Masked Midnight wrote:
Interesting article (going by the abstract anyways - I don't have access to the whole thing
), but statistics from countries with gun bans
(or at least very tight restrictions) show an obviously marked decrease in firearms-related homicides.
I haven't done any more research to corroborate that, but its logic is self-explanatory. I'm sure I could find more. Additionally, I believe that article only concludes that higher gun ownership does not increase crime, but, going by the abstract, it doesn't address how crime rates are affected by lower rates of gun ownership. If you've read the whole thing, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Regardless, this Fordham Law Review article
directly contradicts the notion that higher rates of gun ownership deters crime, and advocates for a pragmatic approach to gun control based on two principles: 1) increased legal liability and 2) reduced firearm availability. That's a policy I could get behind. This other Crime and Justice article
further disputes the claims made by Gleck in regards to deterrence, although only a portion of the article deals with firearms. More broadly, the article questions the validity of deterrence-based legislation in general, including capital punishment, but firearms are mentioned (and Gleck's claims specifically).
Where gun control is tried, it fails (Australia and some US cities such as Chicago).
Depends entirely on how its done, but much of the evidence remains consistent on this area: fewer guns means fewer gun-related homicides. This study
examined firearm availability across 26 high-income countries in the 90s (the US being among them) and found that where guns were more available, there were more homicides. This 2001 study of 21 countries
yielded similar results, and also studied gun ownership in correlation with suicide, assault, and robbery in addition to homicide. The UK is famous for its rigid gun control laws, and has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world
, according to a UN study. These statistics
corroborate the rarity of gun-related homicides in the UK. Also worth noting is the small number of people shot dead by police in UK (as little as 30 over a 12-year period, according to an article in The Independent) as opposed to the high rate in the US.
Studies have also linked decreased availability to firearms to decreased suicide rates in Austria
and the United States
, the logic being that reduced access to means serves as a mitigating deterrent to suicide. A suicidal individual who'd be willing to shoot themselves for example may not be as willing to end their life through other measures.
America's lax gun regulation has also been linked
to the illegal arming of Mexican cartels, diametrically opposed to Mexico's aims to reduce gun violence with strict regulation. This Boston College Law Review article is obviously coming from the perspective that fewer guns = fewer gun-related crimes.
What is misunderstood is that 2nd Amendment is in the interest of public safety as the earlier study proves.
I was under the impression that the 2nd Amendment was included as a check on government tyranny, not in the interest of public safety. I'd contend that the former is legitimate insofar as it doesn't threaten public safety, but I don't believe that to be the case, going off the high rate of gun-crime in the US as opposed to the lower rates in European countries with higher restrictions. All of my uneasiness with gun accessibility stems entirely from a public safety perspective, which I feel trumps Constitutional rights. Hard statistics are more compelling to me than the theoretical, and I can't ignore the evidence.