Pediatricians: stricter gun laws = lower deaths of children

D

DaleA

New member
YAS (Yet Another Study), this one by pediatricians and reported in American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) News concludes:

In this 5-year analysis, states with stricter gun laws and laws requiring universal background checks for firearm purchase had lower firearm-related pediatric mortality rates. These findings support the need for further investigation to understand the impact of firearm legislation on pediatric mortality.
Click to expand...

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2019/07/11/peds.2018-3283

Well now.

That pro-gun bastion of conservative thought, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), reported that the study had some shortcomings which were freely admitted by the authors. Never the less, despite any shortcomings the study might have had the predictable shrill headlines came forth.

“Study Finds an Easy Way to Save Kids Lives”
https://splinternews.com/study-finds-an-easy-way-to-save-kids-lives-1836387680

“Fewer children die from gun violence in states with tougher gun laws, study finds”
https://www.oregonlive.com/business...states-with-tougher-gun-laws-study-finds.html

“Child gun deaths lower in states with stricter gun laws”
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/child-gun-deaths-lower-states-stricter-gun-laws/story?id=64388062

And finally:

“A Weak New Gun Study”
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-weak-new-gun-study/

But the last one is from the National Review which actually is a bastion of right wing, conservative thought. (I was kidding when I said PBS was conservative.)

The ABC news article had a couple of points I thought were interesting.
“I [Dr. Monika Goyal, lead study author and an associate professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine] care for children through the age of 21 and sometimes up to the age of 25. From our perspective, 18, 19, 20 year olds are children. They are part of the pediatric continuum. This is the standard.”
Click to expand...

ABC News, and some of the other articles, pointed out that the study used data from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to rate states on the strictness of their gun laws.

So why do I bring this stuff up? Well, I think it’s important to know what’s going on out there.
 
From the study:

Each year, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gathers an expert panel to objectively assess and rate state firearm legislation on the basis of a series of 33 different gun policies.
Click to expand...

So long as this study relies on the objectivity of the Brady Campaign expert panel, what could go wrong?

Dale said:
That pro-gun bastion of conservative thought, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), reported that the study had some shortcomings which were freely admitted by the authors.
Click to expand...

I heard that report on my drive home one evening. The NPR personality (Mary Louise Kelly?) noted that the Brady Campaign assessed state laws and scored them on a scale of 1 to ten. She didn't delve into how they arrived at a score in the radio spot (your link does give a description).

This was far from the worst sort of editorial bias I've heard on NPR, but notable was the absence of incredulity that the AAP would expect to be taken seriously for a "study" built on Brady Campaign assessments.

In your last link, Verbruggen notes,

If anything, in fact, the result suggests that having a gun-ownership rate above the national median reduces gun deaths by 4 percent, coincidentally the same reduction the researchers claim for a ten-point higher Brady score.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here's what the "study" actually means, somebody(s) got five years of employment to produce a flawed study that could be used as talking points for the people who paid for the study.

Particularly flawed when "children" includes young adults of MILITARY AGE, who if in the service can, literally, have a machine gun put in their hands by the Federal government.
 
Actually one of the grant applications to HRSA that I work with had "children" at up to age 24 in one section of the grant and continues to use 21, as in children 1 to 21 in several places.
 
When it comes to guns, I wouldn't trust the judgement of Pediatricians. Medical mistakes account for more deaths per year than auto accidents, much less firearm ownership.
 
Sometimes, you need to do a balanced, considered rebuttal based on the data. Sometimes, the data is so polluted, you can't even begin. That's the case here.

They failed to provide an actual standard for what defines "strict" or "lenient" gun laws in a given state, so they decided to go by the Brady scores. I'd point out how flawed an approach that is, but they have to massage even those numbers.

Apparently, the scores for several states are in the negative, so to make the numbers work, they arbitrarily added 40 points to all states across the board. Now it becomes a mess.

And, of course, now it becomes harder to judge their data and methodology. At this point, I'm not even going to bother. The whole thing is poisoned and useless from the outset.
 
The whole thing is poisoned and useless from the outset.
Click to expand...

Only if one insists on being factual, and accurate.

They don't. They get an "unchallengeable" talking point, so, for them, (they don't care if it's "poisoned data", and factually crap) its still useful to their agenda.
 
18 - 20 year olds are not children. Most of them killed or injured in those states are hot-head gang bangers.
Or are we cool now with sending children to fight for our freedoms, given that the US army requires a 16 year minimum age?
 
Only if one insists on being factual, and accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's the problem. They get the headline, and even if it's debunked, the media has moved on to something else by then. They never have to answer for it.

In fact, they'll usually just wait a couple of years and then run it again. After Sandy Hook, they started citing the old Kellerman study as gospel.

Heck, it was just a couple of years ago someone cited Michael Bellesiles as a source to a friend who's a professor of American history.
 
I fumbled most the way through the linked article but have even more questions after reading it... Not that I really want to hear their answers but whatever...

Do they include include states like IL, CA, and MD as states with strong gun control laws? I would assume these would be states with strong gun control laws and high mortality rates. Do states like TX and FL have worse mortality rates? I wouldn't think so.

Some states like Missouri might have high mortality rates and not have strict gun laws, but a state like that seems like an outlier in my mind. And the high mortality rates would be limited to a few zip codes.
 
It might be worth remembering that back before the Heller decision, Washington D.C. did not allow people to possess a handgun loaded or even fully assembled within the District of Columbia, in their homes or on the street.

And at that same time, DC was the murder capital of the US, with the highest homicide rate of any place in the nation!!

I don't think there is any stricter gun control possible than "you cannot have one at all, anywhere" so considering that when that was the case in DC, and DC was at the same time the murder capital of the country, what does that tell you about strict gun control and murder rates??

Perhaps we need a 5 year study to tell us....:rolleyes:

Cut me a check, and in five years, I'll tell you my results. ;)
 
Strict gun laws; only police and certain wealthy, politically connected private citizens allowed to have ONE firearm.
Lenient gun laws; See the above, if this is not the law then that state has unreasonably lenient gun laws.
Isn't that right?
 
AMA/CMA(Canadian) studies are like statistics. You can prove anything you want or the sponsors of said studies want to prove.
"...wouldn't trust the judgement of Pediatricians..." Just because they think a 20 year old is a child.
"...the minimum age allowed for enlistment is 17..." There were British troopies in the Flanders battles during W.W. I as young as 12 years old. 17 year olds serving in the trenches was common. I'd have to find the book I read about it. Looked and found it.
'The Boy Soldiers of the Great War.' Richard Van Emden. Published 2005.
ISBN: 0 7553 1303 8
Headline Book Publishing. A Division of Hodder Headline. 338 Euston Rd. London, England NW1 3BH
www.headline.co.uk
Militia here will take a recruit who is in his/her 17th year. As in 16 plus.
 
Last edited:
Have they though that sterilization of child bearing people would also reduce the child death rate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top