If you’re one Michael Bloomberg’s anti-ballistic bully boys you have to spend a good part of your day massaging stats to support your crusade for civilian disarmament. To make that work you either have to manipulate or ignore context. The 800-pound gorilla that’s never in the room: the tens of thousands of annual defensive gun uses that save life. Not to mention the millions of Americans who don’t shoot themselves or others (unless attacked). That aside, always aside, The Trace has published 15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year. My favorite is the one above. Stat spin doesn’t get any more obvious than that. Did you know that 100 percent of fatal drunk driving accidents involve an intoxicated individual? True story.
I think that if remember a drunk driving fatality involving a leaf blower and a skate board.
I don’t know of any fatalities, but I’ve heard of people getting busted for DWI while driving their riding lawn mower down the road, ala Bobby Boucher.
Merry Christmas and Happy Winter Solstice to one and all!
They aren’t still pretending to be “objective”, are they?
Yes, the bullet button allows people to skirt the law and unload as fast as possible. It’s a beneficial device I tell ya!
Guess we better be careful when commenting on our “stats” as well. It is very untrue to talk about motor vehicle accidents as quoted. As in “100 percent of fatal drunk driving accidents involve an automobile?” I completely understand what you are trying to say. But what I am trying to say is don’t leave ourselves open to ridicule.
Motor vehicle accidents do not “always” or “100%” involve and automobile. Sometimes it’s a bus, or a truck, or a train. Yes, I know a train is not a motor vehicle. Hope you know I am not attacking you. Because I am not. It just seems like another opening for geniuses in that bloomberg wolf pack to use against us. And yes, I know his name should be capitalized. But should it really?
Merry Christmas. I sure hope that offended someone.
Good point. Text amended.
I’m reasonably certain that 100% of drunk driving accidents involve drunks driving. But I could be wrong.
Once it is proven in court! Until then it is only suspected that is true.
Math is a weapon.
The Trace is counting on their audience to have been educated in US Public Schools, and therefore unable to “analyze.” That way, The Trace can just tell them what all them fancy numbers mean and they’ll accept it.
Just like good little r Selected Sheep.
The problem The Trace has with this stuff is twofold:
(1) Cognitive Dissonance
(2) The Truth is Out There, AND It’s a Virus. Propaganda can hide it for a while, but that’s only temporary. See (1).
“Educated in US Public Schools” is an oxymoron.
Glad to see you get it.
“Education” is NewSpeak like so much else these days. Redefine every word. Orwell would be very proud, but I don’t think he meant 1984 as a ‘gameplan.’
Fun Fact from George Carlin. If you tap a cat between the eye’s with a ball peen hammer it will blink. Just sayin.
Another fun fact; if you put a glass of 16 yr. old Lagavulin in front of me, I will drink it.
I’m actually doing that at this very moment. Good stuff. Very good.
Massaging statistics!
From Yahoo News article “How Texas is Preparing for Upcoming Open Carry Gun Law”:
“Back in February, the Texas Police Chiefs Association sent a survey to more than 800 police chiefs from across the state. Of the 200 or so who responded, nearly 75 percent said they were opposed to open carry.”
In other words, 3/4 of the police cheifs declined to respond to the survey and of the 1/4 that did only 3/4 were opposed, or “nearly” 175. So their response was that “nearly” 18.75% of Texas Chiefs of Police could be bothered to say they were opposed to open carry.
And, until they publish the QUESTION that was asked (with possible answers), I suggest you do not trust any such statement, those chiefs may have no idea that they oppose open carry, were simply tricked.
Only 12x as likely? That’s good news on the domestic abuse front right? That means most spousal abusers don’t know how to shoot for shit right? Or does that mean that someone using a gun to defend themselves against an abuser is only 12x more likely to kill said abuser? Someone explain this shit to me like I’m retarded cause I’m no good with stats.
Death resulting, means someone or multiple people died regardless if its the abuser or person(s) being abused or someone responding to the incident. Domestic violence assaults are not every single incident that could be considered assault or even resulted in an arrest, but instead are incidents which have led to a criminal charge or the death of the suspect. With firearms, could technically include incidents where a suspect in a domestic violence assault grabs for a responding LEO’s handgun. Clear things up a bit?
By all manner of different FBI stats, if *I* am armed, there is much less risk that *I* will be killed, which will solve the equation for anyone with any sense at all.
“Did you know that 100 percent of fatal drunk driving accidents involve an intoxicated individual? True story. ”
Fixed it for you: “Did you know that 100 percent of grabbers involve lying individuals?”
On the radio I heard a commentator say, “we have to do something about the spiralling gun problem, we need to pass some kind of gun control laws to be safer”. I don’t know what “gun problem” or “spiralling” she’s talking about, is it the spiralling up of sales and concealed carry permits, the spiralling down of crime and murder, or just that the people now are getting harder to control? What is happening on the streets and what is portrayed by the media is quite disparate.
What’s funny is the Trace and offshoots have lists of actual studies, real researchers, and real stats that are simply blacklisted as “debunked” even when there is no rebuttal or argument source. They don’t like that those sources exist so they simply say (or parrot) it’s been debunked. Mention Gary Kleck Or John Lott and you might as well be talking about having tea with Sasquach on the moon. Even when they do try to debunk studies they delve so deep into the numbers to make an argument you would have to conduct your own 30-year study to counter. Most of the time they just stick with attacking the character of the researcher or simple denial “I see your thorough research, but even though you have all that data to back your claim it isn’t true because I said so”, though.
Liberals and their ilk only use the truth when it advances their cause. They don’t use truth to guide their cause.
Merry Christmas and I hope you all had a terrific Festivus!
…And this just in:
Domestic violence assaults with fists are _12 times_ more likely to result in a black-eye than those without them.
Apparently this is what passes for thought by these jokers:
“Tens of thousands more stolen guns entered the illegal market — many a result of theft.”
Are you sure they were not snatched, pilfered, absconded with, nicked, plundered, swiped, grabbed, hustled, lifted or ganked?
Agitprop inanity is easy to expose. All you have to do is read the words.