Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

4thTimeLucky · 06-19-2003, 08:54 AM

geep

You are indeed being over knitpicking in some ways, but not in all.

Firstly, that is not just any old URL. The article was published in Trauma a peer reviewed journal. That is normally one of the first things we look for in an academic study. It does not mean that it is the final word (other refuting articles could have been written - that is the point of such journals), but it means that it has a lot more credibility than just any old URL.

As for your "in the home" / "around the home" distinction, it is an abstract. By its nature an abstract will over-simplify things - it is trying to summarise a ten page article in two lines. You would need to read the full article before being able to jump to any conclusions.

However the abstract does raise questions. For example, the study finds 10 self-defence shootings, 118 suicides and 54 unintentional shootings. From this it says that for every self-defence shooting there are 11 suicides (11.8 rounded down) - fine. It then says that for every self-defence shooting there are 4 uninentional ones - but why not 5 (5.4 rounded down)?

So the abstract raises questions, but no more. The chances are that Drs. Kellermann, Somes, Rivara, Lee and Banton are, between them, quite capable of dividing 54 by 10. So we should really read the full article.

06-19-2003, 08:54 AM	#33 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	geep You are indeed being over knitpicking in some ways, but not in all. Firstly, that is not just any old URL. The article was published in Trauma a peer reviewed journal. That is normally one of the first things we look for in an academic study. It does not mean that it is the final word (other refuting articles could have been written - that is the point of such journals), but it means that it has a lot more credibility than just any old URL. As for your "in the home" / "around the home" distinction, it is an abstract. By its nature an abstract will over-simplify things - it is trying to summarise a ten page article in two lines. You would need to read the full article before being able to jump to any conclusions. However the abstract does raise questions. For example, the study finds 10 self-defence shootings, 118 suicides and 54 unintentional shootings. From this it says that for every self-defence shooting there are 11 suicides (11.8 rounded down) - fine. It then says that for every self-defence shooting there are 4 uninentional ones - but why not 5 (5.4 rounded down)? So the abstract raises questions, but no more. The chances are that Drs. Kellermann, Somes, Rivara, Lee and Banton are, between them, quite capable of dividing 54 by 10. So we should really read the full article. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-19-2003 at 08:56 AM..