After almost two years of absence, Reputo is back, and is hard at work making up for my laziness regarding statistics and hard numbers. First off, he looks at the actual monetary costs of the various school-safety solutions floated thus far, then the costs in terms of crime, and finally the specious notion that saving one life is worth any cost, closing with a positively epic quote:
Some like to point to England with their 50 gun murders a year as an example for the US to follow. Really, so you would be satisfied if the US only had 300 gun murders (adjusted up for population)? Say that to yourself, "I would be satisfied with 300 gun murders a year." I wouldn’t be, I want 0 murders. Would you be willing to trade more violence (but less death) in the US for a lower number of gun murders? Kids being maimed by a psycho with a molotov cocktail is preferable? Even if it is 10 times as many kids? Sorry, that logic defies my understanding. It is a comparison that a rational person cannot make. Trading one for the other is not fair, regardless of the multiplier you apply. I want less crime (I care not whether it is committed with a gun or with bare hands). So I continue to research ways that we have reduced crime and advocate those (surprisingly, probably the largest decrease in crime has nothing to do with our control, but involves the relative population size of 15-29 year old males to the rest of the country).
Likewise, I cannot understand the mentality that would be willing to trade X murders for Y rapes/assaults/batteries/etc., and have said as much in the past, but the average anti-rights cultists out there seem to believe this would be a perfectly reasonable, rational exchange to make… as if the decision was theirs to make at all. I am not in the habit of putting value on human lives, and those who do so are only trying to figure out how best to balance out yours.
Coincidentally, my father was just speaking a few nights ago about a 100% guaranteed-to-work solution to stopping almost all school shootings, mass shootings, and probably mass murders in general – ban all males under the age of 30 (given the premise that 99% of the perpetrators of those crimes fall in that demographic). Hey, if it saves one life, it must be worth it, right? He is at least willing to hold off on the ban until my birthday later this year…
Not content to leave it there, however, Reputo goes on to look at NY’s new laws, old laws, and the ineffectiveness of both, complete with a challenge to the "gun control" extremists out there:
But don’t we need to do something? Why? If whatever we are proposing to do has already been shown to be ineffective, why burden the government with more laws to enforce or burden the people with more laws to break. But, what if one life were saved? One life hasn’t been saved. There is no evidence that gun control has helped the crime situation. If you think that one life will be saved, show me the evidence.
I echo his sentiments – if there is actual, concrete, verifiable data indicating that "gun control" has a salutary impact on crime rates, then present it, and let us have a look at it*. Otherwise, kindly sit down and shut up; the adults are talking.
(* – Note: given the increasing dataset of crime rates, population trends, and countless other variables, the distinct and marked lack of any causal evidence of the efficacy of "gun control" in reducing crime is starting to look like evidence of absence.)