Technological Advances and Mass Shootings

Tyler Cowen asked why the increase in mass shootings over the last 50 years or so.  He elicited a lot of comments.  I suggested there was a gain in available firepower over the years.  That in the 1960's you saw a lot of revolvers.  Even pistols didn't have big magazines.  And rifles were mostly hunting rifles.  So a shooter had more difficulty in getting a lot of shots off in a short period of time.  One of the most deadly mass shooters in our history was the Texas man, who used a rifle from a library tower, quite different setup than our usual scenario these days.


I got some push back but nothing which convinces me.  The changes in the weapons which are available don't cause mass shootings, but they make them more feasible.

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Reversion to the Mean

From a David Ignatius column in the Post Friday:

"American politics, like most things, is a story of what statisticians describe as the reversion to the mean"

The heading of the column is "Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric will live in infamy in American history". 

I had a senior moment when I read the word "mean": instead of meaning  the noun "average" I read it as meaning "unkind".

I think both meanings apply in this particular case.

Where Are the Favorite Sons of Yore?

FiveThirtyEight has a discussion post on the possibility of the Republicans going into their presidential nominating convention with the nomination still undecided: what's the likelihood and what might happen.

As I read it I thought fondly of the good old days, when states had favorite sons controlling blocks of votes who could wheel and deal in the famous smoke-filled rooms to agree on a nominee.  That's how we got President Lincoln, wheeling and dealing.  They added so much to the drama of the convention as compared to these days, when primaries and caucuses have allocated the delegates to the candidates. 

From the post it seems there will be mass confusion if the balloting goes to a second round--delegates will be released from their pledges but there will be a lack of people who can make deals.  We'll see if a Rand Paul who may have a bunch of KY delegates is able to deliver them to a Rubio, or a Cruz is able to steer his delegates to a Kasich (in return for a Supreme Court nomination?).

Women and the Draft

Ann Althouse has a post on this subject, keyed to the idea of registering women for the draft, since men are required to register, and women now can fill all jobs in the armed services.

Two of my takes on the subject:

• the draft dates to the days when wars were fought between states with defined battlefields and masses of troops.  (See the Revolution, Civil War, WWI and II, Korea.) Even in Vietnam the fight in the later years was between uniformed forces as North Korea fed their regulars into battle.  I strongly doubt we're going to see many of those wars in the future.  Iraq had one of the strongest armies in the world, and it took 100 hours to defeat it in 1991.  So the draft is pointless militarily.
• the draft is a strong symbol of obligation to the nation. All are equally obligated, so women should be required to register. 

Shared Services and Government as a Platform

GovExec has a piece on this subject by an IBM type.

By the nature of our government (weak executive, decentralized, federal system) we're fated to build such systems incrementally and from the ground up.  For example, the National Finance Center in New Orleans is one of the providers of shared services. Back in the day (i.e., 1968 when I joined ASCS) the agency had several ADP (automated data processing, for you whippersnappers) centers. I assume they were initial steps in the process of using computers to support operations.  Over time, ASCS closed some centers and consolidated in New Orleans and Kansas City.  Over the same time, other USDA agencies were going through the same process, leading finally to USDA taking over the NODPC.  So it came to support Federal personnel salaries and benefits for the whole department, and then to provide similar services for other units of the government.

In a way the process reminds me of the way our planetary system evolved, as I understand it, by the gradual accretion of material.

Because this is a slow process I get very envious of Estonia (as I've previously blogged) which apparently was able to do a top-down implementation.  To use another metaphor, it's rather the difference between a city like Rome, with an ancient history, and a city like Reston, planned and implemented from scratch within one man's lifetime.

On Blurring Distinctions: Terrorists and Ethnicity

It seems to me a lot of the discussion following the San Bernadino shootings has talked of Muslim terrorists using the assumption that such terrorists are aliens to the U.S., ignoring the fact that one of the shooters was a native-born American. 

On another subject, I'm struck by the growth of Asian Americans in the U.S.  Back in the day we had Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, and the original Filipino Americans.  Then we added Vietnamese Americans, Indian Americans, Cambodian Americans, Nepalese Americans, Bangladeshi Americans, Pakistani Americans, etc. etc.  Now the great American blending machine is making them all "Asian Americans", whether they like it or not, ignoring not only the differences among the nationalities but also the differences within the nationalities.

Terminology and Discussion

Some years ago the right labeled the estate tax as the "death tax".

In the fight over abortion, the terms are "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

Some years ago the left came up with the term "gun violence" to cover both homicides and suicides. Putting both scenarios (as well I assume as accidental shootings) under one label can work in some discussions, but not all

I'm not sure who came up with "gun control".  According Google ngram it doesn't really come into heavy usage until the 60's, as one might expect (there were 7 assassinations/attempted assassinations of political leaders from 1963-81).

I'd resist it--we don't talk of "automobile control" when discussing the system of registering cars and testing and licensing drivers.  We don't talk of "drone control", when discussing what we're doing about drones.  We don't talk of "drug control".  "Regulation" might be the more neutral term.

Directives and Policing: the Baltimore Case

Peter Moskos does the Cop in the Hood blog (he was po-lice in Baltimore for a few years before becoming a sociologist).  In this post he writes about the "General Orders", the directives applicable to the Baltimore police.  I doubt there are many in the world who share my interest in directives, so I'll excerpt a part of his post, talking about the rules of ethical conduct included in the General Orders, which he checked of when he violated one.

I may have missed a few, but of the first 31 rules of conduct, I checked off all but 12 as violated. And I was a good cop, an honest cop. And yet in less than two years on the job I managed to violate the majority of good conduct rules. My favorite was "Section 7: Members of the department, while riding gratis on any type of public conveyance, are not permitted to be seated while other passengers are standing." This is off duty, mind you. And it doesn't say "give up your seat if the bus is full." Nope. If anybody is standing, you must stand.

 He has complaints similar to those I heard from ASCS employees back in the 60's and 70's: hard to find the relevant material.

Apparently according to the trial of Porter in Baltimore in the Freddie Gray, there was a change to the General Orders on seat belting prisoners issued 3 days before the Gray incident, included in an 80 page attachment to an email (and perhaps the Baltimore police department did not have good email).  You'd think with modern technology there'd be a better way, but no one is interested in directives.
 

Seedtime of the USDA

"Agriculture, confessedly the largest interest of the nation, has not a department nor a bureau, but a clerkship only, assigned to it in the Government. While it is fortunate that this great interest is so independent in its nature as to not have demanded and extorted more from the Government, I respectfully ask Congress to consider whether something more can not be given voluntarily with general advantage. Annual reports exhibiting the condition of our agriculture, commerce, and manufactures would present a fund of information of great practical value to the country. While I make no suggestion as to details, I venture the opinion that an agricultural and statistical bureau might profitably be organized."

Lincoln's message to Congress, Dec. 1861   from Brad DeLong.

Lincoln also complains about the number of laws Congress has written and their lack of clarity.

Our Growing Economy: GDP Per Capita

Calculated Risk often emphasizes the importance of demographic changes: the decline in participation rate due to the aging of the baby boomers, the decline in immigration.

I thought I'd check the the GDP per capita.  This is what I got through a Google search (the image is a bit scrunched here--google it yourself.




What it seems to say is, after the dip of the Great Recession, we're growing the economy on a per person basis quite steadily.   Because the level of activity of the overall economy varies with the change in population, particularly net immigration, we see more variance in the economy than at the person level.

Of course, this says nothing about the distribution of economic benefits among the population.