Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
The End of Gun Control
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mountainmike" data-source="post: 72978086" data-attributes="member: 392252"><p>The trouble is of course, that selective use of data does create knowingly false conclusion.</p><p>The NRA are past masters of it.</p><p>(as indeed were the tobacco lobby and corn lobby before them)</p><p></p><p>There is a statistic sometimes used of a town in the US where guns became compulsory, and from that year gun crime, they claim, dropped a big percentage. So says gun lobby, there is the proof.</p><p></p><p>They decline to tell you that the year it was instituted was a complete outlier. A statistical freak. An exceptionally high amount of gun crime, way above the norm, so that it is hardly surprising it reduced anyway.. Averages for before and after show no such correlation with the rhetoric of gun lobby.</p><p>Yet gun lobby claims such evidence is "science" where all who disagree with gun lobby use "pseudoscience" and have a "hidden agenda". Whilst NRA actively prevent research by any public body. Because NRA knows what the conclusion is likely to be.</p><p></p><p>It is not the numbers that lie. Crime in that case did reduce. Just not in a causal way. It is the interpreters of numbers that lie!</p><p></p><p>There is also an oft quoted stat from a survey on the amount of times that guns have provided adequate self defence to prevent a crime, which is then extrapolated from very small numbers polled to say that a quarter of a million crimes were averted.</p><p></p><p>What they fail to tell you is that it is not a survey at all. It did not calculate from recorded victims of potential crime averted or not. It was simply a question asked of a group of respondents with guns.</p><p>Actual crime reports imply the figures of weapons used in self defence to avert a crime, are dramatically lower, almost non existent.</p><p></p><p>So how was it done? Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer!</p><p>If you are a gun owner determined to keep second amendment "rights" however many people get killed and you are given a multiple choice question.</p><p>-Has my gun been useful for self defence.</p><p>-Or has it been useless in any realistic sense.</p><p></p><p>Which answer do you think they will give? It only took 1-2 percent to lie, to make stats that were so big they were clearly bogus, and bore no relation to actual crime. Again that is "science" according to gun lobby. They must think we are all stupid!</p><p></p><p>I can cure all the medical emergencies in America.</p><p>How do I do it ..easy!</p><p>Made up figures but you get the point....</p><p>In the year 1950 there were 100000 emergencies and 20000 ambulances</p><p>In the year 2000 there were 200000 emergencies and 40000 ambulances.</p><p>Perfect correlation! So all I have to do , is get rid of 20000 ambulances and I will half the number of emergencies. The example is ridiculous, but you would be appalled at how many times correlations are falsely used as causation - buried in statistical studies in all sorts of fields - and the false causation used to set policy.</p><p></p><p>I agree with you dgi! - it should be made a felony to knowingly mislead the public.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mountainmike, post: 72978086, member: 392252"] The trouble is of course, that selective use of data does create knowingly false conclusion. The NRA are past masters of it. (as indeed were the tobacco lobby and corn lobby before them) There is a statistic sometimes used of a town in the US where guns became compulsory, and from that year gun crime, they claim, dropped a big percentage. So says gun lobby, there is the proof. They decline to tell you that the year it was instituted was a complete outlier. A statistical freak. An exceptionally high amount of gun crime, way above the norm, so that it is hardly surprising it reduced anyway.. Averages for before and after show no such correlation with the rhetoric of gun lobby. Yet gun lobby claims such evidence is "science" where all who disagree with gun lobby use "pseudoscience" and have a "hidden agenda". Whilst NRA actively prevent research by any public body. Because NRA knows what the conclusion is likely to be. It is not the numbers that lie. Crime in that case did reduce. Just not in a causal way. It is the interpreters of numbers that lie! There is also an oft quoted stat from a survey on the amount of times that guns have provided adequate self defence to prevent a crime, which is then extrapolated from very small numbers polled to say that a quarter of a million crimes were averted. What they fail to tell you is that it is not a survey at all. It did not calculate from recorded victims of potential crime averted or not. It was simply a question asked of a group of respondents with guns. Actual crime reports imply the figures of weapons used in self defence to avert a crime, are dramatically lower, almost non existent. So how was it done? Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer! If you are a gun owner determined to keep second amendment "rights" however many people get killed and you are given a multiple choice question. -Has my gun been useful for self defence. -Or has it been useless in any realistic sense. Which answer do you think they will give? It only took 1-2 percent to lie, to make stats that were so big they were clearly bogus, and bore no relation to actual crime. Again that is "science" according to gun lobby. They must think we are all stupid! I can cure all the medical emergencies in America. How do I do it ..easy! Made up figures but you get the point.... In the year 1950 there were 100000 emergencies and 20000 ambulances In the year 2000 there were 200000 emergencies and 40000 ambulances. Perfect correlation! So all I have to do , is get rid of 20000 ambulances and I will half the number of emergencies. The example is ridiculous, but you would be appalled at how many times correlations are falsely used as causation - buried in statistical studies in all sorts of fields - and the false causation used to set policy. I agree with you dgi! - it should be made a felony to knowingly mislead the public. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
The End of Gun Control
Top
Bottom