New England Journal of Med hack job...

Status
Not open for further replies.
By promoting our sense of entitlement to gun use against one another, it could weaken the framework of ordered liberty that makes civil society possible.
Click to expand...
Gotta love the closing line.

He has several cites worth reviewing:

Such policies are founded on myths. One is that increasing gun ownership decreases crime rates — a position that has been discredited. (2) Gun ownership and gun violence rise and fall together. Another myth is that defensive gun use is very common. The most widely quoted estimate, 2.5 million occurrences a year, is too high by a factor of 10. (3)
Click to expand...
Wellford CF, Pepper JV, Petrie CV, eds. Firearms and violence: a critical review. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.
Hemenway D. Survey research and self-defense gun use: an explanation of extreme overestimates. J Crim Law Criminol 1997;87:1430-1445. [CrossRef][ISI]
Click to expand...
 
They make a legitimate point, up until the authors start going into their view of the cause of the gun violence. It would be nice if we could end all bad shoots, but then idiotically pointing at CCWs as a problem made them lose all credibility with me.

I personally found this part amusing:

The risks associated with household exposure to guns apply not only to the people who buy them; epidemiologically, there can be said to be "passive" gun owners who are analogous to passive smokers. Living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%. Young people who commit suicide with a gun usually use a weapon kept at home, and among women in shelters for victims of domestic violence, two thirds of those who come from homes with guns have had those guns used against them.
Click to expand...

In any other peer-reviewed article in the journal (ie, non-gun related, like if it were an article discussing a certain pharmaceutical's efficacy) the authors would have been laughed out of the submission room for failing to provide a citation to what they provide as a numerical fact.

However, obviously the editors find it okay to get sloppy with anything gun-related. Thankfully, they've still got quality control on the medically related articles - the second that's done, I'm canceling my subscription.
 
Ok... I can see that someone who doesn't speak English as a first language might not understand the meaning of "freeze". However, who would continue to approach while being confronted with a .44 mag?

Also, the Journal's presentation of the confrontation doesn't jive with any of the other descriptions I've read of that incident. Other stories say that he repeatedly tried to enter the house after being told to leave.

Their homicide numbers apparently include both justified and non-justified.

How is a gun show a "high risk venue"? How often has anything happened at a gun show save for a very, very small number of ADs?

...and so on and so on...
 
"That article is so full of misrepresenations and outright lies that I could barely finish it."

Told you so :neener:
 
As someone who reads medical journals everyday I have to point out something to keep in mind when reading this article.

It's a perspective piece. It's an opinion. It's not a peer reviewed scientific study nor is it trying to be.

One of the problems with science is that humans are not innately scientific. We form opinions then look for the science to back it up.

More than once I’ve had a medical student come to me and ask for studies proving x is better than y. They’ve already formed their conclusions…

Sigh.
 
Library guy, I think you are essentially correct. However, try writing a poorly researched opinion piece that is pro gun, and see if it gets accepted and published in NEJM. $100 says it does not. Thus, bias and lower standards exist for "opinions" published they agree with. Also exists for peer reviewed papers too, but that's an another story....:uhoh:
 
Living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.
Click to expand...
This is poorly articulated, IMO. Is the supposed risk of committing homicide increased or the risk of becoming a victim of homicide increased?

And, is the homicide justified?
Websters defines homicide as: a killing of one human being by another
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide

So, by that definition, self-defense where the good guy kills the bad guy is homicide, albeit justified.
 
Another myth is that defensive gun use is very common. The most widely quoted estimate, 2.5 million occurrences a year, is too high by a factor of 10.
Click to expand...

Let's say he is right....Not saying he is, but lets say he is for giggles sake. That is still over 250k instances where a firearm saved a life...

Compare that to the approx 30k uses where someone dies

Much larger numbers.

So, I shall dismiss his "statistics" with a wave of the hand and a smirk on my face.
 
Wow, the doctor who wrote this has no idea about science at all:

This increase begins the moment the gun is acquired — suicide is the leading cause of death among handgun owners in the first year after purchase — and lasts for years.
Click to expand...

(sarcasm)This isn't selection bias at all.(/sacrasm)In fact, to me this indicates those who grow up with guns are far less likely to use them for suicide. What this fact (I'm doubting all his statistics given how bad they are) says is that if someone wants to shoot themselves with a gun, they will go buy it and use it soon.

Gah, I can't deal with this idiocy any longer, so much wrong with it.
 
Ars longa, vita brevis

(me again, back in the same thread...)

Ya'll can take comfort in the fact that most doctors will not read this piece. Why? They don't have time to read fluff!

Students only have time to read what will be on the test.

Residents only read what's been assigned for journal club.

GPs only read what will affect their practice.

And specialists? if it's not about their specific disease/organ they don't wanna know.

Seriously, the amount of information docs have to keep up with would make most of our heads explode. They don't read journals cover to cover.
 
I liked the part about women in shelters having had guns pointed at them. Honestly, wouldn't I be more likely to move out of my home if my cohabitant had pointed a gun at me? "Selection bias"?
 
Ok, I can't just let this thread die.

Are doctors really this stupid?

Next time your doctor asks you about firearms and warns you with this crap, respond with this:

"People who go to the doctor are 40 times more likely to be sick than those who don't. I'm going to stop going to the doctor to keep from getting sick."
 
In NC when you apply for your carry permit you have to get a note from your doctor. I know it's dumb but that's just the way it is. When I gave my doctor the letter to sign his response was "Oh, you're getting your permit? I keep forgetting to do that, thanks for the reminder." Didn't lower the cost of the visit any, but it sure made me feel good to know he agreed with my views.
 
What doctors think...

Most doctors do not preach or nag despite what the AMA, AAP or AHA would have them do.

Why?

Three reasons:

  1. Limited time. Office visits are short. There’s generally only so much that can be discussed during an office visit. Most doctors use this time to focus on clinically important issues.
  2. Doctor Patient Relationships. Doctors know that most patients don’t want to be at the doctor’s office. Patients who are lectured, scolded, or made to feel guilty don’t come back. Yes, your doctor would like you to eat your vegetables, stop smoking, buckle your seat belt, and (some docs) would like you to lock up your guns. But most aren’t willing to alienate you by telling you these things.
  3. Nagging doesn’t work. If it did, they’d teach it in medical school.
What doctor’s believe: Doctors are not some monolithic voting block. Their politics mirror the larger US population. Some believe in global warming and some do not. Some think abortion is a right while others think it’s a sin.

And some doctors do indeed own and use guns.
 
Um, I was reading yesterday about doctors that took out the wrong kidney in a patient, virtually handing a death sentence to them.

Oh, and another patient was a recipient of a new ****... That patient went in for a leg operation.

Doctors kill more patients than guns do,,, by far!
 
Library Guy
It's a perspective piece. It's an opinion. It's not a peer reviewed scientific study nor is it trying to be.
Click to expand...
Then WHY is it published in NEJM??
Is there an editorial bias or agenda? It seems so to me.
If there is, then it really isn't or shouldn't be a respected professional journal.
It can't be both.
 
Kingcreek,

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned and published by the Massachusetts Medical Society.

Do they have an agenda or editorial bias? Of course they do. Like all journals or newspapers, they live and die by subscription sales and advertisements. And like all journals they publish research, opinions, editorials, and letters.

Their dedication to truth and justice runs as deep as anyone who makes money by publishing. All we can hope from any journal is they keep the opinions on the opinion page. I know that’s a lot to hope for.

As I try to point out to my patrons, there is no published truth or evidence. Only data. It’s up to the reader to study the study and test the test.
 
Ok... I can see that someone who doesn't speak English as a first language might not understand the meaning of "freeze". However, who would continue to approach while being confronted with a .44 mag?

Also, the Journal's presentation of the confrontation doesn't jive with any of the other descriptions I've read of that incident. Other stories say that he repeatedly tried to enter the house after being told to leave.
Click to expand...

The article as a whole is bunk.

But the brief description of the shooting of the Japanese student in LA is a reasonable account of what happened. The homeowners were idiots. The guy never should have shot that kid. If he and his wife were trouble by his presence, they could have easily just shut their front door and called the cops.

That's what I would have done.

I was amazed when the guy was no-billed.

And I wasn't surprised in the least when the dead kid's family won a huge civil settlement against the homeowners.

We don't need to be defending the actions of boobs like that, and in my view we hurt our argument when we try.
 
How many people get killed by doctors in the US every year??
And often people die weeks later on other causes then the operation, but what they "caught" in the hospital!
You can't even find those numbers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top