On March 23 Dean Weingarten wrote a great article in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on the flaws in medical research when gun laws and shootings are the target of study and I recommend you read it. Not surprising, the liberal slant of the universities shows up in these “research” papers. Dean refers to the analysis of his friend John Ray, a fellow and colleague at Gun Watch blog.
John stated the obvious (at least to Second Amendment supporters) that Lancet and BMJ, the two major British medical journals, are highly slanted to the Left. He states:
When they stick to their knitting — medical research — they do publish some good studies and are prestigious because of that. But the people running the journals are obviously Left-leaning — like most academics — so they can’t help misusing the platform they have to hand in order to promote their Leftist views.
A recent study published in the Lancet is titled “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study.”
If you look at the 11-page publication, notice the following on the first page:
Interpretation Very few of the existing state-specific firearm laws are associated with reduced firearm mortality, and this evidence underscores the importance of focusing on relevant and effective firearms legislation. Implementation of universal background checks for the purchase of firearms or ammunition, and firearm identification nationally could substantially reduce firearm mortality in the USA.
I have a few, quick observations in their “Interpretation” statement:
Since they could not find many state-specific firearm laws that correlated to “reduced firearm mortality“, they decided early on that more firearms laws are needed. Did they look at California, New Jersey and Washington D.C.? They did, but you would never see it in their figures after they massaged the data to make it feel good to their thinking.
Did they look at cities such as Baltimore? Yes they did, but you would never see that in their figures. Baltimore set a record for homicides despite strict gun control!
The “firearms identification” they mention is ballistic fingerprinting. States that have adopted this have not solved a single crime using ballistic fingerprinting and most of the states have since dropped this law. Maryland dropped their 15-year ballistic fingerprinting program after finding out the $5 million spent solved no crimes.
Dean sums up:
It is complete junk science. Pure correlation causation confusion.
What the “study” authors found is that states with low numbers of gun owners are able to pass insane laws that have no effect. Because those states have low numbers of gun owners, and because “gun deaths” include suicides, they could find statistical artifacts to support their preconceived bias.
States that have more hospitals have more deaths in hospitals. That does not mean that hospitals cause the death rate to rise.
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/why-medical-research-on-gun-laws-cannot-be-trusted/#ixzz44IyjsUMK
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
I found another interesting tidbit in the “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study”:
We searched PubMed with the terms “gun” OR “firearm”, AND “policy” OR “law” OR “legislation” OR “legislature” OR “laws” OR “policies”, for articles published in any language before May 1, 2015.
Just for grins (and I know a Google search is not even remotely related to searching PubMed) I used their search parameters on Google. Low and behold, a GS2AC article appears on the first page:
It is an article I wrote in April, 2012: “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence admits gun laws do not prevent shootings.” Even back then, the Brady Campaign admitted gun laws do not work. Even then, some of the academic medical profession tries to say more gun laws will work.