For example, if we use the “Brady list of key gun laws” as a basis and then look at states firearm homicide and firearm suicide rates some folk find correlations on the number of laws.
When asked how an assault weapons ban or a large capacity magazine ban reduces suicides (since most suicides are performed with a handgun and using a single round of ammunition) the relationship is sort of fuzzed over.
The classic study was of some families in Seattle in a drug/gang neighborhood. My favorite conclusion was that members of rival gangs who were shot by firearms in the home of one gang member, were classified as “friends and family” of the gun owning household, which is why the study’s conclusion that bringing a gun into a home makes it more dangerous for friends and family members.
I guess the liberal left inspired by Bill Clinton like definitional games, such as what “is” really “is” or what friends and family might mean.
Yes, the liberals are on a vendetta to make firearms and firearm ownership look like a bad thing. We really do need to have an educational forum to point out where they stretch the definitions beyond the reason.
I know an educated man who can repeat absolute imbecilities when it comes to gun control. I can argue with him on any other topic and it is a productive argument. With guns, some instinct just takes over. There must be a gun control enzyme or something.
The big shocker I have always seen is the Chapter from Freakonomics “Guns vs. Pools”. You can probably guess what this chapter is all about. Anyways, all I can say is, why am I not surprised at, when it comes to guns vs. swimming pools, which of the two kills more children under the age of 12?