Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA Politics Gun Control
Previous Post
Next Post

By Thomas E. Gift, MD

An editorial by Dr. Frederick Rivera and co-authors regarding firearm ownership appears in the August 28 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association—“Firearm-Related Mortality: A Global Public Health Problem” . The authors of this editorial review a report in the same journal, “Global Mortality from Firearms, 1990-2016”, seeking to link gun ownership with suicides and homicides. 

In their editorial Rivera and co-authors discuss laws of other countries that they believe might reduce “deaths due to firearms.” Blaming firearms themselves makes us pretty sure about the answer the editorialists have in mind – laws that further restrict Second Amendment rights.

Their perspective is that of many who oppose the right to keep and bear arms. They talk about “gun deaths” and “deaths due to firearms,” once again investing these pieces of metal, wood and plastic with agency. Readers may recall the 44th chapter of Isaiah with its account of the foolish man who attributes divinity to a piece of wood.

More generally, the authors talk about A being a “risk factor” for B when the data suggest that those experiencing A are more likely to experience B. This makes it too easy for the reader to conclude — wrongly — that A is a cause of B, when in fact this may not be the case at all. Sadly, this tendency to equate statistical association with causality is all too common in publications aimed at the general public, as well as in the professional literature.

As is typical with these anti-gun writers, all homicides are presented as bad, with no recognition that some are justifiable and prevent greater harm. Nowhere is there even a hint that would-be criminals might be deterred from killing or maiming people by believing that potential victims might be armed, or by potential victims displaying or using a weapon.

As Dr. Young reported on September 6 in “Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct”, there are likely at least 1.1 million thwarted crimes per year in the United States thanks to defensive gun uses.

One of the authors notes financial support from the deceptively named Fund for a Safer Future, an organization whose purpose is to fund action intended to restrict Second Amendment rights. It’s fair to presume that individuals taking money from this organization have a particular slant on the right to keep and bear arms.

The authors do make a couple of good points. One is how flimsy the data are from many parts of the world with regard to gun availability, as well as injuries and deaths inflicted by those using guns. A second is that over the time period studied, deaths involving firearms decreased at an annualized rate of 1% across the countries examined. But they don’t present the whole picture, of course.

Ramon Martinez was also intrigued by this study, and searched the same sources to find that overall firearm-related deaths in the United States increased by only about 0.1% annually during their study period. Our own search using the Centers for Disease Control search tool WISQARS confirms this.

This is an infinitesimal yearly increase here compared to the whole world, especially considering that data for the U.S. is so much more accurate, and as our population increased by 27% during the study period (from 253 million to 323 million).

Additionally, according to the Swiss Small Arms Survey, American per capita gun ownership is more than twice its nearest competitor (and our population is relatively immense). From 1990 through just 2012, the ATF recorded approximately 101 million firearms newly manufactured in America and another 48 million imported. That’s for civilian and law enforcement use, not military, and according to the same Small Arms Survey, only about 1 million are for law enforcement. There are now nearly 400 million firearms in civilian hands in this country, dramatically more than in 1990.

With such dramatic increases in American civilian gun ownership compared to the rest of the world, the insignificant annual increase in firearm-related deaths here should really be interpreted as a substantial decrease and a particular testament to responsible civilian firearm use in the United States. This also doesn’t pull out justified homicides from the totals, which have increased to some degree as the concealed carry movement has grown through the same years.

The authors begin their piece with a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, emotionally blinding the reader. They talk about “gun related massacres,” “seared images” and “innocent victims” in association with “acts of terrorism.” Then they indicate that this isn’t really the subject of their essay. Later, they touch on the Rwandan massacre, which is absurd, since the majority of those victims were killed by machetes.

They sign off with a swipe at the Dickey Amendment, which was passed only to prevent federal tax dollars being spent to attack the Second Amendment, such as these authors are doing. One of them earlier published an opinion piece specifically attacking the Dickey Amendment, and all of the authors have taken anti-Second Amendment stances in previous publications.

The bottom line? This editorial and the study it rode in on are just more examples of politics bullying science.


Thomas E. Gift, MD is a child and adolescent psychiatrist practicing in Rochester, New York, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical School, and a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


        • What I meant was were you referring to the people who said the towers couldn’t have collapsed without help or the ones who think that the planes and fire were enough to bring them down?

        • Lol neiowa, you’re confusing me with someone else. Like vaccines,, 9/11, and everything else, I take the side of science. Do you?

        • Pg2, no, no you don’t. I was willing to let your horseshit about vaccines go that you bring up in almost EVERY POST as a matter of “agree to disagree”, but now you want to play as a “truther” as well? You have no, 0, ZERO, NULL, KEINE knowledge about metallurgy. You have no fucking idea how demolitions work, or explosives. I have an education and career involving both.

          You spout absolute bullshit and try to play it off as being a liberty-minded individual. Instead, you come across as a sanctimonious dickhead that knows everything about NOTHING. The planes brought down the towers. Period. I get that you think life is like a cartoon, and there will be a neat little cut-out of a plane in a building, or that shockwaves, pyroferricity, statics, eutectics, stress moduli, and refraction are not things, but those of us living in the real world acknowledge them. Those of us with big boy jobs who build things and try to understand the world acknowledge them. Those of us not too lazy to educate themselves and instead spout psuedo-scientific bs acknowledge them.

          Did you touch a nerve? Yes. Stupidity is a pet peeve of mine, and I have worked too hard to get where I am in engineering to have idiots like you second-guess everything because you are too damn stupid to even clack two rocks together.

          In short, you are being willfully ignorant. Stop it.

        • People on the left are twice as likely to subscribe to earth view that vaccines cause autism (they do not), and twice as likely to think the government was complicit in 911. But twice as likely doesn’t mean, unfortunately, there are not also a handful of morons on the right as well.

        • 2 for 1 here…@Krog, instead of venting all your feelings and emotions, just cite me the science you imply I don’t understand that explains 3 steel framed structures falling at free fall speed, literally disintegrating 90,000 tons of supporting steel and concrete as they collapse into their own footprint. No one here has been able to do so, NIST hasn’t been able to do so, maybe you can?
          @CC…nice imagination, but I’m only interested in data and facts. But thanks for playing.

        • @Pg2 “free-fall speed” That alone tells me all I need to know about your understanding of physics. Acceleration. Momentum. Terminal velocity. Do any of these words mean anything to you? Because you certainly do not seem to understand how they are applied.

          I have no idea how you *think* demolitions work. But nothing spontaneously gets up to a “free-fall speed”.

          Steel-framed buildings. Ohmygosh. How ever do they fall? Like any other building when the supports are comprised. Why is that so difficult to understand? Whether your structure is wood-framed, reinforced concrete, or steel, if the supporting structure is compromised and the load is too great for the then-created bearing capacity, it falls. Gravity is a bitch that way.

        • More opinion and speculation and ruffled feathers. You’re full of shit Krog. Like pserge who also pretends to talk from the side of science, you parrot sound bites that Only have the appeal to authority behind them. You do understand even NIST can’t explain the collapse of the towers? Let me know when you can scientifically explain away the towers defying physics.

        • @ Pg2. Sure. You’re right. Everyone else is wrong. Everywhere and forever. You can’t be bothered to learn middle-school physics, but all of us engineers must have it all wrong! Golly gee! Ain’t no debris never knocked nothin’ down! Ain’t no such thing as kinetic en’rgy! Stress-riser? I ‘ardly know ‘er! Wut is a poissant ratio? Is that French-talk for fish?

          ^That is literally you

          Here is an excerpt from the NIST final report on Tower 7:

          “Factors contributing to the building failure were: thermal expansion occurring at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors, which are common in office buildings in widespread use; connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but
          not thermally induced lateral loads; and a structural system that was not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse”

          You can use Google to help you with the big-scary words, although I’m sure that since this is a government report, you won’t believe it anyway. Except to say people are wrong. But the government is still lying. This is just a lie that isn’t a lie as long as it disproves a different lie. But it’s a lie.

          God, being you must be exhausting…

        • Krog, cite the NIST data that explains the twin towers. Actually, just cite their explanation. Btw, the computer model NIST says explains bldg 7 is classified , to protect public safety….lol. You’re a clown.

        • Straight from the NIST site:

          “Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.”

          Let me guess. This doesn’t exist. Or is also a lie. Or the lie is a lie. And also doesn’t exist. Conspiracy! AAAAAHHHHHH!

          Get your head out of your ass and use your brain. I enjoy a healthy skeptic, but you long ago crossed into paranoia. You are willing to discard all forms of science in your pursuit of… what? Obstinacy?

        • That’s hilarious, based on their “underfunded”, “designed to fail”, comprehensive investigation that took place several years later, what conclusions did the investigators draw from the steel of the buildings? You know, the most important piece of forensic evidence from the worst attack on American soil….what’s that Krog….they didn’t have access to it? It was shipped overseas? And what was NISTs conclusions on the possibility of explosives? What’s that Krog? They stated they found no evidence of explosives….because they didn’t look for it…..despite numerous eyewitness accounts from emergency personnel and people in the building who reported multiple explosions…..and how hot does jet fuel burn….and at what temp does steel melt and become molten……yeah Krog, you’re either an idiot or just trolling. Btw, do you know the difference between a hypothesis and actual proof? NIST provided a hypothesis of the collapse, That’s it Krog. Anything else?

        • @Krog, put your money where your mouth is…why don’t you cite/post the actual tests and the results that NIST performed attempting to provide evidence for their hypothesis. Please. Please.

        • Dear Christ you are stupid. You really are. Not just ignorant at this point, but you are literally plugging your ears screeching like an autitist (let me guess, from a vaccine, right?) in the face of facts.

          All of that is literally in the final report. Explosives have *repeatedly* been discounted. No explosions in any recordings. No damage indicative of explosions. No shockwaves from explosives. Just because debris is ejected under pressure from, oh I don’t know A BUILDING COLLAPSING, does not mean explosives are involved. FFS do you know how much it would take to bring down an unprepared building of that size? No. No you don’t.

          Ah the temperature of buring jet fuel. That old chestnut. Because refraction isn’t a thing. Steels strength and elasticity changing at different temperatures isn’t thing. Thermal expansion isn’t a thing. I mean, heck, why do buildings bother with fire suppression systems at all? Steel don’t melt none out of no furnace! Musta been da gubmint’s thermyt (thermate actually to those of us with a brain) that done melted it all up. Dems wur da sparkz kummin frum. Wuts py-ro-ferr-ic-ity? Dat must not be no thing eithuh!

          I’ll do you one better. How about you post when and where you became Lord Of All Knowledge and why every engineer is wrong. Oh wait, I’m sure you’ll accuse me of being a paid shill for pharma compnaies, or the government, or just a troll. I’m sure you’ll also claim victory because you are too lazy (or incapable of) reading.

          Here is report NCSTAR 1-3 from the 2005. NIST WTC, ignore it like everything else:

        • Krog, you’re either intentionally lying or an idiot. Nothing in this report, or anything thing you’ve posted, explains material defying physics and falling through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed. Not sure what your motive is here, but anyone who has taken the time to look at Building 7 and believes offices fires brought a down steel framed into its own footprint at free fall speed is too stupid to own a firearm. Keep posting unproven theories and hypothesis, it’s entertaining watching you go to these lengths trying to perpetuate the myth that what we were told about the WTC collapse is legitimate when it has NEVER been scientifically validated.

        • @krog, I’m certain you haven’t read the NIST paper you posted, you’re hoping to bluff your way through by using the appeal the authority fallacy. NIST admits it doesn’t have a complete answer for the collapse. Here’s some real experts, maybe you’ll learn something and stop trolling a subject you’re clueless on.

        • Or, you know, I have life and don’t live to post baseless, wild conspiracies. In fact, I spent the day at the range testing out a new trigger pack.

          The paper I posted regardes the steel analysis of WTC 1 and 2 from the 2005 NCSTAR report. WTC 7 is discussed in other papers, like the first report I quoted from.

          Even if this was a “controlled demolition” as you so erroneously claim. The building would still not, and did not, accelerate faster than gravity. Period. That claim alone from you shows how you have zero knowledge on the subject. The only way an object falls faster than the acceleration due to gravity is if an outside force acted on it. So unless there was a giant rocket only you could see on top off the building driving it into the ground, you are wrong. Again. Still.

        • Krog, 3 buildings, bldg7, which was not hit by a plane, fell at free fall speed-no resistance. Explain how this structure defied the laws of physics. No one else has, but maybe you can? The other 2 towers fell at near free fall speed, disintegrating 90,000 tons of supporting steel and concrete as they took the path of greatest resistance….again defying physics. Neither you or NIST has provided answers for these, so stop pretending otherwise.

        • No, they didn’t. Not even in a perfect demolition do things fall at “free-fall” speed. Again, you don’t even understand basic concepts in physics. How can I expect you to understand more advanced ones like statics?

          This is like arguing with a potato.

          Wait no, at least the potato doesn’t spout off stupid-ass conspiracy theories.

        • BLDG 7 fell at free fall speed-NO RESISTANCE- for the first 100 feet…those are NISTs words…not mine. Funny how you intentionally omitted the NIST report only discussed the initial collapse of the north and south towers, and did not attempt to scientifically explain the collapse below the impact points. NIST ASSUMED the collapse was inevitable-that’snot science Krog, that’s deflection. Again, if you believe office fires in Bldg 7 caused a complete uniform, free fall collapse of a modern steel framed skyscraper, you’re too stupid to own a firearm. Nice try Krog. Let me guess, no matter what you see on TV, no matter how ridiculous, is real…so you’ll call anyone a conspiracy theorist who questions this account…

        • *Yawn* oh gosh your mental retardation gets boring after a while. You can’t even stay on subject. You go from WTC 1 and 2, I respond, then you jump to WTC 7. I respond, then you jump back to WTC 1 and 2. I post the reports, you cherry-pick a phrase while understanding literally nothing in the report. Please, I encourage you to build and live in a building of your own design. Maybe when it squishes you like a bug, the rest of us will not have to put up with your noxious ramblings all the time.

          If you truly feel I’m too stupid to possess a firearm, I encourage you to act on your enlightened intelligence and try to relieve me of it. Sounds like a well thought-out and cogent plan.

          Wow. So now we change subjects to a news crew obviously faking the severity of the weather. That is *totally* staying on point. Hold on, let me continue your logic:

          That reporter faked how bad the weather was where he was filming. Therefore there is no hurricane. The NOAA is a government front. The NOAA built a giant rocket to push WTC 7 into the ground! THE NOAA IS BEHIND 9/11! TRUTH! HALF-LIFE 3 CONFIRMED!

          Get a life, dude.

        • Krog, just checked this, and yes, you are too stupid and too dishonest to own a firearm. Good luck to anyone unfortunate enough to be in your vicinity.

    • Man. I really upset you didn’t I? Good. I hope I ruined your whole day. You’re kinda like a liberal. Someone doesn’t automatically give in or agree with your stupidity and fly off the handle in a rage. Seek help.

      • the simple truth is those towers were not strong enough to survive…it was misplaced confidence that they couldn’t collapse that caused so many to risk their lives…something that became sickeningly apparent when the first one fell…maybe they don’t make them as sturdy as they used to…opting instead to go for large, weakly supported open space as opposed to the old, time tested techniques…..

  1. What they are doing is “scientism” and not science. If the politicized medical establishment can transform a constitutional right into an illness they can then claim the right to exert control in the name of the “greater public good”. In their minds gun ownership is akin to ebola.

    • That’s what NEJM, JAMA, and The Lancet have been doing since I first took notice in the early 1990s.

      And those are pretty much the top three when it comes to prestige in “medical research”.

  2. Is the medical establishment demonizing firearms to distract from the fact that doctors kill many, many more people due to negligence and malpractice?

    • Medical care is officially the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA. If true numbers were reported, its very likely medical care would be the leading cause of death by a wide margin.

      • But you can’t trust those numbers because they would come from the government… must suck to be you.

        You keep using the word “science”… I do not think it means what you think it means.

        • Joe, assuming you think I’m using the word science incorrectly, show me the science you think I don’t understand. You were unable to provide any evidence based science backing your vaccine position, will this be any different?

        • You misunderstand me, I used to think that was on purpose but I now know it’s due to the heavy use of alcohol and marijuana on your part… I’ll wait, get sober, then reread my post.

        • Lol, no joe, there is no response to unreasonable statements like “…the word science-I do not think it means what you think it means”. Apparently you’ve gained the ability to read minds.

        • I did! Except every time I try to read yours all I get is static.

          The government pushes vaccines, you are anti vaccines so you don’t trust the government… The government explains 911… You are a Truther so you don’t trust the government… But if you want to slam doctors you want the government to release stats that show doctors are deadly… Cognitive dissonance much?

          I assume you are stoned, the other option is you are an imbecile … I just tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

          Out of curiosity, this being a gun site and all… Do you even own a firearm? If not is it because you can’t pass the question about being adjucated as mentally unfit? If yes why don’t you ever post anything firearm related?

    • the fact that medical mistakes kill more than guns is something they conveniently choose to ignore…when it needs to be brought up repeatedly…

  3. So, are my tax dollars still funding this drivel, or are they not? Article sounds like they still are, I thought Dickey stopped that.

    • No. JAMA is produced by a private organization, the American Medical Society. Once upon a time it focused on medicine and science and had a high degree of credibility. Then it was taken over by the social justice warriors, and its “studies” now are mostly bunkum.

      • JAMA doesn’t underwrite the studies that are submitted for publication.

        What you’d want to do is look at the authors and see where their grant money (and base salaries) come from.

  4. Dr Rivara is in Seattle, which has become a hot-bed of anti-gun rhetoric and restrictive laws in the last few years. He is an oft-quoted “firearms violence” researcher at the local trauma center attached to the University of Washington. His comments have been used to support things like the city gun tax which is supposed to fund…surprise, surprise…firearms violence research.

    • Fred Rivera, of the Harborview Riveras?

      The same people who put out BS research in the 1980s saying bicycles were terribly dangerous but became terribly safe if you put a foam hat on your head?

      Using a horribly flawed data set which showed 82% reduction in head injuries and 86% reduction in broken legs from wearing foam hats?

      • Rivara ( I see that the author spelled it Rivera also – I think it autocorrects to that – but it’s Rivara), yes same one I think. He does pediatric epidemiology and trauma research for Seattle Children’s and Harborview, I believe.

  5. My healthcare provider asked me if I had firearms in my home. I asked him why. He said that people who have firearms are 100% more likely to have a family member or them selves injured or killed by their firearm when compared to households that do not own firearms. Later in the visit, in casual conversiotion, he said that he enjoys drinking beer. I said that I don’t drink alcohol. I asked my provider if he drove an automobile. He said yes. I told him that he was 100% more likely to drink and drive and therefor injure or kill someone else than I was. He is no longer my healthcare provider.

      • when you get old that readily available firearm becomes a source of comfort when you hear things that go bump in the night…

    • if you are not a criminal your family in your gun owning household is about 30% SAFER than households with no guns.

      What your medical provider didn’t ask, and doesn’t care about because it is somehow politically incorrect, is if you are a criminal — which is is the only causal variable in gun ownership and elevated danger to a household

  6. the Journal of the American Medical Association—“Firearm-Related Mortality: A Global Public Health Problem”

    Should have been titled: “Whatever-Method Mortality: Murder, the Purposeful Pursuit of Death, A Universal Public Health Problem.

    Because the “method” isn’t the problem. The act of choosing murder as an outcome, is.

  7. “As is typical with these anti-gun writers, all homicides are presented as bad” – Not really, if it’s only GUN homicides that are bad enough to be worthy of study.

  8. Votes can Trump this crap if you vote for republicans in November. Only a Republican Senate will confirm Trump’s judicial appointments..including the 2-3 Supreme Court openings if they become available…..but if the democrats take the House, the democrats in the Senate will pressure the Never Trump Republicans and squish republicans to refuse to confirm any of Trump’s judidical nominees…and a historic chance at a 6-3 conservative court for our gun Rights will disappear….So remember in November, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

    • I reckon you missed Trumps comment about taking the guns first then worry about due process. Or his orders to the Justice Dept. about bump stocks.

      Word of advise: Don’t listen to what a politician says, look at their actions.

      • Action is exactly the point. Trump is appointing judges with track records of ruling on the law and following the Constitution. He says a lot of stupid things and deserves to be distrusted, but his actions in this case could very well save our Constitutional republic. That by itself is reason enough to vote for him.

      • that rather casual comment of his has already been used as a green light for firearms seizures…something he needs to be reminded of….

  9. This is a major problem. JAMA is a well known journalistic entity. I have a friend who has a doctor for a father. Whenever I visit him at his office, there are plenty of JAMA magazines scattered around. He’s not aligned with either side, and I’m glad I talked to him about it. Many doctors trust their articles. Not many know about guns. Really, I don’t expect them to. They are trained to recognize diseases and various maladies. If the latest presentation says that guns are a threat, and they don’t know better, they will naturally assume guns are bad. I’m starting to wonder just how deep this goes.

    • Tip of the iceberg…..

      “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”-Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of the Lancet

      “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”-Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ)

    • As pg2 pointed out, the rot goes all the way to the core. Social science, medical science, climate science…on the whole, none of it can be trusted.

      Physical and basic biological sciences are more resistant to the rot, but it’s still there (money talks…and the big money providers aren’t on our side).

    • You used to have to be a member of the American Medical Association to receive JAMA. Less then 20 % of American physicians are members of this organization. Many are probably former members for the same reason I am – didn’t want to be associated with the left wing asshats that took over the organization. Most docs know to read anything in JAMA that is not medically based thru a filter.

      • Agreed. I dropped the AMA about 20 years ago, yet somehow they continue to send JAMA regularly. It rarely gets past the trash can.

        • I always try to covertly leave an NRA magazine in the waiting room when I go to the doctor…something more of us should do…just slip it into that stack of month’s old magazines….

    • JAMA should seek more research as to why healthcare professionals kill 400,000 Americans every year.
      That’s an embarrassment.

  10. I’d like to just blow this off, but the fact is that politicians listen to these people. Especially if they are predisposed anti-2A.

    Regardless of how many people holler “will not comply”, etc. , we have a war on our front porches. Not with firearms (yet), but with the pen. Pay attention.

  11. The authors of this article in the guise of scientific fact, is invalid from the start. The premise that guns kill people is a known falsity. People kill people, as everyone should know that has a grain of brain matter. Propaganda like this idiocy is rampant in politics, and now again in healthcare.

  12. My Doktor has many many gunz, in fact more then I.

  13. Another clueless group weighing in, thinking that somehow their occupation makes them experts. As they say, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    • “As they say, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

      Not for scientists. When all they have is a hammer, everything looks like a screw.

  14. Japan, a nation with few private firearms, has a HIGHER suicide rate than the US. Can’t pin suicides on guns, where there’s a will, there’s always a way. It’s a cultural issue.

    In fact, the intentional death rate (homicides + suicides) in Japan is higher than it is in the US :
    Japanese culture : “They made me look like a fool. I am so embarrassed I’m going to kill myself”.
    American culture : “They made me look like a fool. I’m so embarrassed I’m going to kill that sonofabitch”.

  15. See, this is why I keep my guns locked up at night. Because I don’t trust them. Especially the black ones. They’re the sneakiest.

  16. 1) The study’s authors aggregate gun suicide and gun homicide as fatal violence. They steadfastly REFUSE to look at overall suicide+homicide which would blow their thesis to pieces. Quite a few fully developed democracies with virtually no guns have higher suicide+homicide rates than the US (S. Korea and Japan for example), and many are +/- 15% of US rates.

    2) Nearly 2/3 of the US deaths they are citing are gun suicide. Dozens of peer reviewed studies show non- gun methods, eg self asphyxia, self poisoning,m falls from heights, etc of suicide are tabulated worldwide at LOWER rates than they should, with profound under-counts shown, while gun suicide is not under-counted.

    3) these researchers don’t care about the massive flaws in their methodology and conclusions, they are being paid by a foundation affiliated with the gun control lobby, that foundation pumps money into this junk science to then use to support appellate court cases in support of gun control laws.

    • Nice post. Earlier in this thread you stated vaccines do not cause autism. That stands contrary to many animal studies, 10s of thousands of parents who’ve reported immediate, permanent mental decline after their child’s vaccination, product inserts stating the products (vaccines) themselves can cause brain damage,(encephalitis), you care to cite the exact study(s) that conclusively shows vaccines do not cause autism? Hopefully you can refrain from the industry junk science that uses flawed methodology(comparing vaccinated groups against other vaccinated groups-no true placebo control group) and draws false conclusions?

  17. The Last time the Medical Community got heavliy involved with political policies of a country to make dictates to it’s citizens…You had Nazi Germany…Thanks to their “Medical Community”, you got concentration camps, medical experimentation, torture and genocide…Just ask Dr. Mengele….

  18. quick search turned up this….

    “On March 21, 2018, Congressional negotiators reached a deal on an Omnibus continuing resolution. The 1.3 trillion dollar spending agreement also includes language that codified Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar interpretation of the Dickey Rider in testimony on February 18, 2018, before the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee.[14] While the amendment itself remains, the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can, in fact, conduct research into gun violence.[15] It was signed into law by U.S. President Donald J. Trump on March 23, 2018.[16]”

    So its been gutted and only exists in name.

  19. This is the same “journal” that lays the foundation of the nations narcotic epidemic on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons for introducing narcotic naïve young adults to narcotics after third molar surgery. I was involved in the NIH Pain Research studies in the late 1980’s. There is a reason that third molar surgery was NIH’s golden standard for pain research. I guess the AMA editors are too young to have read our groundbreaking studies? The same “journal” who a few decades ago chastised the medical profession for not prescribing enough narcotics. Now, they are experts in firearms. Did they even read the CDC’s own studies on firearms? Oh, those were published when the AMA editors were still in diapers (are they still called Pampers?) That is why I had to join DRGO. Not all of my colleagues agree with the AMA. What happened to their Millennial catch phrase, “Evidenced Based Medicine?”

  20. When they first ban, Autos and trucks, forks and knifes, cigarettes, booze, most prescription drugs, chainsaws, lawn mowers, rope, fists, candy bars, meat, sugar, scuba gear, unprotected sex, water pollution, and the list could go on and on infinitely. Then we’ll talk about guns. Untill then STFU ok, I for one just don’t give a damned about what you have to say…. Gun’s don’t kill like anything else listed above, people kill. Solve that dilemma, and maybe I’ll join your little Shangri-La.

  21. Geez guys (911 commenters) really? Who cares who is wrong? Thousands of American brothers and sisters were murdered that day. And y’all are arguing calling each other stupid? I believe this comment section is for comments=opinions yes? Everyone gets a turn to give theirs. Y’all should try to be nice and not ugly to each other. Just a thought guys

Comments are closed.