It's too bad that the Economist quotes so many flawed talking points in this article. The U.S. has a high rate of gun-related [insert event here]. Yes, of course we do, because we have more guns. This is like saying that Saudi Arabia has a low DUI occurrence because they don't drink alcohol. Yet we don't see many articles in Economist calling for the prohibition of alcohol in the U.S., do we?
To put some of the anti-gun talking points in context, let's consider VT. This state has the most permissive gun laws in the U.S. They also have the lowest gun homicide rate in the U.S. Compare this troubling data point with cities such as Washington D.C. and Chicago, with the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. and also the highest gun homicide rates in the U.S. These observations shoot big holes in that talking point (pun intended). (source: FBI stats)
Despite several recent record-breaking years in gun sales, the gun homicide rate in the U.S. is down 49% since 1993 (source: Pew Research). Those talking points aren't sounding so good anymore, are they?
Most gun homicides are concentrated among black males and urban populations in the U.S. where, in general, gun ownership rates are lower than rural areas with less diversity. Uncomfortable as these trends are, they are real and backed up by decades of FBI statistics, not to mention real life experiences by people like me who live in an American city. The message here is that gun violence is not a product of permissive gun ownership laws. They are a product of urban living factors and such trends as children born into poor, broken families with no positive adult role models. If you want to turn the tide on this, we need more mentors and more programs that encourage responsible child-rearing and lead to stable, two-parent families where education is emphasized to children as they grow up.
Gun homicide and suicide rates are higher in the U.S. than most of Europe? Really? Well, please tell me about the part of Europe that Economist excluded in their analysis? Right there you have an admission by Economist that they cherry-picked the data to get the result they wanted. Anyone trained in econometrics and quantitative methods will be disgusted before they get 3 paragraphs into this article. Distributing such faulty analysis and misleading information is not helpful to anyone and shows the naivety and ignorance of the author.
If any of the anti-gun talking points were true, the life span of a gun owner in the U.S. would be very short. Yet one can visit a gun range and find hundreds of responsible gun owners, none of which know anyone personally who was the victim of gun violence. That's because of the non-uniformity of gun violence I described above. If you want to solve a problem, you need to get to the root cause, and none of the ideas peddled by Economist or the anti-gun movement in general come even close.
To put some of the anti-gun talking points in context, let's consider VT. This state has the most permissive gun laws in the U.S. They also have the lowest gun homicide rate in the U.S. Compare this troubling data point with cities such as Washington D.C. and Chicago, with the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. and also the highest gun homicide rates in the U.S. These observations shoot big holes in that talking point (pun intended). (source: FBI stats)
Despite several recent record-breaking years in gun sales, the gun homicide rate in the U.S. is down 49% since 1993 (source: Pew Research). Those talking points aren't sounding so good anymore, are they?
Most gun homicides are concentrated among black males and urban populations in the U.S. where, in general, gun ownership rates are lower than rural areas with less diversity. Uncomfortable as these trends are, they are real and backed up by decades of FBI statistics, not to mention real life experiences by people like me who live in an American city. The message here is that gun violence is not a product of permissive gun ownership laws. They are a product of urban living factors and such trends as children born into poor, broken families with no positive adult role models. If you want to turn the tide on this, we need more mentors and more programs that encourage responsible child-rearing and lead to stable, two-parent families where education is emphasized to children as they grow up.
Gun homicide and suicide rates are higher in the U.S. than most of Europe? Really? Well, please tell me about the part of Europe that Economist excluded in their analysis? Right there you have an admission by Economist that they cherry-picked the data to get the result they wanted. Anyone trained in econometrics and quantitative methods will be disgusted before they get 3 paragraphs into this article. Distributing such faulty analysis and misleading information is not helpful to anyone and shows the naivety and ignorance of the author.
If any of the anti-gun talking points were true, the life span of a gun owner in the U.S. would be very short. Yet one can visit a gun range and find hundreds of responsible gun owners, none of which know anyone personally who was the victim of gun violence. That's because of the non-uniformity of gun violence I described above. If you want to solve a problem, you need to get to the root cause, and none of the ideas peddled by Economist or the anti-gun movement in general come even close.