It’s the guns

One of the many red herrings tossed out by the anti-vaxxers is that people who got the COVID jab still got COVID. That’s true. I’m one of them.

But the promise of the COVID vaccine was never that it would keep you from getting infected. It was that the vaccine would likely keep you out of the ED or the morgue. And that’s proven to be the case.

Similarly, the promise of sensible gun control was never that it would eliminate gun-related deaths*. It was that it would reduce the rate of homicide. So, the fact that Australia has (a) much stricter gun control than the US and (b) recently had a mass shooting isn’t an argument against gun control. Mass shootings are rare in Australia. They’re common in the US.

"Incidents that are considered active shooting events have these criteria in common, according to researchers: “The event took place outside of a private residence, three or more victims (besides the perpetrator) were killed or wounded, at least one of the victims was unknown to the perpetrator, the shooting event was not in commission of another crime (i.e., bank robbery), the event was not organized or state-sponsored violence (i.e., most organized terrorist activity).”

Yes, I know correlation isn’t causation, but in biochemistry, dosage effect is taken as evidence of causation. In the US, per capita gun ownership and per capita gun related deaths are (a) correlated and (b) much higher than for any other nation in the industrialized world. It would be intellectually obtuse not to conclude that we would be safer with fewer guns.

The Brown University shooting was about ten miles from our house. While it was tragic, it didn’t inspire me to buy a firearm. The fact is, if you’re going to be injured or killed by a stranger, that stranger is most likely going to be wielding a steering wheel. Your little popgun ain’t gonna protect you from that.

*most gun-related deaths in America are suicides.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/12/17/metro/active-shooter-incidents-research-ri/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOyYoRleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE2V1JnT0JlTkhOclM2Rjdic3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHlsHj9HSwooWqEmHEnfaTDEUyVTLlDvUPHwAw-0izSmah8vHTP8YQIZg2Khz_aem_AOUH1OKxAqyUziDbpUUvmA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more