Another New Study on Gun Violence Gets It Wrong.

Here we go again. A group of well-meaning but entirely ignorant researchers publish an article about gun violence in a so-called peer-reviewed medical journal and they get it completely wrong. Not a little bit wrong, not just a difference of opinion here and there. Completely and totally wrong.

The study, which has been done at least three other times using different dates but the same CDC-generated data, comes to the following conclusion: “States with stricter gun laws and laws requiring universal background checks for firearm purchase had lower firearm-related pediatric mortality rates.” Any study about the use or misuse of guns which refers to subjects above the age of 15 as ‘children’ is simply using an age-based, medical definition which completely distorts how, why, and when people of any age use guns.

In all 50 states, anyone above the age of 15 (in some states the age is 14) can take a safety course and then apply for a hunting license, which is granted without a background check because the individual is hunting with a gun, not buying a gun. The law doesn’t differentiate between hunting with a rifle or shotgun, or going out into the woods with Daddy’s Glock.

Why did the researchers find some kind of correlation between states with comprehensive background checks and states with fewer fatal ‘pediatric’ gun injuries? Because by and large, the states that have imposed comprehensive background checks happen not to be states with lots of residents who go out and try to bag themselves a Bambi every year. Of the 21,241 ‘children’ who died from gun injuries over the five years covered in this study, somewhere around 60% or more of these victims were at least fifteen years old.

Did the researchers ask themselves whether there might have been a connection between whether or not any of these kids had hunting licenses and ended up dead?  Of course not. The entire research team conducting this study happens to be faculty and staff from the George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C.  That’s a really big hunting area for sure.

I’m not saying these fatal accidents occurred when Grandpa or Daddy and Junior were out in the field. I am saying that in families that go hunting, every hunter in the family always has access to the guns. This happens to be a reality of gun ownership that none of the researchers who study gun violence acknowledge or even understand. But how do you study unintentional gun fatalities without taking this issue into account?

Not only don’t the researchers understand this issue, they also don’t recognize the extreme limitations of their research because the CDC data which they and every other gun-researcher uses does not give the slightest indication of how the fatal accident actually occurred. And I guarantee you that if they had such data, it would clearly indicate that the ‘child’ got shot for the same reason that just about everyone gets injured by an accidental discharge of a gun: “Duhhh, I didn’t know it was loaded.”

Over the fifty years that I have had guns in my house, I have shot off a gun accidentally at least seven times. One round went through the front door and out into the street. Another time I knocked a stack of books off a wall. A third time, my twenty-year old son picked up my 45-caliber pistol and blew a hole through our storage shed. Did I ever take the gun-safety course?  I teach the friggin’ course.

Until and unless my friends who do gun-violence research take the time and trouble to sit down with a couple of gun nuts and ask for some help and advice to help them understand the use and abuse of guns, we will continue to be treated to exercises in research that are nothing more than junk science and should be ignored.

I don’t mean to sound so belligerent or nasty, but right now there’s enough nonsense floating around about the COVID-19 problem. We don’t need any more misinformed ideas.

5 thoughts on “Another New Study on Gun Violence Gets It Wrong.

  1. I suspect that the majority of these deaths were “children” shooting at each other in urban areas, irregardless of gun laws. The fact that the authors use Brady scores to define their state level controls rather than look more carefully at laws and enforcment suggests yet another paper where the authors already decide the outcome and fudge the study to ensure it.

  2. “Over the fifty years that I have had guns in my house, I have shot off a gun accidentally at least seven times. One round went through the front door and out into the street. Another time I knocked a stack of books off a wall. A third time, my twenty-year old son picked up my 45-caliber pistol and blew a hole through our storage shed. Did I ever take the gun-safety course? I teach the friggin’ course…”

    SEVEN NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES in 50 Years???? I’ve had ZERO in 25 Years….
    Did I ever take the Gun Safety course? Nope.

    …..Guess I’m not a True “Gun Guy” like Mike.

  3. 7 in 50 years….So Ol’ Miko “accidentally” pulls the trigger on a Loaded Gun every 7 or 8 years??????

    And We’re supposed to listen to his “Expertise” on Firearms???

    Hahahaha……

  4. I’ve been carrying a firearm most every day since I was drafted in the U.S. Army…that’s been over 50 years ago. Like yuppicide76, I too have had zero negligent discharges.

    Mike, I hate to say it, but that’s not a good record especially for a gun guy and one who teaches gun courses and gun safety.

  5. At *LEAST* 7 NDs??!! And you think that’s normal?

    I’m 59. I had ONE ND 27 years ago (thank Ghu I only broke the “always loaded” rule).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.