“Gun Violence” as a Public Health Issue: a Physician’s Response

[beevul]

“Gun Violence” as a Public Health Issue:

a Physician’s Response

Jane M. Orient, M.D.

Conclusion

Organized medicine’s decades-long campaign to have firearm-related fatalities considered as a public health rather than a criminal justice issue is not evidence-based. Its reliance on weak, even tainted evidence and spurious reasoning, and its attempts to suppress or discredit contrary evidence, is consistent with a political agenda of incremental civilian disarmament.

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 18 Number 3 Fall 2013


http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/orient.pdf

Interesting.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Yes. It's a pretty obvious attempt to bypass established legislative and judicial process.

It's bullshit and would, if allowed, be steps toward totalitarian authoritarian rule.

Mayor Bloomberg would love it.

Recommended.

[DonP]

2. Crap! Peer reviewed study that doesn't say the right thing? Quick discredit the author and publisher

We can't have a peer reviewed article that calls shenanigans on the gun control push floating around that doesn't reflect the "common sense" thinking of 90% of the population.

We need some of the usual volunteers from Bansalot to explain why this MD is full of shit. She's probably Mitt Romney's love child from his missionary days.

[Democracyinkind]

3. Maybe take a look at AAPS before going off that tangent?

It might mitigate the later embarrassment...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. four pertinent paragraphs ...

The first edition of Lott’s book31 represented the most extensive study ever done on gun control, examining data from all 3,140 counties in the U.S. by year from 1977–1994, which was extended to 1996 in the second edition. Previously, the largest study had looked at only 32 counties or cities in just one year, 1980. Lott’s was also the most comprehensive in terms of laws and other factors, including the most extensive set of demographic factors.

Lott found that the introduction of concealed-carry laws reduced murder rates by about 8%, rapes by about 5%, and aggravated assaults by about 7%. There was a substitution effect, with an increase in property crimes. Using 1992 data, Lott estimated that if counties without discretionary handgun laws had been required to issue permits that year, there would have been 1,400 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes, 60,000 fewer aggravated assaults, and 12,000 fewer robberies.

Academics and other gun-control proponents have extensively attacked Lott, but have not refuted him. He responds to his critics on his website www.johnlott.org, which also contains links through which one may download his raw data.

<snip>

“In the relative absence of handguns, dangerously violent Canadians commit their assaults using other means which are, on average, as lethal as handguns,” Centerwall concludes.

[jimmy the one]

6. Myths about Defensive Gun Use & RTC Laws

tuesaft cites JaPS, & you know it's junk science if a gun org cites john lott: Academics and other gun-control proponents have extensively attacked Lott, but have not refuted him.

WHAT? gun guru Gary Kleck refutted Lott: 1998, John Lott, Jr. published a book with the provocative title More Guns, Less Crime1 in which he presents and interprets data that communities are safer when its residents are free of govt restrictions on gun ownership and carrying... conducted with David Mustard..
... One indicator of the implausibility of these estimates of the effects of permissive carry laws is Gary Kleck’s skepticism that permissive gun carrying laws could produce the much more modest reductions in violent crime Lott more commonly trumpets.
Kleck: "Lott’s conclusions that permissive gun carrying laws led to substantial reductions in violent crime ..could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was."
.. The 1.3% of population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean that there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals.... More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.

.. first 5 years after Florida’s permissive {CCW} gun carrying law went into effect. During this period there were only 3 incidents in which a permit holder successfully used a gun in defense against a criminal attack outside the permit-holder’s home. Considering that about 100,000 violent crimes were reported to Dade Co police during the 5-year study period, it is hard to argue that criminals are likely to have noticed a significant change in their risk of facing a victim armed with a gun..
.. Although research by John Lott and Gary Kleck has challenged the prevailing view that gun regulations can reduce lethal crimes, the many limitations of Lott’s and Kleck’s research indicate that there is no reason to move from view of guns and violence backed by research in previous decades. Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead to more deaths. http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

[gejohnston]

8. so much nonsense, so little time.

countered is not the same as refuted. Kleck countered and pointed out a flaw, but not refute. That is part of what peer review does.

A PR firm? Actually, the science shows gun laws don't make a difference either way. The conventional wisdom Kleck, Rossi, Wright, took on was simply assumptions made without research to back it up, but it wasn't done. They did the research and found themselves having to rethink their earlier assumptions.

What your Berkly PR firm claims to be science is simply junk science paid for by the prohibition lobby.

[jimmy the one]

7. John Lott, the charlatan con man

A Great Read: Noted fraudster and gun policy researcher John Lott has apparently been admitted back into polite society again. Media Matters reports, Apr25 {2012} Lott published a garbage, error-riddled op ed in the NY Daily News about Florida’s infamous “Stand Your Ground” laws..” Worse than the crap social science, though, are the persuasive allegations that Lott committed outright fraud, by basically making up survey data. And as if that’s not enough, there’s the ludicrous Mary Rosh affair, in which Lott was caught red-handed writing pro-Lott comments and reviews in various internet forums, under the name “Mary Rosh.” It was, as I recall, one of the first well-known internet sock puppeting scandals. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/gun_policy_fraudster_john_lott036987.php

wiki (john lott): Disputed survey {by Lott} .. In the course of a dispute in 1999–2000, Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, results were the source for claims he made beginning in 1997 {MGLC}. However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash had destroyed his survey data set, the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. HAHAHAHAHA! Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place, but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy..

wiki: Mary Rosh persona .. In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a sock puppet to defend his own works.. Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.. Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".
.. Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting he praised himself while posing as one of his former students, and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.. Lott claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife. "I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told Was Post in 2003

[gejohnston]

9. is there a real source other than David Brock?

and did he ever apologize to Anita Hill for his disgusting "a little nutty and a little slutty" remark? Just because he left the dark side, doesn't mean his methods improved.

[otohara]

18. Yes He Did Apologize

The only country where guns are a public health issue is....the one we live and die in.

[gejohnston]

19. to the Clintons,

but not Anita Hill. The chances is dieing by gun shot are near zero.

[otohara]

20. Yes He Did Apologize

Washington, DC : Have you offered a personal apology to Anita Hill and others maligned unfairly by you?

David Brock: Yes. I've written twice to Anita Hill (privately) expressing my regret over what I'd written about her, once in 1998, long before this book was conceived, and once again last summer when I finished it. I know it's impossible to take back what I've done, but I hope this book can help set straight the historical record.

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20020319003/tscript.htm

Near zero in Japan. Here...not so much!
9,786 killed since 12/14/2012

Hundreds of thousands dead since 9/11 - no where near zero.

[gejohnston]

21. so maybe he did

I still distrust him and think he is just as sleazy and dishonest then as now. He is a propagandist and smear artist, leopards don't change their spots. Switching sides wasn't part of figuring out he was just making shit up, it had more to do with him getting fired for, to his credit, for not going over the top on Mrs. Clinton and coming out of the closet. It maybe an honest epiphany or simple revenge. But MM doesn't fact check very well. Not that it matters. Like all ideologues, truth matters when it is convenient. As soon as truth and facts conflict with ideology, ideology wins every time.
and? We are not Japan, When we confiscated guns from Iraqi civilians, crime went up. We had to reverse the policy. If you define suicide as violence, Japan is still more violent. They have more rope violence. I lived in Japan. We say the squeaky wheel gets the grease, they say the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. They view Green Peace as a terrorist organization. They don't have a 2A. They also don't have: 4,5,6,9,10 amendments either. Well, they do have a 4th amendment in theory. They don't have an exclusionary rule. Beaten confessions are also common. Yes, illegal evidence and forced confessions are allowed in court. The three judges that decide the case are not unbiased because and acquittal would be bad for their careers regardless of the facts of the case. Oh, many of those suicides are murder/suicides and cold case murders that are written off just to clear the case. When I was there, a store in my neighborhood was broken into. The cop that took the initial report roped off an area for the print/forensics guys, who showed up two week later.

[jimmy the one]

5. you touting extreme RWNJ's?

Thanks for posting this rightwing claptrap beevul (equipping the militia man), & for allowing a left wing group (media matters) to expose their junk science:

Conservative media are citing an article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS) to attack legitimate research on the causes of gun violence. While its title suggests that it is a serious research publication, the journal is published by a conspiracy-minded right-wing organization and has printed articles questioning the link between HIV and AIDS and theorizing that undocumented immigrants are spreading leprosy in the United States.
.. JPandS is published by conservative non-profit Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), an anti-healthcare reform advocacy group that opposes almost all government involvement in healthcare. The National Library of Medicine, which bills itself as &quot t)he world's largest biomedical library," has twice declined to index JPandS in its database of medical reports.

Still, an article by AAPS Executive Director Dr. Jane M. Orient has been cited by conservative media to attack calls for more research into the causes and prevention of gun violence by the Obama administration and the medical and scientific communities. AAPS aided the gun lobby in its successful endeavor to block the Centers for Disease Control from studying gun violence during the 1990s.
Read More: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/24/conservative-media-cite-gun-research-from-gay-a/196059

[gejohnston]

10. how ironic

Thanks for posting this rightwing claptrap beevul (equipping the militia man), & for allowing a left wing group (media matters) to expose their junk science:

based on what, their opinion? MM used a VPC propaganda handout as proof that ARs etc have pistol grips so the military can spray bullets easier. Why didn't the cite an actual military manual? Because it was bullshit and they knew it.

Conservative media are citing an article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS) to attack legitimate research on the causes of gun violence. While its title suggests that it is a serious research publication, the journal is published by a conspiracy-minded right-wing organization and has printed articles questioning the link between HIV and AIDS and theorizing that undocumented immigrants are spreading leprosy in the United States.
.. JPandS is published by conservative non-profit Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), an anti-healthcare reform advocacy group that opposes almost all government involvement in healthcare. The National Library of Medicine, which bills itself as &quot t)he world's largest biomedical library," has twice declined to index JPandS in its database of medical reports.

I'll have to research to see what the claim is. Until recently, the AMA also opposed single payer/socialized medicine.

Still, an article by AAPS Executive Director Dr. Jane M. Orient has been cited by conservative media to attack calls for more research into the causes and prevention of gun violence by the Obama administration and the medical and scientific communities. AAPS aided the gun lobby in its successful endeavor to block the Centers for Disease Control from studying gun violence during the 1990s.
Read More: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/24/conservative-media-cite-gun-research-from-gay-a/196059

Wrong. It blocked the CDC from lobbying and advocating. The CDC "research" was nothing more than advocacy research, kind of like trying to prove creationism. Kellerman, Hemenway etc. used the funds to create "scientific studies" to fit a given conclusion. That is why criminologist James Wright called the CDC funded activities as scientifically valid as NRA publications.
The most famous was Kellerman's "43 times more likely" which became 2.7 times later. The study was destroyed by peer reviewers as being invalid. Many stopped providing their data to reviewers for that reason. That is also the main reason funding was pulled, and rightfully so.

Legitimate research has been done, and continued to be funded by the federal government via the DoJ. Of course gun control advocates don't like to pull these out because they didn't like the results, like Gary Kleck's research. Of course, gun control advocates don't seem to like the latest CDC report either.

Other than touting non peer reviewed hacks like Hemenway, I noticed MM failed to say anything about the substance of what the author said. They certainly did not accurately explain the why the CDC lost the lobbying funds. MM citing themselves? Seriously? At best this is an example of name calling and genetic fallacy.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. thank you, gejohnston.

[NYC_SKP]

12. The despiration is palpable.

The guilt by association strategy, when used, is a sign of desperation and evidence of inability to make truly valid arguments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624924

It goes along with name-calling, badgering, shaming, and bullying.

I'm glad to be a part of the calm and rational members discussing these matters.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. haha ... yeah, me too -

I stay calm ... most of the time

[jimmy the one]

16. guilt by association

skip: The despiration is palpable. .. The guilt by association strategy, when used, is a sign of desperation and evidence of inability to make truly valid arguments.

Thanks for the support, skip; you evidently also noted how johnston used 'guilt by association' in an attempt to smear media matters:

johnston:... is there a real source other than David Brock?

Who or where mentioned Brock? the media matters article was written by TIMOTHY JOHNSON;
Johnston is trying to link david brock to disparage the media matters article, since brock is head of it or something.
Johnston parrots the nra point of view 90% & tries to disparage far more legitimate sources, based on brock's misguided remarks from the anita hill hearings decades ago.

johnston: and did he {Brock} ever apologize to Anita Hill for his disgusting "a little nutty and a little slutty" remark? Just because he left the dark side, doesn't mean his methods improved.

skip: The guilt by association strategy, when used, is a sign of desperation and evidence of inability to make truly valid argument

[gejohnston]

17. Brock is the boss

and founder and sets the tone for the quality, or lack of, the site.

skip: The guilt by association strategy, when used, is a sign of desperation and evidence of inability to make truly valid argument

Actually, I was showing the poor argument the proper respect it deserves.

[jimmy the one]

14. lott, gun for hire

gejohnston Kleck countered and pointed out a flaw, but not refute.

How can statistical subjectivity be statistically refuted? Kleck refuted Lott well enough, when he wrote this: .. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.

You people still take this clown John Lott seriously? he's bought & paid for & a capitalist money loving creep to boot. You toss out democrat's more rationale approach to controlling guns, & take stock in a gun for hire's biased results about carrying concealed?

wiki: Charges gun makers/NRA paid for Lott's research- 1996.. Charles Schumer: "AP reports Lott's fellowship at Univ of Chicago is funded by Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with the Olin Corp,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers {affiliate with Winchester ammo}. Maybe that's a coincidence, too. But it's also a fact."
reason/com: ... Lott used to be the John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow at Univ of Chicago. That position was endowed by a foundation based on the personal fortune of the late John M. Olin, former chairman of Olin Corp.. Among other things, Olin Corp makes Winchester ammunition. These facts led Kristen Rand of VPC to conclude "Lott's work was, in essence, funded by the firearms industry"

Olin foundation was a sister corp of winchester, a shadow corp where funds could be funnelled from winchester to support things & groups & john lotts, clandestinely.
.. Are you people here on rkba BLIND? can't you see all this taken together shows lott for what he is? a greedy egomaniac with a fetish for making money regardless if he has to twist facts to do it.

In a debate on Piers Morgan July 23, 2012, Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the NRA." Lott countered: "The NRA hasn't paid for my research." Dershowitz continued: "Your conclusions are paid for and financed—The NRA—only funds research that will lead to these conclusions." Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott's research. (In Jan 2000, criminologist Otis Dudley Duncan questioned Lott's statistics because the NRA was not citing them.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

more: National Academy of Sciences panel in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of the panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research..

[gejohnston]

15. What does Dershowitz know about criminology?

He is a lawyer who agrees with Piers Morgan.