JerseyMike
Active Member
Saw this on reddit (r/liberalgunowners) and thought I’d post it here to get some different perspectives.
Link to the article: https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/gun-policy-needs-a-decision-support-system
Link to the study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-019-04922-x
The only 3 policies studied that had any impact on homicide rates were:
1) Universal background checks, either through required background checks for all sales or through a firearm purchase permit, reduced gun homicides by 14.9% and had no effect on suicide.
2) Prohibiting those convicted of a violent misdemeanor from buying a handgun reduced gun homicides by 18.1%, and had no effect on suicide.
3) Shall-issue laws, which ensure that law enforcement officers can’t discriminate when issuing concealed carry permits, increased gun homicides by 9.0% and had no effect on suicide.
Interesting, in particular I have trouble logically reconciling how constitutional carry has no impact, but shall issue led to an increase in 9%. All I can think of is the difference in historic crime numbers generally for constitutional carry states.
My question is, when faced with these statistics in your advocacy, do you: (1) accept the study’s conclusions and argue then argue concealed carry is an inalienable right and therefore should not be infringed; (2) attack or dismiss the study.
These aren’t mutually exclusive, but I think it may be more effective to acknowledge studies that hurt the cause and then hammer away at the right to self-defense argument. This study does a lot to undermine the usual gun control talking points, so it would be helpful to use it in advocacy. However, I think it would be intellectually disingenuous and hurt our credibility to “cherry pick” results from various studies depending on the policy proposal at hand.
Since I’m new to 2A advocacy I’m trying to draw on the knowledge/experience of the veterans in here.
Link to the article: https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/gun-policy-needs-a-decision-support-system
Link to the study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-019-04922-x
The only 3 policies studied that had any impact on homicide rates were:
1) Universal background checks, either through required background checks for all sales or through a firearm purchase permit, reduced gun homicides by 14.9% and had no effect on suicide.
2) Prohibiting those convicted of a violent misdemeanor from buying a handgun reduced gun homicides by 18.1%, and had no effect on suicide.
3) Shall-issue laws, which ensure that law enforcement officers can’t discriminate when issuing concealed carry permits, increased gun homicides by 9.0% and had no effect on suicide.
Interesting, in particular I have trouble logically reconciling how constitutional carry has no impact, but shall issue led to an increase in 9%. All I can think of is the difference in historic crime numbers generally for constitutional carry states.
My question is, when faced with these statistics in your advocacy, do you: (1) accept the study’s conclusions and argue then argue concealed carry is an inalienable right and therefore should not be infringed; (2) attack or dismiss the study.
These aren’t mutually exclusive, but I think it may be more effective to acknowledge studies that hurt the cause and then hammer away at the right to self-defense argument. This study does a lot to undermine the usual gun control talking points, so it would be helpful to use it in advocacy. However, I think it would be intellectually disingenuous and hurt our credibility to “cherry pick” results from various studies depending on the policy proposal at hand.
Since I’m new to 2A advocacy I’m trying to draw on the knowledge/experience of the veterans in here.