I am pleased that Adam McKane (Sept. 4) responded to by recent column (Aug. 29) regarding gun safety. Mr. McKane raised a very important issue relative to the use of statistics, one that is important we all keep in mind when evaluating information.

When I taught psychology at Riverland Community College, we discussed at length the importance of evaluating the source of any statistic quoted, and how to keep from abusing statistical information. Statistics or comments made or published by biased sources, for example, are generally less reliable than those from independent or public sources.

Example: You can find quotes from tobacco company officials claiming that cigarette smoking is not harmful to your health, yet countless studies from dozens of sources over many decades provide data that refute this claim. Do we believe the tobacco producers or the independent studies? It is up to the reader to evaluate the sources.

Some statistics are not found but created from well-known and undisputed common knowledge. An example of this in my column was the statement citing the ratio of those killed by guns during peacetime in the United States and those killed in the Vietnam War. By taking the known values of guns deaths in a typical year in the U.S. (roughly 30,000, CDC National Center of Health Statistics), and comparing it to the number of soldiers who died during the Vietnam War (roughly 58,000, U.S. National Archives), an accurate statement can be made such as, “… more Americans die every two years from gunshots inside our own borders than were killed in 16 years of hostile action in Vietnam.”

It is always a good practice to know the sources of one’s information when putting it in print, especially if it is easily disputable. For example, Mr. McKane makes the statement, “barbecue grills in the U.S. kill more people every year than guns do.” This would be a very difficult statement to defend, since according to the U.S. Fire Administration, on average, fewer than five people die each year in the U.S. from barbecue grilling, compared to the 30,000 by guns. He makes a similar reference to more people dying from cell phones than firearms, but I could find no data relative to his reference to deaths by cell phones.

According to Statistics Canada, Canada’s National Statistical Agency, through employing stricter gun laws, Canada has cut gun deaths in their country by more than half in recent years, down to 2.6 deaths per 100,000, compared with 10.1 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S.

It’s reasonable to consider we could learn something from this, as in regulating guns like we do elevators or cars, cutting our deaths by half as Canada did could save 15,000 lives a year.

I realize gun control is a touchy issue, with a wide variety of opinions. I congratulate any citizens, gun owners or not, who take an active interest in saving American lives through gun safety. I will join Mr. McKane in working toward this end.

David Larson

Albert Lea