Arguments I Love: The Gun At the Bedside Argument
O.k., so I love the following argument--an argument that some of my academic-type non-firearm-oriented friends have actually offered in conversation with me:
Look, even if you had a gun right in your nightstand, if someone sneaks into your house and then into your bedroom and then puts a gun right to your head and so you wake up staring right down the barrel...well, what good is your gun then, huh?
Refutation left as an exercise for the reader.
Footnote:
This is in no way to suggest that there are no sensible arguments for gun control. I'm just discussing one single, terrible, argument that amuses me.
O.k., so I love the following argument--an argument that some of my academic-type non-firearm-oriented friends have actually offered in conversation with me:
Look, even if you had a gun right in your nightstand, if someone sneaks into your house and then into your bedroom and then puts a gun right to your head and so you wake up staring right down the barrel...well, what good is your gun then, huh?
Refutation left as an exercise for the reader.
Footnote:
This is in no way to suggest that there are no sensible arguments for gun control. I'm just discussing one single, terrible, argument that amuses me.
posted by Winston Smith at
5:00 PM
32 Comments:
I mean, why have a fire extinguisher? If you wake up and there's a raging inferno engulfing your entire house, what then, huh?
Huh? What?
And then when you get your tiny little fire extinguisher, a meteorite obliterates your house.
How's that little fire extinguisher lookin' now, huh?
c'mon, Winston.
I'm not a gun control advocate at all (I'm also not a gun rights advocate, it's a distraction wedge non-issue), but while this is a shitty-ass argument, it only reflects poorly on the argument-maker. If someone wants to subvert the supposed security of putting a gun on the nightstand, all they have to do is point out the cold, hard statistics that show that someone with a gun in the house is astronomically more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
The answer is quite simple:
A: The gun in question should be a revolver
B: The chamber in line with the barrel should either be empty, or contain a blank.
It's an old Tong trick.
Bad guy breaks in. You pick up your gun, but you're half-asleep. You shoot yourself through the head instead of him.
It was a fifty-fifty proposition, but you picked the wrong fifty. Dang.
Exactly right, Matthew.
I think that part of the problem is that everyone thinks that they're the exception to the statistics.
That, and, of course, the problem that I sort of think that the people who are most likely to fill their houses with guns are exactly the sort of people who are least likely to be responsible about them . . . but that may just be my big liberal bias.
Or, heck, considering the statistics, maybe it's not.
Well, first, I noted that it was a bad argument and wasn't supposed to reflect much about the real status of the question.
But I do think it's somewhat significant that you guys (Matthew, Joshua) can't resist pulling in another argument rather than just admitting that this one is shitty.
But, second, the argument you guys point to is, itself, a terrible one.
There's a point in it, and the point is this: many of the people who are likely to have guns in the house are also the kinds of people who are likely to shoot themselves or their own family-members.
But that has almost nothing to do with folks like me (and, I hope, you) who have in essence NO chance of ever shooting anyone innocent. When WE are trying to decide whether to own guns, it is irrelevant that many *other* people who own guns are idiots who shoot each other.
Furthermore, if you really look into those stats, you'll find that they're extremely misleading. They include e.g. battered women who shoot their abusive husbands during attacks.
So, really, better to stick to ridiculing the original terrible argument than to try to widen this to a debate about guns generally.
I agree the original argument is a terrible one, Winston. no question, it's bad and dumb.
But here's the problem.
When you say, "But that has almost nothing to do with folks like me (and, I hope, you) who have in essence NO chance of ever shooting anyone innocent. When WE are trying to decide whether to own guns, it is irrelevant that many *other* people who own guns are idiots who shoot each other." Well, I just said "I think that part of the problem is that everyone thinks that they're the exception to the statistics."
So yeah . . . you think you're the exception to the statistics. Well, Duh. So do I. But so does everyone, that's the point.
Also, when you say, "many of the people who are likely to have guns in the house are also the kinds of people who are likely to shoot themselves or their own family-members." I think you're getting at something true that I tried to address in my second paragraph.
That is, I think one big reason for all the statistics has to do with the culture surrounding guns in America, and the idea that the folks who buy and keep guns are likely to be the same folks who ignore statistics as eggheaded bullshit and who keep guns because they're awful fun, and they like the macho image, etc.
I don't know what the statistics would be like if we changed that. I guess none of us do, but since, as I said, we all think that the statistics don't apply to us, I'm very cautious about making positive predictions here.
Where are these statistics of which you speak, out of curiosity?
J,
Right, but some people who think they are exceptions are justified in that belief, and some are not.
What you point to is a slightly--but only slightly--sticky epistemic wicket. It IS possible to know where you stand in this situation, even if lots of people won't be able to do it.
Most people think they are of above-average intelligence, too. But that doesn't mean that no one is justified in believing that he is of above-average intelligence.
Most people think they are of above-average intelligence, too. But that doesn't mean that no one is justified in believing that he is of above-average intelligence.
Absolutely, but intelligence is (mostly, I guess) a measurable characteristic. I can get my IQ, compare it to the IQ of others, and walk away thinking, "Wow, I'm a smart mofo."
I don't think that there's a similarly easily measurable characteristic in play here.
Also, since my speculation as to the causes of the family shootings are just speculation, I could be wrong about them too.
So I'm in a situation where I claim:
A) The family shootings are because big dumb macho assholes own guns.
B) I'm not a big dumb macho asshole.
C) Therefore it's fine for me to own a gun.
My point is that I could be wrong about A (fairly likely) or B (somewhat less likely), and in either case it would make C less likely to be true.
How about:
(1) I have a fairly good idea what kinds of people are most likely to shoot or be shot by a member of their own family.
(2) I'm not anywhere close to being that kind of person.
So
(3) Averages about such intra-familial shootings probably aren't very informative about my case.
?
But that's the point. I'm not certain at all about #1.
I'm not confident that I have nailed down 'who shoots their families' in some sort of reasonable way.
How about:
1) I have a fairly good idea of what kinds of people are most likely NOT to shoot or be shot by a member of his or her own family.
2) I am that kind of person.
3) Averages about such intra-familial shootings probably aren't very informative about my case.
And there are many ways to verify #1 - combat training, weapons training, martial arts training, experience, spending time on a regular basis preparing yourself for a situation in which you must use your weapon so that when the time comes, you do not accidentally shoot someone innocent, making plans with the family members that might be in the house so you know whether or not you're aiming at one of them, etc.
?
This would actually be a fun and complicated problem to tackle statistically, and I wonder if anyone has really attempted it. The statistics about a gun in the home being n times more likely to be used on a member of a household are descriptive. Interesting, but they don’t allow you to get at the kinds of questions that Winston and Joshua are discussing. For that, we’d want to know a) are there certain observable characteristics about an individual that make a gun more likely to be used against someone in i’s household or more likely to be used in a successful defense of i’s home and b) if such characteristics exist are they strongly associated with these outcomes and do they provide a reasonably strong model of the process.
But there are at least two interesting complications (from a statistician’s perspective). First, not everyone who could own a gun actually does, and the decision to own a gun is almost certainly correlated with the probability that the gun will be used on a member of the household or an intruder. This is called censoring, and it is pretty easy to model if you can get the right data. The other problem is that, thankfully, use of a gun on a family member or an intruder is a rare occurrence (on a percentage basis). This means you’d need a very large sample unless you could come up with some kind of clever case-control design.
I have some vague memory that Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University has published some papers on this.
Actually, I've read [warning: vague reference to spectral data] that the kinds of people who are likely to shoot or get shot my their own family-members are the same kinds of people who are likely to experience similar mishaps like crashing their cars into trees while drunk, getting arrested for drug use, assulting people, etc.
And again:
The fact that dumb people think they're not dumb and irresponsible people can't tell they're not responsible doesn't mean that smart people can't tell whether or not they're smart and responsible people can't tell they're responsible.
"The fact that dumb people think they're not dumb and irresponsible people can't tell they're not responsible doesn't mean that smart people can't tell whether or not they're smart and responsible people can't tell they're responsible."
..
I tried drawing out a sentence diagram of that to make it make sense, but to no avail.
I get it, but I had to work for it more than I should've.
I'm not usually too interested in debates about guns...But In thinking about this more I'm leaning toward Matthew and Josh in this debate. Maybe we can think of it like this:
-A isn't too sharp but thinks he is
-B is impulsively violent but believes he's very responsible
-C is dumb and knows he aint too bright
-D is irresponsible and knows it
-E is an all-around good guy, smart and responsible
If a significant percentage of the population are As and Bs--not implausible--then it seems likely that more guns in more hands may lead to more gun violence. Of course, gun owners in the E class won't be likely to cause reckless gun violence, while people who are Cs and Ds might have enough self-awareness to know they couldn't safely use guns. But so long as a lot of people are As and Bs, more guns in more hands would plausibly lead to more accidents and abuses of guns, I think...
I'm not against the Second Amendment, so I don't know how to solve this one...Maybe the best we can do is try to make sure people who have a record of violence or madness can't get guns.
Some data worth considering: A friend of mine from Japan told me that there are approximately 35 gun deaths a year in her country. No one is allowed to carry guns in Japan. I think the number of gun-related deaths in the US is somewhere in the tens of thousands. The population in the US is much larger than Japan, but that is still a huge difference.
I don't know how that means that Matthew and Josh are right that WS can't be justified in believing that he is an "E" person, as you have it laid out there.
If you think that there's no good way of telling whether or not you're an E instead of an A, then you've got quite an epistemological problem on your hands that stretches beyond a gun debate.
Further, WS only claimed that he was an E, had good reason to believe that he is an E, and is therefore justified in believing that he is not going to end up doing something that requires that you are not E.
I don't see how anyone has convincingly stated that that argument is wrong. Like I said, people (you seem to be agreeing?) have seemingly stated that there's no good way of determining whether or not you're an E.
If you do, in fact, believe that, then you might consider how, according to your own belief (and this is simply for the purpose of developing a constructive dilemma - I'm not insulting anyone here), there is no way for you to judge whether or not you are stupid. If that is the case, then there's no reason to analyze argumentation, because you could just be so stupid that you don't understand at all what is going on. There's no way of telling whether or not this is the case, so you will simply have to live in mystery for all of your existence, never to know whether or not you are smart and understanding the arguments, or stupid and having no idea what is going on.
That would be a sucky epistemic position in which to be, no?
And unless you accept that, or reject the idea that WS has any good reason to believe that he is an E, then I don't see how you can refute his argument.
Actually, I've read [warning: vague reference to spectral data] that the kinds of people who are likely to shoot or get shot my their own family-members are the same kinds of people who are likely to experience similar mishaps like crashing their cars into trees while drunk, getting arrested for drug use, assulting people, etc.
See, now that's useful to me.
Part of my issue is that my assumption on some level about "who accidentally shoots their families" tends to back up my pre-existing biases (NRA members are all morons, hicks with a lot of guns are probably irresponsible and paranoid, etc.) and I try hard not to take my biases as fact.
I know, for example, that there are many smart people living in the south. I know that my knee-jerk reaction about dumb southerners is wrong, wrong, wrong . . . so I try to be extra-careful when my 'careful evaluation of the data' tends to match up a little too closely with my dumbass assumptions.
Is it my imagination, or is every southpaw argument these days premised on everybody being stupid except them?
Man, that's weird, 'cause that sounds like someone who posts here frequently..
Anonymous, you don't even know the number of things you don't know. I have no time for the "turnip-truck" community.
# posted by Tom Van Dyke : 4:46 PM
Who could it be..
There's just no way to do this with Cliffs Notes. All the words are there, but not the understanding.
# posted by Tom Van Dyke : 12:58 AM
Hmm..
The "turnip-truck" community's contribution (i.e., nothing except snark) is hereby acknowledged.
The prevailing argument here has been that some stupid redneck will shoot his wife in a moment of passion, so the gun on his nightstand should be taken away. (By force and guns I suppose.)
But if you examine the stats, the profile looks a little different.
Sign your name, man. Make an affirmative argument. Look me in the eye. Take the moral responsibilty for your hmm...
Tom, what happened to your comments there? Did they end up out of order or something?
I ask because try as I might, I'm just not seeing what on Earth you're talking about.
Ahh, I see.
Anonymous quoted several of your previous posts, so it all looked vaguely screwed up (to me, anyhow).
Don't you guys think that Tom's hit on a pretty significant point there?
That is, isn't there some tendency among some people (let's remain neutral about who it is for right now) to push this "OMFG we're all so frail and helpless and incompetent!" line?
Or a slight variation:
Don't we sometimes slip into a mode of thought wherein we propose policies which are, in effect, made with the dumbest 5-or-so-% of the population in mind? Sometimes that might be reasonable, but not always...
This just seems to be an important point to me.
I read Tom's comment a little differently . . . I'm not assuming everyone who's not me is an idiot, and, actually, that's my whole point.
Maybe people accidentally shoot their families because they're idiots. Maybe they do it because it's dark and scary and "hey I've got a gun!" Maybe they do it because guns are inherently dangerous. Maybe they do it because they're conservative assholes. Maybe they do it because they're liberal pussies.
All I'm saying is that I'd like to see evidence one way or the other rather than assume I know what the conclusion will be based on my preexisting biases.
Oh, it's out there. Google "cato" and "guns."
The Cato Institute is conservative, but more libertarian than Republican. I don't know if you can stomach such exotic fare, but the seeker of truth might let them figure into his calculations.
Cheers, and happy eating.
Well, J, there's no arguing with that.
We need data.
Though I WILL lay the following cards on the table:
I have certain philosophical and political commitments that will probably push me to defend the Second Amendment even if firearms do turn out to be fairly dangerous even for normal people.
Nevertheless, I don't think I have any inclination whatsoever to pretend they're safer than they are. I want to know what the actual facts look like, and make policy in light of them...even if that means saying "they're dangerous, but we aren't going to ban them."
(We're intersecting with a point LL made a couple of posts back: that most people don't really want to know the facts, they want pretend facts that will support the policies they already hold. Not us here at Philosoraptor, though, I think/hope.)
I dunno. So far, the Buffet of Truth sits untouched.
Since TVD has gone meta on this topic and that usually means the end of useful discussion, just for yucks, I'd like to go back to WS's original exercise and refute the gun at your head argument, hopefully with some elegance:
With a gun at your head, the phone by the bed is also useless for calling the police.
Heh, good one, LL.
I was thinking along the lines of the Mystic's fire extinguisher argument, but that phone one's a doozy, too.
This comment is for Matthew Christman and all the other people who regurgitate the statistically twisted claim that a firearm in the household is more likely to harm a family member than to prevent a crime. I did a research paper several years ago and looked at where this statistic was derived from. The number was actually five times more likely. This I believe originally came from the New England Journal of Medicine. Here's how they were counted.
If you had a gun in the house and an intruder broke in and shot someone, even if the gun in the house wasn't involved, it was counted as "harming a family member."
If an intruder broke into your home and you brandished the gun and he ran away, this was not counted as "successfully preventing a crime." Likewise, if you fired a warning shot and he ran away, it was not counted as "successfully preventing a crime." Same if you shot the intruder but didn't kill him. The only thing that was counted as the "successful prevention a crime" is if the intruder was shot and killed inside the home.
Clearly, shooting the intruder and killing him is not the most likely scenario for using a firearm to warn off an intruder. Most times a shot is never even fired.
The answer to Winston's pondering is this. It will likely do you no good at all in that scenario. However, it's also highly unlikely that an intruder get that far before you wake up, get your gun, and shoot the ignoramus that ignored the "Premises Protected my Smith & Wesson" sign on the front door.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home