I wanted to share this article by the NSSF on a study that has just been released. Clearly the study draws a strange conclusion based on the questionable data used and is rife with double speak. However, not everyone can read these studies with a critical eye or will automatically assume a level of trust from a published source. I figured I would share in case anyone gets into a discussion with someone who might cite this as a source.
2 Likes
This is why I ONLY trust scholarly papers by academics in prestigious journals who’s work has been peer reviewed and the peers reach the exact same conclusions. Anything else is just noise and,/or opinion.
Google Scholars is your friend when you want facts. Take a paper, go to the end look up who and where they are using there citations from. Then check to see how many times those citations have actually been used in other research. The lower amount of times a citation has been used in other research the less reputable the citation.
Your friendly neighborhood almost PhD in Forensic Accounting.
4 Likes
Is that what is means to talk out of both sides of your mouth. She’s good at it! Not credible!
2 Likes
Good stuff, I love data…too bad the study seems to be adverse to using any.
1 Like
Brian139 can you repost? It is not working.
“Mass shootings represent the epitome of the firearms violence epidemic. Defined as the killing of four or more individuals (excluding the offender) with a firearm within 24 hours,” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693 I could not get the link to work, was able to find the article.
They are really stretching the definitions here to increase the amounts. So now a mass shooting can occur over 24 hours? Sounds a lot like the school shootings that happen in the parking lots of schools at 2AM involving non students…