A delayed response... I know. I don't think anyone follows this blog anyway :P
How many of you have heard we need more gun control in response to Aurora? We need "sensible" regulations? In my former posts, we have seen there are many benefits to guns, for example the 2.5 million defensive usages a year outnumber the amount of times they are used in murder (Kleck 1995). We have also seen more guns, such as conceal carry, has reduced crime in the United States (Lott 1997, Moody and Marvel 2008, Lott 2012, and many others). The question here is, though, does gun control work at reducing these crimes? You know, if these regulations worked this would be a sensible response. On the surface it also makes sense. However, when examining the facts, that "sensible" solution seems to fall apart.
Many saw the need to limit the possible bullets one could sell. The current proposals say a sensible regulation would be 1,000. Other then the fact prepers would get pissed, would this stop mass shootings? Unlikely. Most shootings have months or years of planning and investment put into them. It would still be possible to legally buy all the ammunition, just spread out the purchases. And they could easily go to some black market venue, or reload their shells from previously used ones (for those who don't know what reloading is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading).
Others say we need a magazine cap. But this was ineffective when tried in 1994 in the assault weapons ban! Crime in states that passed these bans murder actually rose 11.9% on average. And no credible evidence suggests the ban has had any positive effects. Studies usually have found "mixed" results, and two separate analysis's have found increases in crime [1][2].
But lets look into the most common argument on this issue: Assault weapons serve no purpose. There are two problems with this: 1) this is false, and 2) this logic does not work.
Lets start with one... obviously. Although well placed shots can take down a deer from an assault rifle (generally .223 caliber), it is usually used for small game like rabbits. Why? When you shoot it, unlike with a thirty caliber, you would actually have meat left. And even better: they shoot at high speeds making them more beneficial for the job. Although other weapons, such as pistols, shoot at the same speed or faster they are less accurate. //these guns purpose is used in crime!!!// Um... actually assault weapons are only used in .20 percent of all violent crimes [3].
Wait, I heard from the Brady campaign and John Kerry they have no purpose! Deer hunters don't need guns, and there is no sporting purpose. Sorry to say, assault weapons are a great sporting weapon. Literally many gun sports revolve around the existence of these weapons. Here is the fact:.
No sporting purpose is a lie. It is the most common used weapon in sports and I dare say that it has no purpose to the 1,300 Americans who have been in competitions. And this does not count the thousands, like me, who shoot these things at paper which is considered a "sport". So, really, when you see blogs and opinion articles with no references (other then the Brady Campaign or another such organization), know they are liars.
And, anyway, this logic is flawed. Even if it was true, that's not a justification for banning assault weapons. Lets use an example, grapes. Grapes have no purpose as they are not needed to be healthy, use strawberries instead. No, this argument does not work. One must give a compelling reason to affirm or justify the assault weapons ban. Saying there is no reason to to X is not compelling. Many might criticize me as my position on Same Sex marriage uses that logic, however [maybe if I remember] in a later post I will explain the harms that some if SSM is allowed and my argument invalidated.
So if they are right: they lose. If I am right: they lose. If their laws pass: we lose (higher crime).
Also, gun control never has worked. Here is an important piece of information: the theater was a gun free zone. Its a textbook example of gun control failing, it was already like a gun ban in there: as extreme as it can get. So how are more laws that criminals ignore help? Seriously, its like putting a speed bump in the road will stop me from getting to my house...
Now, any of you out there still support gun control? I ask this question: Name one gun ban that has reduced crime. Just one. Why do I ask? Because you cant.
Here is a good fact to begin your research if you are trying to find a ban that has decreased crime: "Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."[5]
Hey, wait a minute, the UK has more gun control and lower crime!
Hey, guess what, Israel has an extremely high gun ownership and no crime, same as switzerland.
And, anyway, this logic does not prove your point. Using these comparisons hardly makes a case for gun control. Ideally, one must examine the crime rate before and after the law in trends to examine the actual crime change of these laws. To correctly estimate a policy and its effect on crime, one must find and isolate the variable they are trying to prove (or disprove, or just find an answer) its effect on crime. NO STUDY HAS DONE THIS THAT PROVES GUN CONTROL WORKS, the ones that properly do these studies either find no correlation between guns and crime or more guns less crime [1].
So, is gun control the response to Aurora? No.
[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
[2] Lott, John R. "The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong." Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003.
[3] http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
[4] http://www.gunbanfacts.com/Get_the_Facts/Ban_Supporters_Wrong/no_sporting_purpose.aspx
[5] http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/crime/gun-laws-dont-reduce-crime/
Many saw the need to limit the possible bullets one could sell. The current proposals say a sensible regulation would be 1,000. Other then the fact prepers would get pissed, would this stop mass shootings? Unlikely. Most shootings have months or years of planning and investment put into them. It would still be possible to legally buy all the ammunition, just spread out the purchases. And they could easily go to some black market venue, or reload their shells from previously used ones (for those who don't know what reloading is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading).
Others say we need a magazine cap. But this was ineffective when tried in 1994 in the assault weapons ban! Crime in states that passed these bans murder actually rose 11.9% on average. And no credible evidence suggests the ban has had any positive effects. Studies usually have found "mixed" results, and two separate analysis's have found increases in crime [1][2].
But lets look into the most common argument on this issue: Assault weapons serve no purpose. There are two problems with this: 1) this is false, and 2) this logic does not work.
Lets start with one... obviously. Although well placed shots can take down a deer from an assault rifle (generally .223 caliber), it is usually used for small game like rabbits. Why? When you shoot it, unlike with a thirty caliber, you would actually have meat left. And even better: they shoot at high speeds making them more beneficial for the job. Although other weapons, such as pistols, shoot at the same speed or faster they are less accurate. //these guns purpose is used in crime!!!// Um... actually assault weapons are only used in .20 percent of all violent crimes [3].
Wait, I heard from the Brady campaign and John Kerry they have no purpose! Deer hunters don't need guns, and there is no sporting purpose. Sorry to say, assault weapons are a great sporting weapon. Literally many gun sports revolve around the existence of these weapons. Here is the fact:.
"In fact, the AR-15, M1 and M1A -- semi-automatic
rifles that gun control say are "assault weapons" -- are the rifles most commonly
used for marksmanship competitions and training in the United States, such as the
NRA's National Rifle Championships, the Civilian Marksmanship Program's National
Matches, and the regional, state and local competitions that precede the national
events each year. All 1,300+ men, women and teenagers who competed in the National Trophy Rifle Matches
in 2010 used semi-automatic rifles that gun control supporters say should be banned
as "assault weapons."[4]
No sporting purpose is a lie. It is the most common used weapon in sports and I dare say that it has no purpose to the 1,300 Americans who have been in competitions. And this does not count the thousands, like me, who shoot these things at paper which is considered a "sport". So, really, when you see blogs and opinion articles with no references (other then the Brady Campaign or another such organization), know they are liars.
And, anyway, this logic is flawed. Even if it was true, that's not a justification for banning assault weapons. Lets use an example, grapes. Grapes have no purpose as they are not needed to be healthy, use strawberries instead. No, this argument does not work. One must give a compelling reason to affirm or justify the assault weapons ban. Saying there is no reason to to X is not compelling. Many might criticize me as my position on Same Sex marriage uses that logic, however [maybe if I remember] in a later post I will explain the harms that some if SSM is allowed and my argument invalidated.
So if they are right: they lose. If I am right: they lose. If their laws pass: we lose (higher crime).
Also, gun control never has worked. Here is an important piece of information: the theater was a gun free zone. Its a textbook example of gun control failing, it was already like a gun ban in there: as extreme as it can get. So how are more laws that criminals ignore help? Seriously, its like putting a speed bump in the road will stop me from getting to my house...
Now, any of you out there still support gun control? I ask this question: Name one gun ban that has reduced crime. Just one. Why do I ask? Because you cant.
Here is a good fact to begin your research if you are trying to find a ban that has decreased crime: "Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."[5]
Hey, wait a minute, the UK has more gun control and lower crime!
Hey, guess what, Israel has an extremely high gun ownership and no crime, same as switzerland.
And, anyway, this logic does not prove your point. Using these comparisons hardly makes a case for gun control. Ideally, one must examine the crime rate before and after the law in trends to examine the actual crime change of these laws. To correctly estimate a policy and its effect on crime, one must find and isolate the variable they are trying to prove (or disprove, or just find an answer) its effect on crime. NO STUDY HAS DONE THIS THAT PROVES GUN CONTROL WORKS, the ones that properly do these studies either find no correlation between guns and crime or more guns less crime [1].
So, is gun control the response to Aurora? No.
[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
[2] Lott, John R. "The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong." Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003.
[3] http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
[4] http://www.gunbanfacts.com/Get_the_Facts/Ban_Supporters_Wrong/no_sporting_purpose.aspx
[5] http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/crime/gun-laws-dont-reduce-crime/
No comments:
Post a Comment