Like everyone here I'm sure, I was gratified by the announcement of the 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses that was made public a few months ago. So I was doing my usual webby surfing and I came across this headline:



Oh boy, I thought, and I clicked on it. Read more, and feeling better about it..................



I mean yah!!! Who hasn't heard about people massaging the numbers to fit their narrative? Pigeonholing the data makes it hard for us to fight it, without knowing the whole story. Then we all find out later that we had been duped, or lied to by the media, using numbers that fit their narrative.

I continued to read the article..................



No Shit !!! Really? Who woulda thought?

Then I felt I got sucker punched:



Great. A seemingly great article to me now deemed worthless, because of data manipulation. The writer is guilty of pigeonholing, just like the other side. If we are to support our narrative, we have to conform to a higher standard I always felt. NOT lower ourselves to their level.................

This is the link:
https://neonnettle.com/news/4279-cdc-co ... -not-crime

Then I googled neonnettle. Wow. Instead of coming up with the website address, it comes up with all kinds of links accusing this website of false stories, false data, fake news. Snopes also had to publish their 2 cents worth.......

I'd sure like to know what others think of this. What am I missing here?

I'm to the realization that ALL "data" is suited to the narrative of the one who pays the $$$.
Just like politicians loyalties is a pay to play scheme.

We are fooked people untill "We the People" make our country righted to the constitution.

I would say that the states chosen: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

represent a pretty good cross section of America, they included high and low density populations, restrictive gun law states with others that have little restrictions

I think the data should be sound.

Survey studies usually seek to supply information from a limited sample to the whole population. The information is voluntary and relies on the surveyed to be honest in their answers. They are usually good to get a general feel of a population. What's the problem here?

If NY and HI are in there that should satisfy the worst gun grabber critic.

I don't trust data from EITHER side of ANY issue, really.

But I do MORE TRUST data from the logical intuitive side, and in this case, pro gun side. And this data would be EXTREMELY hard to quantify anyway so it's pointless to argue over it.

How do you KNOW if your gun deterred a crime? You almost cannot, unless you actually draw it in response to a crime. And, what % of folks are going to report brandishing their gun to avert a crime? Very few, IMO.

In a nation of 300,000,000 guns, and probably at least 150,000,000 gun owners, and a huge % that actually keep them or carry them for defense, I don't think a million or two "uses" annually is unreasonable. And by "use," simply having the gun is probably sufficient if the other party is aware you might be armed and it deters (i.e. a mad ex-lover might think twice of breaking in to get revenge b/c he know's the target is armed.). Passive use is still successful albeit unreported use.

Some of you touched on the area of concern I had. I was concerned that it was.... slanted data. As some has pointed out. A representative sample is a very valid point, and is commonly used.

I just thought if he was going through the data for 15 states, is it all that much harder to do all 50 states? Why did he pull it, if its a representative sample? He has now given the appearance that he got caught, after someone noticing it was "only" 15 states, and withdrew the paper.

However for arguments sake, if it comes up, I'll just state that it was a sample, like a poll.

When you do, don't forget to include that some of the most restrictive states were in the sample.