My Photo

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

BlogStats


« Boston and pan-Islamism – some early ruminations | Main | CTA on ‘cultural competency’ – a peek into the pus »

21 April 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f86f2ad883301901b76b0db970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US Murder Rate History [Addended] (updated 27apr13):

Comments

Steve Frisch

You may want to look at what the authors of Freakonomics have to say about the direct correlation between the aging of the American population and declining birth rate and declining rate of violent crime.

Gregory

If Steven Frisch has a valid point to make, he should try to make it.

We are not awash in a wave of homicides. Frisch and friends wallowed in the blood of the children in Newtown for the shock value, hoping it would be the proverbial crisis not going to waste. A wave that had to be stopped.

I'd like to think the flameout had something to do with Frisch's lobbying, but I doubt it had any effect one way or the other.

Steve Frisch

Seriously Greg, you need mental health counseling.

Michael Anderson

Steve F. accurately describes the reason there is a declining rate of violent crime in America. It's due to the aging of the American population.

Reasonable background-check legislation did not pass in the Senate due to the fact that the southern states are over-represented in the Senate, an unfortunate consequence of the lack of political reform for a constitution that is antiquated and has been tweaked over many decades with arcane Senate rules to marginalize huge urban voting blocks.

The current 3-branch system is not sustainable and will either collapse and be replaced, or it will be heavily reformed. Either way, we will move away from this horrible morass eventually, and things will get better. Of that I am 100% certain.

George Rebane

MichaelA 949pm - could you outline a subsequent system of governance that you see as being more favorable, and that would be a candidate for inclusion in your "100% certain" future?

Gregory

Seriously, Steven Frisch, the 6 figure salary CEO of a rent-seeking Nevada County non-profit, the so-called Sierra Business Council, you've just done me the favor of a libel per se. Ask your lawyer.

Tell me, why were you pushing for a reprise of DiFi's failed ugly rifle ban (it lapsed the first time because even Senate Democrats could see it did nothing worthwhile) before the police report of what actually happened in Newtown was released? You know, actually have an idea as to the complete chain of events and figure out possible solutions that would actually help such a thing from happening again.

We still have no report.

Did you know the following:
"NEWTOWN, Conn., April 15 (UPI) — Adam Lanza, who killed 20 students and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, was beaten by classmates when he attended the school, a family member says.

Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, who he also killed before taking his own life, had considered suing the school because she thought school officials weren’t doing enough to stop the taunts and attacks, the New York Daily News reported Sunday."

A sick kid, made even sicker by others.

Between the complete implosion of gun control at the Federal level and the slo-mo collapse of the anthropogenic global warming scare, somehow I don't think long term bets on your mental stability are secure. With The Economist, The Telegraph and even Die Zeit all dialing back their AGW positions, it's getting easier and easier to get the realist position in front of the public.

Gregory

Anderson and Frisch, then does that mean you accept that more guns doesn't facilitate more murders?

Age demographics points towards fewer murders but gun sales have been rising, and the right to carry a concealed weapon has been slowly gaining in states nationwide, with Illinois now the only state that doesn't allow it at all (that may be changing thanks to the SCOTUS) and the states that allow concealed carry without a permit has quadrupled, with Vermont now joined by Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Not only was the demographics shifting older, but the number of guns has been increasing, and the number of states that allow concealed carry has been exploding. And yet murder rates are reducing.

Imagine that.

Gregory

"The current 3-branch system is not sustainable and will either collapse and be replaced, or it will be heavily reformed. Either way, we will move away from this horrible morass eventually, and things will get better. Of that I am 100% certain." -MA

Wow, it looks like a job for mandersonation. Somehow, I think the people buying so many guns and so much ammunition prefer the Constitution we have over the one that Frisch and Anderson wish we had.

Steve Frisch

Greg, get help......I am sure your obsessive anger must be a drag for the people you still have around you.

All I did was point George to information that might have given him another data point for his upcoming starring role in Breaking Bad :)

Ryan Mount

The uncomfortable Freakonomics chapter was based on a 2001 study by Steve Levitt and John Donahue (they weren't the first to make this observation) that correlated the decline in violent crime with the rise of legalized abortion. Not due to aging populations, declining birthrates, increased policing, or a number of other factors. All those took second seat to abortion.

In a nutshell, women were not having babies born into higher crime potential communities. The implications of such an assertions are really grim, IMHO and smacks of kind of eugenics.

As you might imagine, the study has been vigorously scrutinized and attacked. And also defended somewhat successfully, although Levitt and Donahue had to back off some of their more aggressive assertions.

Lots of places to verify all of this, but one may want to start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

Gregory

You don't know me, Frisch. Perhaps Paul Emery will chime in about that anger you are deluded into thinking I'm consumed with, we had a pleasant chat of well over an hour over coffee on Saturday.

Ben Emery

On this issue we are all correct the question is where does the compromise land? And oddly enough I fall towards the side of RR conservative opinions on the issue.

Scott Obermuller

"due to the fact that the southern states are over-represented in the Senate..."
I'm trying my best to understand how this could be so, but it seems to end up being just a matter of 'I don't think folks who don't agree with me should be represented in the govt.'
Perhaps some sort of argument to support this 'fact' might be forthcoming, but I won't hold my breath.

As to the rise and fall of the murder and crime rate - high incarceration rates and lengthy sentences have also been plainly shown to have an effect. In CA we are already seeing the results of Moonbeam's 'realignment' program. For reasons that we can argue over for centuries, there are identifiable career criminals that are simply not going to be rehabilitated. Separating them from society for life yields measurable reductions of crime. The argument about legalizing abortion on demand leading to reductions in crime should also include a breakdown of the different percentages of national origins of the participating women.

Bill Tozer

If the murder rate is declining, somebody should tell Mayor Emmanuel of Chicago the good news. Apparently they do things differently in Chicago.

Steve Frisch

Face it Greg, I did not address you, I addressed George's point. The fact that you just have a hard on for trying to attack me personally is evident by you posts. I consider that to be a combination of anger, envy and your low sense of self worth.

The fact remains, and logic dictates, that the less young men between the ages of 16-35 there are the less violent crime there is, whether perhaps due to abortion, as Leavitt points out, or simply shifting values and demographics. Nothing to do with the number of privately owned guns in the country. My contention is that the violent crime rate would be even lower than it is if we were not awash in guns.

Finally, breaking bread with Paul Emery is not my litmus test for rationality.

Ryan Mount

Scott Obermuller | 22 April 2013 at 08:03 AM> "For reasons that we can argue over for centuries, there are identifiable career criminals that are simply not going to be rehabilitated. Separating them from society for life yields measurable reductions of crime."

There seems to be some truth to this. The USA has the highest incarceration rate of any other country, and some of the relatively lowest violent crime (pick one like, intentional homicide). However, a little digging reveals that Africa and the Caribbean continue to be the most dangerous places on Earth. The Caribbean has incarceration rates about equal ( a little lower) to that of the USA, but again, high rates of violent crime which seems to contradict the assertion that making more jail space reduces crime.

> argument about legalizing abortion on demand leading to reductions in crime

Wealthy (wealthier) people have always been able to get abortions. It's the poor and disenfranchised that did have access to them. Once they did post Roe V Wade, they stopped bringing unwanted children into the world. That's the inconvenient Freakonomics point. And it underscores the twice-told tale that poverty breeds (literally) crime.

Steve Enos

The case of De’Marquis Elkins rasies issues about welfare, the "I'm owed" mindset and the line between helping and enabling that is now long gone.

Here's a link to a good story about Denmark, welfare, aging demographics and the issues of helping vs. enabling and being a taker. I think this story relates well to our situation in the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Michael Anderson

George asked: "...could you outline a subsequent system of governance that you see as being more favorable(?)"

I think there are a robust number of systems that could do the job better including the one we currently have, which just needs some targeted reforms to get us back to "one man, one vote" (as currently outlined in the 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.

earlcrabb

You could dump the Senate, but there would no longer be a fifty-state union. Once the minority had no representation, they'd be pulling out faster than a traveling salesman caught in bed with the farmer's daughter.

Gregory

Face it, Frisch, if you want to address just George, send him an email. Post here and you're addressing everyone.

"My contention is that the violent crime rate would be even lower than it is if we were not awash in guns." Yes, you have that belief, and I completely support your choice to be unarmed at home or at work. The state of Illinois has the gun laws you want for all, and it's awash in both guns and murderers.

You go right for the ad hominems and slanders and then proclaim me to be the angry one. Yes, you were dipping your hands in the blood of the Sandy Hook children when you were proclaiming you'd be lobbying for the new DiFi ban that went nowhere. That's a well known political metaphor, perhaps you need to sit through a performance of Julius Caesar to be reminded. It didn't work.

I'm particularly interested in your (Frisch's) reason for painting KVMR's news director as being irrational. Do tell.

Gregory

"If the murder rate is declining, somebody should tell Mayor Emmanuel of Chicago the good news." - Tozer

Unfortunately, Illinois in general and Chicago in particular are alone in the US in supporting Steven Frisch's view that no one should be allowed to even possess some commonly owned guns, no matter what background checks they pass. The SCOTUS has only just begun to turn that around.

Paul Emery

Gregory

Are you saying that the parents of the Sandy Hook victims are "dipping their hands" in the blood of their own children when they support legislation for more gun control?

Bill Tozer

Paul E, more gun control legislation would have not saved one single Sandy Hook child. First, the crazy guy stole his Momma's firearm and shot her dead. That is at least 2 laws broken before he even got started. He did not even own a gun himself. Then he transported the stolen firearm and entered a "gun free" school zone. More violations of the law. After trespassing, he shot up the school, which is a whole bunch more broken laws. Didn't even get a hall pass.

Kinda reminds me of that crazy Batman guy who shot up the Colorado movie house. He lived pretty darn close to a movie theater down the street, yet had to drive across town, passing other theaters to find the politically correct "gun free" movie house. Unarmed people is like shooting fish in a barrel. Heck, them immigrant Musslum kids from Chechnya did not have to fire a shot. Crazy is what crazy does.

Steve Frisch

Hey Greg, what I actually said was, "Finally, breaking bread with Paul Emery is not my litmus test for rationality."

What I did not say was that Paul was irrational. I am sure that Paul, like most of us, share a fair number of coffees, lunches and dinners, with loons and crackpots. I am merely saying that just because you had coffee with a sane person that does to make you sane.

This is just another classic example of you misquoting someone in order to pretend your stream of psychic piss shoots farther than theirs.

Russ Steele

How come we do not hear about the Sandy Hook parents that lost a child, who support gun rights. How come the President and Congress are not including those parents in the discussion? Oh, wait they do not support the take away people guns narrative.

Gregory

Paul, had I written that, it would be obvious. Since you had to ask you can guess the answer.

Those families were drenched in the blood of the loved ones, they didn't have to dip their hands into it in order to get some moral authority.

I think they were being cynically used as props by people who did. If you think not, just what in the legislation would have kept the shooter from killing those kids and adults? Nothing, one of the reasons Senate supporters peeled away, one by one until there were too few to make progress. Much to the relief of House Democrats, all of whom are up for reelection in 2014.

It should also be noted that most of the families chose not to become Washingtonian props.

Steve Frisch

I do think its interesting that I posted a simple data point for George to look at and Greg charged me with "....wallowing in the blood of the children in Newtown" if that's not a hard on for attacking me personally, I don't know what is. Of course I don't come here for a sense of equity or fair play, it merely comic relief. But the data point stands and has been validated by a variety of sources from all ranges of the ideological spectrum: violent crime is declining substantively because of the lower proportion of young men between the ages do 16-35 in American society, not because of the extremely high number of privately owned guns.

George Rebane

re SteveF's 141pm - It was not my intention in this post to posit that greater gun ownership was the cause of a diminishing murder rate. That may or not be the case.

But a smaller proportion of criminals in society is a plausible reason for a lower crime rate. Nevertheless, given that shrinking lawless demographic and the law abiding demographic growing along with the ownership of guns. Why is that not enough reason to let well enough alone as far as gun rights are concerned? Let's declare total victory there, and go on to more important issues like healthcare, immigration, education, ... .

Gregory

The murder rate isn't dropping in Chicago, is it, Steven? And this fixation of yours on your imagined "hard on" I have for you is just a bit creepy. Chat with your private brain care specialist over that one, would you?

You were the one who went off the deep end with your own "hard on" for DiFi's recycled legislation... In order to not drive additional traffic to Pelline's, here's what Frisch wrote there when the kids were barely cold:

"The new canard from the logically challenged right on this issue has two parts; these types of shooters choose ‘gun free zones’ like schools to prey upon, and that if we armed people more widely through concealed carry and open carry gun laws, people, ordinary citizens, would intervene and thus act as a deterrent to future mass shooting incidents. The dual canard is being trotted out right now by advocates of looser gun restrictions, from the Sunday morning talk shows down to comments on the local blogs and newspapers (at least those that still encourage comment).

I started to construct a very carefully reasoned argument about how stupid these premises are; including real data about the point that most of the 61 shootings killing 4 or more people since 1982 were in public places where the expectation would be that people were carrying arms or where security guards were present; studies that show that the profile of the killers proves that in almost every case they are actually seeking to die, and that ‘deterrence’ does not apply; and crime scene facts that show that the incidents occur so quickly that in the vast majority of cases even if armed citizens were present they would not have time to intervene (Sandy Hook was 28 dead in under 10 minutes); and policy statements from law enforcement stating that if citizens did intervene it would actually put many more people at risk as law enforcement officials attempt to sort out killers from ‘citizen responders’ or as ‘citizen responders’ shoot each other believing they are killers; and gun ownership records showing that in almost every case the guns used in these murders were semi-automatic or assault style weapons purchased legally; and medical records showing that in a majority of these cases there were advanced signs of mental illness and intervention could have prevented the murders.

In addition, no one seems to care that while we are (rightly) obsessing on Newtown, thousands of murders a year and thousands more suicides, are enabled by guns that we own at a rate of 88 weapons per 100 people in the country. Since we have been talking about Newtown 8 people have died from gun violence in Chicago alone.

But reading and hearing the comments from gun owners arguing for their ‘constitutional rights’ I have come to the conclusion that no amount of logic, reason or dispassionate study of the steps that could be taken to reduce gun violence matters: they just don’t give a shit. All they really care about is keeping and expanding their own gun ‘rights’ at the expense of other citizens safety. Thus there is really no choice at this point. We need to restrict gun rights, and take other interventions, if we want to reduce gun violence.

Here is how we could start to do it:

1. Ban military style assault weapons.
2. Institute a Federal 30 day waiting period, and require that no weapon can be sold without a mandatory AND COMPLETED criminal AND MEDICAL background check, including people in their immediate household, to be conducted at the expense of the purchaser.
3. Ban extended clips that allow weapons to increase capacity.
4. Limit the one time sales of ammunition and require ammunition sales to be managed through a national database.
5. Require that all new gun sales in the US include require fingerprint trigger locks by 2020.
6. Increase funding in schools for mental health services to encourage early intervention
7. Institute a national campaign to increase funding for mental health services including media campaigns de-stigmatizing mental illnesses to encourage treatment.

I am kind of done with listening to the bullshit coming from the gun rights crew….they will never listen to logic..we need to crush them at the polls, in the courts and in Congress.

Dianne Feinstein will be introducing an assault weapons ban on the first day of the new Senate. I plan to go to DC and personally lobby on its behalf.


We never heard if Frisch actually went to DC to lobby, and it's a shame the only useful point he made, at #7, the end of the list, was the mental health issue that was the only one that was both constitutional and likely to do some good.

Todd Juvinall

I am very happy to see the Frisch here again. I love the comic relief his inane comments creates. We can see how ridiculous those people that have never been a success in the real world are when it comes to logic. Thanks for the guffaws.

Gregory

I found a posting at the DailyKos that conservatives like George and Todd would love; a lefty soldier writing about sheep, sheepdogs and wolves...

"having fun practicing to kill people"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/27/1197092/-having-fun-practicing-to-kill-people

Bill Tozer

"and the misleading arguments used by the nation's gun control crowd even before the Second Amendment considerations are included."

Dr. Rebane, I don't like how that last part is worded. Even before Second Amendment considerations....Even before???? I know what you meant, but nothing comes before our Constitutional guarantees that government must protect and ensure. Nothing else needed in a debate. It is the the debate stopper, not part of some three legged stool.

Don't know what you said at Breaking Bread or how eloquently you pleaded your case, but it should have gone along these lines:

We have been endowed by our Creator with certain rights that are irrevocable and it is government's number one job to protect these rights. We don't have to debate the right to assemble or move freely about our country. Go screw yourself ass wipes if you try to stop that or free speech or free press or the right to bear arms. Hey shitheads, it ain't up for debate. Debate this and grip it tight. Government or you don't have any say in the matter. Inequitable and irrevocable and precedes the best part of you that ran down your mommie's leg. Now, what is there to debate when you have the trump card? Or simply change the Constitution, a very simple process.

George Rebane

BillT 517pm - My statement points out that it is the gun control crowd that introduces the misinformed and misleading arguments at the start of their effort to constructively ban guns. There is nothing you or I can do to program the order of their arguments. In fact, if they can avoid any mention of the Constitution in delivering their anti-gun screed, they will gladly do so. It is up to us and others to bring in the Constitutional case to counter them.

Steve Frisch

George Rebane | 22 April 2013 at 02:38 PM

I hardly see almost 30,000 gun deaths a year as a "total victory"....but I agree that the debate over gun proliferation should not impede our proven ability to agree on other important public policy issues like immigration, education, health care, debt, the environment and foreign policy!

Steve Frisch

Gregory | 22 April 2013 at 03:22 PM

Gee, Greg, I stand by every one of those comments. Upon re-reading them they are right on point......and an accurate re-iteration of the very points that gun rights advocates were making a few short days after Newtown....but I guess they were not "....wallowing in the blood of the Newtown children" by pushing their point, eh? If someone has blood on their hands in addition to the killer, it is the people who used Newtown to whip up the emotions of gun advocates. They are swimming in it...and will be until so many people die that they finally lose power over our political processes.

George Rebane

SteveF 632pm - Indeed, let's do return to our proven abilities to agree.

(BTW, 30K/yr = 'total victory' is a matter of perspective, even if we subtract more than half of them being suicides and accidents, and ignore the uncountable violent incidents that guns stop each year. But along with the Founders, I worry about the considerably higher number of deaths that rogue governments bring on their people, not to mention the millions of lives ruined in the shadow of autocracy. Nevertheless, I do recognize that these considerations are truly invisible and/or laughable to progressives.)

earlcrabb

There is one factor in the suicide rate that has not been addressed, and that is a good number of baby boomers who have seen their parents slowly sink into the nightmare of dementia and alzheimer's. I believe there are many who have experienced this that would rather take their own life before becoming a drooling, diaper-wearing vegetable who will probably be shuttled off to a senior warehouse for who knows how long? Not to mention the astronomical cost to the family.
It does make you think about assisted suicide, which wouldn't be as messy as having to do it on your own with a gun, which might end up being a botched attempt. I know this sounds morbid, and probably plays into Steve F's "culture of death" scenario, but it is a real fear for many.

Steve Frisch

George Rebane | 22 April 2013 at 06:46 PM

George, do you really think that "progressives" don't worry about the death of innocents at the hands of rogue governments or the persistence of autocracy in the world today? If so, I believe you are mistaken.

"Progressives" simply have a different set of means to reach the same end you support: and end to autocracy, security for everyone, and the rule of law. Progressives support the extension of democratic forms of governance, the protection of individual rights, universal suffrage, equal protection, and economic security. When it comes to actual values almost all Americans are trying to reach the same goals, we merely differ on tactics.

The difference really is whether one believes government, as the collective will of the people, has an active role in advancing the solutions to these problems, or whether the solutions should be more centered in the individual actions of people. It is really just a matter of degrees.

Michael Anderson

Earl wrote: "You could dump the Senate, but there would no longer be a fifty-state union. Once the minority had no representation, they'd be pulling out..."

No need for them to take a dump, I'd just like to see the filibuster tightened up. You wanna stop the legislation? Then get up there and stop it like a good shortstop, with your whole body. The phoned-in filibuster is a bunch of baloney.

Balancing the tyranny of the majority with the tyranny of the minority is an art, not a science. My argument is that the current reign of the tyranny of the minority has gone on too long. We are long overdue for a correction.

Todd Juvinall

The filibuster is actually an important tool to keep government at a vry slow pace. If it was a simple majority, the last 50 years would have seen the tax rates probably more than doubled and the number of laws and regulations tripled. The democrats held the House my whole life up until we kicked their ass out in 1994 and brought some sanity back to DC. The Senate filibuster was 66 required for many many years and then brought down to 60.

If one looks at California you now get to see the tyranny of the majority, a majority in stone now that the redistricting has been accomplished. No, the filibuster keeps things slower in DC and that is fine with most Americans. Only dictator lovers like it different.

Besides, when things have been a bit too slow for Obama, he just uses Executive Orders. That seems to satisfy the tyranny lovers just fine.

I attended the Rincon del Rio Board of Supes hearings last week and after six years of BS it passed. Why should Congress be able to pass a new law in one session when here in our state it takes six years for a land use project?

Michael Anderson

ToddJ 901pm - I agree with a lot of what you wrote here, and the I am sure the Democrats in the CA state legislature will knot their own hanging ropes sooner rather than later, now that the check has lost the balance.

But a clown strike occurred when Senator MM filibustered his own bill, a Dali painting on the Senate floor where stuffed shirts were literally leaking filet mignons, and only ghosts were left to cast their votes:

"On December 6, 2012, another milestone in filibuster history was reached when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal, though he did not give a lengthy speech, instead merely invoking the rules of filibuster on his bill to raise the passage threshold to 60 votes. McConnell had attempted to force the opposition Democrats, who had a majority in the Senate, to refuse to pass what would have been a politically-costly measure that would nonetheless solve the current ongoing debt ceiling deadlock; when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) elected to call a vote on the proposal regardless, McConnell immediately invoked the rules regarding filibusters on his proposal, effectively engaging in the first self-filibuster in Senate history."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

Gregory

"Gee, Greg, I stand by every one of those comments. Upon re-reading them they are right on point." - Frisch

Steve, I had every expectation that was the case, giving you the same moral rectitude and constitutional authority as George Wallace when he declared, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

It's a constitutional right that you're wanting to treat so cavalierly, and for no good effect... the 20th century tried to deal with violent trends by more and more restrictions on lawful gun ownership. We've now had a solid series of legal decisions affirming what has become to be known as the standard model... the 2nd really does establish a right for the individual to own and carry guns, and the US v. Miller decision establishing the right to arms usable in a militia conflicts with the DiFi/Frisch dream of banning all arms that are appropriate to a militia.

Whether you want to believe in such rights or not, they have been established, and no majoritarian statist wet dream of yours will make that go away.

Pleasant dreams.

Steve Frisch

I'm sorry Greg but not a single one of the measures I mentioned in my post falls under the definition of a 'constitutionally protected' right. Nor is any of them covered by the Miller decision. Every one of them has been tested in court and passed muster under our legal system.

1. Banning military style assault weapons was never overturned in court, the law expired.
2. Waiting periods have been tested several times and found to be constitutional.
3. Extended clips that allow weapons to increase capacity are already banned in several states.
4. Many states and local governments already limit the amount of ammunition a person can purchase at one time and require ammunition purchases to be entered into a database.
5. Many different kinds of trigger locks, and requirements to have them, have already been passed.

As a matter of fact I picked those reforms because each and every one of them has been tested and found legal, and although no one of them would have significant effect, all of them together would be a substantial effect.

So you can call me names all you want...you are FACTUALLY wrong. By the way perhaps you should actually read both the background and the follow on case law flowing from the Miller decision.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Then go here: http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf

Todd Juvinall

The addenda is quite the eye opener and one of the reasons Americans support the 2nd Amendment so strongly. It has been stated somewhere that over a million or more crimes have been thwarted by a gun toting good guy. If this woman had her 22 pistol perhaps Elkins would be dead and her 13 month old baby alive. But, the point of the email is we are breeding these thugs in the broken homes of our country and fueled by mama government, the mess continues.

Please Frisch, tell us how you would have removed the weapon from the hands of Elkins and thwarted the murder.

Steve Frisch

Todd, no one is saying we can eliminate murder, like the one Mr. Elkins is accused of committing. What we are saying is that we can make the gun that commits the murder, in this case a .22 caliber hand gun owned by his mother-- a convicted felon-- harder to get, more expensive, easier to track, and less lethal when used in the commission of a crime. In this case, if guilty, the perpetrator should spend the rest of his life in jail. But since the event happened in mere seconds, and if the mother of the child had been carrying a gun it likely would have been in her purse, which was the apparent subject of Mr. Elkins robbery and was struggled over as the shooting occurred, the opportunity to shoot the accused killer may not have even presented itself.

[by the way, if you are going to make a statement like, "over a million or more crimes have been thwarted by a gun toting good guy", you may want to cite a source to lend credibility to your case]

I do agree with you ["we are breeding these thugs"] and that in the long run the answer lies in education, provision of good moral standards, strengthening families, and social pressure to act in a civilized manner. A significant part of breeding 'these thugs' is raising them in a culture where violence and the use of firearms to solve problems is acceptable behavior, The question is how does one do that?

George carefully distances himself from the second paragraph of the post above, but prints it. The second paragraph is a well worn meme stereotyping certain killers and intentionally playing on racial tension to make a point. Although distanced, as long as we perpetuate that meme, we are perpetuating the racial stereotype behind it, and it is reprehensible behavior.

Steve Frisch

Hey Greg, how does the following statement, completely unsupported, fit into your "wallowing in the blood of children" argument? Is George wallowing in the blood of a baby to make a point"

"He did not attend Christian school, nor was he home schooled. He did attend multicultural public education, and was not instructed in the Ten Commandments. His Momma was on welfare, got food stamps, and lived in public housing. His daddy was not around, and his two brothers have a different daddy. He already has a record for violent crimes. He is gang member. His mom, grandma, and Aunty all voted for Obama."

Todd Juvinall

Frisch, I said it was stated "somewhere". The NRA is my best recollection. I think it might be over two million too.

You are simply living in a dreamworld regarding the gun in Elkin's hand. You approach it from the point prior to him possessing the gun and my question is now that he has it how would you prevent him from using it? There are what, 300 million weapons so their possession is a done deal. Someone owns them. So, tell us how you would prevent Elkins from being able to use the gun on the baby.

The use of Elkins has nothing to do with stereotypes other than the thug stereotype. They come in all colors and from all ethnicities. I think the white Albanian males are the thug murderer of choice in Europe. So, I am not to concerned with a PC bunch of crap as others may be. A thug is a thug. In South Africa, male blacks rape babies for sex because they believe the baby is AIDS free. In India, children are used as sex toys. In Arab lands, the rich Arabs have child concubines. In Europe, the importation and rape of women from eastern Europe is a proven fact. Bad people come in all shapes, colors and sizes.

Steve Frisch

300 million privately owned guns is a temporal problem. Make them more expensive and the law of supply and demand will reduce their number over time.

I would put Mr. Elkins in jail and through away the key. No one is saying we do not need vigorous enforcement of the law.

If that gun had cost his mother $2000 instead of $50 she probably would not own it. If she could have gotten $500 in a gun buy back program she probably would have sold it to pay bills. It's all about reducing the marginal utility of the weapon. She was apparently a felon in possession of a gun, contrary to law. How did she get that gun? If people who sold guns illegally went to jail for 20 years instead of 6 months the cost of the gun would have been higher. Once again,the law of diminishing marginal utility: enforce
strict background check laws and the criminal selling the gun would spend more time in
jail to sell each unit, and the price would go up.

Once again no one is saying we should not enforce the laws we have, indeed gun control advocates believe we should enforce them more stringently, a point of agreement wit the stated position (but not the reality) of the NRA.

Todd Juvinall

You still have not answered how you would have stopped Elkins from using the gun he possessed. I am guessing you have no answer.

You are simply acting emotionally about guns and that scares we rational people more than you might guess. Too many knee jerkers makes for a tyranny.

Steve Frisch

I answered your question, I would enforce the law, to the maximum amount practicable, and I would look at the root causes of violent crime that you identified above. In addition, a fingerprint based trigger lock would have literally meant Mr. Elkin could not fire the gun.

I must note, my tone has been respectful and non-emotional--so if you want to have a meaningful conversation don;t drag us down into the mud, as reg does every single day.

fish

300 million privately owned guns is a temporal problem. Make them more expensive and the law of supply and demand will reduce their number over time.


Excellent! You've just stapled the "over time they'll all just rust away" argument onto the creation of a fabulous new black market for firearms. 2K for the equivalent of a $50 Saturday Night Special and I've found a lucrative hobby for my weekends.

Sounds like you are committed to pioneering innovative solutions in the Sierra Nevada.

Steve Frisch

Well Fish, I do believe in market based solutions, so coupling making guns more expensive with buy back programs should be a nice business for someone for a while. The combination of regulation and markets can be a very powerful force!

Todd Juvinall

You are simply emotional Frisch. The guns exist and many guns, owned by good law abiding people are swiped by the bad guys. (horse out of barn, get it?)Heck, even our government sold a bunch to the Mexican drug machine.

You have not answered the question and you lame response is repetitively fallacious. Elkin's killed a baby and I want to know how you would have stopped him since he already had the weapon. Waiting.

fish

The combination of regulation and markets can be a very powerful force!

Yes...it's done wonders for drug policy.

Gregory

Sorry Steve, but the so-called assault weapons ban came and went *before* the 2nd was finally incorporated into law with DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. Better late than never.

It's now a settled *individual* right, not a collective one. This is an issue of constitutional rights, and the 20th century solutions involving a collective rights interpretation of the 2nd, allowing states and Federal legislation to ban guns or implement infringements as they wished, is no longer arguable.

It may surprise you, but large capacity magazines are still quite legal to possess and use in California, if you bought them before their sale or importation was made illegal, another law that predates McDonald v Chicago. Expect it to be challenged eventually, but working the kinks out by via the courts takes time.

Why did Handgun Control, Inc. change their name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence? It might have been because Handgun Control had lost the war over public opinion:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

fish

Why did Handgun Control, Inc. change their name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?

And lets face it....the fundraising was much more effective with the big scary black machine gun resembling guns.

Gregory

" I do believe in market based solutions, so coupling making guns more expensive with buy back programs should be a nice business for someone for a while. The combination of regulation and markets can be a very powerful force!" - Frisch

Isn't that the Sierra Business Council rent-seeking recipe? Making guns more expensive was also the basis for the campaign against Saturday Night Specials, those cheap handguns that even poor blacks could afford to buy and use on those crazy Saturday Nights in, umm, well, with the dog whistle in place everyone knew the campaigns against "Saturday Night Specials" were not aimed at the guns middle class white people owned.

Steve, so you think it's a public good to price self defense above what the working (or not working) poor can afford?

Gregory

"And lets face it....the fundraising was much more effective with the big scary black machine gun resembling guns." -Fish

It's even better than that... it was a Brady Center guy in the first place who invented the bogus "assault weapon" category to confuse the public into thinking they were "assault rifles", the machine guns used by the military, and time after time, news accounts of the ban's working its way through Congress invariably showed an automatic version spraying bullets into a target.

In an even greater Newspeak development, the Dept. of Homeland Security has a contract out to buy seven thousand "Personal Defense Weapons" for their personnel, with 30 round magazines. A PDW is a very compact assault rifle, firing the same 5.56mm round the M16 assault rifle fires. Let's hope they go to the likes of the FBI and not the Toilet Safety Administration.

Gregory

"a fingerprint based trigger lock would have literally meant Mr. Elkin could not fire the gun."

As long as Frisch is inventing things that don't exist now, would probably never work reliably if invented and can never be retrofitted to the 300 million guns now owned by Americans, [sarc] I vote to built a giant space based laser for God (Allah where necessary) to use to shoot bad guys just before they kill.

Yes, I understand God (as usually envisioned) can do this already if S/he wants to, but if you make it really cool with all sorts of gizmos sticking out of it mounted on Picatinny rails of the Gods, maybe S/he'd decide it could be fun. [/sarc]

fish

I vote to built a giant space based laser for God (Allah where necessary) to use to shoot bad guys (or the "other" planet) just before they kill.

...and as usual the Simpsons are way ahead of you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo

Don't blame me I voted for Kodos.

Steve Frisch

If you all spend your lives looking at the last 200 years and wishing for what was instead of looking at the next 200 hundred years and what can be you will never see the change you want in society. The entire story of this web site is that 80% of the posters long for Norman Rockwell and the other 20% are looking forward with optimism.

Todd, I answered your question: no one has ever said that there is a way to put the toothpaste back into the tube, and framing the question in a way that implies I have to do that is both disingenuous and intellectually bereft of meaning. You can imply I am the emotion one, but the obvious reality is that you are an inferior intellect.

Greg, every major legal scholar believes an assault weapons ban would pass the test established in Heller--and that is not the case you cited to support your many points, you used Miller, which any intelligent reader would look at and quickly surmise paints you as a babbling idiot...it has no bearing on the many points you tried to make.

Finally, there is nothing you can say about my job, my salary, or the model of change that I advance through my work that will ever effect me negatively Greg. I am proud of both what I do, and the people I work with. This line of critique simply makes you look small, petty, envious, and frankly, mentally unbalanced.

Bill Tozer

The combination of regulations on the markets has been a powerful force.

Paul Emery

Actually Steve the nostalgia on this page is more for the 1880's when we were free to plunder and commit acts of genocide in the name of Manifest Destiny. Yes, free land, cheap resources, virtual slave labor from children and immigrants, the freedom to tromp over weaker cultures and no pesky environmental regulations. Those were the days.

Steve Frisch

Paul, I think the universally common break point I hear here is 1913 and the Wilson administration with its institutionalization of Progressivism as a unifying theme of American government. Although I do agree with you that the real break point is probably the ascension of Theodore Roosevelt: it's just that conservatives tend to want to keep claiming him in an effort to maintain a patina of respectability.

I hope you did not take my "crazies" comment personally, I was of course saying you have the patience to break bread with regressives.

fish

Those were the days.......

Yeah! It must have been something to see them in person eh Paul?

If you all spend your lives looking at the last 200 years and wishing for what was instead of looking at the next 200 hundred years and what can be you will never see the change you want in society.

While not perfect the last 200 years were pretty good from a world historical perspective. Other than forcing me to read your promotional literature....what does Steve think will be of benefit to society over the next 200 years.

Paul Emery

Steve

It's not patience it's the boxer in me I think (Golden Gloves 1963) that prompts me to appreciate a good sparing partner. George is tough and a crafty counter puncher, Gregory absorbs punishment well but is flat footed with too much ego for a boxer, Todd is easy-he telegraphs his punches and cries foul when hit and Mikey gets angry and loses all poise and has no defense, Crabbman is tricky with hidden punches when he needs them but disappears when the going gets rough and is only good for a round or two.

Steve Frisch

Hmmmm......boxing is a pretty good analogy Paul.

Steve Frisch

My philosophy for next century Fish is "internalize the externalities". I believe that markets and capitalism are responsible for our progress over the last 400 years, and can be reformed to create even more prosperity and benefit in the future. Government has a role, but it is limited, everyday people will be largely responsible for the progress we make through millions of individual decisions and actions. Ultimately individual personal responsibility, coupled with the power of capitalism to reward good behavior, and the rise of technology, the technological revolution supplanting the industrial revolution, will be our savior.

fish

Government has a role, but it is limited.......


Have they been informed. As near as I can tell the "point of diminishing returns" for government passed about 40 years ago.....I think they missed the memo.

Gregory

Frisch, I only cited Miller in the context of Miller's requirement that a weapon had to be usable in a well regulated miltia for a 2nd amendment argument to be made, and that DiFi's ban is against weapons that Miller would have obviously passed. They really are usable in a well regulated militia, though the military prefers military weapons, not ones that just look like military weapons.

I'm sure you thought every "major legal scholar" thought the District of Columbia could ban handguns, and that Chigago could ban handguns and even ban gun stores. That isn't the case now, is it? There are legal scholars who are making the cases that will be defining just what the limits to state and Federal power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms despite the constitutional imperative that it shall not be infringed.

A sticky question, especially with majoritarian statists like Steven Frisch in backwaters like Nevada County.

You've made the claim I'm angry enough to require counseling, yet to my knowledge no one who has met me agrees. Why do you think that is true? Now that you've established for us that you think Paul Emery is rational, perhaps Paul will gauge my personae... Paul, did you at any time think I was about to escalate to any sort of physical violence?

Others who have seen me in action include Juvinall and Steele, and while I'd not want to discuss the issue being discussed among a large number of interested parties for an hour or so, I think they can verify I was the one who suggested a purely passive approach to the problem at hand, and that it worked beautifully to diffuse that problem.

Yes, DiFi thought she crafted a gun ban that would pass constitutional muster. Why? The summary of DC v. Heller states " The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

DiFi, instead of banning an entire class of arms, just named every arm in that class and banned the list. I suspect the failure in the Senate had something to do with senators not being as sure as DiFi that Scalia & friends would be fooled by the end run.

There are tens of millions of magazine fed semi-automatic guns in private hands in the USA which establishes them as being in common use (they have been available to civilians since 1897) and even before the post-Newtown push to reinstate the bans it was hard for dealers to keep them in stock. The shelves are empty now; congratulations, you've just added about a million members to the NRA roster. If you keep it up, maybe I'll join.

Gregory

Paul, boxing is a game, fake combat. This isn't a game to some of us.

Paul Emery

Like I said, you absorb punishment well.

Gregory

"I believe that markets and capitalism are responsible for our progress over the last 400 years"

Technology has driven higher standards of living and fed increasing number of people for 1000 years. Affordable energy has been a major driver of the past century but the Steve Frischs of the world are doing their best to shut that down.

Is there any state that pays more per kilowatt-hour or per gallon at the pump than California?

George Rebane

re SteveF 159pm - A model assessment, and most agreeable. Also one which I cannot connect to much else that Mr Frisch has heretofore prescribed for our communal wellbeing. But no doubt the weakness there is mine as I have related in -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/11/why-reason-fails.html

Gregory

"Also one which I cannot connect to much else that Mr Frisch has heretofore prescribed for our communal wellbeing." gr 3:18

George, it's just Frisch's usual doubletalk. Here's one look between the lines:

Ultimately individual personal responsibility,
We'll fine the hell out of them if they don't
coupled with the power of capitalism to reward good behavior,
We'll fine the hell out of them if they don't
and the rise of technology,
we'll bet someone will actually invent the stuff this will fall apart without
the technological revolution supplanting the industrial revolution, will be our savior
pray for a miracle, we'll need it

Russ Steele

This arrived in my e-mail and thought it contributed to the dissuasion on guns and murder rates:

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/01/31/A-Tale-of-Two-Cities

Todd Juvinall

Frisch loses the abate to me and refuses to tell us how he would save the baby from Elkins, Just like Dukakis screwing the pooch on the "rape" of his wife question. Liberal gobbledygook responses, but quite telling. My guess is the Frisch would have seen Elkins show the gun and then run like hell the other way and let the baby die. I think my intellect is far advanced of the rent-seeker.

Paul uses a boxing analogy to snark Greg and I so in returning the favor, in debates, PaulE is doing a ropa-dope trying to make his points with a lie. That is not good journalism. When confronted, he grabs the ref and places himself behind him for protection. LOL!

Steve Frisch

Fish, government does what we require it to do. Require less and it will do less.

Most of the businesses (and thus people because we are all economic players) in the world today externalized some portion of the cost of production, for example, in the form of pollution, low wages and benefits, or subsidies. Because some portion of those costs are externalized government, in this example, regulates and mitigates pollution, provides social security and redistributes wealth. If all of the costs of production were internalized government would not need to do those things. If we create business models that "internalize the externalities" the cost of goods and services will be higher, but the need for government to act as an arbitrer of the public interest will be lower, and thus taxes,
fees etc. will be lower.

Sure, there will always be government, to do things like big infrastructure, provide for defense, select representation, make some tough decisions, and ensure domestic tranquility.

This should be no surprise to Greg and George, it is the theory I have always expoused here, they just have not been hearing because their ears are plugged with .....um.....ideology. You want to reduce the cost of environmental regulation, pollute less. You want to eliminate social security, pay living wages and create good jobs. You want
to eliminate subsidies, make people pay the true cost of production, but the user pays, no one else has to pay or it, and innovation will provide solutions. This is the very theory
that the much hated here Cap and Trade program works on: internalize the externalized ost of emissions, put a price on it, and companies will emit less and innovate more.

Steve Frisch

I did not lose the debate Todd, I refused to accept the premise of your question, and clearly answered it. We cannot stop some people from killing. We should punish them. It's that simple.

Seriously, your overestimation of your intellectual acumen demonstrated here makes it clear to the readers that you are highly unlikely to be wowing them at the TSA checkpoint!

Steve Frisch

George Rebane | 23 April 2013 at 03:18 PM

Yes George, the weakness is yours. Thank you.

Todd Juvinall

Frisch loses again and his ego won't allow him to admit it. Help is needed.

Regarding the TSA women swooning. Just happened again Frisch. I am a celebrity at LAX.

Gregory

" This is the very theory
that the much hated here Cap and Trade program works on: internalize the externalized ost of emissions, put a price on it, and companies will emit less and innovate more."

The fantasies you continue to have, Steve, are that CO2 emissions can and will result in catastrophic warming, that making fossil fuels expensive to use will drive innovation to a point that solar and other 'renewables' can compete with carbon fuels within the next century or two, and, even were the IPCC process and conclusions valid, nothing you want the western world to do would make any difference besides delay the warming by a few weeks. China and India alone are more than making up the difference, and all driving our use of affordable energy into the dirt does is make it even more affordable to the Chinese and Indians.

Even the usually warmist press has been dialing back the alarm. Die Zeit, The Telegraph and The Economist have all recently made it clear their coverage will no longer ignore those 'deniers'. "The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought." Imagine that.

Frisch, your ideology is doing real damage to science; the case for global warming is falling apart, and in the end all you will have done is ruin the ability of scientists to raise an alarm the next time, when humanity faces a real crisis.

fish

Fish, government does what we require it to do. Require less and it will do less.

I don't recall any need for the government to give away free cell phones or prescription drugs, or criminalize plants, or a host of other things that they currently deem vital but society seemed to get along without just fine before government "decided that we require it. I doubt government will ever of its own volition decide to do less. It will probably do less once, having taken on a whole range of tasks it is ill equipped to perform, suffers a financial crisis that forces it to stop. We'll see.

This is the very theory that the much hated here Cap and Trade program works on: internalize the externalized ost of emissions, put a price on it, and companies will emit less and innovate more.

Maybe, but if history is our guide letting politicians get their mitts on a huge new revenue source is an invitation to disaster. Much like "Meathead"s smoking tax they quickly grow accustomed to the new revenue and then as they see a program succeed, find that the revenue is now in jeopardy. Tom Friedman just posted another one of his empty headed missives about carbon taxing our way to prosperity...he doesn't want to save the planet so much but he does want to spend the money. I wouldn't be so cavalier about accusing others of ideological prejudice given that we have been bludgeoned about the end of the world if carbon emissions weren't severely cut while we watch potential beneficiaries divvy up in advance the spoils from continuing to emit.

You want to reduce the cost of environmental regulation, pollute less.

Complying with the costs of the regulations rarely if ever go down. A company may pollute less but the compliance costs live on.....audits, forms, reports, corrective action, and staff to handle these tasks all are with a firm until it can buy its way out (lobbying) or it externalizes these ongoing costs by moving to less restrictive jurisdictions, or ceases to do business entirely. I suppose that actually polluting less could reduce the "cost" but again with revenues threatened I would expect carbon costs to increase to compensate.

Again once the program is up and running the bureaucracy will never shrink to the extent you think. These programs always develop "champions"

Steve Frisch

I would be curious to have George weigh in here, since Gregory is focused on the example rather than the theory, and Todd is too stupid to realize no one cares about the size of his schlong.

Or I could just go back to moving my office!

George Rebane

SteveF 644pm - Would love to weigh in, but am not sure of the proposition that I could add anything beyond what I have on record here. As I said in my 318pm, your statement is in remarkable accord with my own beliefs, and, I suspect, the beliefs of most of the commenters to the right of center here. However, as I admitted, connecting the dots from there to your considerable record of RR comments is not always within my ken.

I lay my belief system bare in these pages in order to invite full debate on the issues, and am grateful for all the participating commenters, even though quite often I don't connect with all readers. I admit to pushing sensitive hot buttons more than a more circumspect and prudent commentator would do. But that is my choice and style to elicit equally strong and clear responses from RR readers. Perhaps that is one reason why RR is an open forum that continues to draw the interest from many points on the ideological spectrum.

Todd Juvinall

SteveF, please tell us all how you would protect the 13 month old baby from the death rendered him by Elkins. You refuse to answer that, why? I would suggest you have lost the argument and are now on your usual personal attack mode. I love whipping a liberals ass with their own insecurities.

Paul Emery

Steve

Yeah, Todd is becoming the Rodeo Clown of this blog. All discussions with him are summarized by a reference to his unit. Kinda sad, Being a legend in his own mind he still has war stories from the 80's. It's really a joke to those of us where were around those days.

Steve Frisch

Well then George, you agree with sustainability theory. I am indeed pleased. See there is not really that much that separates us.

Todd Juvinall

( see PaulE cannot stay away from personal attacks. If I was to stoop to his level (short man's complex) I would too. Bit since PaulE apparently did not read the Frisch's initial comment referencing TSA (dodging the Elkins question I asked) then we see the bias PaulE shows(as usual in his "reporting"). As I also use LOL in my responses, apparently the PaulE does not understand what that means either. But little minds of liberals sure are fun to screw with. They always go personal.

SteveF, how would you have saved the 12 month old child murdered by Elkins? I am curious as to what a liberal thinks when confronted with with danger.

Steve Frisch

Tod, I have answered your question about three times now. You are not only being repetitive you are diverting attention from the discussion.

First, I never said I could prevent this crime. I reject the premise of the question.

I have stated clearly that some people will simply be killers, they should be punished, and society protected from repeat offenses.

I have stated that your stated premise, that if the mother had been armed this may not have happened is questionable. First, had she been armed, according to the multiple news reports I read she probably would not have had the opportunity or time to respond. You are asking me to disprove a hypothetical, which I will not do, and no one can do.

In short it a stupid question.

My point remains: keep the offending weapon from Elkins hands, make it harder, more costly and more risky to possess and sell illegally, make it more difficult to use by installing a fingerprint based trigger lock, and you reduce the statistical likelihood that such a cime will be omitted. No one on the 'gun control' side of this debate is disputing that the laws we already have in place should be enforced.

Finally, this entire thread was started with me posting a data point, and Mr. Goodknight attacking me personally, by stating that I was "wallowing in the blood on the children in Newtown". You want to be treated with respect, you hold your friends to the same standards of behavior that you hold your opponents too. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Good day little man.

George Rebane

SteveF 954pm - I have promoted (preached?) sustainability in these pages for years. Was not aware that there is a body of knowledge called "sustainability theory", but I have given rigorous definitions of sustainability in various areas of public policy and resource management. But sustainability is a complex and domain specific concept. Anyone who attempts to sell the sheeple that it is one simple notion is bamboozling them

I'm not aware of any conservative/libertarian group that is against sustainability, it is against their very nature contrary to the way the Left characterizes them (but that's another story). The problem of sustainability is always in its technical details, and that is where perfidy and honest perspectives can divide people.

For the technical reader, sustainability always refers to a dynamic process. To speak reasonably about sustainability, especially when making public policy, one needs to use tools like system identification (obtain the process transfer function), control theory (is the process sufficiently observable and controllable), estimation theory (are the observation errors manageable), utility theory (how is 'good' sustainability defined) just to characterize the problem correctly so as to present decision makers - politicians, regulators - the appropriate decision (control) variables and the likely response of the dynamic process to such decisions.

Such considerations are seldom if ever applied in making public policy. Witness the adoption of AB32, Obamacare, the recent gun control debate, etc. In short, the sustainability terrain is complex, convoluted, and best traveled together by people of goodwill and adequate understanding.

Todd Juvinall

SteveF, you have not answered the simple question I asked and I have fine tuned it many times for you to make it easy for your intellect. Elkkins murdered the baby and you keep talking about keeping the gun from his hand by laws and regulations. It appears you are denser than 80 weight motor oil.

BTW, I am actually 6-4 and 218 pounds. Not a little man but one aspired after by folks like you and PaulE. LOL!!

Steve Frisch

George Rebane | 24 April 2013 at 08:20 AM

George, just to be clear, I am not trying to sell sheeple anything..... or 'bamboozle' anyone....I merely stated in a very simple economic equation, the economic theory at the core of sustainability, nor have I said that the libertarian mindset is "against' sustainability. I actually think that at its core sustainability is a fundamentally libertarian theory (modern conservatism is another matter). After having worked in this field for almost 20 years now I can say I heartily agree with you that the theory of sustainability requires a complex domain specific approach.

For those here interested, here is a short article on externalities, and what internalizing them may mean in an economc model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

George Rebane

re SteveF's 938am - good link Steve, thanks.

Bad externalities (pollution, subsidies, etc) are another type of commons (cf Garrett Hardin). Not all such externalities are significantly impactive at all stages of production or activity. For example, at low densities the solution to pollution is indeed dilution, at higher densities this no longer holds due to the intrinsic carrying capacities of the commons involved.

The first problem of public policy forged by contending factions is the adoption of a shared utility function. And that from the gitgo is difficult and therefore almost always dispensed with. From there the contending sides talk past each other, each arguing how their policy proposal maximizes their own utility without so much as a mention of the other's utility.

The gun control issue illustrates this perfectly. One side highlights 'gun violence' and argues its reduction through means that amount to constructive gun confiscation (most certainly wrt to par force). The other side highlights the constitutional and historical arguments of an armed citizenry able to contain their government's going rogue. The first side does not even consider that to be an existential threat, and argues policies to reduce gun deaths. The second sees government's drift to autocracy as a daily reality, and is willing to tolerate and marginally reduce gun deaths as one of the costs of living in a (here's that word) sustainable free society, arguing that autocratic governments kill overwhelmingly more of their own than do liberal gun ownership policies.

Joe Koyote

But little minds of liberals sure are fun to screw with. They always go personal." How do you label your "little minds" comment if not a personal attack? Is that a term of endearment? It seems to me that a lot of name calling and personal attacks come from you, yet you accuse those who oppose your opinions for doing the same thing.

Todd Juvinall

Anyone using a phony name like Joe coyote deserves no answers for anything. What a hoot. You libs sure do stick together in bias.

So JC, how would you have protected that 13 month old baby from murder? That is the simple question I asked your buddy and he went personal. Can you do better?

Gregory

Steven Frisch, if the supporters of the Brady Center (nee' Handgun Control, Inc.) can't be said to have been 'wallowing in the blood of the children' in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, no one in history could have ever been said to do so, in the name of raising the rabble. DiFi was doing it, and you, in your declarations of lobbying for DiFi before her Assault Weapons Bill part Deux was even released, was doing the same thing when you declared to us your support in advance.

Declaring to the world I needed mental health counseling for deflating your bubble with words you found troubling is right up there with 'reeducation' efforts that authoritarians have used in closed societies worldwide.

Large capacity magazines have been around for more than a century; they aren't the cause of the carnage, and anyone with a pump action shotgun could kill more children in less time than the Newtown shooter, who averaged about one shot every two seconds for the short time he had before police showed up; that rate of fire is no faster than a standard police revolver with speedloaders at the ready. The problem was not with the availability of the guns, as, especially in the same town as the National Shooting Sports Foundation headquarters, three miles from the school, a wealthy middle aged woman without a criminal record will always be able to get a gun. There is no law possible under the 2nd Amendment that would keep her from acquiring one or more guns.

What would have made a difference is the law that the Connecticut legislature killed about a year ago that would make it easier to involuntarily commit a mentally ill relative who desperately needed the care of a facility that can keep them from being a harm to themselves or others. The shooter's mother by many accounts was in the process of getting legal conservatorship over her barely adult son in order to do just that, and he was upset by this; since we're STILL waiting for the police report, it's unclear what is good info and what isn't, but a picture has emerged of the problem being mental health approaches, not the availability of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

DiFi has asked, multiple times, why someone *needs* more than 10 rounds; she could have gotten the answer from her Federal bodyguards who are armed to the teeth, probably with 15 round mags in their Glocks.

'Don't let any crisis go to waste' is not a formula for good governance in a free and open society.

Gregory

"I actually think that at its core sustainability is a fundamentally libertarian theory (modern conservatism is another matter)...the theory of sustainability requires a complex domain specific approach." -Frisch


Who in the District of Columbia or (egads!) Sacramento is capable of mastering a "complex domain specific approach"?

Sustainability is an aspect of a libertarian open society, but not including an enlightened ruling class of coersive Utopians who are masters of a "complex domain specific approach". It just takes a semblance of a free market whose pricing isn't at the whim of those Utopians who know better what we need. What we have in California in the moment is a massive mis-allocation of resources caused by AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" passed by an activist legislature caught up in the IPCC AR4 parade and a RINO governor eager for good publicity who had his own problems to deal with.

California cap and trade is under fire in court at the moment, googling, this seems to be a very fresh look at what's happening right now:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/04/24/ca-global-warming-is-big-business-for-government/

Libertarian/classic liberal pricing theory is nicely summarized here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Steve Frisch

Greg, bottom line is when you start a conversation with the charge that someone is "wallowing in the blood of ....children" it is an insult, it is intended as an insult, and no one here is stupid enough not to understand that.

Gregory

Steve, bottom line is when you start a conversation with the implied charge that someone's behavior is ultimately responsible for the massacre of children, that they will be traveling to Washington to lobby for new laws to criminalize what is a constitutionally protected right, it is an insult, it is intended as an insult, and no one here is stupid enough not to understand that.

Here's a Sandy Hook school parent with a different message than what MSNBC of Stev en Frisch would have picked up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUA4fpDv1jk

While I wouldn't choose the same words or appeals to a higher power, the message is clear and concise.

And by the way, Steve, managing to actually insult you (thanks for the acknowledgement) isn't cause for a public charge of mental illness. That was a clear and baseless defamation for which you still owe me a retraction.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad