And yeah, I’d take Luigi as my running mate. GamerDad ’08! Wait, what’s this about my having to post my health records?

There have been several large studies on this issue by non-partisan groups that I can dig up if anyone is interested. One was done by the National Academy of Sciences and was based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. It concluded that “no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns,” could be found. I should note that this panel was mostly made up of people on record as to supporting gun control measures.

The only similarity I am suggesting is that both anti-gun and anti-game proponents use emotional arguments to make their point. They both have no evidence to show a causal relationship between their legislation and what they say should happen (in regards to violence). An analogy in a broad sense is a shared abstraction and both ideas certainly contain a shared pattern. By themselves, they are very different. One is a tool and the other is a form of entertainment.

I also question the relevance and analogy here. Beyond misleading studies, I don’t see how the anti-gun and anti-video game crowds – or issues – are in any way similar.

I’m not anti-gun myself (I’m not really pro either) but if you take the misleading stats and fear-mongering out you’re still left with a peice of interactive entertainment versus a tool made for killing or harming. A game versus a weapon. That’s not an analogy at all!

An unsubstantiated statement is not evidence.

In the US, gun ownership has steadily increased since 1970 (almost doubling). The gun homicide and suicide rate has declined during that time period (FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2002)

Internationally speaking “There’s no clear relationship between more guns and higher levels of violence.” (Keith Krause, Project Director, Small Arms Survey project, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 2007).

“… a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.” (Colin Greenwood, “Minutes of Evidence”, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003)

In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. Their homicide rate has steady risen since then. Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns. (“A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics since 1900″, Hicks, Joe; Allen, Grahame (SGS), Social and General Statistics Section, House of Commons).

Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. (“Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis”, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University.)

I could go on and on. Violent crime rates are more influenced by things like poverty, economic hardships, exposure to domestic abuse, and drug abuse. Gun ownership and gun laws, according to the vast majority of studies, does not have a causal relatioship to a rise in crime.

(Luigi seems like the ultimate Veep to me)