Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Why the Dickey Amendment Was Passed

It appears from this article that this article in NEJM provoked it. While there is no direct statement: "guns should be banned," this quote conveys some of the language that is pretty clearly intended for that purpose: "Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry."

That they excluded lawful uses is pretty indicative of cherry-picking the data: "Although our case definition excluded the rare instances in which a nonresident intruder was killed by a homeowner, our methodology was capable of demonstrating significant protective effects of gun ownership as readily as any evidence of increased risk." They assume that "a nonresident intruder was killed by a homeowner" is rare, and exclude defensive uses that do not lead to death of an intruder. Here are 1155 gun defensive uses involving home invasions. And 492 residential burglary cases. And 326 residence robbery incidents. Many did not leave a bad guy dead. Excluding such cases is misleading.

If you have any connections with other bloggers, encourage them to link to this.

No comments: