Now Canadian gun owners are learning the same lesson we’ve learned—that such bogus studies, when publicized, can have an effect on policy decisions.
An April 13 feature at ca.news.yahoo.com brings to light just such an injustice. According to that report, Canadian gun advocates are worried that a recent bogus study will mislead the public and might be used as ammunition for more restrictive gun laws. If you’re experiencing deja vu, that’s because we’re accustomed to just such misrepresentation by the U.S. gun-ban lobby, along with some politicians and the so-called “mainstream” media.
Here’s the scoop on the Canadian travesty. A study published a few weeks back in the Canadian Medical Association Journal concluded that over a five-year period, 450 children and youth were injured following “firearms assault,” and another 1,329 were unintentionally injured by a firearm—all in Ontario. If you think that sounds awfully high, you’d be right. That’s what prompted Canada's National Firearms Association to take a closer look.
In truth, the “study” counted those up to 24 years old as a “child or youth.” And a full 80 percent of those injuries were among those 15 years or older—many of whom were likely adults.
Yet that’s not the most egregious prevarication that has been revealed since publication of the study. The authors also used a ludicrous definition of “firearm” to drastically inflate their totals: In cases where the type of “firearm” used was known, 78 percent of the injuries were caused by “pellet, airsoft and paintball guns—not rifles, shotguns and handguns …”
“It sort of seems to us to be a scattergun approach to collating statistics, to justify a new legislative or regulatory offensive against Canadians who own guns. This is a highly politically charged issue,” Blair Hagen, vice president of Canada’s National Firearms Association, told CBC.com. “I think the authors of the study really need to explain what they were trying to achieve here, because a lot of the evidence that's given forth in this study seems to be done so towards trying to get some of legislative or regulatory effort going.”
Of course, the authors deny any such motive, despite the fact that the research explicitly advocated several gun control measures, including encouraging doctors to question patients about guns, enacting safe storage laws and enforcement of gun control legislation. At the same time, they positioned their fake “gun injuries” as “an important public health problem.”
In truth, the “study” is just another example of anti-gun advocates—regardless of where they live—twisting the facts to try to make uninformed readers believe something that’s simply not true. In doing so, the authors make us wonder whether the facts supporting their side of the gun control argument are so hard to find that they have to make things up to try and bolster their argument.
Mark Chesnut has been the editor of America’s 1st Freedom magazine for nearly 17 years and is an avid hunter, shooter and political observer.