how many of you CA residents plan to register your "assault rifles"

[gejohnston]

64. Why quote from some WaPo employee

when you can just as easily quote the study itself?
Never trust someone else's interpretation of anything 100 percent. He quotes what other people say about it, but nothing about the study itself. He also says "the CDC needs to do research", ignoring the DoJ research.

Yes, the older CDC "studies" were advocacy research, which is a nice way of saying shill study. Even the ones that tried to be honest, none of them appeared in peer review criminology journals, most of them were done by public health types and MDs. Here is the problem with that.

"Although the public generally perceives medical research as the highest order of precision, much of the epidemiologic research is, in fact, rather imprecise and understandably so because it has been conducted principally by individuals with no formal education and little on-the-job training in the scientific method. Consequently, studies are often poorly designed and data are often inappropriately analyzed and interpreted. Moreover, biases are so commonplace, they appear to be the rule, rather than the exception. It is virtually impossible not to recognize that many researchers routinely manipulate and/or interpret their data to fit preconceived hypotheses, rather than manipulate hypotheses to fit their data. Much of the literature, therefore, is nothing less than an affront to the discipline of science. . . . The fraud is so pervasive that it was considered necessary to take some liberties with the usual staid rhetoric of scientific review and inject stronger language to emphasize the problem. . . . Equally culpable are the editors of the many journals who publish articles without regard to their quality or scientific import."