Reply #1: re the linked study: Same problems as Kellerman, et at [View All]

[X_Digger]

1) "We generally did not know how often employees had guns at work, whether workers’ guns were used during the fatal events, and whether perpetrators came armed or used the victims’ own weapons."

2) Selection bias- "Cases were 105 North Carolina workplaces where a worker was a victim of homicide between 1994 and 1998 and controls (2 per case) were randomly selected workplaces that were in operation in the month of a case event and were frequency matched to cases by industry sector."

Start with a rare event, match to similar industries, and look for a correlation to weapons policy. Extrapolating from instances of a rare event to try to correlate to a nebulous criteria is a losing proposition.

3) "Confounding factors" not accounted for sufficiently.. they "accounted for": High-risk industry, night hours, residential or industrial location, less than 2 years in current location, only 1 worker, majority male workers, majority non-White workers. They didn't account for things that might make one likely to be shot at work- neighborhood crime rate, past criminal convictions of the workers, reported criminal activity at the workplace, etc.