The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Firearms Deaths in US vs Other Developed Countries

CarbineCaleb · May 30, 2004, 10:30 AM

...well... one problem with information coming from a source from a book entitled "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws and The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong"... is that without even opening it up, it's obvious that the source is biased - the man has an agenda.

The sources cited in the U.Penn study cite, for example:
...in obtaining the graphical data:
9. Krug EG, Powell KE, Dahlberg LL. Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries. International Journal Epidemiology, 1998; 27: 214-21

and, in making the statement "Unintentional firearm injuries resulted in death in 7.3% of cases.", cite:
15. Beaman V, Annest JL, Mercy JA, Kresnow M, Pollock DA. Lethality of Firearm-Related Injuries in the United States Population. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2000; 35(3): 258-66.

These are peer-reviewed international scientific journals - which means the authors have extensive training in their respective disciplines, and that any claims made are subject to withering scrutiny by the scientific community. I welcome citations of all forms, because that at least shows the basis. Personally, however, I wouldn't put much stock in what the leader of the Democratic National Committee would suggest on the left, or Rush Limbaugh would suggest on the right - they have strong beliefs to the left and the right, but little basis for what they say, and a strong desire for political influence.

Similarly, so-called "think-tanks", both liberal and conservative, which normally have impressive and objective sounding names are little more than a cover for well-funded political idealogues (or industrial advocacy groups) seeking to influence public opinion and legislation. Yes, think tanks have smart people, no, they are not a credible source.

I am a physical scientist myself, and while I welcome well reasoned proposal and well reasoned speculation, think there is no substitute for hard facts and reasoned analysis from learned and objective sources.

If we allowed wild assertions and unsubstantiated claims to guide scientific thought, we would literally still be back in the dark ages, a time of strong beliefs, founded however, on ignorance and superstition.

May 30, 2004, 10:30 AM	#4
CarbineCaleb Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2004 Posts: 2,745	...well... one problem with information coming from a source from a book entitled "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws and The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong"... is that without even opening it up, it's obvious that the source is biased - the man has an agenda. The sources cited in the U.Penn study cite, for example: ...in obtaining the graphical data: 9. Krug EG, Powell KE, Dahlberg LL. Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries. International Journal Epidemiology, 1998; 27: 214-21 and, in making the statement "Unintentional firearm injuries resulted in death in 7.3% of cases.", cite: 15. Beaman V, Annest JL, Mercy JA, Kresnow M, Pollock DA. Lethality of Firearm-Related Injuries in the United States Population. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2000; 35(3): 258-66. These are peer-reviewed international scientific journals - which means the authors have extensive training in their respective disciplines, and that any claims made are subject to withering scrutiny by the scientific community. I welcome citations of all forms, because that at least shows the basis. Personally, however, I wouldn't put much stock in what the leader of the Democratic National Committee would suggest on the left, or Rush Limbaugh would suggest on the right - they have strong beliefs to the left and the right, but little basis for what they say, and a strong desire for political influence. Similarly, so-called "think-tanks", both liberal and conservative, which normally have impressive and objective sounding names are little more than a cover for well-funded political idealogues (or industrial advocacy groups) seeking to influence public opinion and legislation. Yes, think tanks have smart people, no, they are not a credible source. I am a physical scientist myself, and while I welcome well reasoned proposal and well reasoned speculation, think there is no substitute for hard facts and reasoned analysis from learned and objective sources. If we allowed wild assertions and unsubstantiated claims to guide scientific thought, we would literally still be back in the dark ages, a time of strong beliefs, founded however, on ignorance and superstition.