So, you cherry-picked a study that agreed with you and dismissed a study whose results were supplied because it didn’t fit into your dogma and not because it was behind a paywall.
No I did not. The studies probably have very similar results, and the study I analyzed is heavily cited by gun control activists, including Vox, to indicate that there is in fact a multivariate correlation between gun ownership and gun homicide.
Buy access to the Harvard study and share it with me. I can replicate the analysis very easily, provided they too boiled the thing down to a marginal change in homicide rate per change in ownership rate. The numbers will be similar.
You did prove that buy-backs don’t work,
Good. We are making progress. Be sure to let your friends know that.
but I think that going after gun manufacturers, sellers, and stockpilers would be.
Why? 40% of the guns in the world are already in the hands of US private citizens. We have so many guns out there already, that the number of “new guns” added to the pool only accounts for 5% or less of the total guns out there, and a very large number of those sales go to people who already own guns, so you’ve done nothing significant to change the ownership ratio.
Let’s presume you could somehow make all gun manufacturing illegal. That’s impossible, but let’s pretend. Let’s further pretend that 20% of gun sales typically go to new owners. The net change in gun ownership by this impossible plan would be 1%, which by the AJPH model would produce a net change in homicide rate of 0.009 per 100,000 citizens. You’d save 99 people with your impossible plan.
We had a war on drugs, why not a war on guns?
The war on drugs is central to the very problem of gun homicide. In fact, you could probably do more to reduce gun homicides by ending the war on drugs than any one other policy change. This is discussed heavily in the solutions article. I’ll re-link it.
