Weapons are such a funny topic to me. Wildly inaccurate information, impassioned conjecture and over-wrought analysis dominate the topic. It’s as if owning a firearm, supporting an amendment, not supporting firearm proliferation, or being a victim of crime instantly makes someone an economic analyst, legal aficionado, legislator etc.
Problem is, subjective arguments lack all credibility. If your analysis presupposes the hypothesis, the hypothesis lacks all credibility. If the estimation includes conjecture, the estimation lacks all credibility.
However, if an analysis doesn’t include any of that, both sides claim that you lack credibility. Want to know why we have a problem? Haha… It’s hard for cooler heads to prevail, when the cooler head is the enemy.
We have a problem with violence in this country. No blame mechanism can fix this. We need to accept this fact before we move forward. Entirely too many people are murdered, by all means. It’s time we start talking about the incentive structures for violence, why it’s so prevalent in some areas, but not in others, and how economic disparity could potentially be playing a role