An explanation I gave a while back as to why gun statistics generally favor the fact that less restrictive gun laws means fewer violence and homicides.
I basically explain why the typical argument of "countries with more guns have more violence" is inherently anti-scientific as it violates fundamental statistical analysis good practices. Instead we would use statistical causality tests for this, not correlation tests. When we actually look at the data from that perspective it generally shows that countries with less restrictive gun laws effectively lowers a nations homicide and violent crime rates.
Reattached the graphs from that post, but best to click the link to the original post where I go into more detail (the graphs are there as well).
🇳🇱
@freemo@qoto.org
@freemo I can care less if gun laws have an effect on crime rates. I don't care if an armed society has a higher homicide rate. I simply believe we have a right to own weapons for sport and to defend ourselves. I do not believe that the right to own weapons should be infringed upon. If I'm not jeopordizing the lives of innocent people, why shouldn't I be allowed to possess a MK 19 (fully automatic grenade launcher) ?
I'm not being sarcastic.
@Diptchip I have no issue with people owning fully automatic weapons. Generally they are not considered any more effective at mass killing, in fact they are considered less effective according to military training. Fully automatic is only ever used for random cover fire and never to hit a visible target.
@freemo I just think it's crazy that people try to justify having the right to own and carry weapons. I don't think statistics belong in any conversation regarding this right. You either have the right to defend yourself by any means necessary, or you don't. The latter is ridiculous to me.