MaverickNH
NES Member
Some more gun-control advocacy masquerading in the guise of science, from the guys we discussed in October.
Would you believe that drunk people shoot with slower reaction time and are less accurate? ... not too hard to believe.
Would you believe that someone can get money to do studies to prove this is true?
These U Penn (Philadelphia) researchers have published and presented (PDF and PowePoint) their work testing people on a PRISim shooting simulator. Their abstract indicates that people who are intoxicated with alcohol were less accurate, slower to fire in reaction time scenarios, and quicker to fire in scenarios requiring judgement. The authors include a punch-list of major gun-control "science" authors, at U Penn's Firearm & Injury Center. These are the guys singled out in the Jan 2010 NRA America's 1st Freedom, p33)
Their paper, poster and presentation manage to reveal the differences to be slight, but they indicated that they didn't do statistical analysis to assess the significance (truth) of the differences as they were doing the study only to demonstrate that the methods could be used in a larger trial.
This is rather lame, as in their PowerPoint they demonstrate that those who drank alcohol showed statistically significant intoxication (p < 0.05). Clearly, their shooting results were not statistically significant and they had to find some excuse for getting the study published. What better way then to call it a methodology trial - the work gets published and they can ask more money from government and private sources (like the Joyce Foundation and other anti-gun groups).
Of course, they then go on to say that IF they do a larger study, they would then expect to prove their results, which would then be relevant to addressing policies on gun control, such as:
Restrictions on firearm carrying while intoxicated
- Discovery and punishment of gun carriers (legal and illegal) BEFORE weapon is used (Stop & Frisk)
- Discovery and punishment of gun carriers (legal and illegal) AFTER weapon is used
Of course, as Kopel points out in his NRA article linked above, the media pick up only the sales-pitch and not the scientific merit of the research. So once again, we are left to de-bunk junk science, with no notice by the media at large.
So what to do?
- One option is to write your US Senators/Representatives and ask they their funding be pulled. Private anti-gun organizations will still fund their research, and they will still get published, so more needs be done.
- As dull and boring as this stuff can be, you need to be aware of the real story so that you can respond to others who think this stuff means guns are bad. Write your local newspapers too.
- Other ideas?
Would you believe that drunk people shoot with slower reaction time and are less accurate? ... not too hard to believe.
Would you believe that someone can get money to do studies to prove this is true?
These U Penn (Philadelphia) researchers have published and presented (PDF and PowePoint) their work testing people on a PRISim shooting simulator. Their abstract indicates that people who are intoxicated with alcohol were less accurate, slower to fire in reaction time scenarios, and quicker to fire in scenarios requiring judgement. The authors include a punch-list of major gun-control "science" authors, at U Penn's Firearm & Injury Center. These are the guys singled out in the Jan 2010 NRA America's 1st Freedom, p33)
Their paper, poster and presentation manage to reveal the differences to be slight, but they indicated that they didn't do statistical analysis to assess the significance (truth) of the differences as they were doing the study only to demonstrate that the methods could be used in a larger trial.
This is rather lame, as in their PowerPoint they demonstrate that those who drank alcohol showed statistically significant intoxication (p < 0.05). Clearly, their shooting results were not statistically significant and they had to find some excuse for getting the study published. What better way then to call it a methodology trial - the work gets published and they can ask more money from government and private sources (like the Joyce Foundation and other anti-gun groups).
Of course, they then go on to say that IF they do a larger study, they would then expect to prove their results, which would then be relevant to addressing policies on gun control, such as:
Restrictions on firearm carrying while intoxicated
- Discovery and punishment of gun carriers (legal and illegal) BEFORE weapon is used (Stop & Frisk)
- Discovery and punishment of gun carriers (legal and illegal) AFTER weapon is used
Of course, as Kopel points out in his NRA article linked above, the media pick up only the sales-pitch and not the scientific merit of the research. So once again, we are left to de-bunk junk science, with no notice by the media at large.
So what to do?
- One option is to write your US Senators/Representatives and ask they their funding be pulled. Private anti-gun organizations will still fund their research, and they will still get published, so more needs be done.
- As dull and boring as this stuff can be, you need to be aware of the real story so that you can respond to others who think this stuff means guns are bad. Write your local newspapers too.
- Other ideas?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
