We Can't Believe These Agencies : conservative

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

Ah yes, a source-less article from the NRA claiming that gun ownership = personal safety. Par for the course for the outhouse-brained wintermute_oregon who lives in fear of being accosted by angry mobs of democrats on a daily basis. God I love this place.

[-] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago

I'll politely ask you to be civil, please.

Also, that NRA article does list it's sources, it's just not hotlinked. The main issue (if it is one) is that the article assumes you have some knowledge of gun-related issues, and know where the common sources are.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

Although I appreciate the calls for civility, civility also includes people responding in good faith and being respectful of the people discussing with them. When one person breaks that contract, all bets are off. You can’t only ask for civility from one side of the discussion without looking at what led to that response in the first place. If you’re serious about what you’ve said elsewhere, you need to do better to foster respectful, productive discussion.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Ban me, dip shit.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago

Ok.

[+] [email protected] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It’s not baseless though: it’s based on your claim that you need to defend yourself from a non-existent threat. It’s your fear that is baseless and I have asked you multiple times to provide evidence that, in your words, “violent mobs of democrats” pose a threat to you but you haven’t provided any. That’s the topic, and you’re the one not addressing it. You’re not “being prepared,” you’re being deranged and fearful and arming yourself in response.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

Prepared for what? Ze Germans?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

He (they?) told me on another post that they’re preparing for confrontations with violent mobs of democrats. I’m not joking.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

He’s not someone anyone should take seriously.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Is there any more info here? They just kinda say that the numbers are wrong and the real numbers are higher but then fail to state why the numbers are wrong and where these “real” numbers are coming from. It would be great if 2022 had a 60+% rate but where is that number coming from? And why are the reported numbers that different? Is it a methodological difference? The only info they give is “their processes suck and are biased” for why they’re “wrong” and then “our numbers are better” for why their numbers are right.

On top of that, the linked source is more of the same and seems to be completely based on semantics - “the FBI doesn’t count shootings done with other crimes as mass shootings”. Of course they don’t. If the primary crime isn’t the shooting, why would they? The shootings are notable because the shooting is the point of the incident.

Kind of a terrible article.

[+] [email protected] -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

What you just posted doesn’t answer the question. The errors in question in the source say there were only 5 errors that weren’t corrected. That doesn’t change these statistics in the way they’re claiming.

[+] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Again, you’re not answering the question… either you’re being dishonest or intentionally obtuse here.

How is that the “correct” rate? What defines what is correct and what isn’t and why? If it’s incorrect, why is the FBI reporting that number? According to the article’s source that’s linked at the top, this economist (no idea why I should be taking data and crime reporting info from an economist) is saying it’s wrong because he has a semantic disagreement with the FBI on why incidents where the shooting is not the primary crime are not considered “mass shootings”. It’s a bit disingenuous.

[+] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Got it… so you don’t know and don’t even understand the article yourself. You keep posting the same thing. There’s no answer to the question. So that means you’re just dishonest. If it’s “all in the article”, it should be easy for you to quote the answer to the question I’m asking.

If you say the number is 4 and I say “you’re wrong, it’s 10” and don’t offer any explanation or evidence, then what makes my claim more accurate than yours? This is what’s happening here.

Edit: From your latest link: “Instead, the FBI lists this attack as being stopped by a security guard. A parishioner, who had volunteered to provide security during worship, fatally shot the perpetrator. That man, Jack Wilson, told Dr. John Lott that he was not a security professional.” So, as I said… dishonest semantics. In other words, this whole story is just a matter of redefining a word dishonestly and then criticizing the FBI for not following his new definition rather than the one that’s been used for decades.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

You clearly don’t if you can’t answer a simple question. You did not cite what I asked. You just quoted the part of the article where the guy says the FBI is wrong without pointing out why they’re wrong which is what my question was. And the “data” that they’re including is not at all data supportive of their conclusions. They’re merely redefining the definition of a shooting (dishonestly, I may add) and then feigning outrage that the FBI’s data doesn’t match theirs (because, spoiler alert, the FBI doesn’t define it the same way).

I can read and interpret data just fine. It’s my job to do so. You didn’t even look at the data, don’t understand the methodology, and can’t explain it or even answer a simple question about it. You’re a dishonest person who is afraid of their own shadow.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

No, you didn’t. Where did you send anything that explains the methodology and difference between how the FBI is getting their counts versus where these jokers are getting their counts? Your avoidance of just providing an answer speaks volumes to the point it’s deafening. You’re a dishonest person who is trying to push something that you don’t have evidence for and are ignoring the questions being asked and the issues being pointed out.

[+] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Again with the lies. If you can’t answer a simple question and just keep telling others that they need to do the job of debunking your claims then you’re dishonest. On top of that, you keep parroting the line that “it’s so easy” and “it’s right there” and yet refuse to just cite one statement that shows what is being asked for. Claims without evidence can be just as easily ignored without evidence.

No one cares about your stance or whether you “stayed” it or not, whatever that means. We just want you to explain the information you posted that you claim contains something it doesn’t.

My job is data analysis. Yours clearly isn’t.

[+] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Are you? My “rant” makes perfect sense. You’re just being dishonest and intentionally obtuse to make it seem like your links have something that they don’t. I don’t take kindly to dishonest people who claim to want to discuss things in bad faith.

Assume for 2 seconds that I’m a completely vacuous moron like you are and explain to me the answer to the question. I’ve already told you that I cannot find what you are claiming in your sources and yet you insist that it is. That’s like telling a blind person “Look right there! There it is!” If your bullshit actually said what you claim, it would take a second for you to just copy and paste rather than continually putting the onus on me and everyone else in these comments to find the information that supposedly validates your claim that the details of their methodology and the explanations of their data are there. If they really were, you would have pointed it out to further the discussion since that’s what you claim to want, right?

On top of that, you start with the personal attacks and this putrid condescension in every single one of your replies to every single person here and then you have the gall to criticize me for personally attacking you. Saying empty meaningless shit like “be an adult” just makes you look like a hypocritical liar since an actual adult would say meaningful things that further the discussion, provide evidence that supports their claims, and admit to deficiencies in the information provided. You’ve done none of the above.

Your stance isn’t relevant because no one cares about it. I haven’t lied about it because I haven’t inferred any stance that you have. You just made that up. My entire issue here is that the article you provided, and the sources that that article cites, make claims that are unsubstantiated and unsupported by the “evidence” they’re providing. Anything outside of that is a delusion that you’ve made up. I’m not asking you to defend a straw man. I’m asking you to specifically point out the part of the article that supports your claim that they explain the differences between the two numbers. They don’t so you can’t provide that but are pretending like it is there and everyone else is just a moron like you.

If you could read at all, you’d see that “we” is everyone in these comments pointing out the same unsubstantiated claims and downvoting your responses because they’re total horseshit.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

It’s worse than that. LA and NYC failed to report because of the NIBERS changeover but only because there’s a grace period for reporting to the FBI as they comply with the changeover. Everything about this article is dishonest.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

Been a while since I saw a geocities website

Progressive Politics, Gun Control, Single Payer Healthcare and Free Abortions for All!