I've heard it so many times I'm starting to believe it myself. But it just doesn't make sense. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it. There's no comparison. The United States wins hands down. Before we go any further, I'd like to point out that disparaging Wikipedia as an unreliable source is sometimes an empty criticism. The articles there usually link to bona fide statistical sources, as in this case.
What then can be the explanation for so much pro-gun rhetoric about this? They say gun laws don't work and the U.K. is proof. They say when there are fewer guns, the people use knives and do the same amount of damage or more. When they provide statistics, they must be taken with a grain of salt, a big grain, because, unfortunately, they just don't make sense.
Recently we've had the pleasure of meeting Laci the Dog. On Laci's blog there is a treasure trove of gun control information, something that is sorely lacking on the internet. There you can find legal analysis as well as moral commentary. It's truly wonderful. But I couldn't find anything on this particular issue. Why do you think that is? Is it because Wikipedia is wrong and the pro-gun guys are right? Laci, please, come to the rescue.
For me it seems clear that violent people who use guns do more damage than violent people who use knives or baseball bats. I find it awfully tedious reading the opposite. But, respond to it I must. Since guns are so much more lethal, minimizing their availability cannot fail but bring about a lessening the in damage caused by violent confrontations. When people come up with statistics that disprove that, I'm sceptical.
What's your opinion? Is the violence worse in the U.K. than in the States? Whatever your opinion is, how do you know? I guess this is the philosophical exercise Joe Huffman refers to as knowing truth from untruth. I wonder if we could get a comment from him?
Please leave a comment.