Let's take one at a time from that link.

The headline: "Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime.

The summation: "We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.

My observation: One in 4 is NOT TYPICAL. And "appearing" to be not related is not quite the same as actually being not related.

If this is what you want to hang your hat on, be my guest. But I highly doubt such flimsy evidence would convince many reasonable and unbiased persons.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

Aren't you also sure evolution is false?

The other thing, to point, out Babe, is you don't even understand what the abstract is saying.  All it says is that one in four was shot due to circumstances unrelated to their incarceration. The remainder would have been shot due to related circumstances.  From the abstract, it's hard to tell whether the authors are looking at the whole sample or just a part (likely the 75% who were shot during the commission of a crime).  That's why you need the whole article to even start to argue anything here. 

All you're doing is pulling things out of your a r s e based on your preconceptions and some sketchy details of what the study says based on what's in a one-paragraph abstract. It's not even worth arguing becuase neither of us has enough data to make any truly informed conclusion.  The fact that you can't seem to recognize that does not speak highly about your ability to seriously critique anything.  I suggest just snuggling up with a beer in front of Fox news.  They'll tell you what you want to hear . . .

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

"Saltzman and colleagues recently found that assaults by family members or other intimate acquaintances with a gun are far more likely to end in death than those that involve knives or other weapons"

This has no answer to the question of how many who did die from guns would have died if the assailant used a knife instead. Nor does it answer how many of those who did not die from other means of assault were because the assailant didn't desire to actually kill them.

"Our data strongly suggest that the risk of homicide is markedly increased in homes where a person has previously been hit or hurt in a family fight."

Even a damned fool can figure this out. We didn't need a study to determine what anybody with a whit of sense already knows. I have agreed that certain persons shouldn't have guns. A wife beater would be a very likely candidate for license removal. I'm just not ready to support federal laws to achieve this.

"Previous case-control research has demonstrated a strong association between the ownership of firearms and suicide in the home"

Another "duh" moment. But again, we have no indication that those incidents wouldn't have still resulted in suicide if no gun was present in the home.

I could go on.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

I believe the theory of evolution has not been proven and is full of holes. That there could have been some form of evolution is a possibility.

Okay then . . . 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Now you can keep on trying to imply I am somehow too stupid to understand that I must see the complexity of their intricate study to realize the truth of it all, but really, doing that just makes you look like what you are implying I am. I don't need to see the article to be able to see that the summary is BS. And the summary is what was linked. But I suspect the article itself is pure BS as well. That's what you get from those types, much the same as you are doing here.

Have you considered the possibility that the abstract (which you are misreading anyway) may not have even been written by the authors?  It may have been written by the editor of that website. 

You're drawing your conclusions from sketchy untested assumptions . . . 

Well, off to work . . . we can pick this up later if you'd like

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Can't wait to see how I'm "misreading" it. And even if their meaning is different than the obvious, the effect gained from the obvious understanding still contributes to their known agenda.

Okay, let's explain how the English language works. 

Let's start with the title.  It says:

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

What this means is that criminals are typically shot by other criminals . . . this would imply that typically they aren't shot by innocent people defending themselves.  Typical is an imprecise word, but let's assume it means a substantial majority.

Now let's move on to the text in the paragraph that you are struggling with.  The first line you are struggling with says: 

We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.

This means that 25% of the criminals were wounded in events that weren't related to their crime--this means they were wounded for some other reason and maybe were not victims of a crime. 

Now we go on to the next sentence which says:

Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires.

What this means is that the majority of the criminals studied were wounded by other criminals either robbing them, attacking them, or shooting at other people.  The abstract is not clear whether 3 out of 4 (i.e., all those not included in the 1 out of 4 mentioned in the prior sentence) were victims of crime or whether just some portion of those were.  For that, you'd have to read the actual study. (As a general recommendation, it's always worthwhile reading what you're critiquing).  What it does say is "most"were shot by other criminals--and if most were shot in this way, then saying this is "typical" is reasonable, at least for the level of detail included in an abstract.  (An abstract is merely intended to give researchers an idea if the article covers a topic they are interested in--it isn't intended to rigourously present any results.)

Finally, it says:

Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

Well, you'll have to go back to the full study to get percentages and clarify whether the "none" is none of the whole sample or none of some portion of the sample.  The abstract isn't clear (but it doesn't need to be, because it's an abstract, not the study).  Someone who was really interested in the topic described in the abstract would then read the study to evaluate the claims of the study.  Arguing with an abstract is a silly exercise, since an abstract is not a study, but merely a very high-level description of the study.

One other point . . . this web entry is probably not even the actual abstract of the article that was included in the publishing journal, it's probably just a brief summary of that abstract assembled by an editor in the School of Public Health's communication or PR department.  Arguing about it is about as sensible as arguing about whether a movie is good or bad based on what's on the poster advertising the movie.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

"One in four is "typical"? And we are to take the criminal's word for it that their being shot was done by some "bad guy" acting as a criminal toward them? LMAO"

They claim that 1 in 4 shootings occurred when the person was not in the act of committing a crime. Therefore, only those 1 in 4 can be construed as typically being the victim of a crime since the 3 out of 4 were actually committing a crime when they were shot. My point is that the headline is misleading and probably so because of an inherent agenda by the publisher.

I did not disagree with the thrust of the summary, that these shootings were not done by law abiding citizens. I do note however that additionally, the detainees in the sample were not dead, but rather wounded, so the headline is also misleading since drawing such a conclusion ignores a large sample that was not apparently included in the study.