As with many contentious debates, gun policy is complicated by emotions and lack of rigorous research.
1a) Yup. Mass murders deaths are very small compared to other causes of death (including just regular murders). 1b) But news about mass murders is disproportionately widespread. 1c) And dread about mass murders is similarly widespread. 1d) Does this mean that we should in fact pay disproportionate attention to preventing mass murders, because of this negative dread factor? 1e) Also, copycat crimes. Does this mean that the news should downplay mass murders, because focusing on them gives people a skewed vision of reality, makes people unhappy, and encourages more such events??? (I don't really believe that either d or e should be much of a factor, but can still be interesting to think about)
2) What are the actual optimal policies to reduce violent deaths? Proposals I've seen include: a) more gun regulation b) more video game regulation c) more abortion d) less lead e) more mental health f) more cameras g) more police g-2) better police interaction with at risk communities h) less broken windows i) putting more criminals in prison i-2) improving rehabilitation in prisons i-3) putting fewer non-violent criminals in prison j) improving employment prospects for young males
I obviously have preferred options in the above list that meet my preconceptions... but there seems to be a lack of good research to really address these issues.
An additional question is what is the cost of a given policy (both monetary and freedom-related). I think this is where some people start from when thinking about magazine-size and rate-of-fire restrictions: the benefit of large magazines and rapid rate of fire seem small for self-defense or hunting purposes, and only moderate for recreation, whereas they do seem to make mass murders easier, and the ability to spray bullets would seem to make collateral damage more likely... and yet, as you point out, these are a small source of total deaths.
I have similar feelings about the disproportionate amount of resources devoted to anti-terrorist and post-9/11 actions. (not to mention, how much of those resources are spent in _ineffective_ actions, regardless of whether the actions would meet a rational cost-benefit analysis).
no subject
1a) Yup. Mass murders deaths are very small compared to other causes of death (including just regular murders).
1b) But news about mass murders is disproportionately widespread.
1c) And dread about mass murders is similarly widespread.
1d) Does this mean that we should in fact pay disproportionate attention to preventing mass murders, because of this negative dread factor?
1e) Also, copycat crimes. Does this mean that the news should downplay mass murders, because focusing on them gives people a skewed vision of reality, makes people unhappy, and encourages more such events???
(I don't really believe that either d or e should be much of a factor, but can still be interesting to think about)
2) What are the actual optimal policies to reduce violent deaths? Proposals I've seen include:
a) more gun regulation
b) more video game regulation
c) more abortion
d) less lead
e) more mental health
f) more cameras
g) more police
g-2) better police interaction with at risk communities
h) less broken windows
i) putting more criminals in prison
i-2) improving rehabilitation in prisons
i-3) putting fewer non-violent criminals in prison
j) improving employment prospects for young males
I obviously have preferred options in the above list that meet my preconceptions... but there seems to be a lack of good research to really address these issues.
An additional question is what is the cost of a given policy (both monetary and freedom-related). I think this is where some people start from when thinking about magazine-size and rate-of-fire restrictions: the benefit of large magazines and rapid rate of fire seem small for self-defense or hunting purposes, and only moderate for recreation, whereas they do seem to make mass murders easier, and the ability to spray bullets would seem to make collateral damage more likely... and yet, as you point out, these are a small source of total deaths.
I have similar feelings about the disproportionate amount of resources devoted to anti-terrorist and post-9/11 actions. (not to mention, how much of those resources are spent in _ineffective_ actions, regardless of whether the actions would meet a rational cost-benefit analysis).