

A/B testing gun control laws. - edouard1234567

I personally don't care for guns, I don't own one and never used one. I come from a country where gun ownership is rare and very regulated.<p>Today I read lots of arguments in favor or against further regulation but none of them were very convincing. In most cases correlation is confused with causality. For example, most developed countries have much tighter rules on gun control and significantly less violence. This only shows correlation and doesn't prove or disprove that more gun controls will reduce violence. One could simply argue that there are many other variables that correlates with violence and COULD explain higher crime rates in the US compared to other developed nations.<p>How about we run a large scale A/B test instead. We pick two states with very similar characteristics, percentage of gun ownership, crime, poverty, income distribution, similar gun control laws, etc... We completely ban guns in one state and measure how crime evolves over a long period of time : 1 or 2 years. If we observe a significant drop in violence in the test state compared to the control (where gun laws will remain the same during the test) then we can start arguing that banning guns will reduce violence and less violence means less needs to own a gun for self defense. A less emotional/more data driven approach to policy making.
======
adrianhoward
It's a hard experiment to pull off.

First - because being surrounded by states where access to guns is easier will
mean it's likely that they'll be significant illegal traffic in guns. You
already see that between areas with tight gun controls like NYC and other
states.

Second because I think one or two years is unlikely to be enough time for
affects to show. I'd bet you'd see a drop in male suicide - but the culture of
crime and violence will take longer to change.

------
ixacto
People without guns = (subjects as in the UK) People with guns = (citizens as
in the USA)

Also said people with guns used said guns to kill people in the oppressing
countries army. They then used their new found freedom to create a
constitution that said that the RKBA 'shall not be infringed'. Of course it
was over 200 years ago, but it is still relevant as the Constitution is still
the source of law in the USA.

I don't trust the government to protect, and it is important for society to
have access to the same infantry weapons that the military does, but without
the obligation to any certain individual. This was the point of RKBA.

------
propercoil
The 2nd amendment is 2nd for a reason. banning guns will strip you freedom
more than anything else. Every once in a while there is a horrible incident
that the government can use to blame the 2nd amendment. A guy in china just
stabbed 20 people yesterday so let's ban knifes. Is this logical to you?. Just
imagine the power grab that will happen when you won't have access to weapons
in order to protect yourself.

~~~
readme
Cars are dangerous! You can run people over with cars, so we should ban them!

As you point out, what many people don't know is that the purpose of the
second amendment was to provide the people with a means to rebel against a
tyrannical government. Not for hunting, not for home defense.

Now, the A/B test thing sounds like a perfectly great idea. The problem? Doing
such a test would mean placing authority over our right to self-determination
to a faceless bureaucratic government. That's exactly the opposite of what
pro-gun people want.

I don't personally own a gun, but I am not against the responsible ownership
of firearms for self defense or even defense against a tyrannical state. As
long as the police and military are allowed to have guns, you should have them
too. You trust someone to power, just because they wear a uniform, or are more
financially well endowed than yourself?

In NYC, the only people who have guns are the private security details of the
elites, and of course, those who possess illegal guns.

As it is, violent crime is higher in the areas with the more restrictive gun
laws. Chicago, for example!

Shootings, we have had a problem with. But honestly, it's not the gun that
killed those people. He could have looked up bomb recipes on the internet, ran
people over with a car, or slashed people up with a machete, furthermore, he
could have obtained an illegal gun, since he was going to break the law
anyway, why would he care?

Kennesaw, Georgia, has a MANDATORY firearm posession law. All adult heads of
household must own a gun, unless disabled. Crime rate there is < 1/2 the US
average.

BTW, this is why our system is great. If you don't like the gun laws in your
state, move to a state that is more suited to your tastes.

~~~
plinkplonk
"the purpose of the second amendment was to provide the people with a means to
rebel against a tyrannical government"

by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at
walmart? I understand these weren't available at the time of The War of
American Independence, but going by the spirit of the Second Amendment, one
would want people fighting tyranny to have the most effective weapons possible
to do said fighting. Those(IEDs etc) seem to be the most effective weapons for
a guerilla force fighting a tyrannical government (vs Glocks or whatever).

And if you are considering _non_ guerilla forces facing off with government
forces, you probably need artillery and heavy machine guns (to start with).

~~~
readme
>by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at
walmart?

Yes, that was the thinking of the time. However, RPGs did not yet exist.
Notice what you quoted me saying. "The purpose of the second amendment
_was_..." That is past-tense.

Obviously in today's age the original scope of it must be limited. I don't
even support the idea that everyone should have an absolute right to a gun.
There should be some regulation, but outright outlawing guns? I am glad that I
can say I'm confident that it won't happen across the entire US any time soon.

I believe they should have about the same level of regulation as automobiles.
Both are deadly. Yet, with proper training and mental clarity, they are both
useful and safe.

~~~
plinkplonk
just to be clear, I am not saying you should ban handguns. Or saying that the
constitution writers should have foreseen all weapons of the futue.

Just saying that _if_ the purpose of the Second Amendment were to promote the
ability of the populace to fight tyranny, then citizens should probably be
able to access all military grade weapons short of nukes or other WMD (maybe
those too?).

I am not taking a stance against that position,just pointing out that it takes
some weird mental contortions to be have citizens be have a constitutional
right to buy a high magazine hand gun, but not (say) a mortar, or RPG, a
grenade launcher, or even an HMG. The former provides defence against tyranny,
but the latter don't?

~~~
readme
The latter do, and I think there are quite a few people who probably believe
they should have a right to those items. I'm personally not aligned with their
beliefs.

Obviously we can go uphill with this until the argument caps out at nuclear
power. I believe that personal small-arms are probably at least enough to make
an escape if troops were sent out to capture you and take you to an internment
camp or something (which by the way, they are trained to do) -- it should be
considered that if the government really did become tyrannical, that a lot of
the military would rebel as well.

