map into an alphabet of symbols of low cardinality. A message from such a source could be mapped into a series of links back into the meme table.

There is an additional level of compression that can be achieved when you receive the source after it has been subject to a distorting channel. For example, if the source contained the number "2.5", but you received it as the number "5" after the distortion, the level of distortion is 5 - 2.5 = 2.5, and you could compress that source by replacing every occurrence of the number "5" with "0" while maintaining the same level of distortion and without corrupting that source any further.

Posted by Paul Milenkovic at December 8, 2007 09:15 PM

The USA is a big country with a heterogeneous population. Violent crime rates within the USA vary widely. There is a lot of violent crime in New Orleans. There is very little violent crime in Vermont. Vermont has unusually liberal gun laws even by US standards. Where is the correlation? Hint: It's got nothing to do with gun laws and a lot to do with culture. Israel is awash in weapons yet has little violent crime. Brazil severely restricts gun ownership and has an astronomically high murder rate by American standards. France I don't know about, though I suspect that the rate of violent crime among young Muslim men is very high. I also suspect that that rate would be lower if French law tolerated armed self-defense by individuals.

Posted by Jonathan at December 8, 2007 10:18 PM

The USA is a big country with a heterogeneous population.

And France isn't?

It's got nothing to do with gun laws and a lot to do with culture.

The cultural factor in Vermont is easy to see: It doesn't have any cities. Which is fine for Vermonters, but not very practical for an entire country if you want a modern economy.

In any case, if some cultural factor explains why France has less than half as many murders per capita as the US, it would be interesting to know what it is. Maybe the reason is the one already suggested, that certain Americans think that some homicides are useful instead of thinking that they are all bad.

Israel is awash in weapons yet has little violent crime.

For some value of "little", maybe. Israel has more murders per capita than France according to the survey posted above. 2.62 per 100,000 in 2004 vs. 1.64. Israel also has security booths all over the place; you get used to going through a checkpoint or a metal detector for every third errand.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 8, 2007 11:14 PM

Thanks Paul... good job! my side hurts and I need to catch my breath.

Posted by Leland at December 9, 2007 06:34 AM

Bermuda is a higher than 60% Black nation with violent crime rates much lower than either France or the USA. Unfortunately the table does not list the numbers for Bermuda. You cannot own a handgun in Bermuda; in fact even the ownership of Pepper Spray is illegal.

Is Rand suggesting that Bermuda's violent crime rate would drop further if the populace was armed?

Bermuda is also the perfect counterpoint to Mike Puckett's statement that sub-populations are the problem. Code, basically, for saying that Blacks and Minorities are the problem.

Gun control works. It is simply a matter of much more seriously applied enforcement. Bermuda proves the case.

Posted by Bermudian at December 9, 2007 08:46 AM

...certain Americans think that some homicides are useful instead of thinking that they are all bad.

No, "certain Americans" consider it useful when murderers get killed in attempting homicides, and are thus removed from the population. Such killings aren't murders, and are not "homicides," except in a literal sense that a human was killed. The goal is to minimize murders.

To think otherwise, and to imagine that the death rate itself can be reduced to zero, particularly by futilely restricting gun ownership to the law abiding, is to live in a fairyland, in which no humans are present at all. To think that people can count on the state for security, and that it will protect them from would-be murderers and thieves anywhere, anywhen, is to live in a particular fantasy world--the one inhabited by the French president, assuming that he believes what he's saying.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 9, 2007 09:05 AM

Is Rand suggesting that Bermuda's violent crime rate would drop further if the populace was armed?

No.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 9, 2007 09:34 AM

"Bermuda is also the perfect counterpoint to Mike Puckett's statement that sub-populations are the problem. Code, basically, for saying that Blacks and Minorities are the problem."

Well, they are a disporportionaely large part of the problem in the US. The numbers don't lie.

"Gun control works. It is simply a matter of much more seriously applied enforcement. Bermuda proves the case."

Bermuda is an island.

Gun ownership works too. Vermont, New Hampshire, Wyoming and West Virginia prove it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 9, 2007 10:06 AM

And I will add you can thank the great society and the corrosive effects of the welfare state for this. The black family unit was intact before LBJ and his social meddeling. The rampant crime problems in the inner city did not exist prior to this. We are reaping what the liberal welfare state has sewn.

If you want to know what the worst crime perpetrated on the black man since slavery, it was the great society. Even Patrick Moynahan recognized this.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 9, 2007 10:11 AM

Bermuda is an island.

I guess the implication is that the guns are coming in from Canada and Mexico due to the land borders. With ultra-strict border control, which I believe you advocate elsewhere to keep the sub-populations out, you should also be able to keep the guns out now, shouldn't you?

As mentioned earlier, it is a matter of how seriously the goal of gun control is pursued. It is obviously being pursued in a very half-assed manner in the United States.

The black family unit was intact before LBJ and his social meddeling.

Well, Singapore has about the highest form of social meddling in the world. And they have some of the toughest gun control in the world as well. So how are they doing socially and economically given their ethnically diverse population? And what is their homicide rate? Extraordinarily well on the first two and extraordinarily low on the last question.

Any other objections?

Posted by at December 9, 2007 01:46 PM

I guess the implication is that the guns are coming in from Canada and Mexico due to the land borders.

One could guess that. It would, however, be an ignorant and in fact stupid guess.

Well, Singapore has about the highest form of social meddling in the world.

Of a much different sort. We don't want to live in Singapore. We prefer freedom.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 9, 2007 02:23 PM

I am such a dumb ass. I got pulled into another of these line by line, dueling idiots, rebuttal fights here on TtM before. It's like arguing with a wall. I gain nothing and the wall gets no smarter.

I promise never to do it again. Enjoy France Jim.

Posted by Steve at December 9, 2007 03:04 PM

The primary generators of murder-by-gun in the U.S. are gang-bangers who profit from illegal drug trafficking. Since the U.S. has idiotically kept drugs illegal, disputes between drug-dealing felons are often settled with violence instead of the courts. Add the disintegration of the American Black family in the 1960's and 1970's, and you get mounds of violence in the innercities where these particular demographics live. I believe that both the "War on Drugs" and the disintegration of the Black family are the primary cause of the U.S.'s high murder rate (murder-by-knife is also very high in the U.S.). End the first and fix the second, and you will probably see a large reduction of violence in the U.S. as other posters on this blog have already mentioned.

As for anonymous and the Bermudian, if you impose Singaporean gun control laws (for that matter any other type of Singaporean law) on the United States, you will have a major bloody civil war. Last time I checked, having IED's blow up isn't an improvement over gang-banger violence.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 04:10 PM

Jim Harris said:
The cultural factor in Vermont is easy to see: It doesn't have any cities. Which is fine for Vermonters, but not very practical for an entire country if you want a modern economy.

The technological trends of this century will most likely make cities irrelevant in the future. Distributed manufacturing eliminates the need for cities to maintain advanced civilization and the advent of personal WMDs (bio-weapons, weapons derived from nanotechnology) makes it increasingly dangerous to live in the city.

Oh here's another good post on this blog about this topic of Second Amendment rights.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 04:33 PM

Steve said:
I am such a dumb ass. I got pulled into another of these line by line, dueling idiots, rebuttal fights here on TtM before. It's like arguing with a wall. I gain nothing and the wall gets no smarter.

I believe the best way to argue with "a wall" that advocates initiating deadly force against your rights is to warn him of retaliation. If he won't even take the time to learn and stop issuing gun control PRATTs (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) then deterrence is the better option. After all, one of the reasons for the Second Amendment is to deter the Government from acting tyrannically against the People. And thanks to current technological trends, the tools of the People to deter tyrannical government keeps getting stronger.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 04:54 PM

Arguing with anti-self-defense people is like arguing with a creationist who thinks the Universe was created by God 6,000 years ago.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 05:00 PM

Robert, I am well armed for a rational discussion of many things. Jim is not up for rational. He cherry picks what to answer or address. I am well armed against idiots who might invade my home. I am also well armed for protection of and from my government.

As for creationism, I know what I believe and I don't bother trying to convince others.

Posted by Steve at December 9, 2007 05:48 PM

We don't want to live in Singapore. We prefer freedom.

How free are you when you need to propose, or suggest as you have, walking around armed to the teeth as the solution to the problem?

Posted by at December 9, 2007 07:39 PM

How free are you when you need to propose, or suggest as you have, walking around armed to the teeth as the solution to the problem?

I have proposed no such thing. Assuming that this is the same anonymous idiot, this is at least the third time in this thread that you've demonstrated inability to comprehend written English, and fantasized about what I've written. But even if I had, one who is armed "to the teeth" or otherwise, is not in any way unfree. So you have trouble with logic as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 9, 2007 08:06 PM

...Code, basically, for saying that Blacks and Minorities are the problem.

Some blacks, some whites. Mainly Southerners, not Vermonters. Scotch-Irish, not Swedish. If you look at which ethnic groups tend to be more violent, who settled where and where they migrated subsequently, there are obvious patterns. But that assumes you are actually interested in understanding, rather than in shutting down opposing arguments by suggesting racism.

Gun control works. It is simply a matter of much more seriously applied enforcement. Bermuda proves the case.

How much more seriously? Jamaica, another island, has draconian laws against gun possession that are enforced (60 Minutes once interviewed an American who had been sentenced to something like twenty years' imprisonment for inadvertently having one .22 cartridge in his luggage) -- and a high rate of gun violence, particularly during elections. Britain is an island and has had a significant increase in crimes using guns since the late-1990s, when it banned handguns and made long guns more difficult to obtain by law-abiding people. Large parts of the USA have lower rates of violent crime, including crime committed with guns, than does the UK. If you exchanged the populations of Bermuda and New Orleans and kept the same laws in both places, do you think Bermuda would continue to have lower rates of violent crime than would New Orleans? Comparisons between Country A and Country B that attribute different outcomes to different laws are a variant of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Posted by Jonathan at December 9, 2007 08:11 PM

No, "certain Americans" consider it useful when murderers get killed in attempting homicides, and are thus removed from the population.

This discussion is not only about your own opinion, which for that matter is negotiable. If the question is why the US has more murders than France (note that justifiable homicides are not counted) then the fact is that certain Americans view many killings as TFB: Too F**king Bad. That is how Mike Puckett quoted his former NYC detective Patrick Rogers. He wasn't just talking about a law-abiding citizen shooting a criminal to prevent an imminent attempted murder. No, the view is more general. Rogers believes, and many Americans agree with him, that America has a class of hardened criminals and that it's a favor to society if people kill them, legally or illegally. The point is to TOTG (take out the garbage), not just to stop imminent attempted murders.

I didn't say that it was specifically your view. But it's true that generous lethal force laws --- here I refer to laws about attacking people, not owning or carrying any type of gun --- have a slippery slope. They are generally associated with a TFB or TOTG mentality. Florida, which is your neck of the woods, is one of the states that is very forgiving when people shoot other people in self-defense-type situations. For example, in Clearwater, a man named Jason Rosenbloom was shot by his nieghbor, a retired police officer named Kenneth Allen, because Rosenbloom took out 8 garbage bags instead of the legal limit of 6. They had a quarrel over it and Allen decided that Rosenbloom was a threat. (Rosenbloom was hospitalized but survived.) No one is saying in this case that Rosenbloom was trying to kill Allen or that either one is a criminal. Nonetheless, maybe partly because Allen is a former police officer, the system trusted his judgment and the shooting is just TFB.

France does not have nearly as much sentiment as the US that so many shootings and killings are TFB. So maybe that's one reason that their murder rate is lower. If society says that many killings are bad and many others are not so bad, then that could be a mixed message to criminals. The opposite approach of reducing homicides in general is not any kind of promise that the homicide rate can be "sent to zero"; rather, it's a simpler and more consistent goal.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 9, 2007 09:04 PM

Anonymous said:
How free are you when you need to propose, or suggest as you have, walking around armed to the teeth as the solution to the problem?

What's wrong with being "armed to the teeth" and being free if I am a citizen who doesn't initiate unprovoked force against others? Did you even address any other part of my posts?

Your ideology of having only the State have the monopoly on deadly force is obsolete, current technological trends make it so.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 09:10 PM

Jim Harris said:
France does not have nearly as much sentiment as the US that so many shootings and killings are TFB. So maybe that's one reason that their murder rate is lower. If society says that many killings are bad and many others are not so bad, then that could be a mixed message to criminals. The opposite approach of reducing homicides in general is not any kind of promise that the homicide rate can be "sent to zero"; rather, it's a simpler and more consistent goal.

Idaho has that TFB mentality yet its murder-rate is not much different than Hawaii's which doesn't have the TFB mentality (compare that to Lousiana/New Orleans crime rate)? Could it be that both states of Hawaii and Idaho have a low number of gang-banger homies per-chance?

Remember, I regard Political Correctness as an illegitimate religious superstition so don't use its arguments to persuade me. Prove that the gods of political correctness and multiculturalism exists because I don't believe they exist!

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 09:32 PM

Idaho has that TFB mentality yet its murder-rate is not much different than Hawaii's which doesn't have the TFB mentality (compare that to Lousiana/New Orleans crime rate)?

Your question is just not logical in context. Idaho has a higher murder rate than Hawaii in 2006 according to the chart that you posted, even though Hawaii is significantly more urbanized. Moreover, just how much TFB thinking there is in Idaho depends on much more than the law: It depends on how many Idahoans are considered expendable by their fellow state residents.

Could it be that both states of Hawaii and Idaho have a low number of gang-banger homies per-chance?

That's right, Idaho and Hawaii do have far fewer "gang-banger homies" than Louisiana, or to use the simpler name, blacks. Louisiana is the state in which David Duke won the Republican primary in a Senate race and got a majority of the white vote in the election. Duke's view is that the blacks are the criminal class, the ones where if someone kills them, it's TFB. Evidently a lot of Louisianians agree with him; in some respects even many blacks there may agree with him subconsciously. Louisiana police officers of both races are known for a casual attitude towards homicide, especially if the victim is black. Again, if the police in a city don't entirely mind homicide, it's no surprise if there is a whole lot of it.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 9, 2007 10:06 PM

2006 Idaho murder-rate 36 (Idaho has a large city called Boise). 2006 Hawaii murder-rate 21 (Hawaii has a large city called Honolulu). The population of Hawaii is mostly Asian while Idaho is mostly White. In the U.S. Asians on average have a considerably lower crime-rate than Whites yet Hawaii's murder-rate is only less than Idaho's by 15 (I haven't included the previous year's crime-rates of both states). 2006 Lousiana murder-rate is 530 which doesn't surprise me since in the U.S., blacks have a higher crime-rate than Asians and Whites. Throughout the past 46 years the Lousiana crime-rate has hovered around that number which is positively ENORMOUS compared to Hawaii and Idaho.

Jim Harris said:
That's right, Idaho and Hawaii do have far fewer "gang-banger homies" than Louisiana, or to use the simpler name, blacks. Louisiana is the state in which David Duke won the Republican primary in a Senate race and got a majority of the white vote in the election. Duke's view is that the blacks are the criminal class, the ones where if someone kills them, it's TFB. Evidently a lot of Louisianians agree with him; in some respects even many blacks there may agree with him subconsciously. Louisiana police officers of both races are known for a casual attitude towards homicide, especially if the victim is black. Again, if the police in a city don't entirely mind homicide, it's no surprise if there is a whole lot of it.

Usually such "victims" are gangstas being shot by rival gangstas, funny that you have more sympathy for them instead of gun-owners who respect their neighbors' rights.

So all blacks are gangsta homies, eh, Harris? I just referred to gangsta homies and I am pretty sure that the majority of American Blacks aren't gangsta homies. Looks like projection to me. Remember, I don't believe in the gods of Political correctness, so using charges of "racism" won't persuade me. Persuading me that "Crossing-over with John Edward" is a real "psychic" won't persuade me either because I don't believe in that superstition as well. Oh, by the way, the Lousiana Republican Party just succeeded in helping elect Bobby Jindal (who is not a European White) as Governor of Lousiana.

So Jim Harris, why don't you go after the gang-bangers instead of gun-owners who don't initiate force? How about advocating ending the Drug War instead of making threats on people's rights? Did you even address my posts where I pointed out that gun control is an obsolete endeavor for the future?

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 10:42 PM

Jim Harris, arguing with you is like arguing with a person who believes in psychics. No matter the evidence, if a set of data points to the fact that the urban black community has a problem with gangsta homies, the religious dogma of Political Correctness compels a believer to reject such evidence. After all, the "holy scriptures of PC" state that the rural working class and the suburbs must be disarmed because no-one shall mention the words "gangsta homey", it is blasphemy to mention such words. I am glad that I don't believe in such superstitious nonsense.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 10:50 PM

Here is a little sample from a link to an earlier post in this blog:

Sam Dinkin said:
With well-ordered militias now able to bring governments to a halt with IEDs and home-grown bioweapons without any legalization, using firearms to protect liberty is anachronistic.

I said:
I agree that IED's and home-grown bioweapons would be an effective primary weapon against an over-reaching government, but firearms are still a good backup to fighting tyranny.

Anonymous, Bermudian, and Jim Harris, you've all been forewarned. Do not threaten our rights. The current technological trends have rendered your gun control endeavor obsolete.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 11:18 PM

So all blacks are gangsta homies, eh, Harris?

It's not my view, but David Duke sees them as one and the same and evidently so do a lot of people who voted for him. We are talking about Louisiana here.

Oh, by the way, the Lousiana Republican Party just succeeded in helping elect Bobby Jindal (who is not a European White) as Governor of Lousiana.

That's true. I'll credit white Louisianians for being broad-minded enough to set aside Asian Indian skin color. That does not prove that they have set aside any other kind of prejudice. From Jindal's accent to his religious views and his campaign promises, he sounds and acts just like a white Louisianian. They don't want a European or even just any American; they want a socially white Southerner and Jindal put together the complete package. He was born in Baton Rouge and there is no way that he would have won if he had stayed Hindu.

So Jim Harris, why don't you go after the gang-bangers instead of gun-owners who don't initiate force?

I would go after anyone who initiates force, or escalates it without justification, even if the guy who gets killed is the scum of the earth. I do not believe that it's "too f**king bad" if one felon kills another. I do not believe that it's a favor to society if a "law-abiding" citizen shoots someone unless there truly is no other option, even if the target is a felon. I just don't believe in street justice, and neither should you.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 9, 2007 11:26 PM

Jim Harris said:
It's not my view, but David Duke sees them as one and the same and evidently so do a lot of people who voted for him. We are talking about Louisiana here.

I could care less what that pig David Duke thinks!

Jim Harris said:
That's true. I'll credit white Louisianians for being broad-minded enough to set aside Asian Indian skin color. That does not prove that they have set aside any other kind of prejudice. From Jindal's accent to his religious views and his campaign promises, he sounds and acts just like a white Louisianian. They don't want a European or even just any American; they want a socially white Southerner and Jindal put together the complete package. He was born in Baton Rouge and there is no way that he would have won if he had stayed Hindu.

So Bobby Jindal is acting "White", eh, Harris? Looks like "projection" again Jim Harris. So what should be the proper behavior for an Indian-American, eh, Harris?

Jim Harris said:
I would go after anyone who initiates force, or escalates it without justification, even if the guy who gets killed is the scum of the earth. I do not believe that it's "too f**king bad" if one felon kills another. I do not believe that it's a favor to society if a "law-abiding" citizen shoots someone unless there truly is no other option, even if the target is a felon. I just don't believe in street justice, and neither should you.

I don't care if you think self-defense is "street justice" or not, it is a natural right. Roses have thorns, Rhinos have horns, if other living things can defend themselves then humans shouldn't be denied the right to defend themselves as well. After all, humans are just organisms too.

If the government denies the right to self-defense, it is an illegitimate government worthy to be overthrown just as a government that denies free-speech must be overthrown. Good thing that the technological trends don't favor such government power in the future.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a YEC or psychic believer.

Posted by Robert at December 9, 2007 11:42 PM

So, Robert, you advocate that when it becomes possible individuals should start collecting bio- and nanoweapons? Pardon me for saying it perhaps, but that proposition is far out on the bleeding edge of lunacy. If a gun is badly maintained, it might just not work or blow up in the owner's face and solve the problem that way.

A badly maintained or badly-designed weapon based on nanoassemblers, or on biology, might just "blow up" and kill EVERYTHING.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 10, 2007 12:41 AM

Fletcher Christian said:
So, Robert, you advocate that when it becomes possible individuals should start collecting bio- and nanoweapons? Pardon me for saying it perhaps, but that proposition is far out on the bleeding edge of lunacy. If a gun is badly maintained, it might just not work or blow up in the owner's face and solve the problem that way.

Ah, someone from the anti-self-defense "paradise" of the UK has responded. It is irrelevant whether one should or should not build such powerful weapons in their basement. Whether I advocate this or not is irrelevant. The technological trends basically point out that such weapons will be home-manufactured regardless if one wants them or not. In any case, that means the urban metropolis is finished. It will just mean that your paradigm of an all-powerful state is simply destroyed. It's hard to enforce onerous laws if its enforcers are easily killed.

A badly maintained or badly-designed weapon based on nanoassemblers, or on biology, might just "blow up" and kill EVERYTHING.

You can't ban something that can easily be manufactured at home, case in point, the IEDs in Iraq.

Densely populated areas are vulnerable to bio-attacks or nanoassembler attacks (shanty-towns are even more vulnerable). Case in point, the Black Death mainly affected the cities not the countryside. Therefore dispersal of the population is the best defense, therefore the city is dead and so is its politics. Better accept that fact Fletcher Christian. You ought to read the links I have posted.

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 01:26 AM

Since nanoassembler weapons and bio-weapons are small, both bad-design and good-design weapons will be built by home-manufacturers whether the "society" or government power-structure wants them or not. If one has such weapons in one's hands, suddenly those SWAT teams and SAS teams don't seem so powerful after all. Their laws can now be ignored. Welcome to the future Fletcher Christian or should I say, "Mr. Campbell".

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 01:51 AM

Well, Robert, what do you propose ought to be done about it? Eric Drexler came up with this problem, and some of the solutions, at least ten years ago.

The problem, to state it clearly, is that synthetic biology and/or nanoassembler technology may well cause lethal problems against which there is no defense - unless the defense is in place FIRST. This essentially turns into an arms race between "black hat" and "white hat" bio- and nanohackers (which may in the end not even be human beings). Dispersal away from cities is no defense either - this sort of weapon is just too damn powerful. Is being out in the sticks going to defend you against things much smaller than smoke particles, just one of which can kill in hours if you ingest it in any way? And then release copies in the billions? And, as you rightly say, a state, however viciously authoritarian, can't prevent it either. Guns aren't a very good defense against something smaller than a human cell, either.

One way or another, an individual's fate is soon, in historical terms, going to be out of his hands. Either the good AIs win or the bad ones do. In the former case, we all get genie machines; in the latter case we are all dead. Maybe the assemblers will evolve to replace us.

Mr. Drexler said it better than I can. "We can't afford certain types of mistakes with nanotechnology". I would add "certain types of malice".

The human race needs to be starting to discuss this problem right now. One of the few well-known public figures to be discussing nanotech dangers is the Prince of Wales, believe it or not.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 10, 2007 02:27 AM

If the question is why the US has more murders than France

It is not the question. It has never been the question, other than to the degree you continue to hijack the thread in order to make it one. This post was about the stupidity of Sarkozy's comments, which a) are indifferent to the most basic human right--that of self defense, and b) foolish in their contention that you're safer meeting an armed burglar unarmed than properly armed.

Here's an idea. Instead of stealing my disk space and bandwidth (and readers) for your chosen topics, why don't you get your own blog, so you can start topics of your own choosing, and see if anyone shows up to read your tendentious nonsense?

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 04:41 AM

On the subject of free speech: That too should, and does, have limits. The classic comment is that it does not include the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. It can also be argued that free speech does not include the right to public incitement to murder, riot and treason, either - and it can also be argued, with somewhat lesser force, that it does not include the right to publicly advocate changing to a system that does not allow free speech at all.

At the very least, if you insist on breaking the rules mentioned above, others should have the right to hold you accountable for the consequences of your actions.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 10, 2007 04:48 AM

FC said,

...that it does not include the right to publicly advocate changing to a system that does not allow free speech at all.

What many people are overlooking, FC, is that our freedoms are more easily taken if we are disarmed. Our homes are more at risk if we are disarmed. As I said above, I would have thought a native Frenchmen would have understood that from his history classes.

I am a gun owner. I do not use my guns to shoot indiscriminately. Yet, there are people who think that by disarming me, the people who do use guns indiscriminately will stop. I simply do not understand that reasoning.

I don't drink and drive. You can take my drivers license, my car and my adult beverages, but that won't keep a guy across town from driving drunk. But that is exactly the type enforcement anti-gun people want. Sarkozy included.

Posted by Steve at December 10, 2007 07:30 AM

This post was about the stupidity of Sarkozy's comments, which a) are indifferent to the most basic human right--that of self defense, and b) foolish in their contention that you're safer meeting an armed burglar unarmed than properly armed.

The relative murder rates in France and the US are indeed germane to the point. On point (a), no one in this discussion is against self-defense as a personal right; the question is by what methods. You have the right to police protection (which may or may not do much, but you have the right to ask); you have the right put locks on your doors; you have the right to move to a safe neighborhood; etc. Waiting for the day to point guns at people is at best a small part of personal safety. If you outright celebrate it when someone "takes out the garbage", that is crossing a line: It's absolutely not your individual right to help society by shooting bad people.

As for point (b), given that France does have a much lower murder rate than the US, it's not obvious at all that Sarkozy is wrong. Maybe if you point guns at burglars, you are less likely to get burgled, but more likely to get killed. After all, 99% of reported burglaries don't end in murder, and there are also many unreported burglaries. There is tremendous media bias toward the tiny fraction of burglaries that end in violence.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 10, 2007 07:44 AM

Maybe if you point guns at burglars, you are less likely to get burgled, but more likely to get killed.

You are less likely to get burgled as well as more likely to successfully fight off violent burglars. Therefore you and less likely to get killed if you are armed. Sarkozy is wrong.

There is tremendous media bias toward the tiny fraction of burglaries that end in violence.

By your reasoning we might also dismiss automotive safety, since only a tiny fraction of automobile accidents end in injuries. People do not lose their right to self-defense merely because many instances of victimization by criminals do not end in violence. Sarkozy is wrong.

Posted by Jonathan at December 10, 2007 08:24 AM

You are less likely to get burgled as well as more likely to successfully fight off violent burglars [by attacking them].

But your violence might make them more violent than they would otherwise be. You talk as if all burglars walk in the door with a fixed amount of violent intent. They don't. Some burglar could have the same plan to escalate threats that you do.

By your reasoning we might also dismiss automotive safety, since only a tiny fraction of automobile accidents end in injuries.

That's not my reasoning. My reasoning is that you shouldn't lump the two together. For instance, you could argue that you are more likely to have an accident if you wear a seatbelt because it restricts freedom of motion. Which may even have some truth to it, but it could lead to fewer but more serious accidents.

People do not lose their right to self-defense merely because

You are lumping together two very different things: rights and safety. You have the right to climb the Himalayas. You have the right to testify against the mob. It would make no sense to defend those rights on the basis of personal safety.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 10, 2007 08:41 AM

Are you actually trying to make a point Jim? Or do you just like reading your own posts?

You seem incapable of focusing your attention.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 10, 2007 09:06 AM

On point (a), no one in this discussion is against self-defense as a personal right; the question is by what methods.

If you are deprived of the most effective methods, you have been deprived of the right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 09:09 AM

By the way, Harris, I'm getting pretty sick of this "David Duke" crap. This isn't about racism, and your comments are not only off topic, but vile.

Hitler liked gun control, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 09:14 AM

Fletcher Christian said:
Well, Robert, what do you propose ought to be done about it? Eric Drexler came up with this problem, and some of the solutions, at least ten years ago.

Mr. Drexler said it better than I can. "We can't afford certain types of mistakes with nanotechnology". I would add "certain types of malice".

The human race needs to be starting to discuss this problem right now. One of the few well-known public figures to be discussing nanotech dangers is the Prince of Wales, believe it or not.

Excellent reply to my post Fletcher Christian, good job. Indeed, the best defense against an attacker with a gun or melee weapon is a gun. Likewise, the best defense against a bio-attack or nanoassembler attack is what one would term "blue-goo" (defensive microbes and nanoassemblers). The advent of super-intelligent AI will make things unpredictable though. An ordinary sapient can't predict the actions of a transsapient.

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 09:45 AM

By the way, Harris, I'm getting pretty sick of this "David Duke" crap. This isn't about racism, and your comments are not only off topic, but vile.

David Duke is relevant to the discussion because he supports a certain interpretation of gun rights that Sarkozy would warn against. Mike Puckett (not me) brought up the TFB philosophy of crime: It's just TFB when people shoot and kill the criminals, whether or not it's to stop an imminent homicide. David Duke takes that one step further with a color-coded system to recognize the criminal class. Duke is also relevant to the discussion because he got 45% of the vote in Louisiana, with fairly little money and no party support whatsoever. So David Duke does reflect the way that many Louisianians think about their self-defense. Many of them want to be armed to defend themselves against blacks. This is part of the self-defense story not only in Louisiana, but also where you live, in Florida.

It makes a lot of sense to compare that story to France and Sarkozy. France has its own problem with blacks, but Sarkozy completely rejects Louisiana's "solutions". (Which are hardly solutions at all, if you consider Louisiana's homicide rate.) Sarkozy wants to quell the black/Islamic riots, but not by arming white French individuals. It's interesting that in all of the rioting there in the past few years, only one person has been killed.

Hitler liked gun control, too.

After castigating me for topic drift, you are marching straight and deep into Godwin's Law. It is true that Hitler liked gun control for Jews, but only because he didn't believe that Jews had any rights at all. He stripped them of citizenship and killed them. Hitler did have a limited conception of rights for law-abiding German citizens, which notably included the right to own guns. In fact he exported guns to expatriate Germans to help them defend their rights (as he defined them) in other countries.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 10, 2007 09:52 AM

After castigating me for topic drift, you are marching straight and deep into Godwin's Law.

Apparently, for someone who said we were in league with David Duke, your irony detector is busted. But if you want to call Godwin, I'm perfectly happy to see you leave. Thrilled, in fact.

As I said, vile.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 09:56 AM

For someone who said we were in league with David Duke

I never said that you're in league with David Duke. That's not the argument. The argument is that your vision of shooting and killing the criminals is susceptible to perversions, in Florida as well as in Louisiana.

But fine, we don't have to have David Duke to discuss the point. Here is an example that is politically relevant in America right now. Rudy Giuliani (or maybe his police commissioner Bill Bratton, but Giuliani takes credit) took the same philosophy as Sarkozy: Security is the responsibility of the state. Giuliani's administration worked very hard to reduce crime in New York City, but not the Bernhard Goetz way. Florida, by contrast, follows your philosophy of relying on citizens to shoot criminals. The end result is that Florida and New York crossed places in their homicide rates. New York State now has fewer homicides per capita than Florida, even though New York is more urbanized.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 10, 2007 10:15 AM

If you think that citing Giuliani as an example is convincing to me, you know be even less than you think.

You obtusely continue to change the subject, and fantasize that the goal is to minimize homicide rates. If the goal is to minimize homicide rates, we can just lock down the whole country and confiscate all weapons.

No, the goal is to remain a free nation of free individuals, and to continue to allow people effective means to defend themselves from predators, both human and otherwise. Sarkozy's statement fails on both counts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 10:35 AM

One of the more ludicrous parts of Sarkozy's statement is the notion that a burglar is more competent with his weapon than an average gun owner.

Posted by nobody important at December 10, 2007 10:36 AM

Jim, you stated before that you supported self-defense yet you oppose people who defend themselves against burglars in their very own homes. Just admit it Jim, you oppose the natural right of self-defense.

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 10:37 AM

This is close to a defensible position, except for the word "effective". That is the part that is not well supported, whether you compare France to the US or New York to Florida.

It's certainly true that if you view lethal force as the most important means of self-defense, whether or not it's the most effective, then Sarkozy's comments are odious to your sense of rights. No one can argue with that. But you didn't call his comments odious, you called them idiotic. They don't look all that stupid given the difference between his objectives and yours.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 10, 2007 11:10 AM

It's certainly true that if you view lethal force as the most important means of self-defense, whether or not it's the most effective, then Sarkozy's comments are odious to your sense of rights.

There's an old saying about not bringing a knife to a gun fight. There's a reason for it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 11:17 AM

The problem is Jim, you failed to promote your theory "that gun-ownership causes violent-crime not gang-bangers" when a simple search on google shows that it is the gang-bangers coupled with the illegal drug trade that are responsible for most of America's murder-rate. How come Louisiana's murder-rate is astronomically greater than Idaho's or Hawaii's? How come the majority of Louisiana's murder-rate takes place in New Orleans Jim?

I find your hostility towards the home-owner coupled with your sympathy for the homey to be quite vile.

Speaking of vileness, after you smeared White Louisianians with your David Duke comments, you dismissed Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal (elected by the White Louisianians and other Louisianians) as an Indian-American who is acting "White". So Jim, what should be the "proper behavior" for Indian Americans?

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 12:10 PM

How come Louisiana's murder-rate is astronomically greater than Idaho's or Hawaii's?

Maybe because it's a two-class society with a lot of weapons and weak rule of law. All that Idaho has in common with it is that it has a lot of weapons.

You dismissed Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal as an Indian-American who is acting "White".

I don't mean to dismiss Jindal as a person or a politician. He has every right and privilege to act as he pleases. The point is that since he is socially white, his election isn't proof that Louisiana's two-class system is gone. It is evidence that Louisianians don't demand European skin color for acceptance into the white social class. That is a step forward, but it is very far from erasing what happened with David Duke.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 10, 2007 12:24 PM

He's socially White huh, Jim Harris? So explain to me Jim, what should be the proper behavior for an Indian-American? Should Bobby Jindal act the stereotype? I'm half-Korean, so should I eat dog because that is a supposedly "proper cuisine" for a Korean-American? Should I act the stereotype?

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 12:33 PM

So poverty is driving the murder-rate in New Orleans, then explain the fact that impoverished Asian immigrants don't have that high murder-rate.

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 12:36 PM

So explain to me Jim, what should be the proper behavior for an Indian-American? Should Bobby Jindal act the stereotype?

I keep telling you, Robert, that Jindal can act any way he pleases; it's his business. And so can you. If he wants to be socially white, that's fine. But it's still true that that's what he is.

So poverty is driving the murder-rate in New Orleans,

I didn't say poverty, I said a two-class society. You're mixing cause and effect. There are poor Asian immigrants, but they are poor only because they are immigrants, and not because they are Asian.

Many of the Asian immigrants are in California rather than Louisiana; California has a less ingrained and rather different class structure. But it still has one. If the concept of class structure is lost on you, imagine what your life would be like if you assimilated into the Hispanic society in California (or whatever state you live in) instead of the Anglo-Saxon society. If you're half-Korean, you could pass for Hispanic.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 10, 2007 12:54 PM

Jim, what makes ethnic differences "classes"? From what I gather, the idea of social class is more graded by degree of power or status, and economic and social opportunity. Phrases like "acting white" are ill-defined as well, given the variety of what is considered "white" these days.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 10, 2007 01:46 PM

Please don't feed the troll, Karl.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 01:56 PM

Jim, what makes ethnic differences "classes"? From what I gather, the idea of social class is more graded by degree of power or status, and economic and social opportunity.

You've answered your own question. Ethnic groups amount to social classes when they polarize into opposing groups that differ in the ways that you describe. That polarization is still obvious in Louisiana.

Phrases like "acting white" are ill-defined as well

It can be nebulous, but it happens to be obvious in some specific cases such as Michelle Malkin or Bobby Jindal. Again, there is nothing wrong with social assimilation in America. Just as there was nothing wrong with Captain William Adams' transformation to a Japanese samurai in the 17th century. The only mistake is the argument that cases of social conversion prove that there is no prejudice. They can be steps in a good direction, but they are not the end of the story.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 10, 2007 02:14 PM

The only mistake is the argument that cases of social conversion prove that there is no prejudice.

No one has claimed that there is no prejudice, or even outright racism, in America. What is disputed is your nutty claim, with zero evidence, that this accounts for our high homicide rate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 10, 2007 02:31 PM

"Acting white"

LOL! At least no one will accuse you of acting logically Jim!

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 10, 2007 03:29 PM

Amazing. France is better than the US because they have a lower aggregate homicide rate?

Well, here's what's been happening in the US -- the homicide victimization rate has fallen to the level of the 1950s. Must'a been the Clinton impeachment that did it ... hey, that makes as much sense as our newest troll's arguments.

Of course, the homicide victimization rate in the bad neighborhoods of big cities in the US is as high as the violent death rate in Iraq (60-70 per 100,000 per year), but I victimized that horse to death a while back. It's a quagmire! Let's withdraw!

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 10, 2007 05:40 PM

Rand Simberg said:
Also, on what happens when mass killers meet armed citizens, as was demonstrated over the weekend in Colorado.

Imagine if the policies of Jim Harris, Anonymous, and Bermudian were in place at that Colorado mega-church, a hundred people could be dead.

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 06:20 PM

The Colorado situation is an ambiguous example. The lesson that Robert and Rand want to draw from the story is clear, but it would also be reasonable to draw the lesson that when you have a large gathering, it is helpful to have on hand an armed security guard who has law enforcement experience. I acknowledge there are many other less ambigous examples.

Similarly, I think the TFB killings were a needless distraction. For every TFB shooting, there is a completely innocent person shot as well. Bringing up gangs, etc, only muddies the argument.

I wish we could hear more about Bermuda! Is there a pro-gun faction there? Do they feel oppressed?

Posted by at December 10, 2007 07:53 PM

Similarly, I think the TFB killings were a needless distraction. For every TFB shooting, there is a completely innocent person shot as well. Bringing up gangs, etc, only muddies the argument.

I wish we could hear more about Bermuda! Is there a pro-gun faction there? Do they feel oppressed?

Posted by at December 10, 2007 07:53 PM

Anonymous said:
For every TFB shooting, there is a completely innocent person shot as well.

Evidence?

Anonymous said:
Bringing up gangs, etc, only muddies the argument.

Oh, Really? Reality points to drug gangs generating much of the violence in the U.S., both with knives and with guns. You haven't been paying attention to previous posts. But then, it is a mark of a troll to ignore rebuttals and deliberately post statements that are demonstrably false.

Did you address any post that points to technological trends that render gun control obsolete? Of course a troll won't do this!

So anonymous, do you oppose self-defense?

If you support banning firearms in the U.S., how do you propose finding the trillions of dollars that will be needed to pay for the resulting civil war?

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 08:29 PM

Most defensive uses of guns don't involve a TFB shooting anyway, a mere presentation is enough to deter a criminal.

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 08:48 PM

Oops! I shouldn't have fed the troll.

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 09:37 PM

Robert,

Mike Pucket casually used phrases like "50%" and "over half of all" when referring to TFB killings and drug-related shootings. I interpreted those as rough estimates. I was suggesting that this meant that 50% and "under half" of the shootings in question were actually too bad, and not too f'ing bad.

On the general subject of TFB killings: like many families, we have a "black sheep" in our family. The black sheep in question is on my wife's side, and I didn't witness his upbringing. I do know that my wife's family is wonderful -- most of them are doctors and teachers and scientists, and they are pillers in their community. The black sheep got into drug dealing in high school. As a direct result, my wife's parent's home was invaded by armed individuals looking for drugs. No one was hurt, no drugs were found, and we are hoping for no repeats. If someone in my wife's family had been killed, it would not have been TFB, it would have been a horrible tragedy. I would hate to think that some of the people participating in this thread would write off that kind of killing as a "TFB killing". Even drug dealers have families, and those families are often quite innocent. The advice "stay away from drug dealers" doesn't always work -- sometimes the drug dealers are still-redeemable people who you love and want to help. One personal story proves nothing, but I wanted I wanted to add some perspective to the attitude that a drug-related killing is TFB.

You asked about gun control. In a recent conversation on this blog, the emphasis was on resisting goverment tyranny. I think the case could be made that military weapons are more constitutionally protected than hand guns, but in general, I don't care about gun laws - I care about how to foster a culture where homicide drops and where everyone, even gun nuts, feel happy.

Finally, you asked about techological advancement. Have you considered the possibility that in the future, there may be a way to non-lethally immobilize someone? If so, what would you say about laws that protected your right to keep and bear effective arms, but which outlaw keeping and bearing intentionally lethal weapons, just as today's laws outlaw owning certain kinds of powerful weapons while preserving your right to own a handgun? If non-lethal immobilization was practical, could lethal force be reasonably banned?

Posted by Abominable Troll (Rawwrrrrr!) at December 10, 2007 09:56 PM

Must... not.. feed... troll...

Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 10:12 PM

I'm seriously asking:

If non-lethal immobilization was practical, could lethal force be reasonably banned ? Would banning lethal force be an infringement of the 2nd ammendment (and/or "natural rights") if non-lethal arms were both easy to obtain and highly effective? Is the point to kill someone, or to defend yourself?

Posted by Abominable Troll (Rawr?) at December 10, 2007 10:14 PM

Given the unfortunately obvious usefulness of non-lethal immobilizing weaponry to criminals, I suspect that effective deterrence will always require that lethal weapons be available to the law-abiding. The possibility of being maimed or killed concentrates the mind a good deal more than the possibility of merely being stopped.

I enthusiastically support the development of non-lethal weaponry for government agents, however.

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 11, 2007 06:12 AM

"Mike Pucket casually used phrases like "50%" and "over half of all" when referring to TFB killings and drug-related shootings. I interpreted those as rough estimates. I was suggesting that this meant that 50% and "under half" of the shootings in question were actually too bad, and not too f'ing bad."

No, I stated it was realyed to me that over half were convicted felon on convicted felon. That does not mean that all the rest were saints.

The best estimate I saw postulated was that 80-85% of all reported homicides were drug and gang related.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 11, 2007 07:13 AM

Post a comment