Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals About Morality

[Dardedar]

In this week’s eSkeptic Kenneth W. Krause reviews Laurence R. Tancredi’s book, Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals About Morality. (Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0521860016)

Kenneth W. Krause lives in Wisconsin, along the Mississippi River. He is a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney with degrees in law, history, literature, and fine art. Books editor for Secular Nation, Kenneth has recently contributed as well to Free Inquiry, Skeptic, The Humanist, and Freethought Today.

***
Hardwired for Good

a book review by Kenneth W. Krause

Nature precedes nurture. Biology sets the parameters for behavior, whether consciously or unconsciously inspired. “Free will” is more a convenient social and political ideal than a dispassionate description of reality, and as such, writes Laurence Tancredi, attorney and New York University Professor of Psychiatry, “individual ‘sins’ may not be ‘sins’ after all” (p. 9).

Moral behaviors draw from nearly every component of the brain, but the “heavy lifting” is performed in three areas: the amygdala, the inhibitory networks (anterior cingulate cortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex), and the mirror-neuron system. Broadly stated, the amygdala generates emotional import from environmental stimuli while inhibitory structures assist in regulating emotional responses. The prefrontal cortex, often referred to as the brain’s “command post,” is crucial in managing complex behaviors, and the mirror-neuron system is essential to learning by imitation. Overwhelmingly intense responses by the first or deficiencies in or injuries to the latter structures can result in bad decisions, and, ultimately, immoral behavior.

Even so, genes do not lord over every detail of human conduct. Biology is more a firm hand clasped behind a heavy leash than ten tireless fingers strung over a marionette. Genetic transmission of any given moral capacity is insufficient to ensure a moral trait. In addition, some instruction, or external intercession, must trigger such behaviors.

Aggressive moral training, Tancredi advises, must be implemented “early and often” (43). Deception, for example, appears to come quite naturally for children, even for those too young to anticipate punishment. According to one study, at least sixty percent of people lie regularly, and many such inquiries confirm that males perjure themselves two or three times more often than females. In evolutionary terms, men tend to lie as a means of self-promotion and women for the sake of self-protection.

Contrary to popular information, such deeds are common among other intelligent mammals as well. Dogs simulate injury to secure nourishment; chimpanzees have been known to feign indifference before spitting water at unsuspecting passers by. Evidently, several species acquired the trait of ruse as both an effective instrument of self-preservation and an opportune means of entertainment.

Similarly, the “evidence is strong that people do not choose their sexual interests” (108). Homosexuality, also practiced by numerous species, including monkeys, bonobos, chimpanzees, dolphins, and birds, might be heritable in part through mothers. Also, anomalies resulting in prenatal testosterone deficiencies appear to increase the chance of homosexuality among males. Like women, homosexuals tend to have larger anterior commissures than men, and generally exhibit better verbal than spatial capacities.

According to offender reports, pedophilia might develop prior to puberty, before subjects experience sex of any kind. The evidence indicates that sexual deviance might be caused by monoaminergic dysregulation, a type of neurotransmitter imbalance. According to the author, if the neurochemicals of lust, testosterone-induced dopamine and norepinephrine, reach excessive levels, “they will dampen the circulating levels of the neurochemicals of social bonding,” oxytocin and vasopressin (112).

Scientists have long known that injuries to the brain’s prefrontal regions often result in moral challenges, including impulsivity, immature behavior, aggression, and the inability to modify personal behavior. Researchers have discovered as well that alleged murderers with somewhat standard family backgrounds demonstrate lower prefrontal glucose metabolism when compared to those with histories of social and psychological deprivation and to the control group.

“This would suggest,” Tancredi argues, “that murderers are strongly affected by prefrontal deficits even without the ‘social push’ from environment” (153). The author stops short, however, of professing that criminals are never morally responsible for their actions. Rather, he writes, “those who have full control are likely to represent a very small percentage of those we now label as bad,” and “the relationship between ‘mad’ and ‘bad’ is growing ever closer” (143, 160).

Thus, Tancredi alleges, the M’Naughten standard and other modern legal insanity tests are deficient, at least insofar as they consider only a defendant’s ability to distinguish or appreciate the difference between society’s definitions of right and wrong but not a defendant’s ability to control his or her behavior, or, in other words, to exercise free will. The same reasoning should apply, the author reasons, when individuals judge other individuals’ “badness.”

To illustrate his point, Tancredi exploits his involvement in the former criminal case against Ricky Green, a psychopathic serial killer who sexually mutilated his victims. Green was physically abused by his father, sexually abused by his grandfather and dominated by both male and female sexual partners during his childhood and adolescence. His sister seduced him and his father and brothers were criminals. One could hardly imagine a more unfortunate and potentially volatile familial environment.

Nevertheless, Tancredi writes, the genesis of Green’s murderous rage was an amalgamation of both nurture and nature. His ability to manage his emotions and conform his behavior to socially acceptable paradigms “was challenged from birth” (62). Subjective reports indicated that Green’s limbic structures and anterior cingulated cortex were incapable of inhibiting his amygdalar responses to external stimuli. In addition, his brain might have been altered by the “severe frustration and stress” he must have experienced as a powerless child. (63) These changes, Tancredi claims, can result in further degradation of a person’s anxiety threshold.

A moderately intriguing journey for non-scientists, Hardwired Behavior is an effortless read to the end, but it ultimately fails to provide an appreciable destination. Too frequently, Tancredi dwells on gravel and blacktop as if he believes his readers were traversing it for the very first time. Occasionally, he directs our attention out the window and into the clouds — speculating wildly — promising more than anyone could possibly deliver.

But neither limited free will, nor significantly determined morality, should imply any degree of intellectual resignation. Prior to the 1980s, most neuroscientists were convinced that only fetal and juvenile brains could generate new neurons. Subsequent experiments with canaries, rats, primates, and humans, however, have deposed such assumptions. According to contemporary leading neuroscientists, neuroplasticity and neurogenesis in adult animals have proven the most important and exciting brain science discoveries to occur in the last quarter century.

Now, such experts are contemplating the next 25 years, hoping that such discoveries will result in our ability to rewire or transplant subjects’ existing neural circuits. These scientists, including Tancredi, recognize the serious ethical implications of this science. Ethical quandaries, however, have always been the hallmark of cutting-edge science.

-------
Source:

eSkeptic is a free, public newsletter published (almost) weekly by the Skeptics Society. Contents are Copyright © 2006 Michael Shermer, the Skeptics Society, and the authors and artists. Permission is granted to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. Contact us at skepticssociety@skeptic.com.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Was anybody surprised that most males lie to self-promote while most females lie to self-protect? Nor that males lie 2-3 times more often than females? The report didn't go into the "deception" of children - probably because nobody really wants to look at the fact that most American childrearing practices cause "hostage syndrome" reactions on the part of children. Homosexuality having a biological component is about as well accepted as global warming (i.e., by anyone who has kept an eye on the science rather than the religious rhetoric).

Saying criminal behavior is "hardwired" doesn't solve anything. Part of the problem is that, "hardwired" or not, you can't just leave people like Ricky Green running loose. Nor is it particularly fair to incarcerate folks like him at the tax payers' expense. In fact, from a certain point of view, this concept supports capital punishment, since "hardwired" behavior is something that cannot be "rehabilitated".

[Hogeye]

In fact, from a certain point of view, this concept supports capital punishment, since "hardwired" behavior is something that cannot be "rehabilitated".

Or widespread firearms ownership. Let the targets of crime blow away the criminals in the act, obviating the need for prisons. The author L. Neil Smith calls those who don't carry "socially naked."

I don't consider determinism and free will to be a dicotomy; but merely two different points of view. I.e. Even if morality were totally hard-wired, we could still talk about good and bad conduct.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

And I call those who carry places for criminals to get guns free. More often the targets of crimes don't have the option to "blow way" the criminal in the act.

If morality were totally hard-wired, the appropriate response to bad conduct would be different from than if morality were totally free-will.

[Hogeye]

And I call those who carry places for criminals to get guns free.

??? If you are referring to theft of firearms from homes, then you miss the point - those are folks left their guns at home instead of carrying. (Furthermore, you seem to be assuming something rather unlikely: that the deterrence and protection gained from firearms in homes doesn't outweigh the possibility of those arms being stolen.)

If morality were totally hard-wired, the appropriate response to bad conduct would be different from than if morality were totally free-will.

If it attacks me, I don't care whether it's a mad dog or a bad dog. If robbed, I want compensation. Again, it matters not whether the perpetrator was hardwired or not. I suppose that, if you're into revenge rather than restitution, then determination vs. free choice in deciding the extent of punishment may be appropriate. But wrt defense against aggressive acts, it is irrelevant.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Unless you have the gun loaded, out, cocked, and aimed at the potential perp, that perp is going to hit you with a nice, legal, baseball bat and get your gun as a freeby when he takes your wallet. Having your wallet, he'll even know what name to hock it under and probably get more money that way than from the cash in the wallet in this mostly plastic society. As to restitution, I am of the opinion that ALL non-violent crimes should be punished by restitution to equal at least 1.5 the loss (yes, the other .5 is punitive, but enforcement costs money, too).

[Hogeye]

Unless you have the gun loaded, out, cocked, and aimed at the potential perp, that perp is going to hit you with a nice, legal, baseball bat and get your gun as a freeby when he takes your wallet.

Is this your clairvoyant prediction for someone in particular? It certainly isn't supported at a macro level by any known study of defensive firearms use. I suggest that you look at the "hot burgulary" rate in England and Australia after they cracked down on firearms ownership. Your helpless *resistence is futile* take on crime doesn't gibe with reality. Firearms deter crime every day (though you wouldn't get that impression from mass media.) Are you aware that firearms ownership is negatively correlated with crime? Apparently not.

I agree that expected cost of apprehension may legitimately be included in restitution. But this is justified by restitution for security services, not mere punishment/revenge.

[Dardedar]

Are you aware that firearms ownership is negatively correlated with crime? Apparently not.

DAR
Perhaps the person most well known for spreading this idea that more guns, specifically concealed guns, help crime go down is John Lott. About three years ago an article in my Skeptical Inquirer magazine highlighted John Lott and this argument as a textbook example of statistical trickery. I can't find that article right now but there are lots of good roasts of Mr. Lott and his tactics. Here are some little excerpts from one at:

The Harvard School of Public Health

***
Book Review

A few years ago I wrote a critical review of John
Lott's book “More Guns Less Crime” (Hemenway 1998).
Unfortunately, Lott's new book “The Bias Against Guns:
Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard about Gun Control
is Wrong” also has major problems. Much that Lott
writes is either wrong or misleading. What follows is
a partial listing:

[snip 1,2,]

3. Lott'states that: “In the U.S. the states with the
highest gun ownership rates also have by far the
lowest violent crime rates.” (p. 76) He provides no
evidence, no citations and no discussion for this
assertion. The reader would never know that there is,
in fact, an extensive literature examining the
relationship between gun ownership rates and homicide
(the most serious violent crime, the one with the most
comparable and reliable data across states, and the
crime where gun availability should have the most
effect). Many of these studies find a significant
positive relationship between gun ownership levels and
homicide; where there are more guns there is more
homicide (e.g., Brearly 1932; Seitz 1972; Lester 1990;
Birckmayer 1999; Miller et al 20002; Hepburn &
Hemenway 2003). I don’t believe that any peer-reviewed
study finds a significant negative relationship
between state gun levels and homicide.

[snip 4 and 5]

6. Lott's book is largely about the benefits of
self-defense gun use. Yet Lott misses most of the
self-defense gun use literature. For example, he does
not even mention the three national telephone surveys
focusing on self-defense gun use sponsored by the
Harvard Injury Control Research Center (Hemenway &
Azrael 2000; Hemenway et al 2000). He discusses one of
our thirty-plus empirical articles on gun issues, and
he gets that one completely wrong.

We show that across regions and states, where there
are higher levels of firearm ownership there are more
suicides, more homicides, and more accidental (gun)
deaths to children (and adults, and males and
females), holding various factors constant, including
poverty, urbanization, educational levels (alcohol
consumption and non-lethal violent crime). (Miller et
al, 2001; 2002a, 2002b,2002c,2002d).

DAR
His conclusion?

"In his analyses, Lott virtually always uses
complicated econometrics. For readers to accept the
results requires complete faith in Lott's integrity,
that he will always conduct careful and competent
research. Lott does not merit such faith. It is
unfortunate, for Lott analyzes important policy issues
in a contentious policy arena where more good research
is needed. It is also disheartening for the many
careful academic researchers who are trying to conduct
competent studies to see the impact that Lott's less
careful research has had on the policy debate."

Many more excellent points about this guy HERE.

Oh, I found the Skeptical Inquirer article.
Excellent roast. It can be read HERE

A tiny excerpt:

"Econometric modeling is a double-edged sword in its
capacity to facilitate statistical findings to warm
the hearts of true believers of any stripe.

Zimring and Hawkins were right. Within a year, two
determined econometricians, Dan Black and Daniel Nagin
(1998) published a study showing that if they changed
the statistical model a little bit, or applied it to
different segments of the data, Lott and Mustard's
findings disappeared. Black and Nagin found that when
Florida was removed from the sample there was "no
detectable impact of the right-to-carry laws on the
rate of murder and rape." They concluded that
"inference based on the Lott and Mustard model is
inappropriate, and their results cannot be used
responsibly to formulate public policy."

D.

-----------------
If more guns = less crime and more safety, then why do
we find:

People killed by guns (1996)

2 people in New Zealand
15 in Japan
30 in Great Britain
106 in Canada
213 in Germany and...

9,390 in the United States.

[Dardedar]

I suggest that you look at the "hot burgulary" rate in England and Australia after they cracked down on firearms ownership.

DAR
I have.

Handgun homicide is 3.5 times higher in America than GB. And I learned this from a pro-gun article with the BBC news:

"A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of
one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30
million. But murder rates for both countries are now
changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the
English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English
rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Regarding Australia:

**
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/fact ... tralia.pdf

The National Rifle Association likes to tell tall
tales about Australia. The best one is that gun
control Down Under is a failure.

[snip]

Has anything changed in Australia since the new laws
went into effect? Homicides committed with
firearms have been declining – from 21 percent of all
homicides in 1997 to 16 percent in 2002-2003.[4,5]
Along with the declining use of firearms in homicide,
Australia saw a 44% decline in the use of firearms in
armed robberies from 1993 to 2003.[6] From 1997 to
2003, the proportion of robberies committed with a
firearm dropped from 10 to 6 percent.[7, 8]

Suicide rates using a firearm dropped 48% between 1991
and 2001 and firearm-related accidental injuries in
Australia are also declining.[9] Public health experts
see these declines as related to tighter controls over
who may obtain a gun, stricter requirements for
training and safe storage, and longer waiting periods
for obtaining gun licenses.[10]

The next time a credulous friend tells you that
Australia actually experienced more crime when it got
tougher on crime, offer your friend a Fosters and a
helping of truth.

[go to the link for the footnotes]

DAR
More:

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of
homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999.
Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct
1999

"This report shows that as gun ownership has been
progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's
firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has
declined to almost half its 85-year average."

Gun-Related Death by Any Cause

The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury
deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The
most recently available ABS figures show a total of
437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and
unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for
18 years.

The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000
population remains one-fifth that of the United
States.

"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death
rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in
most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a
declining trend in the percentage of robberies
involving the use of firearms in Australia."

-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of
the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues
in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian
Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6

Assault and Robbery

Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave"
as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence
unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault
(no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact
less than one in five Australian armed robberies
involve a firearm.

"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the
number of armed robberies involving a firearm
decreased to a six-year low."
-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau
of Statistics, Jun 1999

Lots more on this here:

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

How about Canada:

"In 1996 the total firearm deaths [in Canada] amounted
to 1,131, of which 815 were suicides, 45 were
accidents and 156 were homicides."

That's 156 firearm homicides in Canada, in 1996.

How many in the US in 1996?

How about 9,390.

Canada has one tenth the population of the US, so all things being equal they should have had 10% of the US number. That would be 939. But they didn't have 939, they had 156. If you take Canada's number and times it by ten, you should, all things being equal get a number close to the US's. But instead you get 1,560, not even cloce to the US's incredible 9,390.

To give you an idea of how bad it is, it would take SIXTY CANADA's to have the Canadian rate of gun homicide reach the US number of gun homicides in 1996.

And gets better:

"The violent crime rate has been steadily declining in
Canada over the last two decades, and progressively
fewer crimes are being committed with firearms. In
1978, Canada recorded 661 homicides, a rate of 2.76
per 100,000. Of these, 250, or 37.8%, were committed
with guns. In 1998, Canada had 555 homicides, a rate
of 1.83 per 100,000. Guns were involved in 151 of the
homicides, 27% of the total, the lowest proportion
since statistics were first collected in 1961.
Robberies using firearms accounted for 18% of all such
crimes in 1998, down from 25% in 1988 and 37% in
1978."

http://www.canadianembassy.org/governme ... rol-en.asp

More:

"Other countries

Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been
noted in several countries whose gun controls have
been recently tightened.

In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991
and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a
30-year low.

Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns
were banned, bought back from their owners and
destroyed. In the year following the law change,
Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related
offences. The British Home Office reports that in the
nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related
offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be
a victim of gun homicide than an American."

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

DAR
My conclusion. If you want to own a gun, fine, do so. I own several (if you count air-guns), including a handgun. I grew up on a farm (in Canada) with guns around, and I know how to shoot one. In grade eleven I was the only kid in my highschool to shoot a perfect score, 100% bullseyes, in our Community Recreation rifle class.

There may be a tipping point to where a society has so many guns that you may actually be prudent to have one. Perhaps not. I'm not sure.

But lets not buy into the NRA BS and lying about just how bad the gun deaths are in the countries that have sensible gun control and how safe people are in countries that are awash in guns.

D.

----------------------
"According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths
among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher
in the United States than in 25 other industrialized
countries combined. American children are 16 times
more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more
likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times
more likely to die in a firearm accident than children
in these other countries."

--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of
homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among
children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm#edn3

[Dardedar]

Firearms deter crime every day (though you wouldn't get that impression from mass media.)

DAR
There is a bunch of NRA mythology floating around about this as well. A fairly intelligent overview of this issue on a VERY pro-gun site, can be read here:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

D.

[Doug]

DOUG
Speaking of crime statistics, note that "tough" George W. Bush is heading up a rise in the crime rate.

Republicans pretend to be tough on crime, but they are really just tough on criminals. They don't give a flip about the crime rate.


============
From the Associated Press:
FBI Statistics Show Violent Crime in U.S. Is on Rise; Overall Increase Is 2.5 Percent in 2005 By PATRICK WALTERS, Associated Press Writer

PHILADELPHIA -- FBI statistics Monday confirmed what big cities like Philadelphia, Houston, Cleveland and Las Vegas have seen on the streets: Violent crime in the U.S. is on the rise, posting its biggest one-year increase since 1991.

=============
[Another article]
Violent Crime Is Up for First Time in 4 Years

By MARIA NEWMAN
Published: June 12, 2006 NYT
Violent crime increased in the United States for the first time in four years, up 2.5 percent in 2005 from the year before, with the biggest increases in murder coming in medium-size cities and in the Midwest.
New York Times
=============

DOUG
So when Clinton was in office, crime went down every year. Now Bush comes in, and it goes up.

[Dardedar]

DOUG
So when Clinton was in office, crime went down every year. Now Bush comes in, and it goes up.

DAR
Ditto poverty. Abortion too I think.

D.

[Hogeye]

Darrel, you dodge and duck and weave a lot, but you never address the hot burglery before/after rates in England and Australia.

You compare with high-crime US - dodge - (but not Switzerland where virtually every household has an "assault weapon.")

You talk about reductions in homicides using a firearm - duck - but not homicides overall. You talk about robberies using a firearm - weave - but not robberies overall. Have you considered that you may not need a firearm to rob or kill disarmed victims?

Similarly, you talk of reduced suicides with guns, but again omit the important number - how many total suicides.

Now, instead of comparing apples to oranges, let's look at Australia and England before and after their recent crackdowns against self-defense (in 1996 and 1997 respectively.)

In 1996, in the wake of a mass shooting, the Australian government seized more than 640,000 guns from its citizens. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the next two years, armed robbery rose by 73%, unarmed robbery by 28%, kidnaping by 38%, assault by 17% and manslaughter by 29%.

Following the trend from down under, the government in the U.K. also imposed new gun controls after a mass shooting. Again violent crime did not decrease. According to the U.S. Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics, although the rates of murder and rape are higher in the U.S., England has surpassed us in its rate of robberies, assaults, burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. And the English crime rate has been rising while the U.S. rate has been falling. In 1998 the mugging rate in England was 40% higher than in the U.S., furthermore, assault and burglary rates were nearly 100% higher in England than in the United States.

Another rate that will strike terror in the heart of every woman is the rate of hot burglaries, which are burglaries that take place when people are home. I think one of my worst nightmares would be to wake up in the dead of night to find an intruder in my room. Yet, most criminals in this country know that breaking in with people home is a good way to get shot. In fact, if someone were to break into my home when we are home, that is exactly what will happen. The hot burglary rate in the U.S. is 13%. However, in countries with strict gun control, such as England and Canada, the hot burglary rate is closer to 50%. The criminals know that their victims, having been rendered helpless by their governments, cannot defend themselves. (Full article here.)

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
(Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre)
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead. But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average. (Full article here.)

Here are some crime trends collected from UK police crime data for the period of 1995 to 2003. (Taken from Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003. British Home Office, July 2003. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf  )

Homicide rose 41%.
Attempted murder rose 29%.
Total Violent Crime rose 219%. full article

The effect of victim disarmament is pretty obvious.

Edited by Savonarola 20060613 20.23: Fixed URLs

[Dardedar]

The effect of victim disarmament is pretty obvious.

DAR
Yes it is.

D.
-----------------------
"According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths
among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher
in the United States than in 25 other industrialized
countries combined. American children are 16 times
more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more
likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times
more likely to die in a firearm accident than children
in these other countries."

--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of
homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among
children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm#edn3

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye fails to understand that a large percentage increase of a low number doesn't make a high number (i.e., using 1996 figures of 30 killed in GB by handguns, 100% increase would still only be 60 people). However, guns are not the only factor in crime (which as someone once pointed out, is usually waving - it's an MSM staple). Burglary rates in the US started dropping in the 1960s, rose again in the 1980s, dropped in the 1990s and started rising again in the 2000s. Not only is there an inverse ratio with laxity of gun laws (with a slight time lag), there is also an inverse ration with number of cops on the street (no time lag). Clinton put more cops on the street. W took them off again.

And I need no clairvoyance to know that the attacker has the advantage. That's why you keep hearing people say "the best defense is a good offense" - the attacker knows when, where, and how the attack is going to happen. Francis Marion's small swamp army ran the British regulars ragged in the 1780s - and armed themselves by attacking the Brits when they weren't expecting it.

[Hogeye]

A large percentage increase of a low number doesn't make a high number...

Right. Darrel needs to take this into account with his firearm deaths among children numbers. He may want to look at the number of children who drowned in swimming pools, or were killed riding bicycles for comparison.

Guns are not the only factor in crime...

Right. That's why comparing the Australia or England to the US is ludicrous. The US' drug war hysteria is a better explanation for its high crime rate (and world's highest incarceration rate of its own people.)

Burglary rates in the US started dropping in the 1960s, rose again in the 1980s, dropped in the 1990s and started rising again in the 2000s. Not only is there an inverse ratio with laxity of gun laws (with a slight time lag)...

You seem to be saying that US victim disarmament laws became more authoritarian somewhat prior to the 60s, more liberal somewhat prior to the 80s, more authoritarian prior to the 90s, and more liberal prior to 2000. I request proof. I find that hard to believe, particularly since most laws relating to victim disarmament are made by provinces ("states"), which vary widely. Your methodology, however, is great; I'd like to see England and Australia liberalize now, so we can see if crime goes back down again.

There is also an inverse ration with number of cops on the street...

I don't buy this either. Cato Institute did and extensive study and concluded, "An increase in police appears to have no significant effect on the actual rate of violent crime and a roughly proportionate negative effect on the actual rate of property crime."


A good example of self-defense with a firearm was in today's paper, pretty much the opposite of your "resistence is futile" prediction:

Magazine man killed in break-in, police say

BY DAVE HUGHES ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE MAGAZINE
A Magazine man was fatally shot Saturday as he was breaking into the home of a rural Logan County family. Casey Steele Weber, 22, died from a single gunshot wound as he climbed in the window of a home on Diamond Road north- east of Magazine about 2 a.m. Saturday, Logan County Sheriff Mark Limbird said. Limbird on Monday would not identify the resident who shot Weber.

Weber went to the home and woke the resident early Saturday, asking to talk to a man who did not live there, Limbird said. Weber, ignoring requests that he leave, persisted in asking for the man, banging on doors and windows, Limbird said. The resident repeatedly said no such man was at the home, said he had a gun and asked Weber to leave.

Weber's persistent knocking on doors and windows alarmed the resident's wife, young daughter and niece, Limbird said. Weber found a bat outside, broke out the window of the daughter's bedroom and began to climb inside. Limbird said the resident pointed a 12-gauge shotgun into the room and fired, hoping to scare Weber away. The shotgun slug struck Weber, Limbird said.

The resident was not arrested. Logan County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Tatum said Monday that an autopsy and toxicology tests are being conducted as part of the investigation. Tatum said he doesn't antici- pate charging the resident with a crime but will wait on preliminary autopsy results before making a decision.

I shudder to think what may have happened if the residents were not willing and able to engage in self-defense.

[Dardedar]

Darrel needs to take this into account with his firearm deaths among children numbers. He may want to look at the number of children who drowned in swimming pools, or were killed riding bicycles for comparison.

DAR
This just in:

"According to the CDC, the rate of swimming pool and bicycle deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined."

Just kidding.

D.

[Hogeye]

LOL! Seriously, I found the answer for swimming pools.

"The risk of being a victim of a fatal gun accident can be better appreciated if it is compared to a more familiar risk...Each year about five hundred children under the age of five accidentally drown in residential swimming pools, compared to about forty killed in gun accidents, despite the fact that there are only about five million households with swimming pools, compared to at least 43 million with guns. Thus, based on owning households, the risk of a fatal accident among small children is over one hundred times higher for swimming pools than for guns." full article including table of types of accidents

[Savonarola]

LOL! Seriously, I found the answer for swimming pools.

What do the numbers say when the statistics aren't limited to children under the age of 5, and aren't limited to "unintentional" injuries?

The quote also apparently neglects to take into account how many of the 5 million households with swimming pools actually have children under the age of 5; likewise with the 43 million (households, apparently) with guns.

[Dardedar]

SAV
What do the numbers say when the statistics aren't limited to children under the age of 5, and aren't limited to "unintentional" injuries?

DAR
The numbers say things like this:

"Washington, DC -- Gun accidents and suicides took the lives of 1,200 children and teens, plus an additional 18,358 kids 0-19 years-old were injured by a firearm and 1,776 were killed in homicides, according to new mortality and injury data released by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics and National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for the year 2000."

LINK

SAV
The quote also apparently neglects to take into account how many of the 5 million households with swimming pools actually have children under the age of 5; likewise with the 43 million (households, apparently) with guns.

DAR
Kleck is a gun zealot, a true believer. That's why he plays games like in the above and no doubt why he appeals to Hogeye. A typical roast of Kleck's material can be read here.

Apparently my joke sailed over Hogeye's head. I'll explain. If indeed it was the case that:

"According to the CDC, the rate of swimming pool and bicycle deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined."

I would say we have a serious and unprecedented problem with swimming pools and bicycles in this country. I really doubt that our swimming pool, bicycle, tree climbing, car accident child mortality numbers are out of line or "12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined" so this is not a concern. Accidents happen in the course of life. However, the fact that "the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined" is a rather startling statistic, to people who are open to considering such information fairly.

D.