More on Gun (People) Control Pseudo-Science

Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 6 months ago to Politics
9 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 6 months ago
    The article actually does give details on the study. It was published in the Feb issue of Pediatrics. The numbers it gives are not inconsistent with the Factcheck article, which covers only _deaths_, not injuries, from handguns, not rifles and shotguns.

    We should not simply deny the facts when they're inconvenient. This is the same thing with climate change. It's a fact that the climate changes in cycles of glaciation and declaration, and the present deglaciation is partly influenced by human activities. We can't just wish that away.

    The doctor they got quotes from for this article drew an analogy to cars. We made cars safer without banning them. He doesn't point out that cars cause a million injuries and 40k deaths in the US a year.

    Suppose we felt compelled to *do something* about all these gun injuries. The efforts I hear about to ban guns focus on the number of bullets guns hold. The vast majority of gun injuries/deaths involve one or two victims, so limiting magazine size addresses a very rare problem. Some of these gun injuries are from rifles or shotguns, and I don't think we would ever ban all guns, so we can never eliminate those injuries by banning guns. I also suspect many of the kids hurt by guns are in families that have unsafe practices for dealing with chemicals, fire, and electricity. Banning the peril itself doesn't address the problem. Even if we did ban guns, not everyone would obey the law. I suspect the people who are careless with guns are often people who would not obey the law.

    If we made guns disappear magically, not just from law-abiding citizens, we'd find out how much violence they prevent. Criminals thinking of breaking in know there might be a police officer and the resident might have gun. If we really got rid of guns, if it were even possible, criminals would only have to worry about a police officer.

    There is also an intangible benefit to people having the option of defending themselves and not waiting for the gov't.

    The numbers in the study ring true to me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 6 months ago
      We are in an interglacial stage of an ice age period.. We're not in a deglaciaton period, though we are naturally warming and cooling across all time periods. In the time of the earth, polar ice has only existed 20% of that geological time, life has been present 80%, and water 90%. The CO2 in the atmosphere only makes up 0.001% of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life and for much of the time of the Earth has been drastically higher. But you say the present deglaciation is partly influenced by human activities.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 6 months ago
        If you can show this to other geologists, it would be my favorite scientific finding since they found all fat isn't bad for you.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 6 months ago
          Much of my information from a Phd Geologist named Ian Plimer, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Australia. Sharp guy, lays his data and argument out with plain language and doesn't hold back on his criticism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MattFranke 8 years, 6 months ago
        Nobody in the environmental movement seems to notice any effects of cooling or warming having anything to do with that big yellow thing in the sky either. What could it possibly have to do with our weather?
        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)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
          If one looks at the details of any of the global warming "studies," he will see so many inaccuracies, lies and made up "facts" that the closest "science" would be alchemy. But no one in the scientific world is allowed to point to the lies because this is the accepted religion and heresy is actively persecuted.
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
      I looked at the publication and did not find the details. Maybe I missed them. Please post a link to the data/details. According to the article itself, they admit that the study does not include the details. Please tell me on what basis do these numbers appear believable? Besides the discrepancy in the total number, a death due to a bullet wound is likely to result in at least half the cases, especially if they are suicides or police caused. Suicides, because it's awful hard to miss, and police because by training, they fire multiple rounds until the suspect hits the ground, by which time the suspect is quite dead. So, coming up with a 6% number is very suspect. People control, aka gun control, is a concerted effort by the socialists to dismantle the Constitution and effect totalitarianism, but when MD's start fabricating "facts" and formerly respectful publications publish "studies" without data, we have hit a new low. Although, I am afraid, we will fall further.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 6 months ago
    The real problem with these, as you say, pseudo-scientific studies, is that before they can be debunked, enough gullible people will hear of or read the highlights and will take them as gospel. People with agendas don't have a concern with actual facts and numbers - they start with a conclusion, then find or fabricate facts or numbers to get their point made knowing full well that they can get it publicized and popularized and that any real information that comes later will be too late.

    You already have pseudo-engineers, i.e. environmental engineers. It's enough to make one ask, Who's John Galt.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ mminnick 8 years, 6 months ago
    Anti-gun studies have been around as long as the weapons themselves. Most studies are conducted by pseudo-scientific individual or groups with an agenda to further. There have been studies whose numbers defy any explanation except they are fake.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo