The anti-gun press couldn’t contain their excitement. A
new study published in the UK’s prestigious The Lancet medical journal
purported to show that certain gun control measures could lead to
incredible reductions in the firearm mortality rate. CNN blared, “Study:
3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%,” the L.A.
Times touted, “Aiming to drive down gun deaths? Put these three laws on
the books, researchers say,” and the Christian Science Monitor
proclaimed, “Federal gun control laws could reduce deaths up to 90
percent, study says.” What these outlets weren’t anticipating is that
the study has proven so flawed that the most influential members of the
anti-gun research community have been forced to denounce it; lest the
public realize the larger problems attendant to the entire field of
study.
The controversial study is titled, “Firearm legislation
and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study,”
and was authored by a team led by epidemiologist Bindu Kalesan of
Boston University’s Department of Medicine and School of Public Health.
The researchers attempted to determine the effects that more than two
dozen different types of gun control measures - ranging from
fingerprinting requirements to child access laws - had on homicide
mortality, suicide mortality, and overall firearm mortality rates. As
has been the focus of the laudatory news items, the researchers
concluded that implementation of a federal “universal” background check
law, in concert with federal ammunition background checks and “firearm
identification requirements,” could reduce overall firearm mortality by
more than 90 percent.
Unsurprisingly, most media outlets have
given less attention to the research team’s findings pertaining to a
host of other gun controls. The team found many gun control measures
have little, no, or even a detrimental effect on firearm mortality
rates.
According to the study, gun dealer licensing, dealer
state record reporting requirements, dealer police inspections, gun
owner fingerprinting, closing of the “gun show loophole,” ammunition
purchaser recordkeeping, child handgun restrictions, child access laws,
juvenile handgun purchases, magazine bans, and may-issue carry permits,
have little to no effect on firearm-related deaths. Further, their
results show, semi-auto bans, firearms locks, “bulk purchase
limitations,” and mandatory theft reporting, increase firearm-related
deaths.
Likely fearing the flawed study will result in a
massive backlash that could further expose the shortcomings of their own
work, the anti-gun research community has turned on Kalesan, her team,
and The Lancet.
Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, told the Washington Post,
“Briefly, this is not a credible study and no cause and effect
inferences should be made from it.” Webster is later quoted, stating,
“What I find both puzzling and troubling is this very flawed piece of
research is published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals
around… Something went awry here, and it harms public trust.”
David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center,
said of the findings, “That’s too big -- I don’t believe that.” Pouring
cold water on the schemes of politicians peddling gun controls as
societal cure-alls, Hemenway went on to tell the Post, “These laws are
not that strong. I would just be flabbergasted; I’d bet the house if you
did [implement] these laws, if you had these three laws and enforced
them really well and reduced gun deaths by 10 percent, you'd be
ecstatic.” Offering a glimpse into the broader deficiencies of the
field, Hemenway told U.S. News & World Report, “I could find serious
problems with virtually any U.S. study about gun laws.”
This
bout of public infighting and candid admissions as to the credibility of
the entire field of gun violence research should give the public and
policymakers pause when presented with studies supporting further gun
restrictions. As Webster so eloquently alluded to, the peer-review
process and stature of a journal offer little indication of the veracity
of its contents when it comes to the politically-charged topic of gun
control. Further, this episode provides important evidence as to why NRA
works with federal lawmakers to ensure that this type of shoddy and
politically motivated research is not federally funded through the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is bad enough that such
defective anti-gun research finds its way into distinguished
publications, without forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill.
From NRA-ILA here
No comments:
Post a Comment