Joseph E. Olson writes: > Statistics don't lie but statisticians do. :-(
> Not only did they NOT screen for ... > > This seems to be just another warmed-over version of the original > Kellerman study (the 43 times fallacy) with all the same flaws. ... You leave out that there appear to be new flaws. I've just started reading the article: Investigating the Linke Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault Charles C. Branas, et al Nov 2009 Vol 99 No 11 American Journal of Public Health It's a "case-control study design", which is what was famously used by Kellermann, et al's 1993 article. I and others discussed the failings extensively a while ago. In brief, the results are *very* sensitive to playing games with choosing the controls. In this current article, I found an assumption on the first page that amazes me, "We assumed that the resident population of Philadelphia risked being shot in an assault at any location and at any time of day or night. Thisi is an acceptable assumption because guns are mobile, potentially concealable items and the bullets they fire can pass through obstacles and travel long distances. Any member of the general population has the potential to be exposed to guns and the bullets they discharge regardless of where they are or what they are doing. ..." I still have to do a close reading of the whole article, but are they really saying that every cubic foot in Philly is equally likely to have a bullet pass through it? --henry schaffer > ... _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
