I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise. by Leah Libresco

Gun control has never been the answer, either in terms of reducing violent crime or in comporting with the Second Amendment. From Leah Libresco at washingtonpost.com (suprising that the Washington Post would publish this):

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

To continue reading: I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Advertisements

3 responses to “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise. by Leah Libresco

  1. (snicker) The truth is out there.

    Like

  2. Francis W. Porretto made a highly salient comment on this topic, i.e. empirical justification of gun rights:

    There’s a trap here, and we must be very careful not to fall into it. The trap is simple: We could be lured into defending the private ownership of firearms as a utilitarian matter, rather than as a matter of rights.
    [snip]
    The value of the favorable statistics cited here is to demonstrate the mendacity and duplicity of the anti-gunners. We must not fall into the utilitarian trap, as that would imply that we have no rights, only State-recognized permissions that “benefit society” – and you know what the Left would do with that notion!
    RTWT.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s