Guns aren’t the problem; sick people are. – Pete Sessions (Reptile – TX)

If guns aren’t the problem, and we’re blaming sick people, why do we arm them with weapons of war?

Let them try their mass murders with a musket, like our Founding Founders intended.

And if you think about it, almost not a one of these mass murderers is crazy.

Crazy is attacking a SWAT team with a rutabaga.

Crazy is banning flavored vaping but not semi-automatics with 100-round magazines.

Crazy is thinking you are gonna win a shootout with the government.

Crazy is pretending your loved ones are safe the next time.

Crazy is working in the word rutabaga every chance you get.

 Verified by Psychology Today. So you know it’s not fake.

David Kyle Johnson Ph.D.

Gun Violence: Is It a People Problem?

When it comes to gun violence, is the problem people instead of guns?

March 24, 2018

In light of the “March For Our Lives” happening in Washington D.C. today (as well in venues across the nation and the globe), I want to address the logic of the argument I have seen most often in the wake of the Stoneman Douglas High shooting—an argument against imposing stricter gun regulations, such as universal background checks and banning assault rifles. The argument goes like this:

“We don’t have a gun problem, we have a people problem.”

It’s related to the NRA’s argument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” (which I have addressed elsewhere), but it actually goes a little deeper.

Understanding the argument

The suggestion is essentially that the real cause of why we have more gun violence in America (compared to other developed nations) is because of the moral degradation of our society; people in America are more immoral and more prone to violence, and this is why we have more gun related violence—not the prevalence of guns. So, to address the problem, we need moral education, not gun regulations.

The cited cause of this moral degradation shifts, depending on who you ask. For some, it’s faulty parenting. For others, it’s the fact that “God has been taken out of society (and schools).” For still others, it’s the violent and amoral entertainment that we consume. Correspondingly, the preferred solution also varies: better parenting, outlawing or rating entertainment, “putting God back in society and schools.” But definitely not gun regulations; they won’t solve anything.

How to tell whether amorality is to blame

Although the argument, on its face, might seem convincing, it shouldn’t be. Indeed, it is deeply flawed.

First, it provides no solid evidence that American society is actually in moral decline. Some cite their own personal experience, others the impression they get from watching the news–but, of course, this evidence is no good. You can’t generalize from your own personal experience to society as a whole–that’s the fallacy of hasty generalization. And the news is likely to leave you with a false impression, due to availability error and confirmation bias. It reports the bad but leaves out the good. 

Second, the main claim of this argument is this: the moral degradation of our society is what causes us to have more gun violence. But, at least in principle, this claim is empirically testable: To test causal claims, we simply look for correlations. If A causes B, then A should be correlated with B. Correlation, of course, doesn’t establish causation—that’s the causal fallacy. But it is necessary for it.

So, in principle, if the moral degradation of American society is the problem, we should be able to find a correlation between how amoral other societies are and how bad their gun violence problem is. Of course, it’s difficult to measure the morality of a nation. But we can look to the argument for clues. Since bad parenting, a lack of religion, and corrupting media is supposedly the cause, we can look at counties with bad parents, little religion, and corrupting media to see if gun violence is as high there as it is here.  

Is it bad parenting?

Although it’s difficult to judge parenting, you can look at how “easy” it is to be a parent—literally how much time a nation’s parents have to spend with their kids (for things like moral instruction). And, it turns out, the U.S. is dead last, followed by Mexico and Costa Rica—both of which, like the U.S., have high rates of gun violence. (10.45 per 100,000 for the U.S. 11.23 for Mexico, and 6.3 for Costa Rica.) [source] So you might think bad parenting actually is to blame.

But high levels of gun violence in Mexico and Costa Rica stem from drug trafficking, not bad parenting. And the next nation on the “bad parents” list is Canada, which, at .5, has a much lower gun crime rate than all three. (Ironically, 0.5 is still higher than most developed nations). New Zealand and Switzerland round out the bottom 10, but also have low gun crime rates (1.07 and 3.01 respectively). [source] So, clearly, the problem clearly isn’t bad parenting.

Is atheism to blame?

To see whether a lack of religion in America is to blame for gun violence, we can look to the rate of gun violence in the most non-religious nations in the world. If the argument is right, gun violence in non-religious nations should be off the chart.

But this is not the case. China is the most irreligious, but it also has one of the lowest reported gun violence rates in the world. Indeed, since 2012, crime in China is down 80%. Of course, given the Chinese government’s reputation, those reports might not be accurate. But roughly the same is true of the next most religious countries:

                                    % of non-religious         Total gun deaths per 100,000

Sweden                              73%                                     1.47

Czech Republic                  72%                                     2.01

United Kingdom                69%                                     0.23

Azerbaijan                          64%                                     0.07

Belgium                              64%                                     1.24

Australia                             63%                                     1.04

Hong Kong                         63%                                     0.03

The trend continues. Indeed, if we compare these counties with the U.S., and embrace the logic of the argument we are considering…

United States                    39%                                     10.45

…it would seem that irreligion is the solution to gun violence, not the cause.

Is the media to blame?

If the violent American media diet is to blame for our outlandish rate of gun violence, then we should find that counties with similar media diets have equally high gun violence rates. But, of course, the media diets among developed nations across the world are essentially the same, and yet there is a vast difference when it comes to their gun violence rates—America’s is high, the rest are exceptionally low.

This is especially true of the media that supposedly has the most corrupting influence: violent video games. I’ll let my source for this one do all the heavy lifting for me on this one, but as you can see from this chart, per capita, the U.S. is #8th in video games spending, and yet is #1—by leaps and bounds—when it comes to gun violence. Indeed, the highest markets for video games–the Netherlands and South Korea–have the lowest gun related crime in the group. 

Source: Max Fisher/Washington Post

Clearly, our media diet is not the problem either.

But what about the dropping crime rate?

To be fair, in researching this article I thought up a much better way to defend the primary assumption behind the argument we are considering—and that’s to point out that (contrary to the suggestion of the argument and what most people believe), violent crime is actually decreasing in the U.S. And with it, so is gun related crime. Both have been on a steady decrease in the U.S. since the 90s.

Given this, you might think one could make a link between how violent people are, and how likely they are to commit a crime with a gun—and thus suggest that to get our gun crime rate down, we simply need to continue to try do make people less violent.

But sadly, this link cannot be made.

Why not? Because other countries, like France, Poland, Denmark, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, The United Kingdom, and Australia all have higher rates of violent crime, and yet all have lower rates of gun violence. [see point 7 here.] Indeed, the U.S.’s rate of violent crime is actually below average for developed nations, and yet (as we’ve seen), our rate of gun related crime is through the roof.

The same is true, by the way, about mental illness. It’s no higher in the U.S. than in other countries, so it can’t be the cause of our gun violence problem. The same can be said of abortion, which is actually higher in places with less gun violence than the U.S. (For example, the U.S. abortion rate is 19/1000, while Asian countries like Japan have an abortion rate of 28/1000 and Eastern European counties like Romania have an abortion rate of 43/1000–and yet the latter’s gun violence rate is much lower than the U.S.)  And while being a bully makes one statistically more likely to carry or use a weapon at school, there is no correlation between nations with a bullying problem and nations with gun violence problems. (Austria, for example, has a bullying problem similar to ours—around 20% –but has a much lower gun homicide and school shooting rate. Interestingly, even though Austria has lax gun laws (when compared to its European counterparts), it has a much lower rate of gun ownership than them.) 

The only things that set us apart in this regard, among developed nations, are our lax gun laws and our rate of gun ownership. Gun violence is higher in the U.S., not because we are more amoral than other nations (we’re not), but because it’s easier to access guns—both legally (because of lax gun regulations) and illegally (because they are so common).

A Simple Solution

The solution is simple: gun regulations that would make it more difficult for would-be violent criminals to access guns legally and would make it harder for them to access guns illegally—especially the kind of guns that enable one to inflict maximum damage in a minimum time.

As David DeGrazia points out, doing this wouldn’t be difficult. Indeed, the evidence suggests that this can be done quite easily with very common-sense regulations:

• Universal background checks
• Banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips
• Requiring gun licensing for all new gun owners (after passing a safety course).
• Safe storage requirements and required safety features (e.g., childproof locks) on all guns.
• Effective tracing mechanisms on all guns and a national database of all gun owners (and holding owners responsible if their gun is used in a crime).  

Of course, opponents of gun regulations will argue that such steps won’t “stop” gun violence—but this argument commits yet another fallacy (called the “all or nothing” fallacy).  Such efforts won’t stop gun violence completely, sure…nothing can. But stopping crime altogether has never been the goal of any law. Laws are for reducing crime, not completely eliminating it. [See Endnote] And the evidence shows the kinds of regulations suggested above would do just that when it comes to gun violence. 

Moral education couldn’t completely eliminate violent people from society either; indeed, it would likely have very little effect. Now, I don’t mean suggest that all such efforts are worthless. Indeed, Slate writer Laura Hayes has argued that, because violent crime is so often caused by people with anger management problems, education about anger management could reduce violent crime. If the experts agree, great; I say give it a shot. 

But, in reality, the causes of violent crime are complex; and it’s almost never as simple as “that person is just violent.”  Indeed, pathologically violent people are rare. It’s often people’s circumstances–like being poor–that drive them to violent criminal behavior. 

When people become desperate enough, criminal behavior can actually become the rational option–even their only option for survival. And when it is, people turn to it. Think of Breaking Bad. Chemistry teacher Walter White would have never started making meth, and become a violent crime lord, had his medical bills not put him in such desperate financial straights. In the same way, someone who lives in a poor violent neighborhood may have no choice but to arm himself to survive, even though he isn’t a violent person.  

It’s no coincidence that the 5 nations with the lowest violent crime rates all have low poverty rates, and the top 5 nations with the lowest poverty rates all have low violent crime rates. Indeed, Iceland and Norway are on both lists. In reality, the most effective means of reducing violent criminal behavior, and even gun violence, probably wouldn’t even be gun regulation…it would be to establish a social safety net and guarantee a universal basic income. [source]  

But, in the meantime, gun regulation seems to be our best option. After all, there will always be violent people, they will still want to do violent things, and mass shootings are most often committed by angry or radicalized Christian middle-class white men. Such people will always be with us.

What we can do, however, is make it much harder for such people to amplify the affect of their anger by attaining the weapons they need to inflict maximum damage in a minimum amount of time. In other words, instead of trying to shift the focus to “moral education,” let’s do something that works. Let’s force the truly angry, sick, and violent among us to have to try hard to kill people if they want–instead of making it easy for them by giving them easy (legal and illegal) access to AR-15s. 

End Note: In a recent online conversation, a gun advocate insisted that laws weren’t for reducing crime, but simply for punishing criminals–because society has decided that certain actions deserve to be punished. This, of course, is nonsense; laws prescribe punishment for criminals for the purpose of deterring (and thus reducing) criminal behavior; they are not merely punishing for punishment’s sake. This demonstrates how far gun advocates will go to argue against gun regulations. Incapable of refuting the idea that gun regulations would reduce gun violence, this person opted instead to change the purpose of the entire legal system. They refused to recognize that the purpose of laws is the reduction of crime.

 Verified by Psychology Today. The GoodHouseKeeping seal for your head.

David Kyle Johnson Ph.D.

“Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do?”

What exactly is wrong with the argument, “Guns don’t kill people, people do”?

February 12, 2013

This is my first entry in my new blog, “A Logical Take,” where I will explain how logic can help us examine and make sense of the world around us. In this post, I would like to examine an argument that is being made over and over again in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy and subsequent debate about gun regulation:

“Guns don’t kill people; people do.”

Everyone’s heard it. A lot of people believe it. Some even think it settles the whole gun control debate. Others, however, think the argument is terrible.

Personally, I can’t find a solid consensus regarding what exactly is wrong with it—which is why, especially as a logician, I think it’s an argument worth some examination.  

Some of you might not want to read any further now, thinking that I’m using the Sandy Hook tragedy to argue for gun regulations, and therefore politicizing it. I have a couple of things to say in response.

First, I’m not going to argue for or against gun regulations. I am simply going to examine this argument. There may still be good arguments against gun regulation, or there may not be. All I want to know is whether or not this argument is one of them.

Second, the notion that the political ramifications of a tragedy should not be discussed in the wake of that tragedy is fallacious in itself. We do need to make sure our heads are emotionally clear before having a serious discussion, but it is not disrespectful to the victims of a tragedy to discuss possible ways that we might avoid similar tragedies. Besides, tragedies such as Sandy Hook have now become so common that if we are not allowed to speak about gun regulations afterward, we will never be allowed to speak about it at all.

So let us turn to the argument itself: “Guns don’t kill people; people do.” The first thing to notice is that the argument has no stated conclusion. What follows? Since the argument is usually given in the context of a discussion about gun regulation, by gun advocates, I assume the conclusion has something to do with that. But what exactly? That there should be no gun regulation at all? That there shouldn’t be any more gun regulation than there is? That the increase in mass killings done with guns is irrelevant to whether or not there should be gun regulations? Who knows? 

In any event, it doesn’t matter, because no conclusion about gun regulation logically follows from these two statements. To understand why, let me articulate the difference between ultimate, intermediate, and proximate causes.

Consider the words you are looking at right now. What “caused” the words you are reading to appear to you right now? You might say that I, the author, did; but that is not the whole story. The whole story is long and includes me typing on a keyboard, creating a Microsoft Word document, posting the words on my blog, and so on. There is a long “causal chain” standing between my intention to type these words and the emission of light from your screen to your eyes. That causal chain starts with me; I am the ultimate cause. Other subsequent links in the chain—my typing, my posting, your clicking—are “intermediate causes.” And the light emitting from your screen is the proximate cause—the thing or event most immediately responsible for your current experience.

The argument under consideration clarifies that, when it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes—the end of a causal chain that started with a person deciding to murder. But nothing follows from these facts about whether or not guns should be regulated. After all, such facts are true for all criminal activity, and even noncriminal activity that harms others: The ultimate cause is found in some decision that a person made; the event, activity, or object that most directly did the harming was only a proximate cause. But this tells us nothing about whether or not the proximate cause in question should be regulated or made illegal. For example, consider the following argument:

“Bazookas don’t kill people; people do.”

Although it is obviously true that bazookas are only proximate causes, it clearly does not follow that bazookas should be legal. Yes, bazookas don’t kill people, people do—but bazookas make it a lot easier for people to kill people, and in great numbers. Furthermore, a bazooka would not be useful for much else besides mass murders. Bazookas clearly should be illegal and the fact that they would only be proximate causes to mass murders does not change this. In fact, it is totally irrelevant to the issue; it has nothing to do the fact that they should be illegal. Why? Because other things are proximate causes to people’s demise, but obviously shouldn’t be illegal. For example, consider this argument (given in the aftermath of a bad car accident):

“Cars don’t kill people; people do.”

Obviously cars should not be illegal, but notice that this has nothing to do with the fact that they are proximate causes. Of course, they should be regulated; I shouldn’t be allowed to go onto the highway in a car with no brakes. But all of that has to do what cars are for (they are not made for killing people), what role they play in society (it couldn’t function without them) and so on. It’s a complicated issue—one to which pointing out that cars are merely proximate causes to some deaths contributes nothing.

Clearly the argument under consideration, and any other argument that merely points out that guns are proximate causes (“stop blaming the guns and start blaming the person”) is fallacious. Since people can’t seem to agree on what fallacy such arguments employ, I would like to give a name to the mistake I have identified within them: “the fallacy of mistaking the relevance of proximate causation.”

So, should all guns be illegal? After all, like the bazooka, they do make killing people en masse easier to accomplish. Then again, like cars, using them for mass murder is not their intended function. Most people agree that they should at least be regulated (at the least, most think that all gun sales should require a background check). But how strictly should they be regulated? Perhaps very strictly. After all, states with stricter gun regulations have fewer gun related deaths. Then again, there may be philosophical issues related to the protection of liberty that trump such utilitarian concerns. It’s a complicated issue.

And that’s my point: It’s complicated. There are lots of relevant factors involved, but the fact that guns are proximate causes isn’t one of them. So the next time someone says “Guns don’t kill people; people do” in an attempt to end a discussion about gun control, do me a favor: Point out that they have “mistaken the relevance of proximate causation,” pause briefly to enjoy the confused look on their face, and then patiently explain the fallacy to them.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence