Leah Libresco used to write for the liberal news and politics site FiveThirtyEight. She also used to believe in gun control. Being a statistician, she looked into the issue and did some real research. It changed her mind.
She wrote this at the Washington Post:
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans.
Read the rest here.
All you need to know about gun control is this: Anyone intent on killing people isn’t going to be stopped by new gun laws.