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.

中文翻译：

---

枪支和暴力研究中偏见的持续活力：对毫无根据的批评的第二次“不回应”

摘要

继 Kleck 对我最近关于枪支、枪支凶杀和大规模枪击事件的文章的批评之后，我写了一篇详细而彻底的回复，驳斥了他的方法论担忧并讨论了未来研究的方向。作为回应，Kleck 发表了第二篇反驳，重申了原稿和回复文章中已经解决的问题，错误地将我的工作视为“无回应”，这是“破坏学术目的”。在这里，在强调确认偏见和科学政治化的危险之前，我回应了之前没有详细讨论过的克莱克的两项批评。