Guns are the second leading killer of U.S. kids, after car crashes,
75 replies, posted
Uh, okay? How does that make those MD's display of objective facts partisan and them "getting out of their lane"?
Because you know as well as I do that the discussion in this thread that is using this paper as evidence, and the purpose of the paper itself, was not meant to merely announce the number of people who died from guns.
Having a medical doctor propose suggestions for control within his profession is a reach, because their profession has nothing to do with gun control.
Having a medical doctor use their ethos to push a certain narrative is just deceptive.
The realm of gun control doesn't fall to medical professionals, it falls to people who are specialized in dealing with mental conditions, criminology, and socioeconomic issues.
Here are the three listed authors of the paper:
Patrick Carter, MD | Emergency Medicine | Michigan Medicine | Un..
Rebecca Cunningham, MD | Emergency Medicine | Michigan Medicine ..
Maureen A. Walton, M.P.H., Ph.D. | Psychiatry | Michigan Medicin..
The three of these people I am sure are more than qualified in their respective fields. However, gun control does not seem to be in any of their credentials, with the possible exception of Rebecca Cunningham, MD, who is a Principal Investigator of FACTS (which I don't have any idea what her role specifically entails, nor does the organization have any clear agenda set since it was founded this fall). But judging from the rest of her resume, she is just on the FACTS group as a medical adviser of sorts.
Good thing none of the study's authors are doing that, then? Have you actually read the article? They simply compiled the amount of deaths due to firearms related incidents. These are facts, there's no debate to be had about that. They didn't say anything about potential solutions or laws.
If you want to argue against the people who use that study as a basis for tighter gun laws, then do just that. Don't go after the authors of the study for simply showing you the reality of the situation.
FP pro-gun posters keep on bragging about being on the right side of the facts. Kind of contradictory to reject an objectively compiled study, don't you think?
There's a difference between rejecting objective facts and rejecting a paper that's pushing a narrative using objective facts without taking the rest of the objective facts into account. The paper does present objective facts, it's true that a staggering amount of children die at the hands of firearms. The paper does not present why, mearly stating that guns are the cause for death. That's what people are talking about.
If you want to conduct a study like this and present it in a truely objective light you would need more information, information collected by a sociologist who can discover the sociological and economic conditions of the victims, a psychologist who can discover why perpetrator committed such acts, and I'd even say a geographer who can provide broader economic and demographic information on the populations in question.
Body counts are for all intents and purposes are objective facts, but they mean little if you do not go on to explain why they are what they are.
Thus they didn't step out of their field of expertise, did they? If those MDs did try to explain why then the posters here would have a point in calling them out for using their platform to spread their views on topics they have no expertise on.
But they didn't. And so the people here who whine about the authors of the study not being sociologists or psychologists have no leg to stand out. The point of the study is to show the numbers, not explain them.
My point is showing numbers doesn't mean anything if you don't explain them. If I were to tell you mice were 10x more likely to die in barns that doesn't explain why they're more likely to die at all. If left with just that information you could assume bacteria in rotting hay is the culprit, lead in the lead based paints used in old barns is the culprit, being trampled by animals is the culprit, Barn cats are the culprit, etc.
If you don't explain why people know it's a problem but don't know how to properly address it. In this case given the blatantly obvious article that sources the information it's being used to got fit a narrative. Kids are more likely to die from guns, good are the problem. Now maybe the researchers did not intend for it to be used in such a manner, and that's just fine, but to publish such a piece without supporting information makes it incredibly narrow scoped.
In my previous post where I included sources you'd notice they're from all over the place. Those are some of the sources from my thesis, and they're taking information from all over the place so as to better understand the situation as a whole. I could have just as easily made a piece on poverty and gun violence, and made the simple connection of "being poor = more likely to commit gun violence". That would literally leave the reader with the simple message of being poor means you're more likely to shoot someone, completely disregarding why they are poor or what other factors are at play when it comes to committing acts of violence.
I good research paper shows the data, a proper research paper shows the data, supporting documentation from other works, counter argument from other works, and background information in regards to the study.
MDs are literally the people most qualified to write on causes of death.
Please do.
You need to explain what about this is misleading, or you're somewhere between shitposting and flat-out lying. What other professionals/co-authors do they need, exactly? What about this study bothers you? Or other studies, for that matter, given that your opinion seems to be developed- I'm assuming not from this article, given that it's just a compilation of explicit, empirical, facts.
you know its not 1776, right?
No, but you never specified it was just weed. IMO that should be taken off of the list of controlled substances. And yes for all of those other examples I would hope you’d report people being fucking idiots and endangering others with their firearms.
Ecksdee was giving an example of Serbia’s gun laws, and I was pointing out that our country already does most of what they mentioned in that example.
I’m pretty sure in past threads you were perfectly ok with the idea of confiscating guns from “people who are otherwise not breaking any laws, who keep their shit locked up, and who possess CCL” just for having assault weapons.
Abolish the second amendment
According to folks like you, "assault weapons" are a mythical creature. They simply don't exist. And so according to folks like you in past threads, how can one call for the confiscation of a weapon that doesn't exist?
I'm also pretty sure that I've come around somewhat in past threads and simply demanded that licensing be a thing so that you at least have proof that you're not a fuck-wit when it comes to fire-arms, but apparantley that's akin to opening the gates to confiscation hell because we're too close to post-revolution China/Russia to your liking.
But it isn't off the list of controlled substances, so they're still breaking the law, so I should still report them, otherwise I'm "part of the problem", right?
Unfortunately being a "fucking idiot" isn't against the law, nor are there any laws restricting "idiots" from owning guns unless you have a past record of criminal idiocy or a medically recorded instance of mental deficiency. Otherwise these idiots wouldn't have guns to begin with.
Woah. Its almost as if you cant control what people do within their own homes and that accidents happen on.. well accident
Not for trends in violent crime, no. Statisticians would be an excellent choice, especially combined with social scientists. These are statistics. A medical doctorate will train you to perform and interperet clinical studies, which are entirely different types of research.
On to of that, they are stacking statistics in a fashion to push a narrative. You'll note that they aren't actually gathering any new data directly. They are taking CDC numbers, which are already analyzed by people in related fields with the proper credentials. They are careful NOT TO COMBINE AGES 0-18 BECAUSE IT PRODUCES A MISLEADING STATISTIC. 18 is an arbitrary number and, with even the smallest proper training the field, you would know that combining them is almost universally only done to push an agenda. It is bad research.
Analyzing real data and then arranging it in a misleading way is bad research and unethical. It is made worse when you do it from a perceived position of authority.
By attempting to pass dumb laws which follow no logical reasoning and making shit up as they go along. Example: One of the more recent failed attempts at an assault weapons bans tried to outlaw “rocket launcher attachments” which don’t even exist. No they weren’t talking about grenade launchers either.
Ok so then what assurances would be made to make sure a licensing/registration system wouldn’t be used to bash gun owners like literally every other time it’s been tried in this country?
Oh wow you totally got me. Because someone who uses weed for recreational or medical purposes is 100% comparable to someone addicted to heroine or meth. /s
Quit being so pedantic. We both know that people who have problems with substance abuse shouldn’t have guns, but that weed is only considered a controlled substance because of dumbass politicians. And for the record, no one should ever operate firearms WHILE under the influence of anything regardless of legality.
Being reckless with firearms in the examples you gave are illegal, and that’s what I was specifically referring to with the “being a fucking idiot” statement. Shooting at signs is blatantly illegal and firing in the direction of houses is criminally negligent.
Let's consider an analogy: You see a paper analyzing crime trends in the US, and it documents how African-Americans are disproportionately more likely to commit murder than other demographics. Not a word about the factors contributing to African-American crime, nothing about historical injustices, gang violence, or the war on drugs, just the simple fact that they statistically are responsible for more murder. It then concludes that in order to reduce the national crime rate, it may be necessary to do something specifically about the African-American demographic.
You research further and find that the author isn't a criminologist or statistician, but rather a psychologist. They have a degree and are an expert in their field, but it's not directly relevant to this paper.
You also find that they have ties to a right-wing nationalist organization that promotes 'race realism'.
Do you then proceed to ignore this context and declare it to be a good study because their statements are all objective truths based on factual data, or do you recognize that they're reporting on a subject outside their realm of expertise, are omitting critically important details that characterize the subject, and may be doing so intentionally in the service of a political cause?
Mere factual accuracy of isolated statements isn't everything, and a paper can be composed entirely of objective truths and still be fundamentally misleading. It matters what someone isn't saying as much as what they are saying, it matters why they're saying it, and it matters whether they have the expertise to avoid analytical mistakes that might render their conclusions useless. This study doesn't strike me as an overt hitpiece, but it does look like someone setting out with a conclusion in mind and then shaping the study to support that conclusion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.