Reply #16: Shorn of context, arguably yes

[Euromutt]

The definition of propaganda is "information disseminated for the purpose of influencing opinion." The information in question is not necessarily false, and indeed, it is more effective if it is demonstrably true, but what makes propaganda propaganda is all too often what is not being said, but which the reader/listener/viewer is invited to conclude himself based on the incomplete information provided.

The implication of the Brady Campaign's claim that there are "too many" accidents involving firearms (a truism, since in principle every accident is too many, whether it's with motor vehicles, power tools, playground equipment, swimming pools, household chemicals or indeed firearms) is that this "too high" number can only be due to gun laws being insufficiently stringent, and therefore, gun laws need to be tightened.

The problem is that, as we can see from the CDC data I posted, rates of unintentional injury from firearms do not correlate with changes in firearm legislation. The lapsing of the federal ban on so-called "assault weapons" and so-called "high-capacity" magazines in the second half of 2004, for example, was not followed by an immediate uptick in unintentional shootings (indeed, the numbers continued to drop for the next two years). Pointing to a handful of anecdotes is not a sound basis for determining public policy.

Besides, the number of results a Google search turns up isn't indicative of much of anything. Searching for various conspiracy theories turns up plenty of results, but that doesn't mean there's any validity to them; it just means a lot of people choose to spend their time talking about them.

And yes, as I noted, there has indeed been in increase in unintentional firearm injuries from 2006 to 2008, but as I also noted, the uptick has by no means erased the drop of the preceding years, and when newer data becomes available, it may well turn out to have been a brief blip.