“America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)” How many of those children and teens were gang bangers? How many of them would still have guns if they were banned…how many would still be walking around on the streets without jail time after being caught with a hand gun after the ban?
Statistics are BS…you can prove or disprove anything with them depending upon how you categorize things. Definition of Statistics is “a scientific way to pass a lie as the truth”
Regards, Bob
Statistics are BS? That defeats the purpose of discussion then.
While I agree that the collection and presentation of statistics is vital to their validity and that they can easily be misrepresented or misinterpreted, statistics are not BS.
Things like "more than 6 industrialized countries combined" are vague an not very valuable statistics since clearly the 6 industrialized countries that have been chosen could well be teeny tiny ones.
Even this statistic is suspect because it could be comparing 1621 Germany to 2007 USA. It didn't say the years were the same.
Quote
"In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States."
These are pretty interesting statistics and seem to be pretty straight-up
Quote
"America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics) In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)"
