I'm not up on the state of the debate on gun control matters, but I caught the side of one, and the 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study of handguns and crime in Seattle versus Vancouver came up. Is that still a live part of the debate? If it is, I'll do a quick takedown, but if it isn't, I won't bother.
I don't have any emotional objection to living in a country where guns are hard to get, because that's my culture of origin - perhaps I only have the luxury of saying that because I live in low-crime NH. But I do object to living in a country where people abuse facts to get what they want.
4 comments:
I'm presuming that's Vancouver, B.C., and not WA, which is across the Mighty Columbia River from Portland.
You don't link, so I can't look, but I suspect that's way too old to be current debate (not that some wouldn't use it anyway).
It's not exactly a live part of the debate. More a zombie part. It is still mentioned by people who haven't been paying attention but who heard something once upon a time...
Undead "facts" never seen to go away completely, no matter how many times they're debunked. People want them to be true too much.
(Of course, the next question is "What zombies do I have wandering around my own skull, mumbling 'Braaaaaainssss... braaaaaainsssss..."? Harder to see your own than someone else's.)
Which gives me a weird business idea: zombie-idea removal services. Your own personal unquestioned assumptions located and pointed out, for a modest fee. You will be carefully matched with the member of our crack squad of dezombifiers who is least likely to share your assumptions, for the most effective results. Your satisfaction guaranteed: think more clearly or your money back!!!
Hmmm. I'm almost convincing myself.
jaed - I see this come up often when people write books like "50 things that everyone believes that aren't actually true". Half of the amazon reviews are people saying "no one actually believes this stuff!" and the other half is people saying "wow, this was enlightening!"
Post a Comment