The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
"Correlation does not imply causation," he wrote. "This fundamental limitation is beyond the power of the authors to redress."
He added that the list of laws takes no account of differences between states in the specifics of laws and takes no account of how hard states worked to enforce those laws.
The biggest difficulty, Wintemute continued, is that almost all of the associations between more laws and fewer deaths disappeared when the investigators took into account the prevalence of gun ownership in each state.
"This is a problem because there are two completely opposite explanations for why that might be the case," Wintemute said in a video issued by his university. "One is that these laws work, and that they work by decreasing the rate of gun ownership in a state, because we know that the rate of gun ownership is associated with the rate of violent death in a state.
"But the other possibility, that's at least as plausible, is that it's easier to enact these laws in states that have a low rate of gun ownership to begin with. Gun ownership is not as important in those states, there's less opposition."
He added, "We really don't know what to do with the results. We cannot say that these laws -- individually or in aggregate -- drive firearm death rates up or down."
IOW, "we spent a lot of research money and didn't manage to learn a single useful thing". That about sum it up?RX8er wrote:I find much interest in this:
"Correlation does not imply causation," he wrote. "This fundamental limitation is beyond the power of the authors to redress."
He added that the list of laws takes no account of differences between states in the specifics of laws and takes no account of how hard states worked to enforce those laws.
The biggest difficulty, Wintemute continued, is that almost all of the associations between more laws and fewer deaths disappeared when the investigators took into account the prevalence of gun ownership in each state.
"This is a problem because there are two completely opposite explanations for why that might be the case," Wintemute said in a video issued by his university. "One is that these laws work, and that they work by decreasing the rate of gun ownership in a state, because we know that the rate of gun ownership is associated with the rate of violent death in a state.
"But the other possibility, that's at least as plausible, is that it's easier to enact these laws in states that have a low rate of gun ownership to begin with. Gun ownership is not as important in those states, there's less opposition."
He added, "We really don't know what to do with the results. We cannot say that these laws -- individually or in aggregate -- drive firearm death rates up or down."
He's correct. (Mind you, I'm choosing not to quibble with his numbers. I don't know if the study is really accurate or not, but the basic point is correct.)"States that have the most laws have a 42% decreased rate of firearm fatalities compared to those with the least laws," said Dr. Eric W. Fleegler, an attending physician in pediatric emergency medicine at Boston Children's Hospital and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
ACADEMIC TALK
The following list of phrases and their definitions might help you understand the mysterious language of science and medicine. These special phrases are also applicable to anyone working on a Ph.D. dissertation or academic paper anywhere!
"It has long been known" = I didn't look up the original reference.
"A definite trend is evident" = These data are practically meaningless.
"While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to the questions" = An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.
"Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study" = The other results didn't make any sense.
"Typical results are shown" = This is the prettiest graph.
"These results will be in a subsequent report" = I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded.
"In my experience" = once.
"In case after case" = twice.
"In a series of cases" = thrice.
"It is believed that" = I think.
"It is generally believed that" = A couple of others think so, too.
"Correct within an order of magnitude" = Wrong.
"According to statistical analysis" = Rumor has it.
"A statistically oriented projection of the significance of these findings" = A wild guess.
"A careful analysis of obtainable data" = Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of pop.
"It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding of this phenomenon occurs"= I don't understand it.
"After additional study by my colleagues" = They don't understand it either.
"Thanks are due to Joe Blotz for assistance with the experiment and to Cindy Adams for valuable discussions" = Mr Blotz did the work and Ms Adams explained to me what it meant.
"A highly significant area for exploratory study" = A totally useless topic selected by my committee.
"It is hoped that this study will stimulate further investigation in this field" = I quit.
In that case it's pure baloney.TexasGal wrote:I understand a lot of their basis for the study came from figures from the VPC.
