Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
|
You are completely ignoring the fact that Australian statistics are not relevant to American politics. I went through the second one and it said the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Where'd I say people can't own guns or that I said the Constitution disallowed it? Now that's a straw-man.
|
**facepalm** No, it is not a straw man. I was referring to the whole tirade you went on about the word "arms."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You keep saying the statistics are skewed. I can't seem to find out where that's been shown. Link the researched evidence showing the statistics in any of those studies are flawed.
|
I swear I am up to the triple digits in how many times I post this damn point, but here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexical
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I have many posts about the multiple issues I have on the primary statistic that is cited from that study: the number of mass shootings have been 0 since the gun ban. First problem I have with it is the metric is flawed. As Vel, me and others have pointed out that overall violent crime rates have gone up which this metric does not show/illustrate/or even consider while overall violent crime rates does include mass shootings. This constriction of data shown is generally used to manipulate statistics to further an agenda. Also, since mass shootings seem to happen spuriously, it is not a reliable, ongoing occurrence that can be measured from year to year which makes it a weak metric.
Second problem I have is their definition of mass shooting. The study defines a mass shooting as any incident involving a gun where 5 die by gun shot. It does not consider the amount of people injured and does so for the clear purpose to dismiss other shootings. If you do not consider 20 injured by gun shot and 4 dead a mass shooting, then I don't know what to tell you. The fact that they only consider the number of deaths and used a generally higher number than the rest of the world (UN and US use 4 for example) illustrate further tampering of the statistics to further a clear goal.
Third problem I have is that the sample size is very small and its cut off point is in a very biased position. Cutting off at one of the largest mass shootings in history is biased and will skew the statistics. As discussed before, the occurrence of mass shootings is a spontaneous anomaly in societal statistics, thus using a small sample size, you can accent your point unfairly. For example, consider for the years 1990-2000 cattle were fed X and for the years 2000-2010 they were fed Y. During 1990-1996 cattle had an average weight of 750kg, for the years 1996-2000 they weighed on average 700kg, and for 2000-2010 they averaged 725kg. I could say that feed Y is better since from 1996-2000 the cows weighed 25kg less, but that would be manipulating the sample size and is thus of little integrity. The Australian survey you posted does that since during 1987-1996 Australia had one of the highest frequencies of mass shootings in their history by their metric.
These three problems, which are the glaring problems with that statistic, are not my opinion, but common statistical tricks that many politicians and businesses use. I would also like to say that just because it is from a university does not make a study scientific nor does it make it accurate. A professional analyst's report is actually a more credible source than an academic survey in most cases.
|