3 ms·

"you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number" Looks like you either didn't read the short sentence I posted,

"you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number" Looks like you either didn't read the short sentence I posted, or didn't think about it before responding, because that doesn't say anything against the evidence that there is lower gun ownership today than there was 20 years ago, only that the actual percentage back then AND now is likely higher than surveys suggest, but there is still a strong trend downward in gun ownership. And for this "so called research", I'm talking about the NIH and CDC research into gun violence that was cut off under pressure by the NRA in 1996: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as... Research for example that showed that owning a gun increases the likelihood of harm done to or by a family member or acquaintance.

hga 13y ago
Heh, your own descriptions of the research impeach it. "Acquaintance" of course includes e.g. drug dealers killing each other. They are generally "acquaintances" if not exactly friends, or friends any more; in general, stranger murders are relatively rare. And your citation first mentions Arthur Kellerman, who's infamous for scoring undesired civilian deaths vs. civilians killing criminals, when such killing cannot legally be and is not the objective, stopping them is. There are many other problems with his "research", but when it's invalid at that high a level we hardly need to go into the details.
- edtechdev 13y ago
  You didn't even bother to read the article, it says "family member or intimate acquaintance." If you're intimate with "drug dealers killing each other" then I stand corrected.