This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think the problem is that there's really no good data on the subject, and the data there is seems a bit too motivated. Gun advocates cite the Kleck data, but that has the disadvantage of being both really old and self-reported and almost certainly grossly overestimates the incidence of defensive gun use. Gun control advocates cite data involving actual police reports which has the disadvantage of being overly selective and almost certainly grossly underestimates the incidence of defensive gun use. This bickering comes off as pointless since there's no agreed-upon threshold at which either side will concede the other's points, i.e. it's not like gun control advocates are going to start campaigning for increased access if there's strong data to suggest that DGU reduces crime by 90%, and gun advocates aren't going to start calling for restrictions just because similar data shows that DGU is a marginal phenomenon. They're just going to move on to other arguments.
On the whole, though, I think the whole DGU argument actually helps gun control advocates more than it helps gun advocates. The most common explanation I've heard regarding why there's such a discrepancy between the data each side provides is that by relying on police reports gun control advocates are biased toward counting the most obvious and serious of defensive gun uses. When someone actually gets shot the police are almost certainly going to investigate and the circumstances surrounding the shooting are likely to be discovered. When someone uses a gun defensively but the criminal runs away as soon as the gun is visible, there's little point in reporting the incident (because it's probably not getting investigated), and some downsides to doing so (the defensive user might be carrying illegally, for example). I'm going to ignore the scenario where the gun is fired but nobody is hit because it seems rather rare and nobody appears to be using it as the basis of their argument.
If we assume that both sides are fundamentally right—that defensive uses that result in someone getting shot are rare enough so as not to justify concealed carry, but defensive uses where the perpetrator disengages after the victim exposes his weapon, then the deterrent factor is mainly because of the mere presence of the weapon and not its actual utility, because few perpetrators supposedly stick around long enough to get shot. Hence, a gun control advocate can justify a much more restrictive regime than a gun advocate would find comfortable. For example, a .22 revolver is lightweight, inexpensive, easy to conceal, easy to maintain, and takes cheap ammunition. It's obviously not the most powerful gun in the world, but I wouldn't want to find out what it's like to get shot by one at close range. It's also not the most reliable gun in the world, but it's reliable enough that when staring down the business end of one I wouldn't be too confident about it misfiring. And, of course, given the situation, it isn't likely the assailant will have the knowledge or time or proper illumination to even identify what's being pointed at him before it behooves him to hightail it.
As for the rest? Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't have the stopping power of something bigger and the limited capacity is useless in the event of multiple assailants, or that it has any one of the dozens of other problems gun advocates will tell me make a .22 revolver a bad choice for self-defense. The problem is, that all those arguments assume that the gun is actually going to be fired, and since that's a statistically slim possibility, it's irrelevant. But tell gun advocates "OK, we agree with you on the self-defense angle, we'll let you have a .22 revolver" and it probably won't go over so well.
I mostly agree that it's inherently nearly impossible to get authoritative numbers on these non-firing DGUs. Even if it was reported and a police officer responded, what are they supposed to do with "This guy came after me, but I pulled my gun and he ran away"? How in the world would they verify that it's true, and what would they do with it if it was?
On the low-end gun side, I would say that deterrence inherently depends on the belief that the one deterring does have the ability and will to carry out destructive actions. Right now, any attacker doesn't have any idea how effective a defender's gun is, and probably doesn't have the time or inclination to try and figure it out in the moment. But if it was mandated, criminal attackers would have a government guarantee that any guns their prey might have aren't very effective, which might change their thinking some. It doesn't sound like such a great idea when you think about it like that.
Even on the nation-state level, fake deterrence is something to be very careful with. A fake division of inflatable tanks and artillery pieces may be useful to fool an enemy with poor reconnaissance for a few days, as was actually done by the allies in WWII. But it would be foolish to take that example to mean that we should build an entire fake army with no real weapons and just depend on the enemy giving up to it.
I don't think I did a good enough job of explaining exactly why I think a .22 would be effective enough. Even though small caliber, low velocity firearms look puny compared to their bigger brothers, they're still powerful enough that the consequences of getting shot with one at close range probably, in 99% of cases, outweigh the benefits of whatever objective the attacker is trying to achieve, and if they don't, it's hard to conceive of a situation in which the attacker would be deterred by a larger caliber. In other words, I don't think there would be many situations where an attacker would say to himself "He's armed, but it's only a .22 so I'll continue". This is much different than a situation where the attacker knows it's an unloaded gun or a pellet gun or some other sham. That's why I'd hesitate to categorize it as "fake deterrence", since the deterrence factor is very real, just not quite as high as it theoretically could be. When I hear justifications from gun advocates for more powerful weapons it's usually along the lines of that a .22 wouldn't have the stopping power of a .45, or a revolver wouldn't provide enough shots or the ease of reloading necessary to involve a shootout involving multiple assailants, or some other rare situation. In most random attacks, the deterrence doesn't come so much from fear of the weapon physically being capable of stopping the person but the knowledge that even in the second-best case scenario, where the victim successfully lands one shot to a non-critical part of the body, it's going to result in a hospital visit and a chat with a detective. Out of curiosity, I checked the actual information available about the efficacy of various calibers in self-defense situations, and the benefits of going bigger appear to be marginal. I can go into it further if you'd like, but it's not really essential to my argument, so I'll leave it there for now.
I see what you're trying to say, but the issue as I see it is the assumption that all criminal attackers can be easily deterred. For the average individual in most places, the majority risk of attack is indeed the opportunistic thief. That's someone who is somewhat rational in that they have no particular reason to target you, they're just looking for an easy buck. If they see you as harder or riskier than average, say by pulling any kind of gun, then they're going to get out of there for easier prey. While these are the most common threat for most people most of the time, and probably the great majority of all, it certainly doesn't cover everything.
There's plenty of reports of attackers who are irrational and will continue to attack until dealt injuries that are immediately serious or lethal. These people may be serial killers out for the blood, or on lots of drugs, or mentally ill in various ways. They might be much more motivated to attack you in particular, maybe due to being an abusive ex or stalker, or a gang hit, or a mob informant, or some other personal grudge. These sorts of things may be a small minority of cases overall, but they're definitely out there.
From everything I've seen on caliber effectiveness, the benefits of going bigger are only marginal within the group of what's considered "major calibers". There are many reports of small calibers such as 22LR or 25ACP doing essentially nothing at all to stop an attacker immediately, even if they might need medical care later. I would be surprised to see data indicating that the difference between these calibers and, say, 9mm is marginal.
For these reasons, I don't think it's right for the state to mandate or regulate things like caliber of defensive weapons, since they can't easily know what threat you might be facing and what your needs might be. If you personally choose to carry a 22 because you think it's good enough plus light and cheap, and are willing to risk it not being enough someday, then that's your right. You're welcome to try to convince others of this, but not to mandate it IMO.
Although, to go back a bit, I think I'd be okay with some higher level of licensing or training being required to carry larger caliber guns. I don't think they do anymore, but Texas used to have concealed carry permits with different levels, depending on the type of handgun that you qualified with - I think revolver and pistol were the only ones commonly used.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If how effective the gun is doesn't matter, why not go all the way and require everyone to carry unloaded guns? Obviously this would not stop anything, showing that it is necessary for the weapon to be effective to deter criminals.
It is necessary for the weapon to be effective, the question is simply how effective? There's a much bigger delta between getting shot/not getting shot than between getting shot with a .22/getting shot with something more powerful.
Would answering that question not require grappling with the "dozens of other problems" raised by gun advocates?
We can't assume that any gun would work in a situation just because shots weren't fired. The threat criminals are reacting to is based on what would happen if the gun their target has (or is likely to have, if they run before they identify the gun) is fired at them. This threat will change once you restrict the guns people are allowed to have to a less dangerous variety.
I can't think of a good way to directly measure whether criminals find a certain gun a sufficient threat to be deterred. Debating stopping power, limited capacity, and other such issues seems like the best proxy we're going to get for whether a gun is a sufficient threat to deter a would-be predator.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link