[CarbineCaleb]

So, a prevailing view here is that the AMA is biased against guns... what evidence would you have for that? While it might be true, I don't see any reason it would be. When I think of doctors, they are well educated, and I know education correlates negatively with interest in guns... whether that actually constitutes a "bias" or reason is of course open to speculation. Furthermore, one can deduce that in this profession, they will see the results of gun use against people in their work - again, would that experience amount to a bias? If there is a bias, I can only say that it wouldn't help doctors to "campaign" against guns, there is no motive there... it might only arise in terms of concern for their patients.
This will probably result in flames, but oh, well... if we want to talk about bias - why not bring up the NRA??? The NRA receives 10's of millions of dollars from the weapons/sales industries... that money flows into:
- Politicians pockets in campaign contributions
- Paid lobbyists to influence legislation
- Legal actions to influence legislation
- Public outreach to attract more shooters
- Public outreach to increase rate of product utilization by existing shooters

... now, of course, there might be all kinds of motivations for these actions, that have nothing to do with them receiving vast sums of money. However, I find it much more than coincidental that the NRA receives vast sums of money from an industry, and in turn carries a spectrum of activities that just happen to bring more money to that industry, by either retaining or expanding it's market. If you know what PAC groups, industry advocacy groups, and think-tanks do, this is it. While I am not antigun, I am anti-NRA. To me, they are a dishonest organization that takes advantage of the members.

So, some people are also knocking the scientific literature. As to peer-reviewed journals, you can scoff at science, but take a look at everything around you, from the computer you're typing on, to the plastics, paints, and resins in the chair you're sitting on, the medicines you take, the lights that allow you to see... everything that has lifted us from the darkness... science is not only a matter of intellect and creativity as it might appear; just as much, it's a matter of the process of peer review of ideas - and that takes place in the scientific literature. For laymen, peer review means that nothing may even appear in a scientific journal unless it has passed muster with a panel of expert reviewers who will invariably either request changes, or simply reject the paper if it's trivial in scope or has gross errors. While mistakes may still get through on occasion, they are invariably exposed and rejected by the scientific community at large. Books, newspapers, magazines, tv, movies - no other medium for communicating and proposing ideas has peer review, or has a dedicated community of knowledgeable people rigorously refereeing the viewpoint, which literally constitutes the state of knowledge - it's no exaggeration to say that everything else flows from this, the primary literature. Deride it if you like, it's your right to speak your mind, but that really says more about you than it does about science.