Wow. The gun nuts are already using the PA stabbing to push the "guns don't kill people" argument.

[DanTex]

135. Well, I am a scientist. I am aware with the flaws of the peer review system, but

it's one of those "worst except for all the alternatives" situations. And certainly, given the ease with which statistical evidence can be selectively and misleadingly presented (i.e. "cherry picked&quot , I think it's advisable to give more credence to properly executed and peer reviewed statistical analyses, rather than just some random data someone posts on a gun blog. This isn't to say that peer review is infallible, or that non-peer reviewed analyses can't be insightful, even more so than peer reviewed studies on occasion, but it's good to have some kind of referee there to prevent descent into stupidity.

BTW, I stand by everything I said in that post.

Anyway, obviously you're not going to let any empirical data change your views about guns. But that doesn't have to mean that you have to toss out all peer reviewed studies or public health campaigns. In fact, public health is a very good thing. We're talking about things like vaccinations, car safety, prevention of STDs, etc., things that have nothing to do with guns.