Skip to comments.Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable?
Posted on 01/12/2012 5:57:54 AM PST by marktwain
An article last month in the Conducive Chronicle raised the question of civil liability for publishing studies (or enabling their publishing) that support the "wrong" side of the climate change debate--or even making involvement in such studies illegal (emphasis added):
Which raises the question: if these studies are largely designed not to shed light on climate change, but to create doubt and confusion to delay greenhouse gas regulations, why is it legal, and do those deliberately spreading misinformation face liability?
Entrance into the debate about anthropogenic climate change is obviously far beyond the scope of St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, so what am I getting at? Just that if, as the article puts it, "deliberate manipulation of science" in an effort to influence policy becomes illegal, the forcible citizen disarmament lobby might want to "lawyer up."
Examples? Glad you asked. There are many to choose from, but let's start with the famous Arthur Kellermann "study," published in the New England Journal of Medicine, claiming that a gun kept in the home was a whopping 43 times as likely to be used in a murder, suicide, or accidental shooting, than to be used in successful self-defense (a ratio which steadily decreased, as problems with it were pointed out). Kellermann has been effectively debunked many times, but for those interested, Guncite.com offers a superb rebutal.
More recently, an article by Charles Branas and others, published in the American Journal of Public Health, claimed that a person in possession of a gun is 4.46 times more likely to be shot than one who is not. Jacob Sullum, of Reason.com, pointed out a fatal flaw with the "reasoning" the authors used:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
When you become disabled to any degree your sensitivity to disputes that touch on that fact grows to enormous proportions.
In my experience, it is the purveyors of “junk science” who would rather push their theories in a court of law, rather than exposing them to criticism of other scientists. Lawyers and judges are just not in a position to debunk them.
Criminalizing science you disagree with. Liberals would have fit right in during the Spanish Inquisition.