I’ve become a fan of the “Freakonomics” books and podcasts. I like the way Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner apply critical thinking, logic, and “where the rubber meets the road” reality. So, it’s no surprise that I really enjoyed their newest book, “Think Like A Freak.” (Harper-Collins, 2014.)
These guys think in the big picture, using real world anecdotes to illustrate their points. Readers can’t help but apply their thinking to our own issues. We gun owners wonder why, when even many high profile “gun control” advocates admitted the ten-year experiment of Bill Clinton’s national Assault Weapons Ban didn’t change a damn thing, the Bloombergs of today, more than 20 years later, still go after such things so ferociously. One answer may be found in “Think Like A Freak” at page 192 (hardcover edition): “Quitting is hard in part because it is equated with failure, and nobody likes to fail, or at least be seen failing.”
Levitt and Dubner urge us to look beyond the superficial, and get to root causes of bad things. They write, “In 1960, crime began a sudden climb. By 1980, the homicide rate had doubled, reaching a historic peak. For several years crime stayed perilously high but in the early 1990s, it began to fall and kept falling. So what happened?” They explain in part, “Gun murders are down? Well, you figure, that must be from all those tough new gun laws – until you examine the data and find that most people who commit crimes with guns are almost entirely unaffected by current gun laws.” (Pages 67-68.)
We all know people who are smart and usually logical, but have an absolute blind spot when it comes to the gun issue, and insist on guzzling the Kool-Aid of anti-gun propaganda. What could account for that? For one thing, self-image. We all want to think well of ourselves. In discussing the psychology of charity, Levitt and Dubner point out that people contribute to charities because “1. People are truly altruistic, driven by a desire to help others” or “2. Giving to charity makes them feel better about themselves; economists call this ‘warm-glow altruism.’” In a similar vein, taking what looks like a life-saving position on an issue can give the same “warm-glow” effect. Combine that with Levitt/Dubner’s earlier explanation of why people resist the truth when they’re proven wrong, et voila: we have a piece of the psychological puzzle that explains why many normally logical people can’t see the absence of fact and logic in the “gun control” movement.
If you haven’t looked into the “Freakonomics” series, check it out. These guys make people think.
I first learned about Occam’s razor many years ago which lead me to critical thinking. I don’t always use but as I grow older I have become much better at it. It’s a discipline and must be practiced like anything else. Growing up in New York City they pushed the gun control agenda daily making up all these reasons that under scrutiny does not hold up either with statistics, anecdotal evidence or personal experience.
Problems with gun violence in this country are due to in my opinion three factors 1-Lack of common sense 2- Lack of training 3- Lack of mental healthcare. Those are not gun issues those are problems with our society. The lack of common sense is directly associated with parents and the school systems. The lack of training is because of gun control not because of gun abuse. The control keeps people from education as to the truth about guns and how to operate them. How many gun myths are perpetuated by gun ignorance. How many times do I hear “Why didn’t he shoot him in the leg?” or even worse “Shoot the gun out of his hand”…Hollywood anyone?
The big picture problem is mental healthcare, the stigma of simple depression, something that everyone deals with. Our society says it doesn’t exist in so-called normal people and that is further from the truth and reality. Our society has it’s head in the sand about mental health as much as drug addiction and alcoholism. As well as poverty and entitlement.
Start solving those three problems and gun violence will drop significantly. As will drug overdose, drug overdose with prescription medication, suicide of all kinds and violence due to sociological reasons, such as gang/teen/bullying/common crime. Teach people to think, to work hard so they can achieve things and to work hard to become proficient in anything they endeavor to do. It starts in the crib and never stops…
One of their podcasts around the time of the Sandy Hook incident took on gun control directly. Levitt believes gun buybacks are a fool’s errand and gun control in general is not a worthwhile pursuit, among other conclusions. The transcript is available at http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-full-transcript/
As an aside, I used to teach college economics at a local prison. The inmates really enjoyed every time I would reference a Freakonomics concept to illustrate a point.
Decades back while I was digging through research on homicide, I found a study that noted the efffect of age on crime. They noted that as the population ages, the crime rate would go down after hitting a tipping point. They also noted that many didn’t want to acknowledge the effect because it diminished the importance of several factors assumed to be more a direct ’cause’ of homicide.
Never heard of them. But thanks Mas, I’ll be checking them out.
Thanks for the clarity, Mas. Knee jerk reactions are so much easier than critical thinking. I intend to read “Think Like A Freak” – books like this one help us stay well grounded.
Even a lunatic mass-killer may show self-control upon seeing firearms carried openly by potential victims. I encountered a deranged assassin named Charles Meach on more than one morning in May, 1984, in Campbell Park in Anchorage, Alaska, while I walked my dog. I didn’t know that Meach had stomped a man to death long before in Earthquake Park. He must have been a classic con artist, because he had lately gained release from a local mental health facility. When I saw him, he was wearing a grey overcoat, partially hiding in spruce timber while observing the paved park trail. He reminded me of a nervous, six-foot-plus wolf. His eyes got big as saucers, though, the first time he saw my gigantic, 10-inch-barreled, .44 Magnum Ruger Super Blackhawk holstered on my belt. The way both his hands were jammed down into his deep, front coat pockets, he was likely carrying the two .38 revolvers that he used on a later day to murder four young people nearby. I heard the shots while eating breakfast at home. Days after the shooting I happened to meet the woman who’d had the misfortune of finding the dead victims’ bleeding bodies. I think that I would have been a more usable target for Meach if I hadn’t been carrying openly. He certainly was a walking time bomb and should not have been released. I still have great sympathy for those responsible, and for relatives and friends of the victims, as well as for those of Meach. Thank God for Bill Ruger, though, and the open-carry option. Let’s have better handling of the dangerously deranged, with less “gun control.”
Defending oneself against a violent criminal attack exposes the defender to the same mental and physical stresses that soldiers endure in combat. Many people cannot bring themself to face such stresses. Arguments against self defense, which extend beyond gun control, are avoidance mechanisms.
Oops! Regarding the late Charles Meach, that part of the Anchorage park was called “Russian Jack Springs,” and it was April-May 1982. The rest of the story is vividly accurate. Odd how some memory fades over time. Thanks.
i have been following their work for a while.
words of warning: they did admit to staging information in their first book as an experiment. they had false information about how suicide-bombers could avoid detection by buying life insurance from the bank, specifically so that such behavior could be monitored to detect terrorists. [link here; 2/3 down – search for “why terrorists should buy life insurance”]
since then i’m suspicious whether their data is purely informational or a hidden “experiment”.
Remember reading a study a while back that equated the rise and then drop in violent crime with leaded gasoline. Lead can addle the brain, and the concentrations were extremely high in the inner cities. Apparently the curve showing the rise and then fall of violent crime is mirrored nicely with the rise and fall of atmospheric lead with about a 10year or so time lag.
JVC, here’s a link to that study.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/leaded-gasoline-linked-rise-and-fall-violent-crime-244173
Personally, I’m always leery of attempts to link causation with seemingly unrelated subjects, especially seeming parallel numerical statistics. Not saying the author is wrong, but numerous social changes occurred during the same correlated time periods. LBJ’s “Great Society” for one and the Warren court’s landmark rulings, that greatly changed a lot of things. For better or worse is in the eye of the beholder.
Apparently, the recent terrorist attack in Paris has got some people thinking. Here’s a link to a somewhat surprising article by The Washington Post titled, “France Has Strict Gun Laws. Why Didn’t That Save Charlie Hebdo Victims?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/france-has-strict-gun-laws-why-didnt-that-save-charlie-hebdo-victims/
Liberals always assume they are smarter than anyone else and are always motivated by emotion rather than logic and facts. They speak only to other liberals (why would they bother to talk to “stupid” conservatives?) so they have their points of view reinforced by other like minded people.
They enjoy the warm, fuzzy feeling of doing good deeds, no matter if those deeds actually have a positive effect or not. They assume that when they inevitably fail, it’s the fault of those stupid conservatives opposing them, or the right person wasn’t put in charge (Obama was the latest hope for advancing the Marxist agenda), or they weren’t able to confiscate enough money from those who earned it. It’s NEVER the fault of their failed ideology. And they NEVER allow reason, logic and facts to intrude on their emotion driven, knee jerk reactions. Liberals don’t actually have to accomplish anything, they just have to bee seen to be trying. It’s all about good intentions, results don’t matter. And since they never get positive results, they never stop trying to impose their will on the simple minded fools who stand in their way.
Books like this explain a lot, but since they don’t reinforce the liberal mind set, they are only preaching to the choir.
I had a girlfriend in high school who was very anti gun, until I took her out shooting with my Ruger 10/22. I set up some cans, told her to put the intersection of those thin wires in the middle of the can and press the trigger. after a few shots I couldn’t load magazines or set up cans fast enough for her.
Heard the same story about some anti gun reporters and media people. Someone took a few of them to an indoor range where automatic weapons were available to rent and shoot. After some instruction they were allowed to shoot at bowling pins downrange. Every one of them had a blast and left grinning, according to the story I read.
I also saw an edition of noted liberal and food snob Anthony Bourdain’s (SP?) show when he traveled to Texas to meet with Ted Nugent. Who wouldn’t watch that? Ted fed him some Texas BBQ and took him out shooting. After plinking a bit with a .22 Ted handed him an MP5 or similar weapon and turned him loose. Rock & roll city. To his credit Anthony turned to the camera and said something like: “This absolutely goes against everything I believe in, but I’m having a blast!”
Maybe we should have a program to, “Take a liberal shooting?”
Lord knows talking reason, logic and sense to them isn’t working.
Well, these same people championing gun control and presumably all other leftist/Liberal/Socialist causes are Intellectuals and unless you think like them you are obviously an un-Intellectual rube.
Sadly, they seem to forget that Stalin killed the Intellectuals first…
You may want to check out the book by John Lott that examines some of their conclusions in a different light: http://en.m.wikipedia.org /wiki/Freedomnomics.
@Michael JT: Hey, Michael, I’m a liberal and I talk to y’all. Heck, living here in Texas I don’t talk to much of anybody except conservatives.
And you don’t need to take me shooting: I’ve been, many times. Thanks for the offer, though.
@Michael JT: Anthony Bourdain has done several episodes in his different series where he at least shoots(fairly well), if not outright directly addressing gun ownership/control:
http://anthonybourdain.tumblr.com/post/62424540749/guns-and-green-chile
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/11/11/4-cnn-liberals-walk-into-a-bar-and-defend-gun-rights/
In surprisingly stark constrast to his normal snarky demeanor, the above segment is almost shockingly rational and respectful…
I remember when I was in grade school, my summers were spent in the outdoors honing archery skills. Back then, it wasn’t unusual to be seen carrying your quiver full of arrows and bow from your house to/from the practice field. I remember my father telling me that it wasn’t unusual to see people carry their firearms cased (long guns and hand guns) to/from competitions even on public (!) transportation when he was a young man. How times have changed. I surmise that because of the relative unfamiliarity the general population has with firearms, the more nervous people become when a firearm appears on the scene, even when the firearm is being held by a law enforcement officer. The lack of familiarity breeds fear. I know I’m dreaming, but I believe it would be helpful if firearms training was offered in more of our schools; for example, as part of a summer school curriculum. The more the young folks are exposed to safe firearms handling and practice in shooting skills, the less fearful they’ll be of firearms, and more competent and confident around firearms. Then one day, the fear of the firearm becomes respect for the firearm.
Comments are closed.