“Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.” -Cesare Beccaria
Gun control is an idea that falls squarely against logic. As Beccaria notes in in the latter part of this passage, not having a weapon is worse than having one. .00001 chance of defending yourself is still better than .000000... The fact is that the arguments for gun control largely rest on fabrications and the motive of those who advocate for it is nothing less than treason, regardless of the lies they spew to cover that up.
The “studies” that he cites simply lie with statistics. The international “study” only looks at cherry picked “developed countries” and then only at firearms related homicides.
It is selection bias on its face.
The domestic study that he cites comes up with 1.1 percent increase in firearm homicide rate for a 1 percent increase in firearm ownership using a proxy for firearm ownership and “controlling” for numerous other factors.
The “public health” gun studies have been notoriously biased and unprofessional. I would like to see what their “proxy” is, and how they controlled for “confounding factors”.
You have to pay for the study. The author is a Physician, not a criminologist.