Don't let the gun nuts frame the debate

[DanTex]

185. Get back to me when any of that junk science gets peer reviewed.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but that Kates Mauser "study" you say is a "good read" is a non-peer-reviewed article written by non-scientists, and published in a law review edited by right-wing Harvard Law Students. Among the many problems with it are actual data errors -- it's not to hard to get the conclusion you want when your data is false.

That particular article gets posted often enough by gun trolls that I keep this link handy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117283396#post50

And the first link is a blog entry by a right-winger who is also author of a book about the "anti-science left". As I pointed out in that other link, the peer reviewed research and the right-wing think tanks and gun blogs come to very different conclusions. Especially when dealing with a politically sensitive topic, it's important to distinguish actual science from propaganda.

And as a pediatrician, you should know this.