Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lounge' started by bluharley, Mar 24, 2015.
We all know it.
No!....... Surely not!.......
And this is surprising because...? The Big Lie still works. Convince the sheeple that guns cause violence, so, remove the gun = remove the violence. Worked for Hitler in '36, should work for the Great Muslim Savior now.
The funny thing is that FBI statistics have been debunking the anti-gunners' arguments for year's. I guess that the powers-that-be had to do something about such destructive use of their own data.
Redefining criteria seems to be the new fad, nowadays, when people want to show an increase or decrease in some trend.
didnt Illinois release figures showing a huge decrease in homicides since issuing concealed carry ?
Doesn't matter..... The anti crowd won't let facts stand in their way..... They either avoid the facts, or scream either racism, sexism, or angry white male, clinging to his guns and religion...
Statistics! You can get any out come you want with statistics. There was a discussion about the percentage of cops killed by guns compared to average Joe's getting killed by guns. And the conclusion was there are more joes than cops killed by guns. If you count cops in the total population, and compare it to Joes in the total population, then yea, higher percentage of joes. Compare the number of cops in the population of cops and the number of joes in the population of joes, and the percentage goes to the cops. You can get statistics to support your point of view, no matter what your point of view is. When someone says "statistically speaking", I just resign to the fact they will justify their view.
Obama lie? Never! Well except when his lips are moving...
Obama said his administration would be the most transparent ever.
It sure is easy to see through the BS.
That's why whenever someone (usually some Leftist authoritarian) uses statistics to counter one of my points, I want to hear the context. Of course, in many cases, the context of the massaged or falsified statistics has already been revealed in the news, and the person either was either unaware that the context had been publicized or was hoping that I had not heard the truth.
I make sure that if I use statistics to justify my own positions, then I had better be confident in the contextual data, too. A position is worth nothing if it is based on a boldfaced lie. Falsified statistics are just that--lies.
This further begs the question: If the position is so untenable that it requires falsified statistics to support it, then why hold to the position?
It seems that everything that the extreme Left supports requires lies and obfuscation to support.
There are those that believe it, and those who do not. It won't change anyone's mind.
I had to take lots of Stats courses at U. I hated them. It was required because I was in the Computer Information Systems track, which was, technically, a "Business" degree (BBA). So they were wanting me to believe that stats would be a dramatically important part of my job future. I knew it was BS so I hated the courses.
However, now I am grateful that I had to take them.
Once you learn the methodology, from start to finish, sampling method to compilation, you learn all the little places where they can be tweaked to skew the results. In my courses, these were always presented as errors, bad mistakes, which will lead you to the wrong business decisions, which would end up costing your business money and costing you your job.
But that's not how it works in Politics. Knowing all the little ways to skew the statistics by adjusting the sample, or how to skew by the error correction processes, or how to skew by presentation (as basic as choosing the Median instead of the Mean, or as sophisticated as presenting it in a misleading context or contrasting against other, irrelevant, statistics) are all the little things that can be done to shape opinion.
Every one knows now that statistics are no longer about finding accurate answers so that effective solutions can be developed but are now about shaping public opinion in an effort to create a preferred policy.
This is why no "side" of a debate ever trusts the other side's statistics any more. Everyone is completely accustomed to the fact that statistics are massaged. In this case, the gun grabbers knows that they massage stats and assume that the 2A supporters do also. And the 2A supporters already know that the gun grabber's stats are massaged. Thus Confirmation Bias runs rampant. Because no one really trusts statistics to be compiled in an unbiased manner, every one accepts statistics which agree with their position and rejects those which don't.
And that's kinda a "best case" scenario for people who have at least some basic idea of how stats are developed. There are even more people who are completely ignorant of how stats are compiled and automatically believe that the ones which agree with their positions are unbiased which rejecting everything else as outright lies.
And this attempt at "policy shaping" through massaged statistics has been going on a very very long time. One popular writer noted, "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'" The quote is from 1906!! Mark Twain, in his autobiography. And the exact quote goes back to 1895 (and wasn't Disraeli) but the complaints about the misuse of statistics predates that by a fair bit.
And, yes, 2A supporters are vulnerable to this too. One of the most popular stats is DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) per year. When Kleck's work came out, it was a boon to 2A supporters. His DGU estimate was between 1 and 2.5 Million DGU's per year. 2.5 Mil sounds impressive, but the low end was 1. That's a pretty significant range with the high end being 250% above the low end! That's unacceptable. Further, when I looked into it, I found some potential problems with his sampling method which would tend to bias the number upward. This is, in the end, not helpful. There are better, more reliable, studies which present lower DGU numbers which are still quite impressive. 800,000 DGU's per year more than sufficient to prove the point when contrasted against the number of "gun deaths" per year.
Just more evidence humanity is doomed.
Peace favor your sword,
Properly collected, analyzed, and applied statistics are the best way of guiding public policy in most all cases.
The issue is how to determine what statistics are valid or not. If you know a little about how statistics work and think critically, then you can usually pick out the BS from the real stuff.
The mass shooting statistics would have been tough to debunk just by looking at it - I'm glad someone dug into the collection methods. Some common ploys, like using "gun deaths" instead of "gun homicides" (which includes self-defense, police action, and most importantly, suicides) are easily picked out when you understand what they're talking about. Same with talking about a gun being more likely to be used to kill a family member than a burglar (used by who? Again, the bogeyman is mostly suicides).
In reality, here is an extremely effective argument. Take the worst. No, really.
The worst "gun deaths" statistic is about 30,000 per year (found on a quick-n-dirty google search). Yes, that includes accidents, suicides, Justified self defense and LEO shootings, etc., and is inflated in other various ways but it represents roughly the absolute worst high end.
Now take the lowest DGU. The Violence Policy Center, a noted anti-gun "think tank," estimates DGU's at a "mere" 67,740 per year, which is a far cry from the 3.4 Mil per year of some pro-2A estimates.
So the gun grabbers own "statistics" show a net benefit with DGU's being MORE THAN DOUBLE the inflated and misleading "gun deaths" per year.
67,740 - 30,000 = 37,740
I mean, really, how is there even a "debate" after that?
Peace favor your sword,
Because they will always portray the 30,000 as kitten holding angels, while the 67,740 were lucky they didn't slaughter their family by mistake....
My statics professor gave our class the best description of statistical analysis I’ve ever heard.
His quote: “Statistics is a branch of science that tells you with great precision how much you don’t know about something.”
That quote is burned into my brain after all these years.
My stats professor handed out bags of M&M's and told us we were going to do a Chi-Square on the probability of getting a green one. I don't remember what the outcome was, but we got to eat the M&M's when we were done. Stats was fun!
Is there a "Media"season?
I believe they are classified as non-game animals... standard hunting license required and no bag limit. It is also open season on them year round.
Are you allowed to Bait them?
Peace favor your sword,