Doer
Well-Known Member
Did you read it?A recent study by Boston University published in the America Journal of Public Health correlates increased gun ownership with increased homicide.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?prevSearch=gun+ownership&searchHistoryKey=
Abstract
Limitations
We used a proxy measure of firearm ownership that did not perfectly correlate with
survey-derived measures and was therefore not ideal. We have 2 reasons for believing that
the observed relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates was not an artifact of
the use of this proxy measure.
This introduced the possibility that anunknown confounder could explain the ob-
served relationship.
Because of the number of predictor variables
we incorporated in our analysis, this seems
unlikely.
Nevertheless, the possibilityremains that an omitted variable confounded
the observed relationship.
Our study substantially advances previous
work (the forgone conclusions says Doer, the previously proved lies of doctored stats)
Although we could notdetermine causation, we found that states
with higher levels of gun ownership had
disproportionately large numbers of deaths
from firearm-related homicides.
Ah I found another Lamda. Behold the GINI factor. And I am not at all sure how they factor in justified homicide, or how they factor out suicide.
Gini coefficient 1.046 (1.003, 1.092) .037 For each 0.01 increase in Gini coefficient, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.6%
Please do not propose bad science that you have not read thoroughly, and call it facts.
See? To me this is the streach of bad science. It is the pick and choose of your proxy, assign that Lambda and math around it.
Then you state you still "believe" your foregone conclusion.