Does 247wallst.com = WSJ?
Does 247wallst.com = WSJ?
Why should I do that? Nowhere in the article does it refute the intentional bias inherent in the "statistics", nor does it refute mislabeling accidents and suicides as "gun violence". Thanks for proving me correct though.
Most of that stuff is actually labeled gun-related fatalities and firearm-related deaths. And it's broken-down state by state in a way that isn't the least bit confusing.
Despite much of the discussed statistics having nothing whatsoever to do with actual violence, yet they perpetuate the myth by using the word "violence" 18 times. "Gun-Related" is used once in the first full paragraph and not again until you get to the rankings. The bias is there unless you refuse to see it.
They never include alcohol in these findings. They always mention "alcohol played a role" in car accidents and domestic violence, but conveniently leave it out of "gun violence".
"Gun-Related" and "Firearm-Related" are used five times in the first full paragraph. Now you're just jacking with me.Despite much of the discussed statistics having nothing whatsoever to do with actual violence, yet they perpetuate the myth by using the word "violence" 18 times. "Gun-Related" is used once in the first full paragraph and not again until you get to the rankings. The bias is there unless you refuse to see it.
Suicides are the joker in the deck in any "gun violence" study, since suicide rates are often higher in "no guns" areas than in, say, Oklahoma, but guns are used more often in suicides in OK simply because they ARE available.
Lott has covered this more than once.
Japan is the classic example, when guns are seldom used for suicide, so they look much more "peaceful" than Oklahoma based on that one carefully crafted statistic, but the fact is that Japan's suicide rate is one of the world's highest. They simply use other means to kill themselves, "so it doesn't count." ????????????????
Having taught statistics, I point to the old saw that "there are plain lies, fancy lies, and statistics." Let me define the groupings, and I can get you any statistical answer you want.
Lott has covered this more than once.
Japan is the classic example, when guns are seldom used for suicide, so they look much more "peaceful" than Oklahoma based on that one carefully crafted statistic, but the fact is that Japan's suicide rate is one of the world's highest. They simply use other means to kill themselves, "so it doesn't count." ????????????????
Having taught statistics, I point to the old saw that "there are plain lies, fancy lies, and statistics." Let me define the groupings, and I can get you any statistical answer you want.
Mea-culpa. Apparently the computer I was on at the time didn't want to correctly perform the word search I requested. Regardless, my point still stands and yours, doesn't.
I guess I appreciate the Mia Culpa but I wasn't totally opposed to the idea the you were just jacking with me. Still, doesn't your argument which was predicated on semantics and presupposed notions collapse when you get on another computer and see the real language of the article?
Are you saying that the CDC is deceiving people with [what I consider] straight forward factual information? Maybe so. They're "implying" things that will confuse the headline readers?
I don't even know what to say about it. It wasn't even my intention to start an argument.
I thought this was something we could agree about.
The CDC, in conjunction with the AMA and it's publication JAMA, have long held the view that gun ownership and by extension "gun violence" are a public health epidemic. They want all guns banned, period! It got so bad that Congress wrote a law that banned the CDC from further gun studies in 1996. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...trol-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/
I'm not against CDC publishing statistics per-se, but they have a known and documented anti-gun bias. Most of the studies they funded were debunked as "junk science". In other words, scientific standards and protocols were not adhered to. They never once funded any objective studies. For that reason, nothing they publish on guns should be viewed as reliable. The article the OP posted specifically leads one to believe that guns in the hands of the public are bad. It categorizes accidents and suicides as "gun violence". This is the language THEY used, not me. By that standard, all car deaths are "car violence". It's ridiculous on the face of it. It isn't any different than categorizing a 25 year old gang banger getting killed in a gang war as a "child death".
These are the reasons that I do not support gun studies by the CDC. Guns are not a "disease". You're free to disagree, but that doesn't change the facts.
