Having read the study this is what I see. Limited data was used. There were six states not counted in their analysis. Who knows what the results might be if they were included. They relied on only a single source of data on “gun violence”. The source is Gun Violence Archive. Not the DOJ or FBI. I can’t find a definition of what the researchers refer to as “firearm violence”. As does the press, the researchers allow a nebulous phrase to be the center of their work. Missing is any indication trying to explain when their trend began or if it has been constant. Missing also is any mention of overflow rural crime such as robbery, theft, etc. that may show similar trend lines to their original claim. Very slim reference section. Can’t believe that was all one can find on this topic. Perhaps the most egregious omission is the lack of anything qualitative in their study. If anything has texture that needs to be examined it is this topic as it sits at the heart of rural America. A place academics rarely visit.
It really does look as if the researchers had concluded the results and backfilled with data. I would have expected more from JAMA. It gives one the idea that politics played a big role in publication.
