Just another example of someone putting out their opinion and fixing the numbers in their study to match their preconceived opinion.
I certainly don't believe a study only on faith nor do I think much of articles that use phrasing like "studies show that...". Studies have to be evaluated on an individual basis. When you really examine them and where they get their numbers (and how they interpret those numbers), then you can see the agenda behind their conclusions and whether those conclusions are misleading (or not).
I don't believe in studies, especially not after spending an hour in a room with five different space bugs. One of the upsides of being, albeit shortly, a liaison officer.
That's a factor most of the time. :)
Evidence is the key. And even then, I'll probably need something more.
About your link, I was confused at first. I always thought people said the USA is leading on school mass shooting, not mass shooting in general. I personally don't remember thinking the USA leads on mass shootings. I can see how someone got it wrong.
Lankford's paper and study were about public mass shootings and that is what Obama was quoting. I agree with you about the school shootings. I have not heard much about other countries on those.
For countries that shoot their citizens en masse, alone, would contradict his study. Terroristic acts, too.
Always aim at the center mass. Even with the flak jacket (which in its original usage doesn't really mean a bulletproof vest) on, it still decompresses the lungs for such a time, that usually gives enough time to shoot the one end or the another.
I check author, motivation and sources. Then I check the origins of all of that again, like dominoes. I keep going until I can pretty well identify the goals of the articles. It is exhausting to do the research but I don't think we can take anyone or anything at face value - too many use too many different faces to suit their audiences.
After I review who did the study, what their criteria was and the credibility of the statistics/research used.
I take most of those studies with a grain of salt, after all, it's just someone's opinion, which changes from day to day in some instances.
From the cited NY Post article: "The media should be wary of any researchers who fail to let others look at their data."
Indeed they should. But it seems that if such researchers' (e.g., Lankford's) conclusions match the media's preconceived biases, they have no problem publishing those conclusions as fact.
Well said, Boz!