“Two researchers, an evolutionary biologist [Dominik Wodarz] and a mathematician at University of California, Irvine [Natalia L. Komarova] have now stepped back from the emotional debate and taken a dispassionate look at which kind of gun policies would save more lives, both in a one-on-one attack (as in a homicide) and in a shooting in a crowd (as in a movie theater or mall).” Yeah, well, that’s how MIT’s Jessica Lebor at technologyreview.com sees it. I reckon the study’s assumptions are laughable (e.g., “if the gun law is enforced at a level similar to that in the United Kingdom”). “Their findings suggest that President Obama, who has said he supports the right for private individuals to own a gun, is not going far enough if he wants to prevent the greatest number of gun-related deaths . . .
The study starts by showing that the optimal survival strategies could be either of the extreme approaches: a total ban on private gun ownership, or a policy allowing anyone in the general population to get a gun.”
Choices, choices . . .
Using existing statistical data to put numbers to these factors, their model comes out squarely in favor of gun control.
And I know a model who comes out squarely in favor of the Second Amendment. Well, I’ve got a picture of her, anyway.