In article <319EF211.7CB2@rash.com> Rick Fisk <guitar@rash.com> writes:
>entheta@eskimo.com wrote:
>> In <pstouffl-1305961407470001@carno.bwh.harvard.edu>, pstouffl@dsg.harvard.edu (Paul Stoufflet) writes:
>> >In article <DrBAJD.2GM@eskimo.com>, entheta@eskimo.com wrote:
>> >> You mean you do not like his findings ?
>> >I do not like his interpretation of his findings. To say that
>> >the presence of a handgun for defense in a home of a homicide victim
>> >demonstrates that such a presence is ineffective in preventing homicide,
>> >while the whole study focuses only on homicide victims and would
>> >automatically exclude any case where the handgun prevented a
>> >homicide is dishonest and misleading, although whether from ignorance
>> >or malfesance is not clear.
>> Paul, if the gun were to have a positive influence one would not expect
>> it to have a risk factor > 1. The fact that such a risk factor is found
>> puts to severe doubt this notion.
>Liar. Since Kellermann didn't include the living outside of his "control group"
>It would be impossible to come to any risk factor except for >1.
False. If gun ownership had been found to be lower amongst the cases,
the risk factor would have been less than 1.
Mr Fisk, I suggest you take the time to become better informed about
how a risk factor is computed and what it means, before you fling any
more unwarranted accusations.
>We can just look at even the NCS to know that Kellermann's study is
>absolutely bogus.
The NCS indicates that criminal misuse of firearms is about ten times
as frequent as defensive use against criminals.
Tim