Journal of Trauma: More U.S. Children Die Where Guns Are Common-Study

yahoo.com ^ | Feb 28, 2002 7:04 PM ET | Christopher Noble

[wearredcaps]

Bull Crap, nothing but Bullcrap!!! Next.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Remember, that "study" about deaths due to malpractice was deeply flawed."

I've seen several different studies quoted, and the numbers are all around 100,000. Lowest figure was 90,000. So tell me exactly HOW those numbers are "flawed".

Simply put, anti-gun physicians are hypocrites who need to put their own house in order before worrying about the "evils of gun ownership".

[angkor]

Here's the "study":"Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5-14 Year Olds" (PDF)

Among the flaws cited by the JoT editors in this study:

"The use of derived measures [to determine "high gun ownership"] is clearly a limitation [of the study]."

"Factors not controlled for in this study may have modified the relationship between firearm availability and firearm death, as indicated by the very high rates in Alaska, Idaho, and Montana, states not ranking in the top 10 high gun availability states. Future studies are needed to identify other risk factors that contribute to the exceptionally high firearm death rates for 5- to 14-year-olds in these states."

My critique:

The absence of 15 to 18 year old deaths dramatically skews the asserted relationships between "high gun states" and "low gun states." I suspect the authors backfit their data once they discovered the polluting effect of 15 to 18 year-ol data. It's important to note that 85 percent of all US counties have not reported a single juvenile death by firearm during this study period. However, cities such as Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Washington DC have huge numbers of 15 to 18 year-old firearms deaths which clearly would skew the intended results.

By the way, Washington DC - the former "murder capital of the USA" - is not even included in the study.

I'm sure there are several other serious flaws.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Thank you for all that information. All these self-serving studies. It reminds me of lawyers paying experts to come up with a defense or to discredit a defense. They can always find someone who can take the opposite position and back it up with "facts."

[the]

For a great analysis of this Harvard article, check out this article from KeepAndBearArms.com:

Cooking the Numbers
Why the Harvard “Study” on Kids and Guns is Bunk

by Sean Oberle

[the]

Re-Bump to the bang list for the link in post above.

[Shooter 2.5]

How so we know that this study is correct? Since Bellesiles has been correctly named a fraud and his study still have it's honors attached to it, why should we trust any anti-gun report?

Until "Arming America" is finally acknowledged as the lies it is, every anti-gun study is now suspect.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!!