Having a vested interest in the results can itself lead to an unethical abandonment of the scientific method. But the biggest problem with their “random” sample: None of the boys were active shooters. Aside from a bit of “don’t touch that” counseling, there’s no indication any of them were trained in proper firearms use, regularly participating in supervised shooting with responsible adults. Yet the fact that this, rather than ignorance, might prove the safest course was not even considered."The Wrong Questions," my Rights Watch column for the May 2008 (yes, really) issue of GUNS Magazine is now online.
David,
ReplyDeleteAm I sensing some disdain for the "Eddie Eagle" training?
If so, I am happy to find someone else who has doubts about the indoctrination that guns are bad and not to be touched by boys and girls.
Good article, David. The only criticism I can offer is that you're too nice a guy; someone should take these ethically challenged wing-nuts to the woodshed.
ReplyDelete(Citations to supporting testimony:
http://tinyurl.com/2ul8j7)
Gregg--let's just say that my idea of age-appropriate training might not sit well with government child protective services nazis.
ReplyDeleteJerry, thanks--remember though, I am writing for a publisher and sponsors there, so I have to maintain a semblance of controlling the spittle flecks from becoming full-blown foam.
That said, I do have a way to woodshed the wayward I'd like to see more adopt:
The Physician Qualification and Liability form.