|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Why the “Gun Violence Archive” Is Flawed From the Start
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The problem with gun control activists’ stance is that it isn’t backed by any actual hard numbers. They try to massage the figures to make them more emotionally appealing, but the fact remains that virtually every statistic proves the idea that — at the very least — guns are not the problem. With public opinion shifting against them, one group has now decided to try to make it seem that the numbers really are in their favor with a website they’ve dubbed the 'Gun Violence Archive.' There’s just one problem: their methodology is flawed from the start . . ." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/6/2015)
|
As most students of the gun issue have long known, all of the extant data suffers from varying degrees of reliability. The FBI UCR is based upon police blotters reports and its internal reports. The CDC, (apparently) screens government and media accounts. But we all know how factually inaccurate media accounts are. Now "GVA" is going to "fix the problem" ? HOW ?
The only peer-reviewed/supported study on "defensive firearms use" by Kleck & Gurtz only proposed their finding of 2.5 million/yr might be a "conservative figure".
But GVA claims its going to "cut to the core" of a complex social/legal/political issue that's puzzled academia and law enforcement for decades. Seems like they've got more mud than methodology. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
