Not really. It looks like even the U.S data is 'biased'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Research limitations
In the United States, research into firearms and violent crime is fraught with difficulties, associated with limited data on gun ownership and use,[56] firearms markets, and aggregation of crime data.[13] Research studies into gun violence have primarily taken one of two approaches: case-control studies and social ecology.[13] Gun ownership is usually determined through surveys, proxy variables, and sometimes with production and import figures.[20] In statistical analysis of homicides and other types of crime which are rare events, these data tend t...

Not really. It looks like even the U.S data is 'biased'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Research limitations
In the United States, research into firearms and violent crime is fraught with difficulties, associated with limited data on gun ownership and use,[56] firearms markets, and aggregation of crime data.[13] Research studies into gun violence have primarily taken one of two approaches: case-control studies and social ecology.[13] Gun ownership is usually determined through surveys, proxy variables, and sometimes with production and import figures.[20] In statistical analysis of homicides and other types of crime which are rare events, these data tend to have poisson distributions, which also presents methodological challenges to researchers. With data aggregation, it is difficult to make inferences about individual behavior.[137] This problem, known as ecological fallacy, is not always handled properly by researchers, leading some to jump to conclusions that their data do not necessarily support.[138]

and here's the peer review on that Wikipedia entry:

eer_review/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediaeer_review/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

how flawed much of the data reported by researchers is as well.

Well, it is proven beyond any doubt that there are many "flaws" in this gun-control debate. NPR just reported today that FBI does not have accurate data of people with mental disabilities. So how in the world NRA has been conducting their business is beyond me. If we cannot assure that no individual with proven mental problems would never be able to purchase a gun in the United States of America, then I think this whole "gun organization" and the availability of guns should be disbanded instantly. But the availability of guns in the USA is not an easy issue but someone got to start somewhere so why not start w...

how flawed much of the data reported by researchers is as well.

Well, it is proven beyond any doubt that there are many "flaws" in this gun-control debate. NPR just reported today that FBI does not have accurate data of people with mental disabilities. So how in the world NRA has been conducting their business is beyond me. If we cannot assure that no individual with proven mental problems would never be able to purchase a gun in the United States of America, then I think this whole "gun organization" and the availability of guns should be disbanded instantly. But the availability of guns in the USA is not an easy issue but someone got to start somewhere so why not start with the policies where you know you have visible flaws?

Whether it was opinion or not: It was neither rational nor unbiased. Since people seem to know so little of weapons, handguns in particular- allow me.

First, there is a claim that there is no need for handguns (like the author of that article), and that (maybe) only hunters should be allowed to use a gun at all. Law enforcement (people who risk their lives to protect you and I) do not always like to barge in with 12 gauge shotguns and automatic weaponry... it does tend to scare people who are timid. Handguns are easier to transport and fit nicely in a holster. They can do the job usually.

Hunters also have a need for side arms, pistols or handguns if you want to call them that. W...

Whether it was opinion or not: It was neither rational nor unbiased. Since people seem to know so little of weapons, handguns in particular- allow me.

First, there is a claim that there is no need for handguns (like the author of that article), and that (maybe) only hunters should be allowed to use a gun at all. Law enforcement (people who risk their lives to protect you and I) do not always like to barge in with 12 gauge shotguns and automatic weaponry... it does tend to scare people who are timid. Handguns are easier to transport and fit nicely in a holster. They can do the job usually.

Hunters also have a need for side arms, pistols or handguns if you want to call them that. When hunting, you make the drop shot with the primary weapon, like a shotgun, rifle or even an arrow from a bow. Not every first shot is a killing shot, (just like with humans) and the wounded animal should not suffer longer than is possible to avoid. You quickly track the downed animal and finish it off with a small caliber bullet shot to the brain.
You do NOT use a 12 gauge shotgun with 2 oz rifled slugs however at point blank range to do this as it's very messy, and also extreme overkill. Ask any real hunter and they will say the same thing- the primary weapon has a job, so does the backup weapon.

Now about this piece of journalism and its ‘rational opinion’. The author makes an incorrect reference to mass violence by citing the August 1966 Texas University shootings by Charles Whitman and comparing them to the modern day Virginia Tech shootings.

Whitman was an ex-marine who used a small collection of rifles including a military M-1 carbine, (something you cannot buy today without a special license). Even though he brought 3 pistols with him they were not used, (check the actual police report on Wikipedia). The deaths of at least 16 people (not 14) as Adam Gopnik reported were directly tied to the event.
(Again, it’s all in the police report which is available

right in the Wikipedia article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

The author also states that "we are willing to sell them to madmen who want to kill people."

WE are not. Since The Whitman murders, you cannot purchase an M-1 Carbine without a speical license or permit. Handguns, rifles and others also have checks.
In the case of the Virginia Tech shoot, Cho, LIED and put down false information relating to his mental health issues.

"Not enough was done between those two massacres to make weapons of mass killing harder to obtain."

If gun control laws had not changed or improved since 1966, Cho would have walked in armed like Neo from the Matrix, not with just 2 pis...

right in the Wikipedia article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

The author also states that "we are willing to sell them to madmen who want to kill people."

WE are not. Since The Whitman murders, you cannot purchase an M-1 Carbine without a speical license or permit. Handguns, rifles and others also have checks.
In the case of the Virginia Tech shoot, Cho, LIED and put down false information relating to his mental health issues.

"Not enough was done between those two massacres to make weapons of mass killing harder to obtain."

If gun control laws had not changed or improved since 1966, Cho would have walked in armed like Neo from the Matrix, not with just 2 pistols. They have improved.

"And every country has known the horror of having a lunatic get his hands on a gun and kill innocent people."

Key word here- Lunatic (that's the real problem, not guns)

"There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun".

No, there is no reason why people like HIM should own a handgun. Esp. if they do not understand what it is supposed to be used for and how to properly secure it.


Oh and by the way, I didn't claim you were stupid, just the writer of that article. ; )