Speaking of bad studies, check out this one. Reuters announces that 'Gunshot Injuries Cost Taxpayers Millions." Some of the important points that they note include:

- Eighty-six percent of the victims were male, and roughly 60% were younger than 30.

- Overall, 29% of gunshot wound patients had no health insurance, and their average length of stay was six days.

- Assaults or police interventions were the leading causes of the injuries, responsible for 54%, while 30% resulted from accidental shootings and 8% were self-inflicted.

- Over 70% of these cases are being seen at fairly select hospitals, large urban level 1 teaching hospitals that are pretty financially stressed these days

- A third of hospital admissions happened on the weekends, and the majority of the patients lived in low-income areas.

- Assault-related injuries made up more than half of all hospital fees for gunshot admissions

Just what does that imply to you? It tells me that a large number of the shootings are due to urban violence. Reuters doesn't say that, but it is definitely implied by the results of the 'study'.

Dr. Jeff Coben, director of Allegheny General Hospital's Center for Violence and Injury Control, tries to justify the research. "It's an important and positive step forward to monitor these kinds of cases. We've had that kind of system in place for 20 years for motor vehicle deaths and it has helped us design safer cars and safer highways, and I think that this has the potential to do that for gun and other types of violence," said Coben.

That may be a nice theory, but it relies on some inane assumptions. First of all, the comparison of deliberate shootings to auto accident injuries is an apples and oranges analogy. People don't often deliberately ram cars into each other. Certainly, 54% of auto accidents are not deliberate and malicious acts.

Second, the idea that making firearms 'safer' through technological innovation will prevent deliberate gun crime is a pipe dream. Criminals and gang bangers who use firearms to deprive people of life and property are not going to be stopped by smart-guns or any other technological improvements to safety.

Third, there is an underlying assumption that they can somehow control the behavior of criminals through gun control. While it is not explicitly said, Dr. Coben does admit that he thinks the research will somehow have an impact on violent crime. Lets set aside for a moment the historical data that shows that less guns equals more crime, and pretend that you could magically remove all the firearms from society. Do these 'researchers' honestly think that acts of violence and aggression will stop if there are no firearms? Are they so dense that they do not realize that thugs will just chose another method of forcing their will on people?

I think a more plausible explanation is that they are attempting to further their anti-gun agenda, while at the same time creating a demand for more research efforts and more taxpayer dollars. But what do I know, I'm pro-gun, and according to liberals must therefore be in favor of crime.