Re: some U.S. observations and notes

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Thu Dec 27 2001 - 11:29:43 MST

Kai Becker wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2001 21:35 schrieb Mike Lorrey:
> > However, these numbers are all suspect, since the UK, for the last
> > several decades, counts crimes differently than the rest of the world.
> Well, Germany doesn't and neither do Japan, Australia, etc. So, at least
> those countries should be representative. The numbers are listed in

I have examined this data in the past. I notice that this study examines
crime rates in large cities of the different countries. This, therefore
does not accurately impunge legal gun ownership, since most all of the
large cities in the US greatly restrict gun use by law abiding citizens.
Note also that the study only has data for West Germany up to 1992, not
Germany as a whole. East Germany's inclusion from 1992 onward results in
a boost in crime rates of around 20%, and given that East Germany has
had far more restrictive gun laws than West Germany, this confirms my
own assertions.

As I have previously said (and you've ignored), there are distinctly
different jurisdictions in the US with significantly different firearms
laws. Vermont, for example, allows EVERYONE, including felons, to carry
concealed weapons, yet has a lower violent crime rate than any nation in
the world. New Hampshire's law says it is the right of every law abiding
citizen to receive a CCW permit that requests one, within 14 days of
application, and our crime rates are as low as Vermont's, despite being
on the border of some of the most high-crime cities in Massachusetts (a
state which highly restrictes firearms ownership).

Chicago and Washington DC have the highest violent crime rates in the
world, and contribute the largest share of violent crime in the US, and
ban gun ownership outright. As I've said, in order to properly compare
the US to other nations, you need to separate the US into two types of
jurisdictions (as Prof. John Lott did), plus you must also account for
the measurably different demographic makeup of the US vs that of
Germany, Japan, Australia, and Britain. I, in fact have done this in the
past, on this list, and demonstrated that the violent crime rates in
those parts of the US which widely permit gun use AND more accurately
mirror the demographic patterns of these other countries, those areas of
the US have far lower violent crime rates.

> If the right to bear arms - especially concealed guns - is so important
> to have a low crime rate, why is the rate of violent crimes so much higher
> in the US than in other countries? Do you have a proven explanation for
> this or can we simply drop this theme, because fire arms are in no way
> transhuman or extropian, but only inappropriate tools from our barbaric
> history?

Actually, firearms, as technological instruments of individual
empowerment, are extropic. Since firearms were first invented less than
500 years ago, there is nothing barbaric about them. They are children
of the Rennaissance and Englightenment.

What is not extropic is to continue to believe that it is in some way
just to prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves against
criminals, who never obey the law, even gun laws.

What is barbaric is to assume that anyone should have the power to
tyrannically force individuals to behave as defenseless sheep.

If you do wish to discuss this, it is more properly dealt with on the
exi-freedom list on YahooGroups, which all are invited to join.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:31 MDT