Pseudoscience About Guns in the Canadian Medical Association Journal

[beevul]

The authors’ most newsworthy claim is that there were no “fatal mass shootings” after the Australian gun law of 1996 (between 1996 to 2016), even though there were 13 between 1979 and 1996, but this is entirely the result of their unique definition. Not only do the authors set an extraordinary high standard of five deaths as the minimum number for a “fatal mass shooting,” but they also exclude family shootings which is quite surprising.

The authors give no explanation for their definition which deviates from the standard of a minimum of three deaths for a “mass killing” accepted by both the FBI and European researchers. Setting the minimum number of deaths at five, rather than the usual standard of three clearly eliminates a number of ‘mass killings.’

The claim of no mass shootings after 1996 in Australia evaporates if the conventional definition is used. A cursory check with Wikipedia shows that there have been at least three fatal mass shootings after the firearm law changes in 1996 when the minimum is set at three (instead of five) deaths, and if the death of the murderer is also included, the number increases to four fatal mass shootings between 1996 and 2016. The frequency of fatal mass shootings may have decreased following 1996, but mass shootings continue.

https://drgo.us/?p=3393

How cute.


Discuss.

[scscholar]

1. One death is too many

Why say they don't matter?

[beevul]

2. Who says they don't matter? N/T

[pablo_marmol]

5. Why dishonestly stuff words into the mouths of others?

(Rhetorical question)

[Eleanors38]

3. More of the same. Gun Control: where science takes a holiday.

[gejohnston]

4. they also excluded the

mass murders by arson in Australia.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Here's a telling bit from the abstract:

https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2530362

There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.

[Duckhunter935]

8. Very interreestttiinnggg

[bolus]

7. bias in other articles

It's interesting to see the bias in scientific articles on gun control.

This article in the lancet for example
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)01026-0/abstract



The conclusion was that certain laws like background checks for ammo can reduce gun deaths if they were applied to all states.

If you go read the whole article (which you have to pay for of course) their own data showed that several gun control laws increased gun related deaths. Using the same methodology states that had mandatory firearm locks and assault weapons bans had higher rates of gun related deaths.

They did mention this, but in their conclusion made no suggestion that these laws be repealed, only to propagate the laws to more states that fit their agenda. Actually 16 out of the 25 state gun control laws they looked at, using their methodology, either did nothing or increased gun related deaths. But no call to repeal these laws at all.

Its not science at that point, its just propaganda.