EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
It seems that the BSP has again not understood exactly what the plan is (or as it is fashionable lately – the supporting points). The reason for this observation is given by two of the ministers in the cabinet – Justice Zinaida Zlatanova and Interior Tsvetelin Yovchev. The subject of their misunderstanding is the draft for a new Criminal Code, proposed by the Ministry of Justice a few days ago, and more precisely one of its texts, which proposes expanding the rights of citizens to carry weapons and use them in self-defense.
The new law allows for a lack of criminal liability in cases of unavoidable self-defense in the protection of life or property, which a number of civil society organizations have opposed. [1] For his part, the Minister of Interior has opposed this proposal of his colleagues, citing the rather vague idea that Bulgarian citizens do not have a “culture of violence like that in the United States” and that it is “more important to build a system that guarantees people’s security.”
However, is the minister right to state that carrying guns is not a solution to crime problems? From a purely intuitive point of view, the arguments against restrictions on the right to bear and use guns are identical to those against all prohibitionist regimes – on the one hand, they put law-abiding people at a disadvantage, since there is no guarantee that others will act in the same way; on the other hand, there is no democratic system that is able to completely limit the black market in guns, and therefore those who want to acquire one have full opportunity to do so.
However, the free carrying of weapons is also one of the best methods of preventing crime. We do not need to look overseas for examples that confirm this thesis. Switzerland is an interesting example of a country with a fairly liberal gun regime, combined with an almost complete absence of crime. Its legislation allows anyone who passes a simple test to legally own and carry a gun, and as a result, there are 45 privately owned firearms for every 100 people in the country, or almost one for every two people [2]. At the same time, Switzerland has a negligible murder rate – just 0.7 per 100,000 people [3], compared to 1.2 in the United Kingdom (which is famous for its strict gun regime) and as many as 5.2 in Estonia. The situation is similar in Sweden - here we have about one firearm for every three people (31 per 100), and the number of murders is 0.6 per 100,000 people. Conversely, in "disarmed" countries such as Brazil (8 guns per 100 people) and Russia (9 guns per 100 people) the number of murders is significantly higher - 21.8 and 10.2, respectively.
International experience clearly shows that an armed population is more likely to be associated with a lack of crime than with its surge. However, the head of the Ministry of Interior proposes building a better state security system. How will this be achieved? Let us bear in mind that Bulgaria is already one of the countries with the largest number of police officers in the EU, which in no way helps reduce crime. The Ministry of Interior does not show any signs of increasing the efficiency of its work, and most likely this would be done at the cost of more and more investments from the state budget. For this reason, we should welcome the intention of the new Criminal Code to give citizens more opportunities for self-defense, and why not hope that one day each of us will enjoy the right to bear arms and feel calm and protected.
[1] For example, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/12/22/2209024_proektut_za_nov_nakazatelen_kodeks_protivorechi_na/
I disagree with the author's argument (does that mean I'm not a libertarian?).
The author compares different countries with different cultures, systems, etc. and makes the case that guns lead to more crime prevention. I'm sure people who don't support the author's thesis can point out just as convincing counterexamples.
A basic principle in science is that only comparable things can be compared. I can't compare (correctly) length and color, for example (have you heard the joke about the crocodile, which was longer than the green one?), as well as things that have many different characteristics. For example, two potatoes are difficult to compare: even if they are the same size, they have different tastes, different skin thicknesses, and so on. If we want to compare them, we must choose those in which all characteristics except one are different. For example: one variety of potatoes, with the same shape, grown next to each other, stored the same, etc., but differing only in length. Only then can we make a correct comparison, namely that one potato is longer than the other.
That is, in order to make a correct comparison, we must work with "other things being equal". That is, a comparison is correct only if all other parameters except the one we are comparing are the same. However, let's see if this is the case when comparing countries? The simple answer is that this is not the case. Two countries always have differences, and in many parameters. For this reason, any such comparisons, such as the author's, are attempts to prove their own thesis by selectively selecting facts. I am sorry for the last criticism of the author, but I cannot help but say it.
Here is how to make an (almost) correct comparison. Years ago I read about an attempt in the USA and Canada to compare crime in two cities on both sides of the border. In the USA it is easy to carry a gun, but in Canada the regime is restrictive (or at least it was at the time of the study). Anyway, in order to make the comparison, the authors tried to choose two cities that are similar in size, development, ethnic composition of the population, etc. That is, they tried to work under “other things being equal”, as far as this is possible. Reality does not allow us to choose two cities that are completely identical to each other, but the authors at least tried to get as close to the ideal as possible. And accordingly their study is more representative (only “more”, not “most”) than what the author claims.
But let's look at the study itself. The results were that in the US (i.e. where there are more guns per capita) murders are higher than in Canada (I don't remember the numbers, but the differences were significant). That is, this result leads to the assumption that the presence of more guns in the population leads to more people being killed. The latter is not very difficult to explain. One just has to imagine situations like:
1. People in a state of affect who own a gun. They are more likely to use it. It is easier to kill with a gun than with bare hands, a knife, or anything else.
2. Children who accidentally came across mom and dad's gun without knowing how to work with it.
3. Random situations. For example, while I'm cleaning the gun, it goes off and kills its owner or someone else.
4. Criminals who have a choice whether or not to use guns. Easy access leads to greater use in criminal circles.
I suppose that if I think about it, I will come up with other similar (and completely plausible) explanations for why having more guns leads to more murders and injuries.
In short: I disagree with the author's argument. However, please do not think that I support the generally accepted opinion that weapons or access to weapons should be limited. Just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be banned. This is the thesis that I support and believe that it should be supported. Not to mention that cigarettes are 100% PROVEN harmful, but the state does not ban them (I read somewhere that the revenue from excise taxes and so on from cigarettes far exceeds the costs of medical insurance for diseases related to them). I am simply giving an example of the unprincipledness of modern society. It is possible for cigarettes, but not for weapons?!
I apologize for the long post, but I had a lot to say.
on :EE says:
December 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm....
there is a European practice .....
and there is one very important thing - a firearm is practically the most effective way to protect any valuables ......
The current regime is ridiculous - if the weapon is registered to a company, the fee is 400 leva, for an individual - 20.. (insurance is 10 per year)... permits are issued to a company much more easily, although the ET in this case does not need to develop an activity ..... should I continue, it turns out that the "regulation" in this case is distorted like everything else in this country. (and relies only on money and desire)... try getting a permit if you are a farmer and you just want to ...... scare the crows ........ regarding accidents and dangers --- the most ordinary car is a much more deadly weapon than a gun (it kills not the mechanism but the person controlling it).... things are much, much deeper ..... some time ago they removed the psycho test for everyone, including police officers - because many of them will not pass it ..... what is the problem most people are averagely stupid and it is easy to be caught with tests .... it turns out like with marijuana - the most ordinary fool with processed or a homemade weapon that is more dangerous to himself becomes a "criminal" .... just because he had the desire to have some kind of rifle .... the solution, although moderately ridiculous, is for everyone to have something similar to "civil liability" so that the damage to society is minimized regardless of whether he used a weapon or a hoe (which is quite effective and completely legal at that ...) at a time when the huge compared to now Bulgarian army carried weapons (officer and sergeant staff) was not full of incidents
.....I categorically disagree with EE on almost all points
I fully support it! I hope it doesn't happen to me, but if I'm attacked, I want to defend my life with a firearm, because I don't trust the "state" that is supposed to protect me! I don't want to be abused by dark-skinned brutes and stand there resignedly like an animal at the slaughterhouse!
Bravo Emile, I agree with you. I'm trying to make an orchard. God knows how many trees I've bought. When the fruit picking starts, how will I protect them when carts with 4-5 barbecues are constantly passing by and stealing whatever falls? If I can't handle their security, I'll cut them down for firewood and I'll warm my head on the stove for two winters. As for the land, I hear that Turkish companies are buying up agricultural land at a good price. I'll sell it and enjoy myself. And the fat-assed people in parliament will hate my dick.
Hello, EE. I completely understand your remark on the approach to the argumentation that I have chosen. The problem with Bulgaria is that there is no way to make a comparison with a country with similar conditions but radically different legislation regarding the carrying of weapons as in the example you gave. For this very reason, the option that remains for us, when building arguments in favor of liberalizing this regime, is to turn to the best practices and study the way in which they have evolved and been implemented in the respective countries and, in a second stage, to try to relate them to the realities of our political/cultural/social environment and now to turn them into policy. This is precisely what I intend to do in a future, more comprehensive article dedicated to the issue. The purpose of the present text is mainly to represent a response to the statement of the Minister of Internal Affairs, and the empirical argument used is based on a visible correlation between the number of privately owned weapons per capita and the number of murders in different countries. In this sense, it would certainly be preferable if we had a case study that would confirm/reject the preconceived intuition that, from a libertarian perspective, it is inevitable to limit the state's ability to have violent instruments that no one could oppose, but unfortunately there is none.
@Adrian Nikolov
The problem with the position you take is basically this: What happens when the free market (the Austrian definition) in an area leads to bad results, not only aggregately (on average) but also for each participating person individually? An example is hard drugs (LSD, cocaine, etc.). You will hardly find any study that claims that they are beneficial in any way.
By defending the position that something is not harmful, you implicitly accept the assumption that if it were harmful, it should be banned. And what happens when it really is harmful? In that case, arguments are usually sucked out of your fingers and denial is the last resort. In short: a bad approach.
The free market (Austrian definition) does not guarantee that what you want will be useful for you. It is absolutely indifferent. If you want to buy shit (I apologize for the expression) then it will produce shit for you. And there are certainly people who want it to be bad for themselves, and for other things. The latter can hardly be disputed. Defending the free market with the claim that everything that happens on it is useful for people is an indefensible thesis for me. The thesis that should be defended, in my opinion, is that people should have the right to do stupid things, as long as other people do not suffer from this stupidity. That is, people should be free.
By the way, I should also mention that even if you have thousands of confirmations of a thesis, this does not guarantee that it is true. However, even just one exception rejects it absolutely. That is, no matter how many examples you cite that guns reduce crime, it is irrelevant if there is even one case where this is not the case.
An interesting case in point: "I observed President George W. Bush for 10,000 days, and on none of those days did he die. With so many confirmations, I can safely say that he is immortal!"
Not to mention that from a huge database you can always select data that supports your thesis as well as data that refutes it.
@3g
"there is a European practice ….."
For reasons unknown to me, almost everything that is labeled "European" is considered good. And that's not the case and doesn't follow from anywhere. It's just an unfounded belief.
"A firearm is practically the most effective way to protect any valuables…..."
Yes, but it is also the most effective way to TAKE AWAY those same values.
"…..some time ago they removed the psychotest for everyone, including police officers – because many of them wouldn't pass it..."
Exactly. There will always be mentally unstable people who, for example, to show a girl at a disco what kind of men they are, will pull out a gun and shoot someone. In short: I do not support the thesis that the lack of regulation will lead to less crime.
In my opinion, things are like this: In some cases (countries, districts, regions, etc.) this will be the case, but in others, murders and violence will increase.
The thesis I support is that such STATE regulation should not exist regardless of the fact that the presence of weapons in the population can have bad consequences. And I do not argue at all that if there were no weapons in the world, violence would not decrease. Note that I have nothing against the owner of a given establishment, complex, etc. prohibiting the presence of firearms on its territory. I am all for it. I protest when this is state policy, i.e. imposed by force, despite the disagreement of some citizens.
It has been historically proven (except that the communes will never publish such information) that where the population carries weapons, there is less crime. Everything else is red propaganda by Moscow scumbags and fatheads, no matter how intellectual they try to sound.
Every person should have the right to protect themselves, their family and their property. There are cases of murder with a legally owned gun, I agree, mostly committed in domestic disputes and by mentally unstable people. What does this show us? Strict psychological tests for possession should be conducted every 3 or 5 years, let's say. In my city, a police officer shot himself in the heart in front of 200 people, survived and is now a police officer again! If a person can harm himself, won't he also harm someone else? And if some drug addict with a modified gun decides to threaten me and my family, should I throw stones at him? On the other hand, such a person cannot possibly own a legal weapon, which does not warm me at all in this situation.
Has anyone heard of a murder with a legally owned weapon?
There is no fool who would commit murder with a legally owned weapon. It's like leaving your ID at the scene of a crime.
As always, the argumentation of the market Taliban is manipulative and does not withstand even the slightest fact-checking. We open the statistics mentioned in the article and what do we see - "a negligible number of murders - only 0.7 per 100,000 people" is exactly in our country. The latest data for Switzerland shows 0.8%. In the USA, where every 18 or 21-year-old moron can buy an anti-aircraft gun, the coefficient is 3.2 per 100,000. There, almost 70% of all murders are with firearms, and in our country - under 30%. But these are probably minor details...
The fact that you claim "any 18 or 21 year old moron can buy an anti-aircraft gun" in the US shows how ignorant you are of the laws and reality there. The US should be considered a different case.
Gun laws vary greatly from state to state (in Europe, centralized government is stronger and there is no such thing.) In some states, it is almost impossible to buy a legal gun, in some places you can buy one but you cannot carry it outside your home, and in some places the law allows you to carry a gun almost anywhere in the state. But nowhere can you buy an "anti-aircraft gun."
So, looking at gun laws and crime, you will notice that in places where the population more freely owns guns, the death rate from such weapons is comparable - and even lower - to that in Bulgaria and Switzerland - up to 0.3 per 100 thousand.
I hope you take this detail into consideration before calling someone a "Taliban."
PP
The article is good, Mr. EE's arguments are ridiculous and all of them are wrong, but I won't write a two-page post to analyze them, if you don't want to carry a gun, don't carry one, why shouldn't other people have that right? Currently, only the bad guys buy permits, and criminals have them illegally.
FOR NEARLY THIRTY YEARS WE HAVE BEEN WITNESSES TO THE POWERLESSNESS OF THE BODIES OF THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR IN BULGARIA TO PROTECT BULGARIAN CITIZENS AND IN LIGHT OF THESE SAD CIRCUMSTANCES, I FULLY SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF THE CHANGES IN THE PENAL CODE THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE POSSIBILITY OF LEGAL POSSESSION OF WEAPONS!
First, bravo to the author - good presentation of the facts, correct analysis. Minister Tsv. Yovchev is a fool and a cunning man, that's why they hired him as an associate professor at Unibit with a dissertation copied from the informational databases of the National Security Agency. Because of people like him, citizens with legal weapons are in a position where we cannot legally defend ourselves, because if we survive an attack on our lives, stopping the criminal in extreme necessity and with a firearm, the prosecutor's office will pursue us.
As for EE, it means that in your attempt to reason objectively, you are sinking, but you don't realize how.
First, you compare two cities, in one weapons are allowed, in the other not. Here is your first offshoot - in the first city, in addition to weapons, self-defense and protection of property with these weapons are also allowed - i.e. killing a criminal who is attempting to steal, rape, rob or murder is not a crime. In the physical and philosophical sense, it is murder, but in the legal sense - no, you have rid the world and society of a criminal. I will put brackets and ask you - have you ever had at least two people, or more, come at you with the firm intention of, let's say, beating you up (at least). Believe me, in this case, only instinct saves you, and in some cases - firepower. You don't have time to think about ethics, morality, universal human values, etc. slobber.
For the state of affect - you only have that to some extent, but in this state, if it is real, it always leads to violence, but this is not a planned crime, and reaching a state of affect is caused by something, the other party is at least as guilty for it, if you know that someone is armed, if you are reasonable, would you irritate them to the point of reaching such a state?
The second - children who accidentally come across a gun. If the rules for storing and carrying a weapon are followed, children will never come across it. I won't quote these rules now, you can read them yourself. If the children are older and deliberately seek out the weapon, to "play" with it, then the fault lies with the owner, firstly, for not having secured it (for example, I remove the barrel of mine); secondly, for not having taught his children elementary gun etiquette, the most important rules when handling a weapon - there are four of them, and my son is 8 years old, but he knows them.
Third - random situations - here again you have some right, but you are also going down - you are forgiven in this case, because If you strictly follow the rules, such a thing should not happen, if you treat the weapon with care and are not distracted, first you will make it safe immediately after shooting, then before cleaning it you will make it safe again by releasing the magazine and checking for a cartridge in the barrel, pointed in a safe direction. But I say that you are right to some extent because we are all human and we make mistakes. A policeman shot himself in the knees with his revolver, a friend of mine accidentally fired his gun in his desire to explain to me how it is disassembled and the bullet passed 5-10 cm from me, still these things happen relatively rarely and are not always fatal.
This is the dumbest statement you can make about criminals. Here it is already clear that you do not understand anything. Every legal weapon before its owner takes it is shot at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 5 bullets are kept in a file and in this way every bullet found with which someone was killed, when it is examined, it is established from which weapon it was fired and who its owner is. So you understand that a planned murder with a legal weapon is unthinkable and completely pointless, unless the perpetrator just does not want to be identified. With a legal weapon, murders are mostly unplanned, in a state of affect, but this is a very small percentage of all murders, no more than 5%. So no criminal with at least an IQ of at least 20 will ever go to acquire a legal firearm to kill someone.
I could write more, but I think I've more or less made things clear.
And here I think I'll write the four basic rules when handling weapons, so that specialists can remember them, and non-specialists can know them too, in case they change their minds and decide to get a permit for a legal weapon:
- Always consider all weapons you handle to be loaded;
- Always point the barrel only downwards or towards the target (goal).
- The index finger is kept outside the trigger guard, placed on the trigger only immediately before firing;
- Do not shoot before you have definitely identified the target and the space behind it.