| > But is that the best comparison? Yes, it is. You have a limited amount of resources -- in this case, tax dollars and political capital. If you're spending dollars or votes to save lives, you should spend them on the thing which saves the most lives per dollar spent. > What about comparing it to frequency and impact in other countries? Another commenter on this article said that this comparison indicates that gun control doesn't really help [1]. To this, I'd add that most countries that have a strong gun control never had the situation of the US: millions of guns already in public circulation; many pro-gun individuals and a powerful political faction; and a very difficult procedure (amending the Constitution) required for changing policy. These obstacles are pretty much insurmountable right now; you'd be well-advised to spend your political capital on an issue where you have a decent chance of winning. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934323 |
I think what I was reading sounded like "there might be less gun violence over there, but don't look into why, it's not worth your while".
My thought was that maybe it is worth our while to look into why.
when one decides upon controlling guns, it would be prudent to grandparent people in. New rights revocation would only be applied to the upcoming generations. This way you don't alienate a population from something they hold dear, but would ensure whatever you're enacting becomes effective over time.