AndyC wrote:Great analyses, guys, thank you!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
AndyC wrote:Great analyses, guys, thank you!
SQLGeek wrote:I would expect nothing less to come from the UC system, let alone the wanna be Berkeley that is UC Davis.
This is as far as I was able to get. Lumping in CHL holders with the guy who holds up the 7-11 real great way to make a point. It's like saying baseball players and bat wielding thugs are twice as likely likely to shoplift, just because they carry both carry a bat.Gun owners who carry concealed weapons or have confronted another person with a gun are more than twice as likely to drink heavily as people who do not own guns
I grew up in the Bay Area and left there a few years ago to move out here. I'm all too well familiar with their insanity.Heartland Patriot wrote:SQLGeek wrote:I would expect nothing less to come from the UC system, let alone the wanna be Berkeley that is UC Davis.
As a former unwilling resident of Northern California (courtesy of the United States Air Force), I see that you too know of the "Socialist Democratic Peoples' City of Davis"! Not one bit of surprise on my part once I saw the source...
Texas Dan Mosby wrote:My goodness!
I never knew that firearms were responsible for individual behaviors! While I am not an alcoholic, nor do I drive under the influence, this study, conducted by professionals, CLEARLY shows that IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME before I fall under the spell of my firearms and find myself to be an out of control alcoholic who frequently drives drunk!!!
BETTER GET RID OF MY GUNS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!
THANKS UC Davis!
The author has had quite a successful career cherry-picking data to support his bias against gun owners. Unfortunately, editors of medical journals, especially public health journals, are all too happy to publish poor studies like this as they have a similar political agenda.Charles L. Cotton wrote:SQLGeek wrote:I would expect nothing less to come from the UC system, let alone the wanna be Berkeley that is UC Davis.![]()
Clearly a result-oriented "study."
Chas.
Thanks for saving me some typing..RiverCity.45 wrote:This is a correlational study. The most basic rule about correlations is that one cannot infer cause and effect from the results. That two things are correlated does not mean one causes the other. People who are not trained in research methodology and statistics make this error frequently, and the mass media does, as well.