On 8 October 2013 17:45, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Suppose his research showed that liberalized concealed carry laws
> reduced gun violence (a popular argument among gun-rights advocates). Then
> he wouldn't be gagged. So he was assuming the opposite conclusion in order
> to infer reporting the study would be a crime.
The point is that whatever conclusions are reached, it should be possible
to report them.
> Well, if it wouldn't be advocacy then he's OK to report whatever he
> sees fit. Personally I would think it shouldn't be considered advocacy, but
> he's closer to the whole thing and he seems to think it would.
> Bureaucrats tend to be timid about offending Congress and may self-censor.
> Yes, I can well believe that.
> No, nobody who is an employee of the U.S. government is allowed
> to lobby it. Civil service employees and uniformed military are not
> allowed to campaign for any partisan candidates either (even in local
> elections if they are partisan).
Ah, right, I see what you mean.
Yes, it's unfortunate that the psychology seems to be "It's dangerous out
> there. So I should be able to have a gun to protect myself." That's what
> defeated a gun ban in Brazil, which has even more shootings than the U.S.,
> in spite of requirements to register and license all guns.
> Well the situation is self-perpetuating, I imagine.
So there's somewhere that has more shootings than the USA - I did know
that, but it generally tends to be the "Developing World" that has this
problem, I believe, together with places with ongoing wars.
[image: Inline images 1]
Graph is from here:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.