quote of the day

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.

– Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R – Utah)

An interesting note about the gun control efforts of the 1870-1910 period that Senator Hatch referenced – those gun control laws have been well documented and thoroughly proven as being intentionally racist, in addition to completely ineffective. The racist and bigoted history of gun control is all the more ironic when you consider the political leanings of those most often supporting it…
As for the 1920-1939 and 1965-1970 brackets, they have coincidentally similar, higher crime rates, no doubt due to the simultaneous increase of controls on firearms and the prohibitionistic tendencies of the period (the actual Prohibition of the ’20s, and the War on (Some) Drugs starting in the ’60s and ’70s).
The fact is, very few honest, undisputed statistics/studies indicate that “gun control” decreases crime, and effectively none indicate that it does so here in America (Yes, hoplophobes will trot out data concerning England and Australia and such, but even if they were accurate – a dubious proposition at best – that data is irrelevant given the differences in countries, societies, and histories.). Due to this, a lot of hoplophobes have started trying to hide behind various medical studies, doctors’ opinions, and other such shields, proclaiming them to be “peer reviewed” and thus impartial, completely accurate, and above reproach.
About that whole “peer reviewed” concept… A few people have a few things to say:

There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.
– Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association

… and…

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
– Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet

This is not to say that peer review is completely and utterly flawed to the point of uselessness, but neither is it God’s Word Handed To Man On the Wings of Angels.
By way of example, the American Medical Assocation put out a “Physician Firearms Safety Guide” back in 1998 that is frequently referred to by hoplophobes as they pursue their argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy. Thankfully, Dr. Robert J. Woolley has a few things to say regarding this handbook:

However, this issue is much more complex and has a more ambiguous risk/benefit assessment than most such other issues which physicians discuss with patients. The cost/benefit analysis of the use of seat belts, for example, is simple; with rare exceptions, one need not do any customized assessment of whether a given patient is better off with or without habitual seat belt use. Unfortunately the clinical recommendations set forth by Brown and Goldman depend entirely on the assessment being similarly simple, obvious, universal, and one-sided. Far from being a fair-minded assessment of the evidence relevant to counseling patients on the issue of firearms in the home, it is a political tract, one-sided from beginning to end.

…

Evidence of the authors’ intention to be advocates of one side of the controversy, rather than neutral judges of the evidence, is literally to be found from the first page to the last. Inside the front of the booklet is acknowledgement of 15 academics to whom the manuscript was submitted for comments. A Medline search reveals that without exception, every one of these reviewers who has published one or more articles with a subject heading of firearms has taken an overtly pro-gun-control stance. This obviously biased selection reveals unambiguously that the authors did not wish their work to be scrutinized by those who might differ from their preconceived ideas. Intellectually honest writers would prefer comment from those with opposite viewpoints, the better to catch errors and be challenged to present the evidence fairly.

…

The upshot of this discussion is that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that studies demonstrating a large number of DGUs are greatly inflated or exaggerated, as Brown and Goldman insist. The debates, largely centering on technical methodological issues, on the correct number of DGUs run to over 130 pages published in various academic journals (not to mention unpublished papers, professional conference proceedings, books, Internet debate, etc.) just since 1995. Yet Brown and Goldman apparently have no qualms about taking 27 words to report the Kleck and Gertz estimate (2.5 million), and about five times that many to dismiss it, accepting critics’ arguments without question, but with no notice of any arguments that might support the Kleck and Gertz work. Their summary of the evidence is grossly distorted and represents intellectual dishonesty of a high order.

…

Even if we accept the bare minimum number of actual confrontational DGUs, Brown and Goldman completely ignore the general deterrent effect on crime that is caused by criminals’ knowledge that roughly 40-50% of American households are armed. It is probably impossible to quantify this effect, but interviews with convicts clearly demonstrate that it is real. [Wright and Rossi, 1986, 1994] Even Cook and Ludwig, who generally share Brown and Goldman ‘s distaste for guns, comment: “Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime…Such consequences presumably have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way reflected in the DGU count.”

…

Brown and Goldman devote one section of their tract to helping physicians identify patients or families who are at high risk for death or serious injury from firearms, but no comparable section to help identify patients who are at high risk for external threats for which a defensive firearm might prove beneficial. The authors are either deliberately withholding half of their analysis, or are so blinded by their prejudices that they fail to notice their own one-sidedness.

…

Since Brown and Goldman are convinced that firearms in the home are a net liability to the family and have no defensive or deterrent utility, one would expect that these authors will have proudly displayed near their homes’ front door a sign announcing that: “there are no guns in this house.” After all, this would reduce the risk that criminals would break in for the purpose of stealing guns, without exposing the authors’ families to any increased risk, since they apparently believe that criminals are not deterred by the presence of firearms (and hence would also not be encouraged by the absence of firearms). If they do not have such signs, one wonders if they are hypocritically depending on the general deterrent effect of the guns owned by their neighbors, since the predators do not know which houses do or do not have weapons.

…

In addition to selective presentation of evidence, Brown and Goldman are guilty of inconsistent evaluation of that evidence. For example, when discussing children’s access to guns in the home, they say, “One cannot eliminate younger children’s curiosity about guns, but one can reduce the likelihood that children will encounter them (there is little evidence that educating children to stay away from firearms is effective).” Similarly, “There is no evidence that such [firearm] training reduces the risk of injury or death from firearms.” Notice that when a potential intervention (educating the family, but keeping the guns) is not to the authors’ liking, the absence of evidence for that intervention is taken to argue against implementing it.

…

The AMA has lent its name, logo, prestige, and funding to the production of “educational” information for its members and their patients (the booklet includes a tear-out sheet to give to them) which is scientifically unsound, politically biased, and intellectually dishonest. It is an embarrassment to have a professional association which declares itself dedicated to science produce a publication that falls so short of basic academic tenets of honesty and fairness. The authors of the Physician Firearm Safety Guide clearly believe that their point of view would not be persuasive if they presented the evidence in an even-handed manner and allowed their readers to evaluate the evidence on their own. AMA members might consider whether they approve of their dues being spent to produce propaganda that so insults their intelligence.

What do we have here… “one-sided”, “obviously biased”, “intellectual dishonesty of the highest order”, “completely ignore” contrary evidence, “blinded by their prejudices”, “hypocritical”, “inconsistent evaluation”, “scientifially unsound”, and so many more apt descriptors… pretty much sounds like the hoplophobic/gun-control movement in a nutshell, does it not?