Gun control activists love pseudo-scientific “studies.” They know that most journalists can’t balance a checkbook – never mind crunch numbers or examine scientific methodology. The anti’s count on the mainstream media to pass on the studies’ faulty data and skewed conclusions, knowing that the average Americans’ limited attention span and lack of analytical skills ensures uncritical acceptance of what is, essentially, a lie. syracuse.com provides another shining example of the deception: NY SAFE Act gun control law encouraging mentally ill to seek help, study shows. Just read the first two paragraphs . . .
Syracuse, N.Y. – Instead of discouraging people from seeking treatment for psychiatric problems, New York’s efforts to keep tabs on people considered too mentally unstable to own guns may be encouraging the mentally ill to seek help, a study suggests.
Upstate Medical University researchers surveyed 49 mental health patients at an Upstate clinic to find out if they would be scared off from seeking help by a provision in New York’s SAFE Act gun control law requiring mental health professionals to report patients who are potentially dangerous. People with gun permits who are reported to the state can have their guns confiscated and permits suspended.
Allow me to document the three main problems with this “study.”
1. It uses all of 49 people as their sample. Over 1 million people in the state of New York own guns. A valid, representative survey of gun owners would require a sample size of over 300 at a bare minimum. Forty-nine respondents is laughably insufficient.
2. The 49 people tall came from the same clinic in upstate New York. A valid, representative sample would need to include gun owners from across the state.
3. Those 49 people were mental health patients who were already undergoing care. Therefore, they had already made the choice to seek mental health assistance after the passage of the SAFE Act. The study’s authors asked people who had already performed an action if they would consider performing that same action again.
The SAFE Act inflicts severe penalties for gun owners who seek mental heath assistance, including the confiscation of their firearms and a potentially permanent firearms ban. For mentally ill New Yorkers who value their Second Amendment rights, the SAFE Act’s draconian mental health provisions are a reason not to seek treatment. (To say nothing of the low threshold for inclusion on the prohibited persons database and the scandalous lack of controls within the Act’s mental health reporting process.)
By dis-incentivizing mental health treatment for gun owners, the SAFE Act increases the risk to society. Which is why this study was undertaken; to disprove the truth. Even a cursory glance at the methodology reveals that the study is nothing more than anti-gun agitprop:
The survey showed 78 percent of patients said the law would have no effect on their decision to seek care in a crisis, 16 percent said the law would make them more likely to seek help, while 6 percent said it would make them less likely to seek help. Most said the law would make them more likely to discuss risk factors of suicide and violence with a provider.
Even gun owners, who accounted for 26 percent of those surveyed, said they would not be less likely to discuss their risk of suicide and violence as a result of the law.
Note: only 26 percent of the people surveyed owned guns. So this was a survey of 13 gun owners, all of whom had already chosen to seek mental help. The study was designed to find out whether these [former] gun owners would seek mental help despite the SAFE Act’s confiscatory regime. That’s like walking into a local Starbucks and asking for a show of hands of who likes coffee, then applying that percentage to the entire population.
This is literally the dumbest thing I have seen in months. Even Robert (who is no bueno with understanding big science-y words) figured out what was going on and debunked it on his own. Of course, gun control activists will take the results at face value. They’ll claim that gun rights advocates are paranoid scare mongers (intimating that they should lose their gun rights).
The antis don’t care about facts. They don’t care about the truth. They only care about furthering their agenda, no matter what the cost. The ends justify the means. If and when a psychotic spree killer wreaks havoc – someone who might have sought treatment if he could have done so without permanently losing his gun rights – the antis will simply say the law needs to be tightened. Or a new law enacted. It’s not bad logic. As this study shows, it’s no logic at all.