View Single Post
Old August 12, 2012, 06:48 PM   #14
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,319
Originally Posted by Skadoosh
This line in particular I find troubling in two ways:

Gun ownership – a precursor to gun violence – can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates,"
1) A precursor to gun violence?...much like owning a car and a bottle of alcohol in the home is a pre-cursor to a drunk driving incident? Apparently this is not a difficult a leap for some as it is for me.
Never mind the alcohol. Cars kill a lot of people, not always as a result of drunk driving. This is really saying that

"Automobile ownership -- a precursor to vehicular manslaughter -- can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates."

Grammatically, of course, the statement falls apart. I don't think the author intended to say (but DID say) that gun ownership can spread like an infectious disease circulates. I think he intended to say that's how gun violence spreads. However, I don't think the claim can stand up to any sort of HONEST statistical analysis.

Further, singling out "gun" violence from "violence" is a rigged game. The only way one can commit gun violence is with a gun, so eliminating guns automatically eliminates from the discussion violence by knives, axes, chainsaws, box cutters, baseball bats, nunchucks, and bombs (to name just a few). A look at the graph of crime statistics from another thread running parallel to this one shows that eliminating handguns in Great Britain in fact resulted in a massive INCREASE in violent crime:

The ancillary problem is the one we have recognized for decades: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Page generated in 0.04540 seconds with 8 queries