Reuters Health and Science Editor Cites Well Known Gun Fraud in Heller Hit Piece
How incompetent can Reuter's Health and Science Editor Maggie Fox be that she would cite Arthur Kellerman in a story about firearms?
She quotes Kellerman saying:Kellerman, a radically anti-gun doctor, has been discredited since 1986, when an article he co-authored with Donald T. Reay, "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home" in the New England Journal of Medicine, created the oft-repeated fallacy that a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family as to shoot a criminal. The authors arrived at the 43-1 figure by including 333 suicides in their total sample size of 389 firearms deaths. Any competent person writing about firearms, public health and gun control should know about Kellerman's shoddy research and deservedly tattered reputation—Google certainly does—so why doesn't Reuters? (h/t Hot Air)
"A number of scientific studies, published in the world's most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home outweigh the potential benefits," Dr. Arthur Kellerman, an emergency physician at Emory University in Atlanta, wrote in The Washington Post.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:36 AM
Comments
1
You asked: "so why doesn't Reuters? The answer is simple because it's Reuters.
Posted by: airedale at July 10, 2008 12:52 AM (NVjZv)
2
I forsee the objection from someone that the suicides SHOULD count, because the gun made them more likely.
So, this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml
So, this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml
Posted by: Foxfier at July 10, 2008 01:02 AM (3aOlt)
3
You expect the truth from the anti Constitution left?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 10, 2008 06:20 AM (kNqJV)
4
"According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property."
Maybe it’s just me but that could be a huge mistake by the gun banners. The logical conclusion from this is that crime guns are stolen guns. Not guns bought by criminals at gun shows or gun stores as they claim nonstop.
Maybe it’s just me but that could be a huge mistake by the gun banners. The logical conclusion from this is that crime guns are stolen guns. Not guns bought by criminals at gun shows or gun stores as they claim nonstop.
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at July 10, 2008 06:31 AM (U+uu5)
5
The lefties don't want guns in the hands of the citizens for one simple reason: they don't want the proletariat to be able to overthrow the socialist government they're trying to build.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 10, 2008 07:23 AM (n8vfc)
6
They probably do know but disagree with it. Why would you expect them to be much different than any of the other anti-gun lobbies.
The question is what are their arguments for thinking Kellerman's argument is credit worthy as all they appear to have is nothing more than an appeal to authority defended by a bunch of appeals to authority, and a large part for them wanting us to believe their transformation from just another group of people with shared opinions to objective new organization speaking truth to power is the implicit suggestion that they will be skeptical of appeals to authority.
I really liked the three stooges arguments, better, than maggie's -- liked in a funny way, not a 'they were reasonable arguments' way. At one time "logic dictate(d)" doctors use leaches for just about everything and we know how well that logic stands up now. As for "research has shown", research has also shown there are two kinds of research -- good and bad -- so they have left me wondering which kind the good doctors are referring to.
The question is what are their arguments for thinking Kellerman's argument is credit worthy as all they appear to have is nothing more than an appeal to authority defended by a bunch of appeals to authority, and a large part for them wanting us to believe their transformation from just another group of people with shared opinions to objective new organization speaking truth to power is the implicit suggestion that they will be skeptical of appeals to authority.
I really liked the three stooges arguments, better, than maggie's -- liked in a funny way, not a 'they were reasonable arguments' way. At one time "logic dictate(d)" doctors use leaches for just about everything and we know how well that logic stands up now. As for "research has shown", research has also shown there are two kinds of research -- good and bad -- so they have left me wondering which kind the good doctors are referring to.
Posted by: Dusty at July 10, 2008 08:40 AM (1Lzs1)
7
"According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property."
I have a very hard time believing that, as last year firearms were used to defend people (just from muggings and robbery) 2.5 million times.
Are they trying to say that there were more than 2.5 million burglaries last year? Guess what? Last year there were 2.1 million burglaries. That would mean that over half of those would have had to have two or more firearms stolen during the act.
According to the FBI there were around 500,000 firearms stolen in 2006.
That dog don't hunt.
I have a very hard time believing that, as last year firearms were used to defend people (just from muggings and robbery) 2.5 million times.
Are they trying to say that there were more than 2.5 million burglaries last year? Guess what? Last year there were 2.1 million burglaries. That would mean that over half of those would have had to have two or more firearms stolen during the act.
According to the FBI there were around 500,000 firearms stolen in 2006.
That dog don't hunt.
Posted by: Matt at July 10, 2008 06:40 PM (rHW2R)
8
"Maybe it’s just me but that could be a huge mistake by the gun banners. The logical conclusion from this is that crime guns are stolen guns. Not guns bought by criminals at gun shows or gun stores as they claim nonstop."
Now, you are correct to a point. Many of the firearms used in crimes do come from legally owned firearms that were stolen. But not most nor all. IIRC, something like 40% were stolen, 48% were from either out of country smuggling and trade, or outer state trade, 2% were from gun shows and the small cracks in legal gun shops, and 10% were either unidentified, or personally produced.
I will check my facts when I get to work tomorrow.
Now, you are correct to a point. Many of the firearms used in crimes do come from legally owned firearms that were stolen. But not most nor all. IIRC, something like 40% were stolen, 48% were from either out of country smuggling and trade, or outer state trade, 2% were from gun shows and the small cracks in legal gun shops, and 10% were either unidentified, or personally produced.
I will check my facts when I get to work tomorrow.
Posted by: Matt at July 10, 2008 06:45 PM (rHW2R)
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at July 12, 2008 01:01 PM (8Wz0Q)
10
http://www.youhide.com/nph-info.pl/000110A/687474703a2f2f7777772e67756e66616374732e696e666f2f706466732f67756e2d66616374732f342e302f47756e4661637473342d302d53637265656e2e706466
Posted by: Matt at July 12, 2008 05:24 PM (rHW2R)
Posted by: Matt at July 12, 2008 05:24 PM (rHW2R)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0068 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0043 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 9 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.