GameOver22 said:
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:
Maybe in another 40 years he'll realize there are things called constitutional amendments that are supposed to be used to change things in the constitution that no longer are of use.
|
Like everyone needing a gun?
|
Oh no. Statistically speaking gun ownership seems to be very useful if you look at the evidence. There is a reason why there are so few pro-gun control advocates left and they have to very carefully parse what statistics they use.
In terms of the US at the very least, which has a naturally high crime rate. Gun ownership has been shown to be extremely beneficial... even just the possibility that you own a gun.
Places like Harvard actually make the case through research that it's counter productive internationally.
In general gun control advocated fly in the face of scientific reason... as is often the case with people who claim "common sense" arguements.
Like people who disagree with evolution because "It's common sense, i was never a monkey."
|
I never payed much attention to the gun control debate, but that argument always perplexed me, particularly when its scientific-minded people making the argument.
|
I largely blame it on the fact that I think there are actully very few scientific minded people out there, and a lot of people who use science to advance their own agendas. After proving a couple of their views scientifically accurate they feel it gives them an authorative high ground where further positions need no sceintific reasoning, and in fact, those arguements that are scientific against it must be fabricated. Even if they can't point out where the flaw in the study lies, or point to a more accurate one.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
seems like a fair enough overhead on it without getting technical.
