Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Every study in the history of studies has caveats. But we'll take your word for it that these caveats invalidate this particular study because you want it to.
|
I didn’t call the whole thing invalid, did I? I’m just suggesting that it’s worth actually reading it beyond just reading the summary as it gives better context which, imo, would have people less reluctant to put a stake in the ground
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
And you can make the same argument about the bear spray related incidents (that study cited was from one of these same authors) - there would be just as many non-reported non-injury incidents.
|
You can’t, actually, because the data they collected is from different sources and the data that is incomplete in the firearm one, which they say would change the numbers, is not relevant to the bear spray one (in which there is no similar caveat).