Is a gun anything other than a dispenser of violence -- of extreme physical force dispatched with immoderate speed? Therefore by definition, a gun may be characterized as an instrument of violence.
For well over 20 years I have been studying this issue, reading reports and studies, looking at the methodologies and data sets used. And I have come to one significant revelation, there are no unbiased studies nor are there any good data sets. Disinformation is coming from all sides of this issue, both pro and anti gun.
Even the most basic data is flawed, incomplete, or biased. For example we do not have accurate figures on deaths involving firearms. The FBI data set is not complete as all local agencies do not report and some of those use groupings and formats different than what the FBI uses. The CDC data had been, and may still be, based on data supplied by 40 hospitals extrapolated to arrive at national data. Thus the FBI figures and the CDC figures are not even close. Even the number of guns in the United States is estimated, with the current range running from 350 to 600 million. And the number of households with guns is based on a poll, that a portion of the gun community does not provide accurate answers to. Plus how many people give accurate responses to a question asked by an anonymous self identified voice when asked about portable valuables they keep at home?
Plus some data being cited is not being done so honestly. Take the statement that "guns are the leading cause of death of children". The data this statement is based on the the result of adding to the birth to 9 and the 10 to 19 data. Which includes adults aged 18 and 19 but more importantly includes youths between 15 and 18 which are the peak gang years, none of whom fall into the normal idea of child.
Add to this mess dueling definitions for things like what is a mass shooting, the Gun Violence Archive' s VS the FBI's or the school shooting data base that includes counts bullet holes in the glass of a vacant and abandoned school building and a suicide committed in a car on the street near a school in their data set. And then there is "Assault Weapon" VS "Modern Sporting Rifle" conflict.
I support your cause, but I have to say that your tag line of "Armed with Reason" is not effective. Most individuals don't make decisions based on reason. They think and believe the way they do based on emotion and then use "reason" to justify their emotional beliefs. So no matter how many reasonable facts you present regarding gun violence, it's not going to make a difference. To make a difference, you have to lead with emotion and then justify with reason.
Thank you Devin for a clear and concise discussion of the facts
You give us good information that helps us make our case.
Is a gun anything other than a dispenser of violence -- of extreme physical force dispatched with immoderate speed? Therefore by definition, a gun may be characterized as an instrument of violence.
For well over 20 years I have been studying this issue, reading reports and studies, looking at the methodologies and data sets used. And I have come to one significant revelation, there are no unbiased studies nor are there any good data sets. Disinformation is coming from all sides of this issue, both pro and anti gun.
Even the most basic data is flawed, incomplete, or biased. For example we do not have accurate figures on deaths involving firearms. The FBI data set is not complete as all local agencies do not report and some of those use groupings and formats different than what the FBI uses. The CDC data had been, and may still be, based on data supplied by 40 hospitals extrapolated to arrive at national data. Thus the FBI figures and the CDC figures are not even close. Even the number of guns in the United States is estimated, with the current range running from 350 to 600 million. And the number of households with guns is based on a poll, that a portion of the gun community does not provide accurate answers to. Plus how many people give accurate responses to a question asked by an anonymous self identified voice when asked about portable valuables they keep at home?
Plus some data being cited is not being done so honestly. Take the statement that "guns are the leading cause of death of children". The data this statement is based on the the result of adding to the birth to 9 and the 10 to 19 data. Which includes adults aged 18 and 19 but more importantly includes youths between 15 and 18 which are the peak gang years, none of whom fall into the normal idea of child.
Add to this mess dueling definitions for things like what is a mass shooting, the Gun Violence Archive' s VS the FBI's or the school shooting data base that includes counts bullet holes in the glass of a vacant and abandoned school building and a suicide committed in a car on the street near a school in their data set. And then there is "Assault Weapon" VS "Modern Sporting Rifle" conflict.
I support your cause, but I have to say that your tag line of "Armed with Reason" is not effective. Most individuals don't make decisions based on reason. They think and believe the way they do based on emotion and then use "reason" to justify their emotional beliefs. So no matter how many reasonable facts you present regarding gun violence, it's not going to make a difference. To make a difference, you have to lead with emotion and then justify with reason.