Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (36652)	5/2/1999 8:06:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>final question: could they not have reached the conclusion that guns should be banned on the basis of the statistics they collected, rather than the other way around?< There are several ways to doctor statistics. There is outright fabrication. But there is the borderline practice of selecting statistical categories to maximize editorial impact. A glaring example in the present case is the use of total gun deaths (incl. suicides and accidents) to preface an article about homicide with firearms. Let's suppose nonetheless that their statistics are clean - and that they point to significant firearm-related injury and death. In this case, the only thing they can honestly conclude is that gun use or misuse is dangerous. Concluding that guns should be banned is an unwarranted leap of logic. It is the undisclosed injection of an opinion concerning policy. I do not think it should fall into the purview of the CDC. If the CDC wants to reduce gun injury, there are other ways than gun grabbing to do this. It is not the only way. I suggest that gun injuries are not the necessary consequence of simple gun ownership. It's when people engage in mean or stupid actions with guns that gun injuries occur. It is very rare that a gun injury is the result of a gun failing mechanically, yielding unintentional injury. Imo it is such mechanical failure that is the only sound basis for a product liability suit. (oops, another subject...) My modest proposal is that if we are truly concerned abpout gun injuries and deaths, we examine the mean and/or stupid things people do with guns. There is a whole lot of law concerning proper carry, storage, hunting etc. with guns. There is a pretty solid wall of law making assault with a firearm a serious offense. Anyone (other than a policeman) possessing a gun in a school is a scofflaw. There was a news blurb recently about a city that instituted a policy called Project Exile. It amounted to no more than ensuring prosecution of criminals who used deadly weapons. In that city, weapon crimes dropped sharply. We have a serious violence problem in this country. I don't want to softpedal that. But imho a lot of it has to do with our law enforcement and judicial culture.