Argued and Substantiated Proof against Gun Control

[Tired_and_hungry]

I recently completed a masters degree and as part of coursework, i wrote a paper clearly establishing via statistical means across 30 countries that gun control has negligible effect on murder rates while factors like poverty and political corruption are far more significant.

In light of the recent tragic shootings and the urgent need to oppose the efforts of anti-gun politicians and organizations, are there any pro-gun organizations or advocates whom I should consider sending my paper to as "informational ammunition" in the coming fight ahead?

 

[M-Cameron]

well i would send it to every politician you can think of, it cant hurt to send an email.....hell, some of them might actually care enough to read it.

i dont think sending it to an antigun organization would do much good, those people are already well aware gun laws dont work.


hell, send it to the NRA, post it to the message boards, i know ide like to read it.

 

[Buckeye Dan]

Can you host it somewhere and provide a link to where it can be downloaded?

 

[Tamren]

I second the request to have a link posted, I'd be interested in reading it and passing the link on.

 

[Tired_and_hungry]

File uploaded here

Dear Tamren, Buckeye and Cameron as well as any pro-gun rights brothers and sisters out there:

I have uploaded my file containing my paper onto THR. Please help me spread it as far and as wide as you can. I know it's a little technical but if any one of you wishes to simplify it for easier consumption or even to enable some congressperson or senator to understand it more easily, please go ahead.

The fight to avert a new AWB is more important than any personal copyright that I might claim over this paper.

 

[sota]

I have not had a chance to read your paper yet, and please take the following as nothing more than my opinion, but if I may suggest rethinking the title of the paper. Alot of people on both sides are using the word "truth" to try and make their point. "truth" as a word is as of late so emotionally charged that it immediately detracts from most arguments because the infamous RED MIST descends, especially if the contents run contrary to a person's current viewpoint. the more dispassionate a viewpoint can be presented the more likely someone listening to the information presented is take it into consideration.

Otherwise I look forward to reading it.

 

[Spats McGee]

I have not had a chance to read the paper, but I thank you for posting it, and look forward to reading it. With that said, I do have an issue with a statistical approach to gun legislation. Arguing against gun control issues from a statistical perspective implies that gun control would be acceptable if the statistics proved that the death rate from guns would decline. I do not think gun control beyond what is already in place is acceptable, regardless of the statistics.

Let me offer an impossible, hypothetical example to illustrate. Suppose that Congress could pass a law, which in its magical effectiveness would: (1) eliminate gun ownership among citizens to negligible levels; (2) reduce the death rate from firearms down to 1 person per year, (3) with that one person being murdered by a firearm. From a statistical perspective, there's a good argument that such a law is acceptable. For that one person per year, though, it's a death sentence. That one person has every right to defend him- or herself.