I've had versions of this argument with people who argue about the 'explosion' in gun crime in the UK since the handgun ban. Prior to the ban, something like 10,000 people had a handgun license, out of 60m... so something like 0.01% of the population.
To suggest that that 0.01% had any impact on crime rates is nonsensical, likewise, while by some metrics the rate did indeed double, it doubled from very very very low to very very low and most of it involved drug related crime and very little 'personal' crime.
Of course, such comparisons are made harder by differences in how different countries collate crime stats, but still, guns had and still have almost no real impact on crime in the UK.
The idea that 2.5% of the population in the US is actually having a statistical impact is marginally more valid, but not a lot more.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-06-23 03:20 pm (UTC)To suggest that that 0.01% had any impact on crime rates is nonsensical, likewise, while by some metrics the rate did indeed double, it doubled from very very very low to very very low and most of it involved drug related crime and very little 'personal' crime.
Of course, such comparisons are made harder by differences in how different countries collate crime stats, but still, guns had and still have almost no real impact on crime in the UK.
The idea that 2.5% of the population in the US is actually having a statistical impact is marginally more valid, but not a lot more.