Risk of dying through accident or assault is low in the U.S., and life expectancy is still rising a bit (I think), but there are still important jobs to do in public health. Although it sounds cold-blooded, the decision of whether to lower risk usually comes down to cost-benefit analysis. We need to spend public money on projects that will do the most good--not as simple as it sounds when politics gets in the way of agreeing on which goods to choose. It would be nice to drive risk down toward zero, but we know it will never happen, would entail changes to our lives that we'd find unacceptable, or would give just a little bit of risk reduction for a lot of money. That's why etudiant's approach of finding the areas of differential risk makes the most sense. If there are areas of outsize risk, relative to an accepted standard, we should work on those first.

Gun violence is one of these areas. Even if my personal risk of getting shot is very low, in cities such as Washington, DC and Chicago, the elevated risk should cause real concern. Of the three main areas proposed to be targeted--regulating gun manufacture and sales, the mental health system, and the entertainment industry--the first of these is by far the most likely to produce results. It's closest to the source of the problem, whereas the others are loosely causal at best. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, said that Newtown was a failure of the mental health system, but it wasn't, as far as anyone can say due to lack of knowledge about the killer. Besides, the mental health system can never be expected to restrain all maladjusted, angry, or weird people from harming others; it isn't designed to do that. I'm all for reforming the entertainment industry, as it would be gratifying to me never to hear of another violent video game or "action" movie, but the free speech problems are significant.

Mr A wrote:These two blog entries on the Rule Of Reason blog may be of interest to those discussing or considering supporting gun control:

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2012/1 ... ds-up.html
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2012/1 ... ublic.html

Have had a chance just to skim these blogs, but thanks for posting them. They should provoke discussion!

Skim reading indeed. I don't think your correspondent could have endured much more, without bringing up my evening cup of grog, which I usually hope to retain until its effects are fully realized.

The urgings of Mr A, and his mythological heros, would bring the US to a state of armed camp. Their complete lack of understanding of human psychology, of sociological factors, of the history of such efforts to date, indicates an adolescent, uninformed, media induced view of the world, which likely serves ( I suspect) to counteract feelings of personal angst, or needs that fall short of sociatal functionality, or god knows what other personal failings or issues, but adds only to the gun/personal freedom/violence in society debate with an atmosphere of absurdity, which I'm sure we could all bypass without any feelings of regret.

More later.

Not to switch topics or diverge too widely from the stated premise, but I'm just speechless here.......

Gun sales surge; HuffPo

That seems right on the money, topic-wise. It's by now an absolutely classic reaction to this kind of event: Gun dealers lining their pockets.

Huh? Gun dealers lining their pockets?

Where do you get that from?

There is such a demand they took phones off the hook. I see it as, people arming themselves while they still can...

Surprising commentary from Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Informative and controversial - he is a gun nut.

Objectivity Harry Binswanger article on Forbes.com


http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswa ... is-amoral/

" Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished."

Robert Tulip wrote:Surprising commentary from Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Informative and controversial - he is a gun nut.

Well, I wouldn't say 'gun nut,' would you, really? At least in the American context, he isn't.

DWill wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Surprising commentary from Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Informative and controversial - he is a gun nut.

Well, I wouldn't say 'gun nut,' would you, really? At least in the American context, he isn't.

If anything the Sam Harris piece is one of the more reasonable discussions of the gun issue that I've seen.