Posted on 10/18/2010 1:37:37 PM PDT by JohnRLott
Medical journals are not always the objective, purely scientific publications we might think that they are. Their editors have increasingly strayed into politics at the expense of scientific accuracy. For example, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has over the last few months published a number of extremely biased and poorly done studies on gun control.
One of the articles, written by Garen Wintemute, Anthony Braga, and David Kennedy, makes the case for extending background checks to the private transfers of guns, arguing that “perhaps the principal reason for the well-documented failure of the Brady Act to lower rates of firearm-related homicide is that its requirements do not apply to private-party gun sales.” But they do so without providing any evidence that these or any other background checks reduce crime. Further, they conveniently overlook the only research that has been done on what they are proposing. For instance, the updated More Guns, Less Crime specifically studied this very issue and found no evidence that either type of law helped reduced crime.
The only “evidence” that “screening works” comes from their claim that, in 2008, 1.5 percent of those having a Brady background check were denied from purchasing a gun. What the authors likely are aware of, though they do not tell the readers, is that virtually all these cases represent so-called “false-positives” . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I don’t have the figures at hand but the number of accidental deaths from firearms is way down on the list, and I mean way down.
The total number of deaths is also misleading as it includes criminals killed by police and also justifiable homicides, or criminals killed by citizens protecting themselves.
The NEJM would recommend that all houses have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, but no guns.
Yet the chances of a violent crime is FAR higher than a house fire.
Logical dissonance.
Heck, if was my doctor, I would immediately switch, as I would question his very diagnosis, as that too is based on sound judgement, something he totally lacks.
He is nothing more than a tool with COD, that being to bad rap firearms every chance he gets.
Dr. Roch? Dr. Michel Roch?
When doctors are outlawed, only outlaws will have doctors....Oh, wait, I just summarized Obamacare!
>When doctors are outlawed, only outlaws will have doctors....Oh, wait, I just summarized Obamacare!
Obama care has the ‘interesting’ feature of making it a Felony for someone not to have health insurance, beginning in 2014.
This will allow the abridgment of both firearm possession and suffrage for a large group of people; especially if unemployment stays so high.
... there are already laws in place which prohibit the “mentally ill” from firearm ownership; do you really think that the government is above using the following reasoning to forbid virtually all citizens the ownership of arms:
“Only a person suffering from paranoia (paranoid schizophrenia) would desire a firearm for their own protection; therefore the very desire to be armed is a mental illness and prohibits you from legally being armed.”
I do not trust my government.
Indeed, I am sure you're right, but I seriously doubt that any statistics exist, or that anybody has studied it at all.
Dr. Groner was a resident at Children's Hospital (Columbus...before Nationwide Insurance bought the naming rights) while our infant son (now deceased) was being cared for there. Our son's Surgeon had to take a medical leave due to his own surgery and Dr. Groner took over his care. Dr. Groner was such a condescending, non-communicative, arrogant POS, my wife threw Groner out of the room 2-3 days later and demanded that the Chief Surgeon in their group assume care of our son.
Groner plays politics better than he practices medicine.
Groner is a sad speciman of an MD of any sort, but pediatrics demands a caring, empathetic type of medical professional.
Schmucks like Groner belong in pathology or radiology.
You could have fooled my attending during residency training. I wonder why I had to study all those science subjects and do all those lab courses? Maybe those particular physicians are politicizing science playing fast and loose with statistics?
Consumer Reports is run by business hating Leftists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.