How Useful Is Gun Control?

I've always been sceptical of the role played by the legality and availability of guns in the overall murder rates. People often compare the British murder rate with the American rate, but the thing to note is that the difference between the two countries was apparent long before the UK had any gun control laws. In fact the high levels of violence in the USA's southern states goes back to before the States was a country.

It also ignores the fact that plenty of countries with restrictive gun control laws have even higher murder rates than the USA, such as Brazil or Russia.

However it seems pretty clear that the one exception to this is with killing sprees by previously law abiding individuals who end up killing themselves at the end of the massacre.

A killing spree differs from regular crime in two key points- the shooter usually commits suicide so isn't deterred by any repercussions of their act and also it is usually done by otherwise law abiding people. The fact that they don't have to worry about consequences means that the usual disincentives for crime don't apply. Because they are otherwise law abiding they would not have access to firearms if they were illegal. This makes killing sprees much more likely if guns are readily available.

This isn't to say that gun laws are the most important factor in massacres or even that we should definitely have tough gun laws (there are some advantages to gun ownership too). However insisting that the availability of guns is somehow irrelevant to gun massacres seems to put ideology over evidence.

Self Fulfilling Prophecy

Has the massive expansion of biodefence research in the US since the anthrax letters of 2001 made America a safer place, or more dangerous?

That's the burning question among specialists in infectious disease, after a flurry of concerns about safety at labs handling potential bioweapons agents.

The chief suspect in the 2001 anthrax case is thought to be Bruce Ivins*, a biodefence researcher who committed suicide shortly before charges were brought against him last year. It is a bit of a murky affair and lots of alternative theories of varying plausibility abound though.

However it seems likely that the anthrax was sent by someone who only had access to weaponised anthrax in order to prepare a response in case anyone use weaponised anthrax. In other words if it weren't for the efforts to prepare for an anthrax attack there would have been no anthrax attack.

So wouldn't the safest method of avoiding future attacks with biological weapons be to stop making them? As it is it seems to be somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy, to prepare for biological warfare by getting leading scientists to develop more effective forms of biological warfare.

Most terrorist groups can't develop weapons themselves because they have neither the resources nor the expertise to carry out complex research and development. Countries can make them, and in some cases probably are doing so, but by and large those most likely to use them would be more likely to harm themselves than to harm the countries with the highest standards of public health and the best medical researchers on the planet.

* He appears to have been the scientific equivalent of those firemen/arsonists, releasing the anthrax in order to push the US government to increase research on anthrax.

North Korea.

Is my reasoning wrong here:

• North Korea is a very poor country.
• Nuclear programmes are extremely expensive.
  
• North Korea menaces its neighbours to extort concessions to alleviate their poverty without reforming their economic system.
• They aren't particularly bothered by international condemnation.
  
• The concessions that they believe they will receive must be greater than the cost of a nuclear programme.
  
• Therefore refusing to make any concessions or enter any negotiations with North Korea would hasten their collapse.

Therefore we* shouldn't respond to the North Korean nuclear explosion.

* I say 'we' but the UK doesn't matter that much in that part of the world, it is the USA, Japan, South Korea, China & Russia who matter.

Update: Of course I should bear in mind that there is a possibility that they are as insane as they appear, take this for example:

May 24, 2009: It has been revealed that Choe Sung Chol, who was in charge of North Korean relations with South Korea, was fired and executed last year. The new South Korean government has reversed a policy of giving North Korea lots of goodies with no strings attached. South Korea now wants North Korea to halt developing ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. North Korea takes this as a hostile act and an attempt to overthrow the communist police state in North Korea. Choe Sung Chol was apparently held personally responsible for the new South Korean government coming to power, and killed for this failure.

Imagine if we shot David Miliband everytime a foreign country adopted policies we opposed.

"Extremely Seriously".

Tony Blair had to be rushed on to his plane at an Israeli airport after one of his British bodyguards accidentally fired his gun causing a security scare.
.....

Accidental firings are taken extremely seriously in Israel and its Airports Authority has launched an inquiry.

Is there anywhere that accidental firings aren't taken too seriously? It's not as if you let of a couple of rounds at Stanstead they let you laugh it off.