# Gun Grabbers

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers/669014>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [September 16, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers/669014 "2013-09-16T23:24:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 27

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers/669014/521 "2014-01-26T05:36:04Z")

</div>

> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#):
>
> So, your view is that the “Limitations” section of articles - a standard section of published scientific articles - reflect flaws that make the study meaningless?

In the context in which it is being used in this conversation? Yes, for the most part. People are citing that study as if having guns in the home has a causal link to higher murder rates to people who live in that home (putting aside the suicide issue).

> [@](#):
>
> You are suggesting that peer reviewers and the editor would agree on the publication of an article that in its own text includes information that renders the article meaningless?

For our purposes, yes. I realize that the study was meant to imply some sort of causal connection but doesn’t the limitations section say that they can’t make that sort of link? So what purpose does the study serve other than to point out that there is a correlation between gun ownership and being murdered?

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t doubt that my informing you about stats, or about standard elements of publications like the limitations section, or about “cause” seem like pettifoggery to you, but that’s only because you lack the cognitive capacity to understand what I am saying.

Its not pettifoggery because I don’t understand, its pettifoggery because you are quibbling. People are using this study as proof that there is some causal link between gun ownership and being murdered, so when I point out that the study doesn’t really make a causal connection between the two, you start quibbling about the fact that you don’t think my statement doesn’t appreciate the fact that you can’t really prove causation.

I understand that you are losing the debate (have already lost the debate[?]) so you resort to insults and pettifoggery so you don’t feel like an idiot but the certainty you have in your position is simply not defensible. You are so extreme in your views that you can’t see reason.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-grabbers/669014.md?page=26)