Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot in Arizona Jan 11, 2011 20:16:26 GMT -4
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 11, 2011 20:16:26 GMT -4
Yes, and the point is that means the conclusions were dependant on a single data point. The study does not establish that in general, humans are more violent when guns are available. That section references other studies that show a lack of correlation as well.
If you follow some of the links, you see from Gary Kleck:
"I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence--it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero. The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse." --Gary Kleck
We have gangs and an illegal drug trade in the UK too. What we don't have is a situation where pretty well anybody can buy a gun with few or no quesions asked. We have half the violent death rate of the USA, and that extra death rate in the USA is composed almost entirely of gun-related deaths.
All true, but that does not establish gun ownership as the cause of the greater number of violent deaths (meaning that if we didn't have the guns, there would be less violence).
"Within the United Kingdom, areas of high legal firearms ownership have a low incidence of firearms homicide and attempted murder." (Dunblane Misled?)
How does gun ownership limit central government, anyway? What do you do, threaten to shoot the taxman unless he leaves you alone?
The Founders saw gun ownership as a means for the states to keep the central government in check and as a means for the central government to keep the states in check. An example of the latter is the American Civil War where northern states fought the southern states over the issue of slavery. Many of the troops from each state were drawn from the local militias. So, here is a case where private gun ownership helped free an entire race of people in a country.