The other day we posted some remarks on a recent paper by Bindu Kalesan, Jeffrey Fagan, Sandro Galea, “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study.”
In response to the criticisms from me and various commenters, the authors of the paper prepared a detailed response, which I’m linking to here.
We believe that our study improves over previous efforts by examining the simultaneous effects of specific gun laws whose implementation varies from state to state. Most prior work has looked at the cumulative effects of state laws or used sui generis metrics of “legislative strength.” We focused instead on the role played by specific gun laws, seeing this as a key to inform policy by identifying “relevant and effective legislation”. We also estimated the effects of gun law changes over a three-year period, advancing prior static analyses of state gun laws. We tried to exhaust the potential of this method to estimate the range and magnitude of legal effects. . . .
Not surprisingly, some researchers have raised valid questions about the paper. The questions focus primarily on the study design and the large estimates it produced. We address these questions below. . . .
You can read the whole thing here.