🇳🇱
@hansw@mastodon.social I am at a bit of an advantage, being a professional data scientist and having spent a lot of time researching the issue of guns. So thankfully I have a lot of the data we need already, though I do encourage you to double check my data from the sources I cite and of course feel free to compile data from other sources too.
I don't think that firearm regulation are aimed at reducing the crime rate. It is more akin to regulation of dangerous chemicals, that is primarily aimed at preventing stupid accidents, like school shootings. Even if it has an effect on the crime rate, it might not be relevant in that context, since you can fight crime by other means (which you would arguably have to arrive at anyway, since guns, even if reduce, definitely do not directly solve the problem), but some form of regulation is the only way to prevent the stupid accidents (not saying that any specific example currently in use it perfect).
Regarding the graphs, the spikes are not that surprising I think, since this kind of new regulation would cause a temporary shift in balance of power, which criminals and criminal organizations would try to capitalize on at some point. I'm also not sure if you can account for things like population growth without making some debatable assumptions, like a linear relation.
TLDR: crime is a very complicated problem, while firearm regulations aim at solving a much more mundane/manageable one.
@hansw@mastodon.social
I'd rather have reduced crime rates which accounts for the vast majority of death, than reduced school schootins that accounts for not even a fraction of a percentage.
So while you may be right, perhaps that is the motivation, it is still a bad one.
@hansw@mastodon.social
I disagree, I'd say both are pretty clear cut. Seems pretty solid to me in my years of research, without really and valid counter evidence, that gun regulation both decreases accidents and increases homicide.
Obviously i understand many people disagree, but this isnt because the evidence isnt clear cut but more to do with the fact that people have strong agenda's on this topic and often try to muddy the water with bad data.
@hansw@mastodon.social
I didn't do any research, so can't agree or disagree with that, but maybe that's the key difference. The homicide rate requires research, statistics and complicated reasoning, while prevention of accidents is rather obvious, like in your satirical analogy with vaccines.
@hansw@mastodon.social
@freemo
I guess my main point was that the "regulation increases crime rate" argument is debatable, while "regulation decreases accidents" is pretty clear cut, and people, understandably, prefer solving problems they know can be solved first, before tackling more complicated ones.
@hansw@mastodon.social