It’s interesting how often gun advocates start by attempting to restrict the positions that they’ll allow their opponents to take.
For instance, method 3; Honour existing gun ownership, but reduce the number of new weapons and new gun owners, through more stringent regulation and licensing, and tighter control on new gun sales, while making existing licensed weapons non-transferable. As the number of existing gun owners declines due to accidental gun deaths and occasionally other causes, they will not be replaced by new gun owners. Therefore the number of accidental gun deaths will, after an acceptable lag, begin declining.
I think the point is that by owning a firearm you actually increase the chance of that one occasion happening, in a variety of interesting ways - just not the one that you are expecting and preparing for…
In Britain everyone is terrified of their kids being kidnapped and killed by paedophiles, when in fact the chance of this happening is low and falling - it’s just that whenever something happens, it’s in the media for years even if it happens in another country. Meanwhile, we’re remarkable relaxed about the chance of our children being struck and killed by cars. This same kind of misidentification of risks appears to be happening with relation to firearms - at least to advocates of gun regulation.
Some people tracking find dozens of DGUs per week, others dozens per day. These are news reports… .very hard to fake them, as they usually are taken from police reports.
This is sadly a very common trait. Causes problems in engineering, when a problem pops up; the operators tend to make a hypothesis about the cause and then stick with it and ignore information suggesting the hypothesis is wrong. Refineries blew up and aircraft fell due to this way too human trait…
I think you mean “Semanticists kill all the jokes” and that’s really a hyperbolic statement because I’ve seen semanticists do standup where jokes just fall flat. But, yeah, when they kill, they kill.
Hemenway is head of a department funded by a well known anti gun
millionaire.
He routinely publishes in two journals that are notoriously anti gun and do
not hold such contributors to the same standards as other article writers.
JAMA and NEJM
Hemenway is part of the “gun violence is a health crises,” school, very
powerful and becoming more so recently.
There are more auto caused deaths and no proposal to consider it a health
crises, but rather a traffic safety issue… and that is what,
metaphorically criminologists such as Gary Kleck do.
As for being connected to the Air Force? What has that to do with giving
him cred on gun violence matters? have you read the debunking Kellerman
article? The man even admitted he’d arm his wife even if the thinks we are
29 or 43 or 3 times more likely or whatever his latest estimate is.
Can’t find a CV on Kellerman or Hemenway though they must exist, but I can
on Kleck. If you aren’t impress with this LIBERAL once anti gun believing
researcher and his honest when he found he was wrong I sure am… and I
don’t think he’s funded by pro gun sources.
Three ellipses dots connotes elision and continuation, and is followed by more text. Four ellipses dots connotes elision and finality. Think of it as three ellipses dots with a period. I’d provide an example, but…
