i don't really buy this. how is it quantified when someone with a gun stops a crime? when a gun is drawn. when there is a verbal threat to draw a gun?
You understand (I hope) that you've just pulled the rug from under the feet of all assertions you hope to make.
Fact is, I do believe you know it. That's why you won't claim to know the assertion is true, but rather you'll say "studies find..." and similar. Also why you include "really" above. You don't know.
if all the scientific data shows that gun owners and those living in areas of high gun prevalence are more at risk of violence (which it does) how can guns be stopping more crimes than they're responsible for,( as i've heard claimed) ? it doesn't add up.
You can't say either way, IOW. Statistics result when the worst situations force themselves to be recognized, in the case of guns. Add suicide to skew perception, and it's what we're left with as "gun information" to be studied as though it's balanced and realistic. It's not. Not even slightly.
another thing the gun nuts say "the government wants to take our guns" when the evidence suggests it's the complete opposite. the government want you to keep your guns and all the revenue they rake in from them.
They can rake money from every which way, regardless of the stand. The $1000 per day fine mentioned in a recent news story should tell you that. (posted on political board)
why else would they try to stifle any research into firearms and their health implications.
1. Because it's impossible to do an honest study which won't disagree with an anti-gun stand.
2. Because it will show an increasing problem of suicide, which can't help but to draw attention to failed policies.
There are two good reasons, right off the bat.
