Firearms: Gun Control

[SkyPanda]

lol dude, the Peltzman Effect is, like, a staple of the field of Economics. It's the most clear-cut, obvious example of a situation in which a counter-intuitive solution is tried because consequences weren't considered. It was coined specifically to refer to seat belt laws, and it is taught on day 2 of Econ 101 because it's so clear-cut and obvious. You'd do just as well to argue with a psychology teacher when she says that your environment influences your behavior. It's an extremely well-supported thing.

Oh my mistake. This theory has a name? Dear oh dear oh dear. What made me even contemplate questioning it? How could I be so ignorant. I mean, it doesn't make sense, it is yet to be supported by any credible statistics and it was proposed by some douchey economics teacher, but it has a name. My my where shall I put my face.

The "Peltzman Effect" has been discredited since forever, dude. Nobody supports it, except the odd middle-aged teacher who thinks they're hip and hasn't opened a journal in ten years because they lost their glasses back in '83.

If the safety features you implemented for those who didn't learn are achieving the opposite of the desired effect, you should begin kicking yourself.

Yes, but this was never the case. So yeah, get back to me when this represents some sort of reality.

If I could revert time to the point where the seat belt law was signed and I had a chance to prevent that, I'd do it, but now that the damage is done I think people are safer with their seatbelts.

You're kidding, right?
You are ignoring the fact that not all road injuries are caused by reckless driving. If you had been successful back then, I cannot imagine how many people would have been dead because of you.. people who might have been saved by a seatbelt in an accident that wasn't the slightest bit their fault.
In some parallel universe you have the blood of innocents on your hands, Tsukatu. I'm extremely thankful that you never had a chance to impose your ridiculous attempts at being an edgy thinker on a defenseless population.

That's as many clarifications I can make about my stance that I could see as possibly being relevant to the Catholic Church's view on contraceptives.

Nah nah, the whole "protection encourages risky behaviour" mindset. Y'know- "The use of condoms encourages risky sexual behaviour." That the kind of theory that appeals to you?
Still talking about seatbelts here for some reason, so put your gun back in your pants.

[blue_tetris]

People are much safer while wearing their seatbelts. Society is much better in not controlling, fining, or incarcerating people who don't wear seatbelts.

And, truthfully, people are much safer without a gun in the house. (Extend metaphor.)



This argument is almost always problematic for our group, though. I think everyone here draws some limit on what should and should not be available to the population.

To those who favor guns, they view the situation as this: Gun liberty proponents usually just don't want too much to change. Gun control proponents usually want to tack some more restrictions.

To those who don't, they view the situation conversely. It might be important to clarify where we already are when it comes to firearms regulation, and then specify which controls we find to be poor or which controls we think should be added. Why haven't we itemized it like this before?

:/

[otters]

Oh my mistake. This theory has a name? Dear oh dear oh dear. What made me even contemplate questioning it? How could I be so ignorant. I mean, it doesn't make sense, it is yet to be supported by any credible statistics and it was proposed by some douchey economics teacher, but it has a name. My my where shall I put my face.

You sound like a dick, but I still agree with this statement to the extreme.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Oh my mistake. This theory has a name? Dear oh dear oh dear. What made me even contemplate questioning it? How could I be so ignorant. I mean, it doesn't make sense, it is yet to be supported by any credible statistics and it was proposed by some douchey economics teacher, but it has a name. My my where shall I put my face.

Er... yeah, that's actually pretty much what I was asking, minus sarcasm. The only reason I can see that you'd challenge it is the following quote:

The "Peltzman Effect" has been discredited since forever, dude. Nobody supports it, except the odd middle-aged teacher who thinks they're hip and hasn't opened a journal in ten years because they lost their glasses back in '83.

Yeah, gonna have to go ahead and call shenanigans on that one there, buddy. I have no idea where you heard this, but it's possible someone was playing a cruel trick on you.
I mean, a quick consultation of the Almighty All-Knower that is Wikipedia reveals absolutely no controversy, debunking, refutation, or dissent whatsoever with the Peltzman Effect. Turns out that when things get named, it's usually for a damned good reason... which brings me back to the first question of what made you even contemplate questioning it.

If I could revert time to the point where the seat belt law was signed and I had a chance to prevent that, I'd do it, but now that the damage is done I think people are safer with their seatbelts.

You are ignoring the fact that not all road injuries are caused by reckless driving.

Since we're so fallacy-happy these days, I'm going to call this one a "search for a perfect solution."
Obviously this wouldn't reduce all deaths and injuries from vehicle accidents, but it would substantially reduce those which come from the very prevalent cause of automotive accidents that was reckless driving. Clearly the problem existed, because seat belt laws were signed. My whole point is that I'd rather have no solution than an aggravation of the problem, which introduction of seat belt laws turned out to be.
Besides which, how can you say that reckless driving wasn't a problem that needed a solution like this in the same breath as your condemnation of my attempt to reduce the present problem that is reckless driving?

If you had been successful back then, I cannot imagine how many people would have been dead because of you.. people who might have been saved by a seatbelt in an accident that wasn't the slightest bit their fault.

Sure, other people would've died. The point is that fewer people would die overall. For every person catapulted through their windshield for hitting a fire hydrant, [more than one] would've been able to avoid a head-on collision because they didn't feel as safe going as fast in their locomotive eviscerator.

Nah nah, the whole "protection encourages risky behaviour" mindset. Y'know- "The use of condoms encourages risky sexual behaviour." That the kind of theory that appeals to you?

I don't have a problem with that specific line of thinking. I can honestly say that I am far less afraid of contracting an STD because I know how condoms work, yes, and so I'm less hesitant in seeking out sexual partners.
I mean, nice try with the "you agree with the Catholic Church" tactic, but I don't unilaterally believe that everything a religious person or organization says must be wrong, because I'm not a zealot.
My problem with the Catholic Church was the fact that they think premarital sex is wrong, and that they try to turn their subjective opinions into law. Gun control and seat belts are not moral issues to me. I don't try to force people to conceal weapons, nor do I break into cars to cut out the seat belt contraption.

[SkyPanda]

Nice try. The onus of proof is on you, Tsukuatu. Believe it or not, "taught in American classrooms" does not hold any credibility outside the US, and i'm given to understand it doesn't carry much weight inside the US either. So some sort of statistic, or evidence may need to be forthcoming, please. And please make it a decent one.

A quick google found this:
"Testing the compensating behavior theory, which suggests that seat belt use also has an adverse effect on fatalities by encouraging careless driving, we find that this theory is not supported by the data."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=293582


I actually don't have a problem with that specific line of thinking, either, only in where it is applied to seatbelts. I'm sure that there exists somewhere a case where it applies, but when it comes to seatbelts, not only does it not fit the data, but it fails to address the multitude of poorly controlled variables affecting driving behaviour.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Nice try. The onus of proof is on you, Tsukuatu. Believe it or not, "taught in American classrooms" does not hold any credibility outside the US, and i'm given to understand it doesn't carry much weight inside the US either. So some sort of statistic, or evidence may need to be forthcoming, please. And please make it a decent one.

A quick google found this:
"Testing the compensating behavior theory, which suggests that seat belt use also has an adverse effect on fatalities by encouraging careless driving, we find that this theory is not supported by the data."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=293582


I actually don't have a problem with that specific line of thinking, either, only in where it is applied to seatbelts. I'm sure that there exists somewhere a case where it applies, but when it comes to seatbelts, not only does it not fit the data, but it fails to address the multitude of poorly controlled variables affecting driving behaviour.

At the very least, it's quite debatable.
My only point in bringing it up in the first place was that it's not unreasonable that it could happen, and that I suspect that this does happen with gun control.

[blue_tetris]

I was actually gonna bring up the roundabout thing and the removal of speed limits in Montana. I'm eager to see how Skypanda refutes this though. CARRRRRRRRY ON.

[SkyPanda]

I'm eager to see how Skypanda refutes this though.

Rather phallaciously, no doubt. ;) Hi incluye!

To those who don't, they view the situation conversely. It might be important to clarify where we already are when it comes to firearms regulation, and then specify which controls we find to be poor or which controls we think should be added. Why haven't we itemized it like this before?

Absolutely agree with you. People in favour of gun control usually don't realise how far most gun rights advocates are prepared to venture into the middle ground. In a debate where both sides are pretty damn valid, and the data supports (or can be manipulated to support) both sides, I reckon the middle ground is a pretty good place to be.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I reckon the middle ground is a pretty good place to be.

Er, well, that's pretty much where I see myself. Sorta.
I think the balance needs to be put back in of whack. We're far too permissive with who gets the guns, including which guns can be got, but we're far too strict about what people can do with those guns. Plenty of people who carry guns legally shouldn't be allowed to, and plenty of other people are prevented from doing things they should be able to do. And all the while, nobody who calls the shots actually knows what they're talking about. It's a goddamned circus.
My position isn't "give everyone guns," and it isn't "give me all the guns" or "destroy all the guns." I want responsible people to have the option to be armed so that irresponsible people stop hurting innocent people. That's it, that's my end goal. Ideally, I want everyone to be responsible, of course, but that's never going to happen.

[Tanner]

And all the while, nobody who calls the shots actually knows what they're talking about.

Hehe. "Calls the shots."

[otters]

I mean, a quick consultation of the Almighty All-Knower that is Wikipedia reveals absolutely no controversy, debunking, refutation, or dissent whatsoever with the Peltzman Effect.

Er, yeah, but the problem with that is that Wikipedia is slightly less partial to any subject than a loaf of banana bread, and has a bit of a tendency to state any theory categorically. You know what else Wikipedia doesn't debunk, as it were? Guess who.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I mean, a quick consultation of the Almighty All-Knower that is Wikipedia reveals absolutely no controversy, debunking, refutation, or dissent whatsoever with the Peltzman Effect.

Er, yeah, but the problem with that is that Wikipedia is slightly less partial to any subject than a loaf of banana bread, and has a bit of a tendency to state any theory categorically. You know what else Wikipedia doesn't debunk, as it were? Guess who.

Heh, I think there might be a reason that the related article is called "Physics (Aristotle)" instead of just "Physics." If you replaced the text on the Physics page with Aristotelian Physics, you'd get a notice for vandalism.
The Peltzman Effect isn't put in as part of someone's opinion, nor is there any more objective article that compares it to other principles in economics or sociology. It's in the same vein as, y'know, the Physics article.

[blue_tetris]

You guys like citing sources.

Someone come up with a list of the current federal gun controls.

Then each of us can compose a list of what they think these laws should look like.

Why doesn't anyone like this idea?

[Atilla]

You guys like citing sources.

Someone come up with a list of the current federal gun controls.

Then each of us can compose a list of what they think these laws should look like.

Why doesn't anyone like this idea?

Fool! That might actually be constructive! The goal here is to paint your opponents as violent rednecks / terror-stricken hippies and thus destroy their credibility in the Senate! Then, once you've garnered enough support, you can march on Rome and... wait, is that right? I might be thinking of another senate.

[blue_tetris]

You guys like citing sources.

Someone come up with a list of the current federal gun controls.

Then each of us can compose a list of what they think these laws should look like.

Why doesn't anyone like this idea?

Fool! That might actually be constructive! The goal here is to paint your opponents as violent rednecks / terror-stricken hippies and thus destroy their credibility in the Senate! Then, once you've garnered enough support, you can march on Rome and... wait, is that right? I might be thinking of another senate.

I think you mean the Senate of Naboo.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

You guys like citing sources.

Someone come up with a list of the current federal gun controls.

Then each of us can compose a list of what they think these laws should look like.

Why doesn't anyone like this idea?

Because it's a fucking terrible idea. It sounds like the sort of ineffective solution that a terror-stricken hippie might come up with.

Besides, do federal gun control laws really mean jack-all? I was under the impression that the state laws were the primary authority on this issue.

[blue_tetris]

Oh, yeah. That's pretty good.

Which laws associated with where you live go too far? What liberties, specifically, would you like to see?

Why do we only talk about gun theory? :/

[SlappyMcGee]

Oh, yeah. That's pretty good.

Which laws associated with where you live go too far? What liberties, specifically, would you like to see?

Why do we only talk about gun theory? :/

Because, Gun Theories don't kill people, Guns kill people.

[Atilla]

I think you mean the Senate of Naboo.

No, I think I might mean the Galactic Senate, on Coruscant. I need to convince them to build an army of clones for purposes which are totally legitimate and not suspicious at all. And then we need to introduce lightsaber control laws! Yes! Do you have any idea how dangerous those things are in the wrong hands? Er, not that I would know from personal experience or anything, because I'm totally not a Sith Lord.

[SlappyMcGee]

I think you mean the Senate of Naboo.

No, I think I might mean the Galactic Senate, on Coruscant. I need to convince them to build an army of clones for purposes which are totally legitimate and not suspicious at all. And then we need to introduce lightsaber control laws! Yes! Do you have any idea how dangerous those things are in the wrong hands? Er, not that I would know from personal experience or anything, because I'm totally not a Sith Lord.

Besides, there is no senate in fucking Naboo. Everything was decided by the fucking regent, Queen Amidala, much? NOOOOB

[blue_tetris]

*checks his splatbooks*

You... are technically correct. The very best manner of correct. Someone gets my poseable Lwaxana Troi action figure, for being a bigger Star Wars fan than me.

[SlappyMcGee]

*checks his splatbooks*

You... are technically correct. The very best manner of correct. Someone gets my poseable Lwaxana Troi action figure, for being a bigger Star Wars fan than me.

I love all of this post. Sigged.

[rambo5252]

If guns kill people....
spoons make people fat
pencils mispell words
and cars make people drive drunk.
(sorry I had to)

Ok but seriousy, weed is illegal right? So that meens nobody does it and its completely removed from society, right?

If you take away guns from law following citzens then it will make it that much easyer for the non-law following citezens(or not citezens) to rob, rape, kill etc...

People will always have guns made legal or not.

[otters~1]

If guns kill people....
spoons make people fat
pencils mispell words
and cars make people drive drunk.
(sorry I had to)

Ok but seriousy, weed is illegal right? So that meens nobody does it and its completely removed from society, right?

If you take away guns from law following citzens then it will make it that much easyer for the non-law following citezens(or not citezens) to rob, rape, kill etc...

People will always have guns made legal or not.

I found this post, coupled with your username, quite amusing.

[jean-luc]

Oh my mistake. This theory has a name? Dear oh dear oh dear. What made me even contemplate questioning it? How could I be so ignorant. I mean, it doesn't make sense, it is yet to be supported by any credible statistics and it was proposed by some douchey economics teacher, but it has a name. My my where shall I put my face.

Er... yeah, that's actually pretty much what I was asking, minus sarcasm. The only reason I can see that you'd challenge it is the following quote:

The "Peltzman Effect" has been discredited since forever, dude. Nobody supports it, except the odd middle-aged teacher who thinks they're hip and hasn't opened a journal in ten years because they lost their glasses back in '83.

Yeah, gonna have to go ahead and call shenanigans on that one there, buddy. I have no idea where you heard this, but it's possible someone was playing a cruel trick on you.
I mean, a quick consultation of the Almighty All-Knower that is Wikipedia reveals absolutely no controversy, debunking, refutation, or dissent whatsoever with the Peltzman Effect. Turns out that when things get named, it's usually for a damned good reason... which brings me back to the first question of what made you even contemplate questioning it.

Evaluating the Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation, John D. Graham and Steven Garber, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Winter, 1984), pp. 206-224. JSTOR: 3323933
Abstract excerpt: "Automobile safety standards adopted because of federal legislation have, according to many researchers, failed to save lives; safer cars, they infer, induce more dangerous driving. Results from the major study suggesting this conclusion are shown, however, to be quite sensitive to reasonable changes in the empirical model. An alternative statistical analysis of death rates supports a very different conclusion.: Safety standards have saved tens of thousands of lives during the 1970s."
Basically, this article demonstrates that Peltzman's model is very easily tilted to show either way, and that their model suggests that the effect does not exist.

The Effects of Traffic Safety Regulation in Sweden, Björn Lindgren and Charles Stuart, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 88, No. 2 (Apr., 1980), pp. 412-427. JSTOR: 1837301
This article focuses on comparing the effectiveness of US vs. Swedish traffic laws by applying the Peltzman model to both. However, they end up finding that the Peltzman effect doesn't appear to occur at all in Sweden, and suggest that it may not truly be occurring in the US either.

The Effectiveness of Seat-Belt Legislation in Reducing Injury Rates in Texas, Author(s): Peter D. Loeb, Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundredth and Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association Washington, DC, January 6-8, 1995 (May, 1995), pp. 81-84. JSTOR: 2117896
"The models indicate that the Texas seatbelt law resulted in a reduction in the various driver-involved injury rates examined. The SBL coefficients are consistently negative and are generally statistically significant."

An Empirical Test of the Offset Hypothesis, Anindya Sen, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Oct., 2001), pp. 481-510. JSTOR: 726830.
"The results of this study offer modest evidence of offsetting behavior by drivers. Specifically, increased use of seat belts by drivers after the enactment of seat belt legislation should have led to a 20 percent decrease in driver fatalities. However, econometric estimates indicate that the introduction of seat belt legislation is significantly correlated with only a 21 percent decline in driver fatalities."
So although they find that the peltzman effect exists, they find that it is well insufficient to counteract the increase in safety.

While there are certainly papers that support the Peltzman effect as well, you must acknowledge that it is not hard fact. Indeed, it is heavily contested.

While I think that the Peltzman effect does, in fact, exist, I find it (as Sen does) to be less significant than the effects of the safety measure.

The primary question here is how this applies to gun control. does the decrease in weapons lead to an increase in crime? The Peltzman effect does not directly apply, but I think a similar effect will take place. Sure, there may be an increase in violent crime, but I expect it to be less significant than the number of lives saved by gun control.