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).
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?
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.