Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
We often argue about the statistics of gun ownership and carry. We claim that a 15% decline in violent crime justifies CCW, others argue that 10% rise in suicides by firearms justifies a ban on them. The following might illustrate why neither argument has much to recommend it as a basis for public policy.
http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html
Based on that information, blanket incarceration of men -- or at least denying them the legal right to have weapons such as guns, knives or their own fists -- would have a greater impact on the crime rates than any of the other measures under discussion.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/release/0304/violent1.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
A slightly less drastic effect could be achieved by incarcerating men aged 16 to 35 -- they also account for a disproportionate share of violent criminal acts.
We easily can find statistics that would support selective incarceration by income bracket, ethnicity, linguistic proficiency and geographic location. That approach would be far more reasonable than punishing millions of gun owners for misdeeds of the statistically insignificant few, yet equally unsupportable on ethical grounds. Ethics is what we should argue, not statistics. Stats are fine if you are debunking the claims of the other side, but they should not form the basis of policy-making.
Comments? Refinements?
http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html
Based on that information, blanket incarceration of men -- or at least denying them the legal right to have weapons such as guns, knives or their own fists -- would have a greater impact on the crime rates than any of the other measures under discussion.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/release/0304/violent1.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
A slightly less drastic effect could be achieved by incarcerating men aged 16 to 35 -- they also account for a disproportionate share of violent criminal acts.
We easily can find statistics that would support selective incarceration by income bracket, ethnicity, linguistic proficiency and geographic location. That approach would be far more reasonable than punishing millions of gun owners for misdeeds of the statistically insignificant few, yet equally unsupportable on ethical grounds. Ethics is what we should argue, not statistics. Stats are fine if you are debunking the claims of the other side, but they should not form the basis of policy-making.
Comments? Refinements?