Shock study: U.S. had far fewer mass shootings than previously reported

[L84Cabo]

Brought to you by the Washington Times and our good friend, John Lott...


John Lott Jr.: Adam Lankford 'botched' study claiming U.S. accounts for one-third of mass shootings

A shock 2016 study argued that the U.S. accounted for nearly one-third of all mass shootings, sparking global headlines about the dangers of an American gun culture.

Now another researcher says the original study "botched" the data

John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, crunched the numbers and said his count shows that the U.S. had less than 3 percent of the world's mass public shootings over a 15-year period.

That is smaller than the 4.6 percent of the world's population that the U.S. accounts for — and way less than the 31 percent of global mass shooters that Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama, claimed in his widely publicized studies.

Read More

 

[Stomper]

There's three kinds of lies (listed from bad to worst).


1. Lies

2. Damned lies

3. Statistics









4. It's your baby

 

[nammac]

When ever did a modern day university professor utter truthful fact? They're to bustle turning their students into socialists...

 

[11Charlie]

I don't trust statistics no matter who does them! It is to fit there own agenda!

 

[Aero Denezol]

There's three kinds of lies (listed from bad to worst).


1. Lies

2. Damned lies

3. Statistics









4. It's your baby

^^^Candidate for funniest thing I have read on the internet this year.

 

[Boboclown]

I don't trust statistics no matter who does them! It is to fit there own agenda!

I studied statistics. Its not necessarily the numbers, its how they manipulate the data to get the numbers. Or how they try to make the statistic sound in the wording of an article. Key thing to remember is that ultimately statistics are just numbers and don't tell the story behind them.

Which people seem to try and make them do.

 

[11Charlie]

its how they manipulate the data to get the numbers.

which is why statistics lie. If I knew the person doing the study and trusted them, then I guess I would trust the study.

 

[Boboclown]

which is why statistics lie. If I knew the person doing the study and trusted them, then I guess I would trust the study.

Not at all, statistics themselves don't lie, they're just numbers. The person using the statistics would be the one lying. Its easy to get the numbers a certain way by either ignoring certain factors, or adding certain factors.

So the statistic itself isn't lying, its the person using it that is.

 

[11Charlie]

So the statistic itself isn't lying, its the person using it that is.

I understand that. I also get that people make what they want out of the numbers and scew them in there favor! Which is why I stand by my statement.

 

[titsonritz]

Media Hype Questionable Gun Control Study

 

[CountryGent]

@TeacherSmurf has taught "Stats and Probability" classes for years and, obviously, had to a engage in a lot of study on the topic. Suffice it to say Twain's "lies, damn lies, and statistics" isn't too far off the mark.

 

[Greenbug]

Figures lie,
and
Liars figure....

 

[nammac]

Media Hype Questionable Gun Control Study

Seems I recall hearing this same argument some time ago. That all the lefts mantra about gun control is based on an incomplete study that really was based upon on associate professors opinion and not upon fact.

More telling is the second video that ran, where John Strossel exposes New York's draconian gun laws jailing travelers... Imagine they consider a firearm as loaded if it is locked unloaddd in it case and the ammo is in the same suitcase? These nut jobs are completely off their collective rocker...

Edited to correct the predictive/autocorrection that hasn't learned to read my mind yet. Grrrrr...

 

[Goosebrown]

There's three kinds of lies
4. It's your baby

I know my kid is mine, but sometimes I wonder who the mother is.

 

[KTM530XCW]

Statistics are fine. It's the way they are mis-applied and the conclusions they try to derive from them that's rediculous. If they don't provide source data to be independently verified, reject it as garbage. If they do provide source data, review it and draw your own conclusions.