Utilitarian argument must fail.

[Oleg Volk]

We often argue about the statistics of gun ownership and carry. We claim that a 15% decline in violent crime justifies CCW, others argue that 10% rise in suicides by firearms justifies a ban on them. The following might illustrate why neither argument has much to recommend it as a basis for public policy.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html

Based on that information, blanket incarceration of men -- or at least denying them the legal right to have weapons such as guns, knives or their own fists -- would have a greater impact on the crime rates than any of the other measures under discussion.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/release/0304/violent1.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

A slightly less drastic effect could be achieved by incarcerating men aged 16 to 35 -- they also account for a disproportionate share of violent criminal acts.


We easily can find statistics that would support selective incarceration by income bracket, ethnicity, linguistic proficiency and geographic location. That approach would be far more reasonable than punishing millions of gun owners for misdeeds of the statistically insignificant few, yet equally unsupportable on ethical grounds. Ethics is what we should argue, not statistics. Stats are fine if you are debunking the claims of the other side, but they should not form the basis of policy-making.

Comments? Refinements?

 

[HUMONGO]

Liars always figure.

I think the overwhelming evidence that the people who obtain CCWs don't commit crimes is evidence enough to at least allow us to have them.

 

[superhornet]

Eithics is what your mom and pappy taught you...no eithics, you become just another statistic...A weapon is a tool, no better or no worse than the person holding it..Shane...

 

[jlbraun]

I have often thought about this. Thanks for putting it into words.

 

[Mr. James]

Well, I happen to agree with you. We are discussing a fundamental human right - that of the individual to have access to the tools to defend his (or others') life from criminal attack or, God forbid it, guv'mint tyranny of one flavor or another.

Statistics showing decreases in crime or homicides may be nice as demonstrating ancillary benefits of concealed carry, but they should never be used as a foundation for our arguments. I submit that even if it could be demonstrated beyond cavil that liberal concealed carry laws or widespread private gun ownership were directly to blame for an increase in homicides, rising suicide rates, general mayhem and bloodshed, Paris Hilton, morning breath and global warming, etc., such would be irrelevant.

". . . allow us to have them." Accurate as to the current state of play, but what a sorry state that is. Self defense is a human right, not a privilege to be revoked when someone deems it inconvenient or even - get ready now - dangerous.

 

[JesseL]

Two problems:

The first is that getting people to agree on what's ethical makes herding cats look like child's play. Personally I think that the non-aggression principle should work just fine as a universal ethical guide, but some folks just can't fathom releasing control of their fellow man.

Second, there are quite a few people (that vote) that just don't care what's ethical. The utilitarian side of any issue is all that matters to them. I've met more than a few people that would happily support the idea of incarcerating people that are statistically likely to be dangerous, as long as they weren't going to be the ones incarcerated.

 

[Oleg Volk]

some folks just can't fathom releasing control of their fellow man

and

quite a few people (that vote) that just don't care what's ethical

are the reason why they would deny arms to others. They know that they deserve to be shot promptly upon acting on their views and would rather their victims had no means of resistance.

In other words, these people have the mindset a rapist or a brigand, getting off on control over others or trying to shirk work in favor of pillaging. Even if they cannot be converted to ethical behavior, the despicable nature of their mindset should be held up for examination by the fence-sitters.

 

[Limeyfellow]

We can't forget the role of poverty in such siturations too.

 

[Oleg Volk]

We easily can find statistics that would support selective incarceration by income bracket

 

[JesseL]

In other words, these people have the mindset a rapist or a brigand, getting off on control over others or trying to shirk work in favor of pillaging. Even if they cannot be converted to ethical behavior, the despicable nature of their mindset should be held up for examination by the fence-sitters.

I fear that the rapists and brigands may outnumber the ethical and the fence-sitters.

Upon reflection, I guess I hoped that utilitarian arguments that appeal to the self-interest of the unethical could forestall the revolution for a while; but you don't win a war by becoming the enemy. You have convinced me of the wisdom of your point.

 

[Oleg Volk]

In some ways, we are re-living the late Medieval period in terms of personal rights. European burghers seldom won civil rights by force of arms, more often buying them from cash-strapped representatives of the First Estate. It is likewise with our purchased licenses for carrying sidearms.

Fortunately, even licensed rights eventually assume hereditary appearance in the minds of those accustomed to their exercise. I am cautiously optimistic about my world remaining tolerable -- with an infringement here and there but no deadly, unavoidable menaces common to many other countries.

Our job isn't to make promised land happen but to keep the vector and the trend going in the right direction rapidly enough. This week, what have you done towards that goal?

 

[WayneConrad]

Assertions that utilitarianism must fail are unconvincing, for this reason:

The idea that there are rights which shall not be infringed does exactly as much good as there are people who believe it. If there are enough people who believe in a right, then the right will stand, no matter why they believe it. If there are not enough people, then the right will not stand, even if those rights came from God, or natural law.

The trick, then, is to get most of the people to believe in a right. Why they believe in it does not matter. What matters is the collective voice saying, "because we say so," backed up by the latent power of the people to enforce their voice.

Proclaiming that a right is God given, or even derived from natural law, is unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already believe that. Utilitarianism is your best bet, for the people you are trying to convince of these rights are, ultimately, utilitarian. To them, "God given" is just another way of saying "because I said so." Instead, show that disarmed people are murdered by governments. Show that disarmed people fall victim to crime. Show that disarmed people do not live free. These are utilitarian arguments, but they are also true.

Your goal is to get them to say, "because I said so," too. Why they say that is irrelevent. "Because I said so" is not a weak argument: when backed up by the will and might of people, it is the strongest possible argument.

Edited to add: Did I just use a utilitarian argument to support using utilitarian arguments? Interesting. What do you think, circular reasoning?

 

[WayneConrad]

Based on that information, blanket incarceration of men -- or at least denying them the legal right to have weapons such as guns, knives or their own fists -- would have a greater impact on the crime rates than any of the other measures under discussion.

And Oleg, I apologize for not actually addressing your question. Briefly, this idea falls to utilitarian principles, too: Incarcerating an impossibly large number of the people greatly reduces the quality of life for the entire population--certainly for those incarcerated, but also for their families, and for the economy, and for the taxpayers who must bear the costs. If someone uses a silly utilitarian argument such as "incarcerate anyone who might break a law," chances are they're optimizing for the wrong thing. Show that the solution either doesn't work at all, or that it has a far more negative effect on a more treasured measure of quality than it has a positive effect on the thing that was being optimized for.

There's no need to be disdainful of utilitarianism. In reality, a critical examination of the facts almost always shows that what we think of as God given or natural rights are also utilitarian.

 

[.cheese.]

Public policy when you remove emotional factors (which most of the time don't come into play - except with gun laws unfortunately) is all about cost-benefit analysis.

To really know whether a system of blanket incarceration works, it's less about the crime it affects, and it's more about it's economic impact, as that's really what public policy boils down to.

What would be interesting is to find out, what is the economic impact of that 15% decrease in crime... that translates to more confident people in the workforce who are living less in fear - and are more productive as a result.

The 10% increase in suicide though probably has to do with a group of severely depressed and/or possibly mentally ill people who are less likely to be productive in their daily lives. Afterall, if you don't plan to live much longer, why should you work hard to build your future?

Blanket incarceration on the other hand would adversely affect those who make up a considerable portion of our labor force, and depending upon what you do to them, you could simply decrease their productivity, all the way to putting them in prison, in which case you have a much smaller labor force.

I don't think there is a politician stupid enough in this country to sabotage the national economy in the name of anti-gun'ness.

Then again, I've been wrong before.

 

[.cheese.]

btw Oleg - how did you come across that data? The site seems to be a search engine.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I grabbed almost random stats as examples only.

 

[Lucky]

Perhaps people just need to be reminded WHY the ends don't justify the means. I think that it might not even be a generally accepted principle anymore, so yea keep at this one for sure.

I've got a marketing text book I could get you info if you want. If you're trying to appeal to all people, then the best bet would probably be selfishness. Maybe use alcohol prohibition as an example, "Because a few people were succeptible to abusing alcohol it was decided no-one could buy it."

lol plus people still associate prohibition with gangsters, so they might get a joke if there was a smiling law man shaking hands with a smiling gangster, the only two groups that really benefited.

 

[illspirit]

When arguing with antis, I try to avoid justifying gun-ownership with statistics, or otherwise trying to say that more guns cause crime to drop. Instead, I hit them with a few statistics which prove that places with more guns have less crime, admit that correlation doesn't equal causation, and appeal to them to help figure out why that is. By not going in guns blazing, as it were, and appearing as if you're willing to accept some other viewpoint, sometimes you can get them to open up, discuss, and engage their brain.

And when that doesn't work, as Lucky suggested, it's always fun to bring up Prohibition. Alcohol kills way more people than guns, and by the gun-banners' logic, banning alcohol should work. But then everybody knows how well that turned out.

 

[ubermensch]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sounds like a utilitarian argument to me.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Liars always figure.

I think the overwhelming evidence that the peaceable people who own guns don't commit crimes is evidence enough to at least allow us to have them.

Had to fix that for you.

Another note: the inherent, God-given right of self-preservation (read the Declaration of Independence) is "evidence enough" to "allow" us to have weapons.

 

[LAK]

I agree. Rather than argue statistics, we should address the principles of a civilized nation.

Basic ideology and culture - fundamental rights. Not only the right to keep and bear arms; the right to defend oneself, family, others - and property.

Criminal laws addressing crimes against persons; the appropriate judicial action for offenders.

As these are eroded the consequences of crimes against persons, immediately before, during or after - diminish in effect. Actual and deterrent.

We can't forget the role of poverty in such siturations too.

I think we can. I spent a whole year in a third world country with real poverty. A "rich, white westerner" as it were, the only white westerner, in a Pakistani school in what is now known as Bangladesh. People lying along roads in rags with flies all over them that you could not tell whether they were asleep or dead. In the course of a whole year the only violence I experienced was a raven that took half my dessert out of my hand during a school lunch break, and an incident along with my father and a rioting mob of steel workers.

If poverty had anything at all to do with violent crime, every major town and city in East Pakistan, along with a dozen other third world countries, would have disintigrated into something far worse than we see in todays SE London, Glasgow, LA or Johannesburg. A very long time ago.

Crime itself is a moral problem. Or a cultural problem, for those who have a special aversion to the m-word.

------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[royh]

Rights themselves have utility. In your example, incarcerating men would have some positive utility based on crime right, but an overwhelming negative utility based on damage to the innocent, and general loss of rights, particularly due process.

For the same reason, a decreasing crime rate does not necessarily justify anti-gun legislation, because it violates a right (and the rule of law), and the utility of that right must be factored in, but a decreasing crime rate does justify pro-gun legislation, since gaining a right is a net positive anyway.