Firearm Related Studies Vol 2: Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bone

I’m didn’t say it was your whole post. The rest I didn’t have comment on, so I didn’t. Like the rest of this post - there’s nothing of substance that is germane to the study at hand.
Then you’ve misinterpreted the criticism. It’s not a simplistic addition criticism as you describe.

Notice how you say as long as you have sufficient numbers within a cell? Do you think they did that perfectly? By your reasoning, in this study that used a little under 700 case example where 83% of them were outdoors, and just 9% of the controls were outdoors, you think the association they found would be unchanged if instead those percentages were swapped?

Okay, first you say that you get that the proportion does not matter, and then you ask, “What if it were this proportion?”

You don’t seem as if you’re trying to understand.

[GIGObuster]

@Bone

I’m didn’t say it was your whole post. The rest I didn’t have comment on, so I didn’t. Like the rest of this post - there’s nothing of substance that is germane to the study at hand.

That is a very peculiar definition of nothing. The study of the OP was “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault” Its authors are Charles C. Branas and others.

So it was germane to see how that work is referred by other researches, that basically tells me and many others how serious the criticism of that has been taken, the observation was that in this more recent study they did take some criticism into account, only to say that other studies make the use of the conclusions from that study to be useful in determining the parameters of the new study. With the caveat that more research is needed to get a more accurate parameter.

I will have to conclude that you just saw “climate change” in post and assumed that the cite had nothing to do with the Branas paper, it referred to it and one of the main critics too and you completely missed it.

In that paper of 2013 the critics were not taken much seriously for what I think is one basic issue: other research supports the conclusions on the “flawed” paper. There is a need for more research indeed and we do know who are the ones not supporting funding to get more of it, and the impression I’m getting is because critics are worried that will not get the results that they want.

Neither a removal nor a discrediting of the researchers as they want it too.

[Tee]

@ElvisL1ves

Does “professional” mean “customer”?

It could, why not, but business is business and shooting your customers is bad. What else is going on?

It could just mean people who look like they’re worth robbing.