A Public Health Approach to Firearms Policy
6 Responses to “A Public Health Approach to Firearms Policy”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Actually, he doesn’t address it. He questions the semantics, not the conclusions. I imagine every single one of those reports/papers has a methodologies section with citations and what not.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
You’re back. We missed you.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I’ve never been away. I looked at you everyday while I was in Budapest, etc. Anyhow, what exactly does that linked article say? I don’t necessarily agree with the studies he claims to be refuting, but questioning age categories is not rational discourse.*
*Which is isn’t really…
September 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I dunno, like, maybe how the data paints a different story than the study? the fact the states aren’t equally considered. Japan.
But then, I’m no academic so what do I know.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
If you read the rest of the blog, I do question the conclusions, hence the linking to and discussion w/ Gary Mauser over the correlations. I point out that it’s not CCW holders that are committing crimes so his correlation to them and increases is false. I point out that he selectively removed the highest crime demographics to skew his numbers and claim more correlation.
I also address his conclusions on what “may” and “would” reduce crime levels based on his use of loaded terminology, changes of topics, and incorrect “facts”.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
[…] It’s almost not sporting anymore, but TP thoroughly eviscerates the intellectual dishonesty from the VPC’s favorite pseudo-source. TP holds his own in comments as well. […]