Anyone else irritated and more by today’s inane editorial in the Globe on the Heller judgment?
“Still, no right is absolute. Even the First Amendment, beloved of editorial writers, has limits. The right to free speech can be restricted where its full expression might cause harm: libel, obscenity, incitement to riot. Similarly, the court ruled that the Second Amendment can be restricted for reasons of public safety. The important work now is to determine what constitutes "reasonable" regulation of murderous weapons…Some Americans may feel safer owning a gun for self-defense. But guns will still kill 80 people today in homicides, suicides, or accidents. This ruling won't change that.”
I really object to the use of the type of language that is just so blatantly inflammatory. And of the 80 killed today, how many were killed by legally held firearms? How many were killed by illegally held or stolen firearms? How many people were beaten, stabbed , strangled, poisoned, electrocuted…?, How many were killed in self defence?
There is a mathematical principle called Simpson’s Paradox which refers to the reversal of the direction of a comparison or an association when data from several groups are combined to form a single group. The Globe can parse stats till the cows come home in their effort to maintain an anti position, but please, don’t insult the readers with this type of cheap shot.
I’ve stopped expecting to see a balanced view in the Globe, but this editorial just tipped me over the edge.
“Still, no right is absolute. Even the First Amendment, beloved of editorial writers, has limits. The right to free speech can be restricted where its full expression might cause harm: libel, obscenity, incitement to riot. Similarly, the court ruled that the Second Amendment can be restricted for reasons of public safety. The important work now is to determine what constitutes "reasonable" regulation of murderous weapons…Some Americans may feel safer owning a gun for self-defense. But guns will still kill 80 people today in homicides, suicides, or accidents. This ruling won't change that.”
I really object to the use of the type of language that is just so blatantly inflammatory. And of the 80 killed today, how many were killed by legally held firearms? How many were killed by illegally held or stolen firearms? How many people were beaten, stabbed , strangled, poisoned, electrocuted…?, How many were killed in self defence?
There is a mathematical principle called Simpson’s Paradox which refers to the reversal of the direction of a comparison or an association when data from several groups are combined to form a single group. The Globe can parse stats till the cows come home in their effort to maintain an anti position, but please, don’t insult the readers with this type of cheap shot.
I’ve stopped expecting to see a balanced view in the Globe, but this editorial just tipped me over the edge.