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've seen so much of these supposed "studies" that it's hard to believe any or all of them. I think they are made by a person or persons who all think alike on a subject but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I would have to see FACTS from other sources to come to any conclusion.
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.
One study you can believe revealed that over ten percent of homicides in the US are committed by cops, whether justified or not. The statisitic is so embarrassing to officials that they don't even keep an official count like they do for most other things. The ten percent figure is only what reporters have been able to sleuth out.
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.
Generally, I don't. "Studies" are only as good as they are unbiased (nearly if not entirely impossible), verifiable/reproducable (i.e. using the scientific method with all test criteria open to examination, testing, and criticism by others), and comparing a particular type of apple to a particular type of apple.
By the last I mean not only not comparing apples to oranges, but comparing Red Delicious apples to Red Delicious apples rather than to Granny Smiths or crab apples. For example, rape statistics are not directly comparable between countries or even states, as each state/country has their own definition of what constitutes "rape". Each has its own reporting requirements for the various municipalities included within its boundaries. A single state's or country's statistics may not always even be comparable to its own statistics from prior years due to changes in definitions, laws, and reporting requirements.
Politics also often come into play either intentionally or unintentionally. A well done study conducted in as unbiased a manner as any human is possible of can still be hugely skewed by statistics that are outright fabrications by the reporting entities, or by plea bargains that downgrade crime statistics.
So while a "study" may give us a general idea of something, it is not the end-all and be-all on the subject. When I factor in the variables and my inherent distrust of both statistics and man, I consider them tools, but not keys.
Well said, Boz!
Thank you kindly, Will.