http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...6-1702,00.html
Really...they used available statistics..where does your information
come from?

Exactly. One thing I learned in all of those science classes in college was
NEVER BELIEVE A STUDY THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE STASTISTICS. Oh yeah and always
look at the criteria for those statistics and how the collected them.

That is also a news article posted in an Australian news site. I would say
that any foreign news source that claims some unheard of American group came
up with some kin dof numbers is probably less than reputable. But the news
never lies.

--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.asp...iling/200701/1

scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...6-1702,00.html
Really...they used available statistics..where does your information
come from?

Exactly. One thing I learned in all of those science classes in college was
NEVER BELIEVE A STUDY THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE STASTISTICS. Oh yeah and always
look at the criteria for those statistics and how the collected them.

That is also a news article posted in an Australian news site. I would say
that any foreign news source that claims some unheard of American group came
up with some kin dof numbers is probably less than reputable. But the news
never lies.


The numbers came from a major study done, in part, by the US Centers
for Disease Controls and Prevention, the CDC. In other words, the US
government. The study did a large number of survey in households
across the country, and asked a large number of questions. The
primary goal was medical, but a lot of data, such as the number of
households with a gun, was collected.

The numbers came from a major study done, in part, by the US Centers
for Disease Controls and Prevention, the CDC.

Yes the numbers came from data collected that was not focusing on this topic.
Not only does that lend no credibility to the data on gun ownership but also
no distinguishing between legal vs. illegal ownership. Also, because the
study that collected the data was not based on gun ownership no measures were
taken to offset those that are lying about gun ownership because they don't
trust the government. If the CDC had collected the data with this projec tin
mind I would be a little less scepticle but you can't take numbers that
someone else collected as a side note then combine it with other data and
call it good research.

They say right here "His team used data from a US Centres for Disease Control
and Prevention survey of 200,000 people in all 50 states." Not his team
worked with the CDC to collect data. Not His team used data collected for a
similar purpose.

This study also doesn't say what they mean by states with highest gun
ownership. Is that numbers of guns in houses that posses at least one,
numbers of guns per thousand housholds, or just highest numbers. They say
"In states with the most guns". Since California has over 36 million people
while North Dakota has just over 600,000 It could be that everyone in ND owns
a gun while only 10% of Californians do but in CA we would come out with more
gun ownership even though a lot less houses would have them. In this
hypothetical scenario there would be well over one gun per houshold in ND but
they would still be put much lower on the list.

This is what I mean by not taking them at thier word. They are not reporting
any real information here just enough to get people all upset and post this
crap on NGs all over the world.

--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.asp...iling/200701/1