|
|
|
|
|
|
by chroma
1794 days ago
|
|
|
I don’t live in Pennsylvania. I live in a blue state that has lower crime than California. I don’t believe most of the studies about guns and violence. The people doing them are almost always ideologically motivated. (Including the “guns reduce crime” studies.) If you look at the details, you find them counting suicides as “gun violence” to boost their stats. Your second link makes that “mistake”. Another common mistake is to ignore all confounders. Yes people who own guns might be more likely to be murdered. Perhaps they own guns precisely because their fears are justified. Lastly, studies almost always conflate legal and illegal gun ownership. There is a huge difference in risk between a law abiding citizen who gets a concealed carry permit and a gang member who illegally carries. The sad truth is that nobody is doing good research on this topic. Moreover, studies like these are barking up the wrong tree. I’m certain that restricting some rights would lead to improved outcomes, but that doesn’t mean we should restrict freedom of speech or voting. So too for the right to defend oneself from violent criminals. |
|
|
You should read the last link, it addresses pretty much everything you bring up, including the handicaps placed on research, adjustment for gun suicides, and the conflations that might tilt the arguments either way.
Maybe some people performing these studies are doing so for ideological reasons, but there's a clear reason why the pro-gun lobby has made it increasingly difficult to do good research and have clear-minded debates over the topic and it is not ideological, or even logical, unless you understand they're only doing it to maximize their sales and de-regulate their industry.
Gun ownership, and use, just like your arguments, tend to center around emotions and compensating for insecurities than around science and research (and common sense imo). They also tend toward low empathy justifications, like writing off gun suicides as not real gun violence.