Statistician Rethinks Gun Control Upon Researching Data

["Washington Post" statician Leah Libresco | Source: Bakersfield.com]
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Google+0

Washington Post contributor Leah Libresco came to the conclusion of her gun-control views being heavily flawed. Upon doing actual research, Libresco’s no longer a gun-control proponent. Her realization as follows:

“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.”

[ArmaLite Rifles (AR) | Source: HotAir.com]
Libresco pontificated on the media misleading folks in terms of gun-control solutions in Australia and the United Kindom. She “concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be.”

Upon researching the numbers and dismissing years of politicians speaking on a range of anti-gun issue entailing silencers, “assault-weapons” bans, minimizing magazine capacities, Libresco realized her previous beliefs were unfounded.

According to these numbers, suicide takes the lead when examining US, gun fatalities—a whopping two-thirds to be exact. Homicides are the second-largest number in gun deaths—most entail males (ages 15-34) and gang violence via illegally obtained firearms. Libresco realized anti-gun policy has little effect on US gun-related deaths. Even still, something should be done.

“A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible,” Libresco wrote. “We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers—not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.”

It could be said Libresco experienced a “mugging by reality.” Sadly, this social scientist’s efforts are a rarity in contemporary society. Nevertheless, she impressively changed her position upon putting actual work into finding concrete answers. If only American, pop culture did such levels of research—unfortunately…

[Source: YouTube/The Daily Caller]

While moral outrage might be vocally louder, facts are concrete—especially numbers—and they’ve a tendency to lack emotion, which can often take control over confused people.

Comments

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Google+0