2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,372
- 52,618
- 2,290
Great article, one of the things it looks at is the way anti-gun fanatics in the health care business lie about child deaths to push up their numbers....
When arguments to disarm Americans for "the children" are examined, three things emerge: 1) a lack of evidence; 2) a pivot from evidence to emotion to garner support; and 3) a desperate call for governmental intervention that disregards 1) the U.S. Constitution and/or 2) parameters for sound public policy. We have space to consider point #1. Upcoming articles will address those that remain (e.g., school shootings and international homicide rankings).
------
Recently, a medical research team confirmed this understanding when it reduced CDC firearm injuries by 45% because "unspecified firearm" included non-powder injuries inconsistent with the definition of a firearm: "a weapon that uses a powder [gun powder] charge to fire a projectile." Gunpolicy.orgagrees: "unspecified firearms" includes non-powder firearms — e.g., Airsoft Guns, BB (pellet) guns, flare guns, etc. Excluding 2020 unspecified firearmdeaths for those aged 0 to 19, automobile accidents exceed firearm deaths by nearly 2x, eviscerating the NEJM's (Johns Hopkins, Univ. of Mich., etc.) position.
It's worth noting that classifying 82% of firearm fatalities as "unspecified" is as meaningless as classifying 82% of an expense as "miscellaneous." Just as an auditor would demand transaction detail to validate expenses included; so too Americans should demand greater detail before relying upon governmental statistics where 82% of firearm deaths are catalogued as something other than a "weapon that uses a powder [namely, gunpowder] charge to fire a projectile."
www.americanthinker.com
When arguments to disarm Americans for "the children" are examined, three things emerge: 1) a lack of evidence; 2) a pivot from evidence to emotion to garner support; and 3) a desperate call for governmental intervention that disregards 1) the U.S. Constitution and/or 2) parameters for sound public policy. We have space to consider point #1. Upcoming articles will address those that remain (e.g., school shootings and international homicide rankings).
------
Recently, a medical research team confirmed this understanding when it reduced CDC firearm injuries by 45% because "unspecified firearm" included non-powder injuries inconsistent with the definition of a firearm: "a weapon that uses a powder [gun powder] charge to fire a projectile." Gunpolicy.orgagrees: "unspecified firearms" includes non-powder firearms — e.g., Airsoft Guns, BB (pellet) guns, flare guns, etc. Excluding 2020 unspecified firearmdeaths for those aged 0 to 19, automobile accidents exceed firearm deaths by nearly 2x, eviscerating the NEJM's (Johns Hopkins, Univ. of Mich., etc.) position.
It's worth noting that classifying 82% of firearm fatalities as "unspecified" is as meaningless as classifying 82% of an expense as "miscellaneous." Just as an auditor would demand transaction detail to validate expenses included; so too Americans should demand greater detail before relying upon governmental statistics where 82% of firearm deaths are catalogued as something other than a "weapon that uses a powder [namely, gunpowder] charge to fire a projectile."
Are US Firearm Deaths Overstated?
Some view any unwillingness to increase gun safety regulation for the sake of
