‘Smart Gun Study’ a Transparent Exercise in Junk ‘Science’ Bloomberg Propaganda

[VMI77]

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/01/ajph-sm ... ropaganda/

“More than half of handgun buyers would consider ‘smart’ guns: Study,” NBC News triumphantly advertises. “Smart guns: 60% of Americans would buy one,” Medical News Today echoes.

“New data bucks gun industry claim, finds US majority supports smart guns,” the technology news site ArsTechnica proclaims. “NRA lies smartly exposed: The truth about consumer demand for life-saving smart guns,” rabidly anti-gun The New York Daily News gloats.

Surprise surprise, the MSM claims are lies. The article goes on to give the anti-gun resumes of of the hacks, uh authors, of the propaganda piece, but the whole game is given away up front:

First, let’s consider the source, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. That’s “Bloomberg,” as in Michael Bloomberg. And while ad hominem arguments are generally considered unreliable logical fallacies, a prudent reviewer of claims will keep motives and incentives in mind.

And of course, the actual study is hidden behind registration and a pay wall, for "transparency" no doubt.

[Tracker]

If Bloomberg thinks they're such a good idea he should buy smart guns for his security team

[WildBill]

The title of this thread is misleading. There is no science involved at all. It is pure junk!