>>>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 1992 19:30:46 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>So why credit the reduction in rape and burglary to the program? Oh I
>>see, you would claim this as an indirect effect, where rapists and
>>burglars gave up because they were worried about armed victims.
>>Well, what if some criminals instead armed themselves to help deal
>>with this threat.
> Note the lack of numbers in an argument that requires them.
Yes, the deterrence theory lacks supporting numbers.
> Lambert really doesn't want to discuss deterrence.
Goodness me, Andy claims to know what I want better than I do. Ever
thought of becoming a politician, Andy?
> Those who don't share his aversion are invited to read the
> discussion in Wright, Rossi's "Armed and Considered Dangerous" and
> Kleck's "Point Blank".
And a fascinating theory it is, too. It may even be true. The only
objection I can raise, (and it's probably quibbling on my part), is
that there is not a scrap of good evidence for it.
>>With-gun robberies are three times as likely as with-knife
>>robberies to be fatal to the victim, and it seems plausible that
>>this lethality extends to other crimes. Hence, the program could cause
>>more armed criminals and more homicides.
> No, with-gun robberies are not three times as likely as with-knife
> robberies to be fatal to the victim. Lambert consistently
> "misreports" Zimring's data.
It is Andy who consistently and wilfully "misreports" Zimring's data.
Interested readers can look at his November Scientific American
article, his book "Citizen's Guide to Gun Control", or the original
journal article (J of Legal Studies 15 (1986):1,16).
A quote from his book:
"The death rate from gun robberies is at least three times as high as
the death rate from knife robberies"
And an extract from a table in the book
Percentage Distribution of Robberies and and Robbery Killings by
Location & Weapon
Commercial Street Other
Robberies Robberies Robberies
Kill- Non- Kill- Non- Kill- Non-
ings Lethal ings Lethal ings Lethal
Gun 81 67 67 39 83 43
Knife 13 11 11 15 13 15
> With-edged weapon robberies that include injury are three times less
> likely to result in death than with-gun robberies that include
Really? What is your source for this?
> However, "edged weapons" aren't knives
Not all edged weapons are knives and not all knives are edged weapons.
What's your point?
> and with gun robberies are
> less likely to result in injury than with-edged weapon robberies.
Yes, Zimring's data supports this. Most people would prefer injury to
> (We've already shown that knives are as lethal as guns in the hands
> of folks who intend to kill.)
Let me guess how you show this: Anyone who intends to kill will
succeed. Therefore lethality rates amongst folks who intend to kill
is 100% regardless of weapon choice. Right?
> Of course, Lambert thinks that weapon choice is random,
And now Andy claims to know what I think. Maybe you should start a
career as a clairvoyant, Andy.
> even though US data indicates that with-gun robbers are far less
> likely to be novices than those who use other weapons.
And younger criminals are more likely to murder, so you can't offer
this an explanation for the greater lethality.
> He similarly doesn't like the fact
And now he knows what I like. Perhaps marketing is your vocation?
> that criminals who injure seriously without guns are more likely to
> choose guns.
As opposed to all other alternatives, or as opposed to knives?
> Both are inconsistent with his "the gun made them do it" faith.
And now he knows my faith. Thought of the priesthood, Andy?
> Lambert doesn't like trend analysis;
Another "doesn't like". Marketing, definitely marketing.
> look at his statistical arguments for the effects of gun control in
> Oz and the UK. his stats and analysis are completely consistent
> with "the crime rate was decreasing before gun control, but its
> introduction stopped that decrease", which fits the data better than
> his model.)
Andy has asserted this before, but has never provided arguments or
analysis to support it. He has not because he cannot. No matter how
many times he asserts it, it will continue to be false. A model was
proposed where there was a decline that ended some years after control
-- this was twice as complicated and fit worse than the "constant rate
before, constant rate after" model.
> Heck; he doesn't even bother to control for other factors. He
> just asserts that they have no effect,
Perhaps you will show me where I have ever made such as assertion.
Just because you're into "proof by assertion" doesn't mean other
> even though crime rates change greatly even when gun control
> doesn't. (Look at the changes in the US murder rate from the 1900s
> through the 1990s for many examples, and notice that the low point
> corresponds to the least gun control....)
It would be more relevant to look at the NSW homicide rate. After
1920, the rate has been essentially constant, in spite of the
Depression, WW2, a five-fold increase in population, massive
immigration, a doubling of urbanisation, large demographic changes,
and major social change.
It is also interesting to note that the US non-gun homicide rate has
also changed little over that period, so that whatever caused the
change in the overall homicide rate is somehow connected with guns.