Shaggy
New member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 2
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Gun control is a heated topic, especially from the recent events that happened in Las Vegas. Because of that event, there has been a push from the left for increased gun control. They say that if there was stricter gun control, this event could have been prevented. However, according to sources such as Kleck et.al, and Hsaio and Bernstein, gun control does not equate to reduced crime levels. In this post, I will prove that gun control does not work and why.
Gun control is not needed. According to Kleck et. al.’s data, they conclude that “The estimates found in Table 2 also indicate that most gun control measures appear to have no significant negative direct effect on total(gun plus nongun) violence rates…” (Kleck et. al.502). This indicates that unlike what is common belief from the left, gun control does not really reduce crime rates at all. In addition to this information Kleck states “Indeed, if statistical results are taken at face value, some laws appear to increase violence rates”(Kleck et. al. 502). This shows that even some of those laws increase violence rates. In Timothy Hsaio and C’zar Bernstein’s Against Moderate Gun Control, they affirm Kleck et. al.’s statistics; “Regarding (2), at least nineteen studies find that gun ownership does not increase homicide rates”(Hsaio and Bernstein, 316). Nineteen studies show a similar result to what Kleck’s data showed. In Young’s “Why the Gun Control Movement Fails”, he interviewed some families who lost their children to gun violence: “When I posed an open-ended question to the victims’ parents about why they thought these tragedies kept happening, not a single one mentioned guns”(Young). Even though these parents had one of the worst things that could ever happen to them, they did not say that there was a need for gun control. As shown from above, gun control does not solve the problems that it aims to.
Some argue,however, that gun control is still necessary and should be implemented. Charles W. Collier, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Florida, says in his paper Gun Control in America: an Autopsy Report “For now, they seem satisfied that their personal probability of dying in a hail of gunfire is negligible or at least ‘acceptable,’ so long as it is only other people’s children who are dying”(Collier 86). That is rather extreme of Collier to say.Collier feels that Americans feel that “as long as any of my children or family don’t die, I don’t give a crap about what happens to anyone else”. That is absurd. The statistics that were provided by Kleck already show that limiting the possession of guns doesn’t mean that the likelihood of being shot any less. In fact, if there was someone who intended to harm you and/or others, wouldn’t you want a law abiding citizen that does have the conceal carry permit as well be able to stop the person?
In conclusion, these statistics including the nineteen studies show that gun control laws do not decrease gun violence.
Gun control is not needed. According to Kleck et. al.’s data, they conclude that “The estimates found in Table 2 also indicate that most gun control measures appear to have no significant negative direct effect on total(gun plus nongun) violence rates…” (Kleck et. al.502). This indicates that unlike what is common belief from the left, gun control does not really reduce crime rates at all. In addition to this information Kleck states “Indeed, if statistical results are taken at face value, some laws appear to increase violence rates”(Kleck et. al. 502). This shows that even some of those laws increase violence rates. In Timothy Hsaio and C’zar Bernstein’s Against Moderate Gun Control, they affirm Kleck et. al.’s statistics; “Regarding (2), at least nineteen studies find that gun ownership does not increase homicide rates”(Hsaio and Bernstein, 316). Nineteen studies show a similar result to what Kleck’s data showed. In Young’s “Why the Gun Control Movement Fails”, he interviewed some families who lost their children to gun violence: “When I posed an open-ended question to the victims’ parents about why they thought these tragedies kept happening, not a single one mentioned guns”(Young). Even though these parents had one of the worst things that could ever happen to them, they did not say that there was a need for gun control. As shown from above, gun control does not solve the problems that it aims to.
Some argue,however, that gun control is still necessary and should be implemented. Charles W. Collier, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Florida, says in his paper Gun Control in America: an Autopsy Report “For now, they seem satisfied that their personal probability of dying in a hail of gunfire is negligible or at least ‘acceptable,’ so long as it is only other people’s children who are dying”(Collier 86). That is rather extreme of Collier to say.Collier feels that Americans feel that “as long as any of my children or family don’t die, I don’t give a crap about what happens to anyone else”. That is absurd. The statistics that were provided by Kleck already show that limiting the possession of guns doesn’t mean that the likelihood of being shot any less. In fact, if there was someone who intended to harm you and/or others, wouldn’t you want a law abiding citizen that does have the conceal carry permit as well be able to stop the person?
In conclusion, these statistics including the nineteen studies show that gun control laws do not decrease gun violence.
