More on Gun (People) Control Pseudo-Science
Posted by strugatsky 10 years, 3 months ago to Politics
This pseudo-science "study" is being quoted in various media and "scientific" outlets. In fact, the "study" was published in the journal "Pediatrics" and conducted by a "professor" at Yale and a Boston hospital MD. Link to the WebMD site quoting it: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/2014...
The first thing that raises a flag is that the study provides no data and no details. The second item is that the claimed death rate from gunshot wounds in children and adolescents is 6%, which is totally bogus number made up by a people that have no concept of what a gun is. According to Factcheck.com (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/handguns_...) the total number of people killed by a firearm is less than the study presents as a "fact" for just children under 20. The total number includes criminals killed by the police and by citizens protecting themselves and suicides. Suicides, of course, will find a different weapon if they don't have access to guns, just prolonging the suffering. The amazing thing here is that even medical science has become pseudo-science, just like global warming. When one has an agenda, the facts don't matter. Soon engineers will no longer have to have four supports for a bridge - perhaps two and a half will do; the bridge can very well float on hope, so long as it's headed in the desired direction...
The first thing that raises a flag is that the study provides no data and no details. The second item is that the claimed death rate from gunshot wounds in children and adolescents is 6%, which is totally bogus number made up by a people that have no concept of what a gun is. According to Factcheck.com (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/handguns_...) the total number of people killed by a firearm is less than the study presents as a "fact" for just children under 20. The total number includes criminals killed by the police and by citizens protecting themselves and suicides. Suicides, of course, will find a different weapon if they don't have access to guns, just prolonging the suffering. The amazing thing here is that even medical science has become pseudo-science, just like global warming. When one has an agenda, the facts don't matter. Soon engineers will no longer have to have four supports for a bridge - perhaps two and a half will do; the bridge can very well float on hope, so long as it's headed in the desired direction...
Occasionally, one can point to a fact or two, taken out of context, but with so many lies in this pseudo-science, it's credibility is zero. Remove the funding to the tune of billions and this crack pot will collapse instantly.
Considering that this is the year of a solar maxim, and considering how cold its been, with a record low number of solar flares, I suspect its going to get a lot damn colder over the next 50 years; and therefore, I am a big supporter of global warming. (as in, I want more)
Then you go on to state that the numbers in the study ring true to you. I guess if one can be convinced of one sort of nonsense consensus pseudo-science, then the next one is easier to bite on.
You already have pseudo-engineers, i.e. environmental engineers. It's enough to make one ask, Who's John Galt.
Studies have shown the crime rate in states having “Shall Issue” laws for concealed carry go down (examine the Florida rates). If the crime rate goes down, generally the death rate from gunshot foes down also. Not always, but generally. Likewise, when gun laws restrict gum ownership, the crime rate usually goes up. The criminals know their victim does not have a gun to protect themselves.
As the title of the original post indicates, this is more of a study to assist in the control of people not weapons.