Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
The authors of the bibliography are quite correct when they state that a case-control study could measure a net protective effect of firearms.
EdgarSuter writes:
"could" if death were the only legitimate measurement of the protective benefits of guns.
Wrong. "could" if protection from death is a legitimate use of a firearm.
Mr. Lambert's quibbling about the definition of "only rarely" bypasses the main point of the letter.
Since an indisputable majority of Kellermann's homicides were not committed using those scary "guns in the home," one must invoke magical thinking to explain how these unused "guns in the home" were risk factors for the majority [non-gun] of homicides.
For the fourth time: THEY WERE NOT.
I would ask Mr. Lambert to address this fundamental problem, rather than a diversion indulging in hair-splitting over how small a minority of cases involved the "gun in the home." [shivers in fright at the mere mention of "gun in the home"] Please address the fundamental problem.
Addressed. Yet again.
