Since the tragedy at Virgina Tech last week, there has been a lot of talk about gun control. The argument for gun control, is that if it were harder for the lunatic to get guns, it may have prevented the massacre. The argument against gun control is that if there were more sane-minded gun-totters at the scene, one of them may have been able to take the mad-man out and prevent any more murders.

The LA Times has a video up on their main page about the University of Utah where students are allowed to carry a concealed piece (h/t The Shotgun Blog.

Professor Peggy Nash thinks its "outrageous" that if "you have more guns, in the hands of more people in more place, we're going to have a safer society". Peggy takes the view of most gun-control advocates that this idea is "stupid and dangerous".

Another unnamed professor, who had just been told that one of his students was carrying a concealed weapon chuckled and replied, "it really makes me feel a little safer". In fact, at the University of Utah, over 500 students on campus carry concealed weapons. Mass shooting sprees to date: 0. The problem with Prof. Nash's argument is that it's "stupid and dangerous", but more importantly lacking any actual statistical evidence.

There are three points that people make in favor of gun control. The first is that "the fundamental role of government is to secure the public's safety and security, and that disarmament is a means to that end." While there is no doubt that public safety is one of the governments responsibilities, there is even less doubt that an individuals safety is paramount to himself, and therefore he should be able to use whatever means possible to secure his own safety. Since it is the governments job to secure the safety of society, it is therefore the governments duty to allow individuals to provide safety for themselves.

Others argue that prohibition of guns will reduce both their availability and their inappropriate use. Prohibition will reduce the availability of guns, there is little doubt about that. But prohibition does nothing to reduce the inappropriate use of firearms. If you own a gun that is banned, any use of it is then inappropriate.

The main claim is that fewer guns means fewer deaths from homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Cars are responsible for many unintentional deaths as well, but we don't ban them... we regulate them, and those who can use them. As far as suicide goes, you don't need a gun. A person who is bent on ending their own life can find a plethora of tools to do so. Having a gun around does not make sane people want to end their own lives.

The question of homicide rates is the big 'what if'. This chart by Boris Gimbarzevsky of the University of Saskatchewan shows some interesting trends. Most notably is that gun related murders tend to correlate to total murders. Except, in certain years like 1977 in which there was an increase in murder, but a decrease in gun-related murders. Or 1981, which saw an increase in overall murder, but the killers with guns took a full year to catch up. The chart shows that overall, gun-murderers tend to follow the trends set forth by murderers without guns.

Labels: Guns