Gee, Alex, I thought we agreed awhile ago that when we discussed guns, we would use sources that were neutral and official, neither the NRA or Handgun Control, for example. But in your refutation of the column I posted about children and handguns, you cited one NRA web site, and one from these end-of-time crazies. I really would have a difficult time taking anything seriously from a web site with articles like this:
zianet.com
The NRA web site gave anecdotal examples of cases where apparently guns protected people from harm, but anecdotal evidence is not very scientific. For example, what is the ratio of people who were protected, to the number of people murdered with handguns during the same time period?
And if you want anecdotal examples, here is a recent article about a family in Sonoma County who were totally without guns, but overpowered an armed intruder who had cut the telephone lines!! They left him a bloody mess, really.
sfgate.com
Incidentally, I still think the column I posted is really good, and I believe it is long on facts, not short on them as you say. For example, here are some facts from it:
"According to a 1996 Police Foundation poll,
Americans privately own between 190 million and
220 million firearms. So it's not surprising that,
according to another study, the overall firearms
death rate among children 14 and younger is 12
times higher in the United States than in 25 other
industrialized nations combined. In real numbers,
14 children in America are killed with guns every
day, and four times as many are treated for gunshot
wounds. About 400 children die every year in
unintentional shootings."
Here is the complete column, if anyone missed it. It is about children and guns in America, a very timely topic this evening:
sfgate.com. |
