My concern is also with method. You suggest that using one shooting to imply that guns are dangerous is like using one snowstorm to imply that the globe is not warming. Very well, let's take the comparisons.
Remaining on the anecdotal level for a moment: As I indicated above, properly understood, a severe snowstorm can be anecdotal evidence for, rather than against, global warming. Can this shooting be used, equally anecdotally, to show that we are safer with guns?
Now, turning to statistics. Rebuttal of global warming denials is performed with reams of scientifically valid research to which virtually the entirety of the relevant scientific community assents. Where are the equally conclusive reams of scientifically valid research to show we are safer with guns? Remember that Mr "More Guns Less Crime" Lott has no scientific credibility.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-19 06:59 am (UTC)Remaining on the anecdotal level for a moment: As I indicated above, properly understood, a severe snowstorm can be anecdotal evidence for, rather than against, global warming. Can this shooting be used, equally anecdotally, to show that we are safer with guns?
Now, turning to statistics. Rebuttal of global warming denials is performed with reams of scientifically valid research to which virtually the entirety of the relevant scientific community assents. Where are the equally conclusive reams of scientifically valid research to show we are safer with guns? Remember that Mr "More Guns Less Crime" Lott has no scientific credibility.