SR540Beaver 116 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 According to the FBI, in 2011 there were 323 murdered by rifle (the category "assault" rifles falls into). There were 496 murdered by blunt objects such as hammers and clubs and 1,694 murdered by knives and other cutting instruments. Unless the hammer and knife lobby is influencing legislators, why isn't there a call to study hammer and knife safetysafety? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 Link to post Share on other sites
JMHawkins 15 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Unless the hammer and knife lobby is influencing legislators... Isn't Stanley Tools from New England? Isn't Beavah from New England? Hmmm..... Link to post Share on other sites
Beavah 205 Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 New England? Not da Beavah. Are there any Beavahs in New England? Nah, I'm a northern midwest fellow. Central Region, BSA. I don't think anybody is suggestin' research focused exclusively on rifles, SR540. I think we're suggestin' that research be opened up on gun injuries and fatalities in general. Just as research is done on injuries and fatalities caused by tools, in general. There are over 100,000 injuries and fatalities from firearms per year in da U.S. That number is on par with automobiles. Do yeh think it would be rational to cut all data collection and research on auto and traffic safety? Da number of firearm fatalities per year is on par with da number of breast cancer fatalities per year. Do yeh reckon it would be rational to prohibit all federally funded data collection and research on breast cancer? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 You guys are moving too fast...Beavah, on that example of coal mining, I remind you (in agreement) that the coal industry for many years maintained that there was no definitive evidence that inhalation of coal dust had any detrimental effect on human beings, much less causing disability. Wanna guess what they thought about health-related research? Answer: pretty much the same as the tobacco industry thought. Or the lead paint industry. Or the asbestos industry, Or, or, or. And through all of that, there were plenty of individuals who maintained a 'head-in-sand' attitude, similar to what I'm seeing here. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now