Applying the Scientific Method...

To apply the scientific thought process to a question, the intelligent
person forms a hypothesis (H), an example of which might be:
"Obtaining a gun will positively effect my personal safety and that of
my family."  The next step is to form the *null hypothesis* (H-0)
which is the compliment of H: "It cannot be shown that owning a gun
will positively effect my personal safety..."  I should point out here
that H-0 does not contradict H because H-0 includes a null (unknown)
component.

Then, you gather data.  H can only be asserted when the data cause one
to reject H-0 by whatever standard of proof one is using: simple
preponderance (51%), super preponderance (67%), or beyond reasonable
doubt.

Another important point: analyzing the data and failing to reject H-0
does *not* prove that H is false!  In elementary logic, Boolean values
are binary; they *must* be either true or false... i.e.: if it can't
be true, it has to be false.  In the real world (should such a place
exist) Boolean statements have three values: true, false, and null
(unknown), and most of it falls into the third category.

--

It is as obvious as gravity that gun proliferation and gun violence
tend to have a positive correlation.  The intelligent hypothesis,
then, might be that acting to reduce gun proliferation in society
would have a positive effect.  We should test that hypothesis by the
scientific method... and the best institution we have for doing that
in a non-partisan manner is the Center for Disease Control.  The NRA
has managed to silence the CDC effectively; however, we must restore
scientific thought to this matter.

Other than that, I'll keep my opinions to myself and do not care to
hear yours.