I’m
not sure what the point of this article is.
Since random mass shootings are so unpredictable and uncontrollable we
should do nothing to stop gun violence?
Is that the idea?
As
the article points out, mass shootings are only a small fraction of total gun
violence. How about these realities:
European
countries with strict gun laws don’t just have a much reduced rate of gun
violence, their total murder rate in about a third of the murder rate
here: In the U.S. we have 4.8 murders
for every 100,000 people. In the United
Kingdom the rate is 1.2; in France 1.1; in Germany 0.8; in Greece 1.5. This gives lie to the oft-repeated comment
that if people can’t kill with a gun, they will find another way. Maybe not.
And
while the rate of gun murders has dropped in the U.S. according to CDC data,
the number of hospital admissions for shooting victims has gone from 20,844 in 2001
to 31,759 in 2011. More people are
getting shot; we just have better trauma care now.
I am
really curious. Unlike politicians and
the NRA, I don’t think that Reason Magazine has a financial stake in stopping
gun control laws. So why this article setting
up a straw man to argue against?
No comments:
Post a Comment