A new study by a Harvard professor and using 2001, 2002 and 2004 CDC studies. You see if you can pick and choose studies that support your goal at the start, it's easy to come to the same conclusions as those studies and find whatever you want. The ability to pick and choose your sources and study material leads to an almost always study that supports your own views.
While we can say more guns = more gun crime we can also say that less guns = less non-criminal gun violence, not less criminal violence.
I think it's a bad idea to accuse this researcher of cherry-picking his data without reading the paper. There may be legitimate reasons why he used those years and not others. Once the study is published and we can examine his methods, then we can criticize. I suggest withholding judgement on his possible biases until then.
Edit: I found a pre-press version of the paper. The authors use those years because those were the only years that state-wide firearm ownership levels were available.
Edit Edit: a link to the pre-press version. I don't know if it's public access, so people without access to an academic institution with a subscription may not be able to read it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379715000720
I read the article and not one of the studies they linked to sources of in the article showed any differing opinion though, that's why I am guessing cherry picking. Because there have been studies in the past that say the opposite. Obviously not everybody agrees with everybody. Perhaps it's Yahoo showing bias.
A new study by a Harvard professor and using 2001, 2002 and 2004 CDC studies. You see if you can pick and choose studies that support your goal at the start, it's easy to come to the same conclusions as those studies and find whatever you want. The ability to pick and choose your sources and study material leads to an almost always study that supports your own views.
While we can say more guns = more gun crime we can also say that less guns = less non-criminal gun violence, not less criminal violence.
I think it's a bad idea to accuse this researcher of cherry-picking his data without reading the paper. There may be legitimate reasons why he used those years and not others. Once the study is published and we can examine his methods, then we can criticize. I suggest withholding judgement on his possible biases until then.
Edit: I found a pre-press version of the paper. The authors use those years because those were the only years that state-wide firearm ownership levels were available.
Edit Edit: a link to the pre-press version. I don't know if it's public access, so people without access to an academic institution with a subscription may not be able to read it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379715000720
I read the article and not one of the studies they linked to sources of in the article showed any differing opinion though, that's why I am guessing cherry picking. Because there have been studies in the past that say the opposite. Obviously not everybody agrees with everybody. Perhaps it's Yahoo showing bias.