Quote:
|
Well I started with the fact they probably didn't have anything to lose by participating.
|
Convicts spend their days dreaming up ways to mess with "the man" - they also have no reason to care whether they tell you the truth or not. Is that really a trustworthy subject in an environment conducive to truth-telling?
Quote:
|
Then I followed that up with the idea that when one talks about crime guns, one pretty much has to, by definition, get the information from criminals.
|
Actually, that's the worst way to approach it in my opinion. If you want to know about guns used in a crime, you do it the same way LEO's and ATF do - you start at the manufacturer, go to the FFL, and then go down the chain to the last 4473. If that isn't the person who committed the crime, then you find out what happened to the last 4473'r. And so on, until you either learn the ultimate disposition of the firearm. But that requires legwork and no one wants to do that.
Quote:
|
And I finished with the decision that this was suggestive but not enough to be proof positive.
|
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but MY opinion is that the methodology and assumptions of this study are so flawed and untrustworthy that it should not be used to draw any conclusions other than a PhD probably made a ton of money from the DoJ.