Available at 
Tweet
As spouses of scientist and even potentially scientists yourselves, the objective thing to do is to look at actual statistics of existing examples and try to emulate those that are successful. The problem with statistics is that they get skewed in 100 different directions at political whim. I am not a proponent of gun control measures that are being proposed because they dont address the core issues they claim to. Both homicide and gun crime are down approximately 50% from their heyday in 1993, and are actually at 51 year lows according to the FBIs most recent publication in 2014. So when the media circus begins and we think these things are in crisis mode, naturally we panic. One of my football coaches once said that it doesnt matter if you run a 4-4:40 if youre running in the wrong direction from the ball. Thats partially what we have a case of here. Were focusing on rifles that cause a fraction of overall gun violence in the US. If politicians were really trying to make a difference, theyd look at handguns and the .22LR round, which kill more people than all other rounds, and its not close. But they wont do that because its much harder to demonize those things.
In the UK, Ireland and New Zealand, firearms bans had statistically no impact on overall homicide rates. The gun control proponents are left looking to Australia (which touts a 40% reduction in homicides between 1991 and today). Their rates effectively went from 1.7 per 100k annually, to 1.03. So Australia was already at a very low rate. During that same time, the US more than doubled their gun ownership and saw a reduction of 50+% in their homicide rate. A drop from 9.7 per 100k to 4.1 per 100k. A drop of more than 4.5 per 100k, and drastically more than Australias decline. Especially when you consider that our population is 10x theirs. What this may tell us is that guns have less to do with murder rates than either side would like to claim, and potentially more to do with advancements in society. As we reduce poverty and increase technology, healthcare, food, etc.. people in general are getting more wealthy. For the first time in the history of mankind, less than 10% of the worlds population is in extreme poverty. Lacking for nothing leads fewer people to resort to crime, etc..
What is evident from the UK, Ireland and other examples, is that firearms bans in and of themselves do nothing to change the inclinations of murderers. Take the gun, theyll find another implement.
Hope we can continue to have a rational discussion and not just scream at each other in a panic.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
In the UK, Ireland and New Zealand, firearms bans had statistically no impact on overall homicide rates. The gun control proponents are left looking to Australia (which touts a 40% reduction in homicides between 1991 and today). Their rates effectively went from 1.7 per 100k annually, to 1.03. So Australia was already at a very low rate. During that same time, the US more than doubled their gun ownership and saw a reduction of 50+% in their homicide rate. A drop from 9.7 per 100k to 4.1 per 100k. A drop of more than 4.5 per 100k, and drastically more than Australias decline. Especially when you consider that our population is 10x theirs. What this may tell us is that guns have less to do with murder rates than either side would like to claim, and potentially more to do with advancements in society. As we reduce poverty and increase technology, healthcare, food, etc.. people in general are getting more wealthy. For the first time in the history of mankind, less than 10% of the worlds population is in extreme poverty. Lacking for nothing leads fewer people to resort to crime, etc..
What is evident from the UK, Ireland and other examples, is that firearms bans in and of themselves do nothing to change the inclinations of murderers. Take the gun, theyll find another implement.
Hope we can continue to have a rational discussion and not just scream at each other in a panic.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Comment