With the new Brady Scorecard out, the numerati are running correlation studies, looking for any relationship between Brady Score and crime rate.
The envelope, please!
Oh, my. Still no significant correlation; there's a very slight relationship between lower crime rates and having fewer Brady-approved laws and limits (and an even slighter correlation the other way, more gun laws and higher crime rates) but the upshot is -- gun laws don't deter crime. Pretty much the same way any other law doesn't: people inclined to be peaceable and play by the rules, do (and that's most of us); people inclined not to, don't.
Why apply prior restraint to a Constitutionally-protected right, then? Barring stupidity, deliberate ignorance or outright insanity (and the Other Side asserts over and over again how clever and clear-eyed they truly are), unreasoning prejudice is the only motive.
Update: Commenters who have urged demographic breakdowns for analytic purposes are missing the point: gun laws apply to all of us. E-v-e-r-y-o-n-e (with the possible exception of Chicago aldermen). Unless you think we should have demographically-applicable laws, shuddup. If you do think we should have demographically-applicable laws, shuddup thrice.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
5 comments:
Well, they have to try. Until they fully disarm us, they can't be said to be our masters.
Luckily, that day won't be coming any time soon.
Remember that you cannot compare oranges and grapefruit. I doubt that you will find a correlation until you take demographics into consideration.
Some population groups "don't do guns" and therefore have a very high crime rate, while others are nearly as gun crazy as Europeans but seldom commit a crime.
Comparing like to like in gun controlled and free jurisdictions provides enlightenment.
Stranger
I think this pretty clearly falsifies the hypothesis that gun control is useful for reducing crime. While correlation does not imply causation, lack of correlation does imply lack of causation.
Well, Madame, while gun laws apply somewhat equally to all, some demographic groups are much more strongly affected by restrictive gun laws than others.
One major demographic group has an overall homicide victimization rate (counting victims, not killers) of 17.2; but in jurisdictions that have never had restrictive gun laws that rate falls to as low as 3.5 - and in very restrictive fiefdoms rises to above than 50.
If you do the best you can to determine the actual murderer rate by the ethnic group of the killer, the extremes for that group are 3.2 and 65.
And yes, comparing the homicide victimization rate among demographic groups provides a strong correlation with the severity of restrictive gun laws. More restrictive laws results in more violence.
Stranger
Seriously, dude, did you miss "shaddup?" The law applies to everyone. Changes in the law affect everyone. There is no race/gender/ethnicity component to basic, fundamental human rights -- or, as happens, to Bradyite restrictions.
Law-abiding people who are armed are less likely to be victims. It really is that simple. Are poor and urban people more likely to encounter crime? Yes, but that is not the debate and not the point.
Post a Comment