Mainsail
Member
Another whacko group has filed a brief in support of the DC gun ban. It’s painful to my brain to read this hogwash, the logic is nonsensical. In a nutshell, their argument for reversal seems to boil down to a lot of questionable statistics from biased sources, and the ban on firearms, handguns especially, is needed ‘for the children’. This whole brief looks rushed and there are some really dimwitted errors in the grammar and logic. Here are a few of my favorites:
Used more = more lethal? What kind of cockamamie logic is this? Stainless steel knives are more lethal than carbon steel knives because they are used more? Of course, this is in stark contrast to the other briefs in support of the DC gun ban that claim handguns are less effective than other guns for home defense.
This isn’t much of a sentence; it sounds more like an attempt at subliminal suggestion. I think they are trying to promote the idea that the media is also accessible to adolescents, but I suppose they are trying to spread the blame around.
I think they didn’t put much time into proofreading. According to the study, every time a gun kept in the home is used in self defense, it simultaneously causes:
4 unintentional shootings
7 criminal assaults
11 suicides or suicide attempts
That’s one impressive gun! I think they meant that there were 4, 7, and 11 for every successful attempt according to that one study. I can see what they are trying to say, but the wording is clumsy.
If you ban automobiles you will significantly reduce the incidence of suicide by CO² as well. All this is saying is that the ban isn’t effective because if it were, there would be few or no suicides by firearm.
Did you catch that? There was no increase of suicide by other means after the ban on handguns, so the rate of suicide stayed the same. The researchers concluded from this that restricting access to handguns caused a reduction in the number of suicides. Uh, what?
Youth aged 10 to 24? Youth? Tell us the rate among youth from 10 – 18 and the numbers might have some meaning, (though probably not a meaning you want to publish). This is also an apples-and-oranges argument comparing deaths vs suicides in the selected age group.
Now it’s 10 -19. The selective sampling to twist the stats is so obvious the author(s) should be held in contempt for perjury.
I’ll stop there. They cannot seem to decide on a consistent demographic to represent adolescents or children or youth or juveniles.
This whole paragraph is pretty much the same as the rest of the brief; they compare the US to very select countries in an attempt to support their position. They decided not to mention that firearms bans in many African countries have done nothing to end the genocidal level of deaths to youth by killers armed with firearms.
Because we all know it’s preferable to die by being beaten to a pulp with a stick or carved up with a knife. It doesn’t seem to matter that the number of ‘deaths’ has remained the same.
Used more = more lethal? What kind of cockamamie logic is this? Stainless steel knives are more lethal than carbon steel knives because they are used more? Of course, this is in stark contrast to the other briefs in support of the DC gun ban that claim handguns are less effective than other guns for home defense.
This isn’t much of a sentence; it sounds more like an attempt at subliminal suggestion. I think they are trying to promote the idea that the media is also accessible to adolescents, but I suppose they are trying to spread the blame around.
I think they didn’t put much time into proofreading. According to the study, every time a gun kept in the home is used in self defense, it simultaneously causes:
4 unintentional shootings
7 criminal assaults
11 suicides or suicide attempts
That’s one impressive gun! I think they meant that there were 4, 7, and 11 for every successful attempt according to that one study. I can see what they are trying to say, but the wording is clumsy.
If you ban automobiles you will significantly reduce the incidence of suicide by CO² as well. All this is saying is that the ban isn’t effective because if it were, there would be few or no suicides by firearm.
Did you catch that? There was no increase of suicide by other means after the ban on handguns, so the rate of suicide stayed the same. The researchers concluded from this that restricting access to handguns caused a reduction in the number of suicides. Uh, what?
Youth aged 10 to 24? Youth? Tell us the rate among youth from 10 – 18 and the numbers might have some meaning, (though probably not a meaning you want to publish). This is also an apples-and-oranges argument comparing deaths vs suicides in the selected age group.
Now it’s 10 -19. The selective sampling to twist the stats is so obvious the author(s) should be held in contempt for perjury.
I’ll stop there. They cannot seem to decide on a consistent demographic to represent adolescents or children or youth or juveniles.
This whole paragraph is pretty much the same as the rest of the brief; they compare the US to very select countries in an attempt to support their position. They decided not to mention that firearms bans in many African countries have done nothing to end the genocidal level of deaths to youth by killers armed with firearms.
Because we all know it’s preferable to die by being beaten to a pulp with a stick or carved up with a knife. It doesn’t seem to matter that the number of ‘deaths’ has remained the same.
Last edited:
