The New England Journal of Medicine is notoriously anti-gun. Their credibility is nil due to their passionate, but illogical hatred of firearms.
Quote:
The three editors of the prominent medical journal, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, Stephen Morrissey and Dr. Gregory Curfman, said handguns were far more likely to cause harm than do good.
"In our opinion, there is little reason to expect an optimistic result; research has shown and logic would dictate that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death," they wrote in a commentary released in Thursday's issue.
Interesting that they use words like "logic", "certain" and "well documented" without actually presenting a well-reasoned opinion backed up by evidence.
Where is the documentation? (Hint: It's been discredited)
What is the logic? (Hint: A follows B, so A caused B)
If it is so "certain," why have so many states successfully passed right-to-carry laws with so few problems? (Hint: The only thing certain is that these guys sit on their brains all day)
Quote:
"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.
There are 80+ Million law-abiding gun owners who didn't shoot anybody today that would like to respectfully disagree with you, Dr. Kellerman.
That article is the most slanted piece of yellow-journalism that I've read in a very long time.
__________________
-Dave Miller
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!