denton
Member
Copyright 2013 Denton Bramwell
Bad science and bad math lead to bad policies. At least one of the raging errors in public discourse is presently encouraging policies that will cost lives.
A thought experiment: Last year West Virtuckia had 100 homicides. Half of these, 50, were committed with handguns. So what would happen if all private handguns were removed from West Virtuckia? The bad math circulating says the homicide rate would be reduced by about half. But that would be wrong. The evidence is, all other factors constant, the best they could hope for is that the homicide rate won't go up much. Those bent on homicide or suicide would simply find other methods, and they would lose the crime suppression effects of private firearm ownership.
Consider Japan. There is practically no private firearm ownership there. So if getting rid of guns would reduce suicides, you'd think that they would have practically none. But in reality, their suicide rate is about twice that of the US. They are obviously not deterred by a lack of firearms.
Or consider Malaysia. Nice place, nice people, bad place to go target shooting. Their laws provide an automatic death penalty for anyone found with a firearm and a single round of ammunition. You'd think that their homicide rate would be nil. But it is not. The Malaysians just choose different tools and have a homicide rate higher than most of Europe.
The problem isn't the guns. It is us. It's our social problem to solve, and guns are not the root of the evil.
But it is so much easier to blame an inanimate firearm than the anger, lack of respect, and disregard for responsibility in some parts of our society. If we can blame the firearm, we don't have to face our real problem. We are in denial. We are irresponsibly evading reality.
Not long ago, in Oklahoma, a 12 year old girl was at home alone. She became aware that a man was trying to get into the house. She called her mother for instructions. Her mother told her to retrieve the family's 40 caliber handgun, hide in a closet, and, if discovered, shoot the intruder. She was discovered and did exactly as she was instructed, probably sparing herself being raped and murdered.
Make no mistake about it: Limiting firearm ownership limits the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. That will cost lives. And the number of successful defensive gun uses in the US is well beyond 10 times our homicide rate. On balance, guns in law abiding hands save lives and reduce the crime rate.
I'm not sure of the efficacy of ceremonially attaching sins to a goat and driving her out into the wilderness. I am sure that we can't help the murder rate in Oakland, Chicago or DC by theatrically projecting social ills on a 30 round rifle magazine and driving it out.
Bad math and the inability to acknowledge our real problem lead to bad policies. In this case, bad policies will get people killed.
Bad science and bad math lead to bad policies. At least one of the raging errors in public discourse is presently encouraging policies that will cost lives.
A thought experiment: Last year West Virtuckia had 100 homicides. Half of these, 50, were committed with handguns. So what would happen if all private handguns were removed from West Virtuckia? The bad math circulating says the homicide rate would be reduced by about half. But that would be wrong. The evidence is, all other factors constant, the best they could hope for is that the homicide rate won't go up much. Those bent on homicide or suicide would simply find other methods, and they would lose the crime suppression effects of private firearm ownership.
Consider Japan. There is practically no private firearm ownership there. So if getting rid of guns would reduce suicides, you'd think that they would have practically none. But in reality, their suicide rate is about twice that of the US. They are obviously not deterred by a lack of firearms.
Or consider Malaysia. Nice place, nice people, bad place to go target shooting. Their laws provide an automatic death penalty for anyone found with a firearm and a single round of ammunition. You'd think that their homicide rate would be nil. But it is not. The Malaysians just choose different tools and have a homicide rate higher than most of Europe.
The problem isn't the guns. It is us. It's our social problem to solve, and guns are not the root of the evil.
But it is so much easier to blame an inanimate firearm than the anger, lack of respect, and disregard for responsibility in some parts of our society. If we can blame the firearm, we don't have to face our real problem. We are in denial. We are irresponsibly evading reality.
Not long ago, in Oklahoma, a 12 year old girl was at home alone. She became aware that a man was trying to get into the house. She called her mother for instructions. Her mother told her to retrieve the family's 40 caliber handgun, hide in a closet, and, if discovered, shoot the intruder. She was discovered and did exactly as she was instructed, probably sparing herself being raped and murdered.
Make no mistake about it: Limiting firearm ownership limits the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. That will cost lives. And the number of successful defensive gun uses in the US is well beyond 10 times our homicide rate. On balance, guns in law abiding hands save lives and reduce the crime rate.
I'm not sure of the efficacy of ceremonially attaching sins to a goat and driving her out into the wilderness. I am sure that we can't help the murder rate in Oakland, Chicago or DC by theatrically projecting social ills on a 30 round rifle magazine and driving it out.
Bad math and the inability to acknowledge our real problem lead to bad policies. In this case, bad policies will get people killed.
Last edited:
