Jul 23rd 2015, 7:45:28
I see it as biased based on the tone in which the data is presented For example
"and shows not only that so-called “defensive gun use” (DGU) rarely protects a person from harm,"
was it necessary to use the phrase "so-called" in a scientific paper... or are they using this phrase to shape perception?
and for further perception shaping here is a little gem thrown in to attack the pro-gun advocates as no longer having a solid case to base their arguments upon.
"pro-gun advocates have been forced to argue" <-- says who??
"In response to GVA data, pro-gun advocates have been forced to argue that the reason researchers can barely find .064 percent of the 2.5 million DGUs a year claimed by Kleck and Gertz is because virtually nobody reports their defensive gun use to the police. This argument is problematic. For starters, it would seem to imply that the vast majority of people using guns in self-defense are irresponsible citizens who use their firearm to ward off an attempted crime, and then, perhaps uncertain about the legality of their action, are leery of interacting with the police. It would also imply that while these citizens ostensibly stopped a crime serious enough to justify brandishing a firearm, they aren’t at all concerned about informing the police about a criminal who remains on the street."
I like how the above is worded to imply or shape the perception of how if pro gun advocates are correct then the majority of those using a gun in self-defense are unconcerned and irresponsible citizens brandishing their weapons illegally... i.e. to account for the unreported cases.
and with glaring propaganda examples attempting to shape the perception of how this data should be interpreted, you expect me to accept this as a valid piece of science? Take the propaganda out and then we may have something to discuss regarding the numbers and what they represent.
--------------------------------------------
A study such as this one is open to interpretation, and highly subjective in how it is interpreted. For example I can take this data and spin it in such a way as to demonstrated how lowering gun ownership would have no effect in stopping crimes from occurring. Therefore banning or attempting to take guns away from the general public would not make the general public any safer. If your statistics are correct and gun ownership has no affect on the overall safety of a person then taking their gun(s) away will not improve their situation either way. Why spend money in confiscating guns if it has no impact on the general safety of the public. The money should be spent on programs where the impact on public can be shown to improve their safety in some quantifiable manner.
"and shows not only that so-called “defensive gun use” (DGU) rarely protects a person from harm,"
was it necessary to use the phrase "so-called" in a scientific paper... or are they using this phrase to shape perception?
and for further perception shaping here is a little gem thrown in to attack the pro-gun advocates as no longer having a solid case to base their arguments upon.
"pro-gun advocates have been forced to argue" <-- says who??
"In response to GVA data, pro-gun advocates have been forced to argue that the reason researchers can barely find .064 percent of the 2.5 million DGUs a year claimed by Kleck and Gertz is because virtually nobody reports their defensive gun use to the police. This argument is problematic. For starters, it would seem to imply that the vast majority of people using guns in self-defense are irresponsible citizens who use their firearm to ward off an attempted crime, and then, perhaps uncertain about the legality of their action, are leery of interacting with the police. It would also imply that while these citizens ostensibly stopped a crime serious enough to justify brandishing a firearm, they aren’t at all concerned about informing the police about a criminal who remains on the street."
I like how the above is worded to imply or shape the perception of how if pro gun advocates are correct then the majority of those using a gun in self-defense are unconcerned and irresponsible citizens brandishing their weapons illegally... i.e. to account for the unreported cases.
and with glaring propaganda examples attempting to shape the perception of how this data should be interpreted, you expect me to accept this as a valid piece of science? Take the propaganda out and then we may have something to discuss regarding the numbers and what they represent.
--------------------------------------------
A study such as this one is open to interpretation, and highly subjective in how it is interpreted. For example I can take this data and spin it in such a way as to demonstrated how lowering gun ownership would have no effect in stopping crimes from occurring. Therefore banning or attempting to take guns away from the general public would not make the general public any safer. If your statistics are correct and gun ownership has no affect on the overall safety of a person then taking their gun(s) away will not improve their situation either way. Why spend money in confiscating guns if it has no impact on the general safety of the public. The money should be spent on programs where the impact on public can be shown to improve their safety in some quantifiable manner.