Gun Control & RKBA

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)

7. OK. Show me the info that says this is a bad, peer-reviewed study.

Reply to Clames (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 8, 2013, 12:06 PM

Mar 2013

I assume the critique is peer-reviewed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States [View all] ZombieHorde Mar 2013 OP

Joyce Foundation crap Lurks Often Mar 2013 #1

JAMA is a highly respected peer-review journal. nt ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #2

For some people their peers can be idiots. nt Remmah2 Mar 2013 #3

In this case, peers = scientists. ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #5

I work with scientist, they have political agendas like everyone else. Remmah2 Mar 2013 #6

What is wrong with this peer-reviewed document? nt ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #8

Circular argument. Remmah2 Mar 2013 #9

If your post is meant to be a critique of the document, then I don't understand ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #11

Many of these scientist and doctors don't live in the real world. Remmah2 Mar 2013 #13

"There are scientist who agree with global warming and those that don't" - Really? Starboard Tack Mar 2013 #16

Do you read a broad spectrum of articles/sources or only those that suit your needs? Remmah2 Mar 2013 #21

Maybe you could provide some links to these "scientists" who deny global warming. Starboard Tack Mar 2013 #40

See my post #22. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #23

This "study" had already been posted and even other anti-gun... Clames Mar 2013 #4

OK. Show me the info that says this is a bad, peer-reviewed study. ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #7

More telling is that it was published in JAMA in the first place. Clames Mar 2013 #33

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? nt ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #34

Perhaps, but since the funding Lurks Often Mar 2013 #15

Do you suspect JAMA or the reviewers were paid off? ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #19

I think any partisan organization that spends Lurks Often Mar 2013 #20

It may or may not be a bad study sarisataka Mar 2013 #10

"This study shows correlation. More study is needed to prove causation." ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #12

I believe the issue with the CDC sarisataka Mar 2013 #14

A differing viewpoint Lurks Often Mar 2013 #17

A different viewpoint on a different subject. ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #18

The point I was trying to make Lurks Often Mar 2013 #29

If the studies are looking at different things, ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #35

They did not control for prior criminal records. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #22

"I don't care about suicide." thucythucy Mar 2013 #28

Firearm-related fatalities has little value as a measure of public safety slackmaster Mar 2013 #24

Wow, the strongest legislation states vs the weakest gave only a .4/100,000 difference in homicides? jmg257 Mar 2013 #25

More Guns More Gun Crime -- what else is new? jimmy the one Mar 2013 #26

your title doesn't match the body gejohnston Mar 2013 #27

Here's a quick chart I threw together from the state data in the report... jmg257 Mar 2013 #31

that is pretty much the case gejohnston Mar 2013 #32

my list is honest, your challenge is dishonest jimmy the one Mar 2013 #36

your title implied death rate equals murder rate gejohnston Mar 2013 #37

The subject of the OP is firearm-related FATALITIES which include suicides slackmaster Mar 2013 #30

Hiding in plain sight. beevul Mar 2013 #38

state study & chicago redux jimmy the one Mar 2013 #39

Yeah buddy. Rates. beevul Mar 2013 #41

states firearm death fatality rate study jimmy the one Mar 2013 #42

Hah. beevul Mar 2013 #43

totals, rates, totals, rates, which? jimmy the one Mar 2013 #44

Of course you don't. beevul Mar 2013 #47

Cue the gun advocates to desparage any research in 3-2-1 nonoyes Mar 2013 #45

I appreciate your support of my OP, but that is not very nice. nt ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #46