,
20 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Master Class in Fake Analysis -- New York Times Edition!
This is how media perpetrates swindling narratives with misleading analysis.
This is an interesting NY Times graphic on household gun ownership across America by state.
This is how media perpetrates swindling narratives with misleading analysis.
This is an interesting NY Times graphic on household gun ownership across America by state.
2. There's so much trickery in that one graphic and accompanying commentary that it takes some doing to unravel. First the use of the term "gun death rates." Do you know that most of the gun deaths are not homicides but suicides?
3. Number of gun homicides has steadily declines in America for a quarter century, even as gun ownership has steadily increased to historic high levels. You will rarely hear about that in the media.
4. While the number of suicides with a gun have increased, the total number of suicides have remained relatively constant decade after decade after decade. Suicides are a real tragedy for America and we need to address the root causes, but guns are a method, not a cause.
5. But now the real treachery in the graphic. The footnote gives away the game.
"There are no hard data on gun ownership in the United States. This household gun ownership proxy was created by taking a weighted average of the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm."
"There are no hard data on gun ownership in the United States. This household gun ownership proxy was created by taking a weighted average of the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm."
6. First they create a gun-ownership percentage graphic based on gun suicide rates by state, and then they claim the graphic is evidence that there are higher 'gun death rates' in states with higher gun-ownership. This kind of circular logic passes for analysis. Mendacious pulp!
7. Even if we assume that gun ownership by state as depicted in the graphic turns out to be directionally correct, what does it tell us? NY Times will draw all sorts of unwarranted inferences but not the obvious one.
8. The obvious inference is this. Predominantly rural, sparsely populated areas have higher gun ownership. Duh!
9. Where there is a higher need to protect friends and family against predators -- whether wild or human -- and access to law enforcement personnel is rarely timely because of long distances and arduous terrain, there tends to be higher gun ownership. Is that a surprise?
10. By the way, here is a NY Times graphic showing the leading cause of gun-deaths is suicide.
11. To their credit, NY Times grudgingly admits NRA does good work (if you ignore the gratuitous parenthetical slander based on no reason given):
12. But then NY Times rushes to slander NRA again for lack of research on guns. This is as facetious as it gets. Apparently, Obama admin could find the funds for "Fast and Furious" to cause violence, but not for "research on gun violence." What preposterous baloney!
13. The problem isn't lack of research on gun violence. The problem is simply this. No honest analysis of data supports the liberal narrative on gun violence. This is a typical liberal ploy. When the data doesn't support their point of view, they complain about lack of data.
14. You don't need a ton of data and analysis to change minds on gun-control. At least I don't. While I am vehemently supportive of #2A, I am still willing to join forces with gun-control advocates on a Constitutional amendment for better gun-control if it is needed.
15. And what will convince me that a Constitutional amendment to #2A is needed? Very simple. All I need to see is one extremely simple graph. Show me a graph of gun-ownership vs gun-related homicides in America over the last 50 years. That is it. Period.
16. If the graph points upwards, I am sold on the need for gun-control. But if the graph points monotonically downwards (by the way, it does), that is proof positive that gun-control advocates don't have a leg to stand on. Data undercuts every damn spurious claim they make.
17. And there is the second most favorite ploy of liberals. When the data doesn't support their narrative, they resort to crass appeals to emotion. Every heinous mass shooting becomes an occasion to slander NRA, for no reason other than the need to create a fictitious bete noire.
18. By the way, I have written extensively on the subject of gun-control. Enclosed below is another thread on the subject.
The End.
The End.
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
This Pew Research is from 2013, but still instructive.
This Pew Research is from 2013, but still instructive.
*declined
