There is a lot of skepticism about studies about gun harms in the gun community. Studies that show to reduce gun harms what we need to do is reduce gun access significantly and that the costs in the ability to defend ourselves is marginal. Studies by groups like the CDC and the AMA are considered anti-gun propaganda, even though these groups are not chartered as anti-gun or tasked with anti-gun missions.
A lot of pro-gun arguments become dogmatic. "It's in the Constitution!" Or "Only criminals will have guns!" or "We need to be able to overthrow tyrannical governments!" or "Registration leads to confiscation!" I could spend all day listing these. While I agree that people should have access to guns for self-defense, There are good and logical counters for all of these. Possibly more importantly is that none of these are good rebuttals to the issue that real people really die (and are injured) by firearms. There is real, provable harm, and I believe there are real, provable benefits, but they are not as obvious as the harms and we need good science to be able to make good policy that minimizes the harms while maintaining the benefits.
Every time contrary evidence is supplied, the gun community generally sticks it head in the sand or shouts "Fake News!" Their support for gun rights is not informed by facts. And they fight hard to limit restrictions that could help. Restrictions that many gun owners feel are simply the cost of being gun owners. Things like safe storage and background checks on all transfers. There are things the gun community doesn't like that we can show don't have to lead to the bleak outcomes the dogmatic replies say they must.
On the other hand the people that push for gun control often create legislation that is more punitive against the gun community then it is helpful. Being charitable you could argue what they are doing is raising the barrier to firearms (and thus firearms harms) or trying to accomplish harm reduction one step at a time. But the gun control advocates also need to temper their zeal and fear and deal with the real harms and not just the sensational ones. They need to also work together and honor restrictions made as a compromise and not use them as stepping stones for total confiscation or bans.
Some good science is needed. Gun rights proponents need to listen to it. But the people proposing restrictions need to target their restrictions to the desired result. And gun people should hold them accountable for punitive laws while accepting the benign ones and discussing where the line exists between too far and too harmful.
Site Navigation