Abstract

ABTRACT Following Kleck’s critique on my recent article on guns, firearms homicide, and mass shootings, I wrote a detailed and thorough reply refuting his methodological concerns and discussing directions for future research. In response, Kleck published a second rebuttal reiterating issues already addressed in both the original manuscript and the reply article, erroneously dismissing my work as a “non-response response” that is “destructive of the ends of scholarship.” Here, I respond to Kleck’s two critiques not discussed at length previously before highlighting the perils of confirmation bias and the politicization of science.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call