I've only read the news article, not the research paper, and the first thing is see is correlation - which is not the same as causation. Then the language shifts to causation. I need to read the research paper before commenting on the research.
--henry schaffer On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Greg Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>Today's Topics: >> >> 1. New Stanford gun control study (Daniel D. Todd) >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >>Has anyone reviewed the methodology and findings of the new Stanford study? >> >>http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html >> > > It flies in the face of all of the other research posted on the Internet. > That's not to say the concealed carry permittees never get into gun crime > trouble but the Stanford study simply has to be using misstated data, skewed > findings, etc. Considering the source I'm skeptical from the outset. > > http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/ > > ***GRJ*** > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
