Comments on: ‘I won’t testify. I’m afraid’

By: TerjeP

TerjeP — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:33:52 +0000

My last comment is not clear.

My point is that homicide is typically higher in the USA even for means of murder other than firearms.

http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg00867.html

Of the 839 homicides in England and Wales in the 12 months ending Nov. 28 — the most recent period for which Home Office figures are available — 29% involved sharp instruments including knives, blades and swords. Firearms account for just 9% of murders in Britain. The murder rate in Britain is 15 per million people.

The U.S. murder rate is 55 per million, according to the FBI. Of those, 70% of murders were committed with firearms; just 14% involved knives or cutting instruments.

Doing the maths suggests that knife homicide in the two countries occur at the following rates:-

US = 7.70 per million
UK = 4.35 per million

With knives alone the Americans still kill eachother at twice the rate that the British do.

By: TerjeP

TerjeP — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:16:23 +0000

The thing to note about gun homicide in the USA is that it is not uniquely higher than other forms of homicide. Americans kill eachother more, both with and without guns.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:08:02 +0000

David Leyonhjelm made the point over at the ALS that a huge chunk of US crime is directly related to the idiot ‘War on Drugs’ caper. It really does make you wonder how long a given policy has to be stuck on EPIC FAIL (I do rather like that, Darryl) before someone in authority admits that, ahem, it was a bad idea.

By: pedro

pedro — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:26:41 +0000

SL - I’ve seen similar things reported / claimed. You might think the crims will be better with a gun, but they don’t know that.

I know it’s disputed, but I’ve read claims of large correlations between widespread gun ownership and reductions in crime. It seems like the gun crime in the US is worse in the places with the strongest restrictions, but also the largest drug problems. I recall reading that Washington DC has high gun murder rates, but a large proportion is drug related.

Switzerland is the usual example of a low crime / lots of guns country.

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:22:50 +0000

The alternative explanation would be witness intimidation is more common, and threats more likely to be carried out, in cases of organised/gang crime, which DC has in spades. You would need to compare cities that are demographically similar to DC but have different gun laws, like Baltimore or Detroit, rather than the US as a whole.

By: Darryl Rosin

Darryl Rosin — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:59:13 +0000

I don’t see why the presence of weapons in the home would have any effect at all on witness intimidation. There must be dozens of effective ways to intimidate someone that doesn’t involve breaking into their house.

The whole argument hinges on this sentence: ‘If you can’t protect yourself, it’s much safer to say “I won’t testify. I’m afraid I’ll be next”’. I still can’t see how owning a firearm per se either engenders immunity to intimidation or dissuades criminals from attempting to intimidate witnesses. (unless an attempt to intimidate requires forced entry to witnesses’ homes)

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:14:08 +0000

I don’t think it’s your gun per se, Darryl. It’s the deterrence it provides. There’s a mountain of research showing that prison and execution and harsh sentences generally don’t deter. By the same token, incapacitation - lengthy prison sentences - is strongly correlated with a reduction in crime (Levitt, 2001). His was the first big study, although David Leyonhjelm has done some smaller scale stuff - he made this comment on the same topic (I posted a link over at his site):

More than 50% of burglaries in the UK are “hot”, meaning the occupants of the premises are home at the time. The corresponding figure in the US is 13%. The reason for the difference is that burglars in the US fear armed homeowners much more.

In the UK, as in Australia, it is illegal to own a gun for self defence and very dodgy to try and use one. In most of the US, now including Washington DC, ownership of a gun for self defence at home is pretty much untouchable and 40 or 41 states also issue permits for concealed carry. In addition, a number of US states have passed so-called “castle doctrine” laws which give the home owner a right to shoot burglars.

I think gun availability also helps explain why the US has a much lower rate of crime than the UK. The only crime that is higher is murder, which some claim is a consequence of the different approaches to control of drugs.

.
No doubt Sinkers will turn up and explain which economic incentives to use

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:00:12 +0000

I tend to agree with you, Darryl. I don’t own a gun, and I’m not likely to, but if I did, I doubt I’d feel any safer, because I doubt my own capacity to use a gun in an emergency situation.

By: Darryl Rosin

Darryl Rosin — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:24:12 +0000

But surely is issue is not ownership but willingness to use lethal force. I’m a gun owner and there’s no way I’d be shooting anyone. Dead guy = EPIC FAIL when the typical outcome of a break and enter is ‘everyone gets out alive’.

I don’t feel one whit safer because I have rifles and ammo and I don’t see why I should feel any different. Odds are any potential intimidator would be more much proficient with their weapon of choice that I am with any weapon (unless he or she comes armed only with belligerent repartee and I have to rely on my rapier wit).

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:21:24 +0000

I think there are two questions, Sinc. The first concerns the scope of ’self defence’ at common law. The second concerns whether actual physical capacity to defend oneself leads to less witness intimidation (Andrew and LE pinged it up the thread). Like many of these things, there’s a rule of law argument buried underneath the practical considerations.