Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I see your confusion. I’m aware of when the study was done, I was using 1883 Alaska as short hand to refer to the study because it uses data from 1883 and Alaska, which are both unique things so you’d know exactly what study I was talking about (or so I thought).
So, now that we have confirmed we are referring to the same study, you should actually read that study because you’ve misunderstood the rate of injury data. It’s not unarmed vs armed, it’s armed and used their gun vs. armed and didn’t use their gun. That, plus the study lays out a whole bunch of caveats as to why the success rate of firearms is probably higher than what they have calculated, and why the injury rate is likely correspondingly lower.
|
It’s odd to refer to a 2012 study as an 1883 study.
The study lays out why their conclusion is likely correct. As you say, they include caveats. Like all studies.