10 facts abut guns

[srothstein]

Anyone ever heard of Dr. James D. Wright at Tulane University? It is not a name I usually tie in to gun control, but I might have to rethink that. I was doing some research at school today and stumbled across an article he wrote in 1995 for the journal Social Research and Public Policy. The article is titled "Ten Essential Observations on Guns in America". The ten facts he lists are:

1. Half the households in this country own at least one gun.
2. There are 200 million guns already in circulation in the US, give or take a few tens of millions
3. Most of those 200 million guns are owned for socially innocuous sport and recreational purposes.
4. Many guns are also owned for self-defense against crime and some are indeed used for that purpose; whether they are actually any safer or not, many people certainly seem to feel safer when they have a gun
5. The bad guys do not get their guns through customary retail channels
6. The bad guys inhabit a different world; a gun often makes a life or death difference to them.
7. Everything the bad guys do with their guns is already against the law.
8. Demand creates its own supply.
9. Guns are neither inherently good nor inherently evil; guns, that is, do not possess teleology.
10. Guns are important elements of our history and culture.

As he explains these points in the article, he makes some very good points about why the debate on guns is so dividing. The article seems fairly written to me, even if I did not like a few of his points I would have trouble arguing them. As you can tell though, the basic points tell very effectively why gun control cannot reduce crime. That means we should be looking at other things to reduce violence and not guns.

Probably one of the most critical points he does make is that it really is a cultural war and we should look at that more.

If any of you have access to a good research library, I recommend reading this article for use in our current debates.

[Oldgringo]

It's not the guns, it is the peoples. No gun in the history of the world, to my knowledge, jumped up an killed anybody anywhere. It's all about the home life or lack thereof.

[philbo]

I remember reading Wright's work years ago. David Yamane has in recent years expanded on Wright's original thesis, escpecially in looking at firearms as more than a means to commit crimes. Linked is an article from last year reviving Wright's paper from 1995 if you haven't already found it. The list of references is decent as well.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... soc4.12497

[TomV]

Thanks for these articles.

[The Annoyed Man]

Probably one of the most critical points he does make is that it really is a cultural war and we should look at that more.

This is something that the culture warriors have been saying all along. It seems incredibly obvious to those of us who are honest about the condition of our society.

1. You have to be willfully blind to think that our modern culture is good shape.
2. You have to be in denial to think that “more of the same” will fix it.
3. You have to be immoral on some level to be absolutely OK with it.

You have to be wise enough to know that: (A) you alone cannot change it; (B) that you alone are responsible for yourself; and (C) that, in so far as it is possible, you should live an exemplary life. The culture sets one example. We must set the opposite example. People who are seeking their way in the world cannot know that there is any other way than this dysfunctional culture’s way unless someone demonstrates it by how they live their own lives.

Lord knows I am not perfect in this; but it is not coincidental that, over the years, I have entered into mentoring relationships with young men. There is a crying need for older men (and women) who remember a less dsyfunctional culture to make themselves available to mentor young adults who are trying to navigate their way through this world. This is something that used to be taken for granted in our culture. But as the culture turns more and more toward navel-gazing, idol-worship and prideful behavior, people seem less and less desirous of that kind of guidance.

And, as relates to the topic, as they do so, they are more and more willing to sacrifice the principles of liberty in order to fulfill every sensate desire.

[K.Mooneyham]

Barely into the thing when I come across this:

And like other mass produced commodities, the guns had to be sold to the public; where markets for them did not already exist, they had to be created (Haag, 2016)

Sorry, but supply doesn't create demand; demand creates a need for supply. Simply economics, and that the author chose to put that in the paper makes the paper suspect in my opinion (though I will read the entire thing). It's why it's amusing praise to say someone who is a great salesman could sell icewater to Eskimos (Inuit). Items the public doesn't really need sometimes get sold, sure, but those are fads that come and go rather quickly, like pet rocks or fidget spinners.

[J.R.@A&M]

Barely into the thing when I come across this:

And like other mass produced commodities, the guns had to be sold to the public; where markets for them did not already exist, they had to be created (Haag, 2016)

Sorry, but supply doesn't create demand; demand creates a need for supply. Simply economics, and that the author chose to put that in the paper makes the paper suspect in my opinion (though I will read the entire thing). It's why it's amusing praise to say someone who is a great salesman could sell icewater to Eskimos (Inuit). Items the public doesn't really need sometimes get sold, sure, but those are fads that come and go rather quickly, like pet rocks or fidget spinners.

Supply doesn’t create demand, but overcapacity probably gives rise to corporate marketing campaigns which might stimulate some new demand, at the margin. But I think I agree with you that the decision to buy a $500 to $1,500 item is not similar to that made for a box of cereal.

[J.R.@A&M]

Barely into the thing when I come across this:

And like other mass produced commodities, the guns had to be sold to the public; where markets for them did not already exist, they had to be created (Haag, 2016)

Sorry, but supply doesn't create demand; demand creates a need for supply. Simply economics, and that the author chose to put that in the paper makes the paper suspect in my opinion (though I will read the entire thing). It's why it's amusing praise to say someone who is a great salesman could sell icewater to Eskimos (Inuit). Items the public doesn't really need sometimes get sold, sure, but those are fads that come and go rather quickly, like pet rocks or fidget spinners.

Supply doesn’t create demand, but overcapacity probably gives rise to corporate marketing campaigns which might stimulate some new demand, at the margin. But I think I agree with you that the decision to buy a $500 to $1,500 item is not similar to that made for a box of cereal. Yes

Unless you’re so wealthy that another firearm is like another box of cereal.

[BBYC]

]
Supply doesn’t create demand, but overcapacity probably gives rise to corporate marketing campaigns which might stimulate some new demand, at the margin. But I think I agree with you that the decision to buy a $500 to $1,500 item is not similar to that made for a box of cereal. Yes

Unless you’re so wealthy that another firearm is like another box of cereal.

$500 is not an impulse buy for me but the $30 lower sale at Primary Arms this weekend was another story.