And no, more data does not equal to less bias. Wikipedia is limiting itself to 'rampages' or 'mass killings' wherein one nutter goes off and starts shooting multiple people with whom s/he has no prior contact. The Brady Campaign includes a great deal of events that involved crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, organized crime, inter-famililar violence (such as spouse abuse), etc. In other words, they include a great deal of data on events that had causes/triggers having little or nothing to do with whether or not guns were used as the means to the end. Nor do they bother to gather the same data on such events that did not include a firearm. Again, the weapon is just a tool with a deliberate purpose. The most successful career muggers are almost invariablely those who use weapons other than a firearm within juristictions that make it difficult for an average citizen to carry a firearm. Usually knives. Ironically, we even have the effects of such events in US law, as it's illegal to import, manufacture or sell a knife that is intended to be opened with a single action; thus switchblades & 'butterfly' knives are banned in the US. I'm still waiting for the one armed war vet to sue for discrimination. They didn't blame the criminal element for using the best tools (in this case, switchblades & butterfly knives) available to them for their crimes, they again blamed the manufacturers of such tools for making their products too easy to use.
From the above quote, it seems clear to me that your focus with regard to data is mass shootings, essentially deeming crimes of passion, career criminals with guns, family violence, and, I would add firearm accidents, as being irrelevant to the argument regarding gun control.
And yet, you write this as well:
I think that whether or not a armed population limits rampages or not is statistically insignificant overall, even though I'll admit up front that my own life's experiences bias myself toward believeing that mykerl is correct. I don't think that the practical argument is what really matters, as the results in either direction are not significant enough to overcome the predispositions on either side; as both yourself and myself are evidence of.
Here, you state that mass shootings are statistically insignificant.
You seem to be contradicting yourself as to what is relevant with regard to gun injuries. Myrkul wishes to be selective. You wish to be entirely indifferent, or contradictory at best.
Tell me now, would you be so indifferent or contradictory if you were one of the injured on Brady's list, or a friend or family member of one of the casualties on Brady's list? Certainly you wouldn't mind trading places with one of the affected in the theater shooting, given that you think such shootings are insignificant. Or perhaps you might wish to trade places with any of the affected on Brady's list that aren't designated a mass shooting, as you've said that that kind of data doesn't really count.
