4 ms·

"The data clearly supports your opinion" What a great subtitle to the page. The first thing I looked for in the graph was data that supported my opinion. The s

"The data clearly supports your opinion" What a great subtitle to the page. The first thing I looked for in the graph was data that supported my opinion. The subtitle called me out, and I read the rest of the page with (what I hope was) a more objective eye. Unfortunately guns are a very polarizing topic, and reliable, unbiased analysis is difficult to come by. The magnitude of other confounding factors (income, crime, education, family history, policing policies and intensity, etc.) make an honest attempt at understanding their influence even more difficult.

hga 11y ago
I loved it as well, and I've been a pro-gun activist since the early '70s. Although my opinion is "not a strong correlation between the two", and that certainly seems to be supported by the supplied data.
- dice 11y ago
  >Although my opinion is "not a strong correlation between the two", and that certainly seems to be supported by the supplied data. That position is supported by the first analysis, but not the other two. The three analyses provide three different conclusions: no correlation, correlation with increased homicide, correlation with decreased homicide.
  - hga 11y ago
    Could be, I only eyeballed the pretty graph.
carc 11y ago
It doesn't help that the government is literally disallowed from funding any gun related medical research. My girlfriend does rural health related research and this fact always infuriates her - I never even knew this until she had explained it to me.
- hga 11y ago
  Nope, only the CDC can't, and that was after serious abuse in both science and in violation of their charter. You want some money for that? Billionaire Bloomberg's pockets are wide open right now, and are funding a lot of "research".
sturgill 11y ago
I run the analytics department at Daily Burn and we were joking today about making shirts with this slogan on it. Unbiased insight is hard enough to get in a business setting. There is a latent tendency to prove one's preconceptions. Add divisive political tactics that actively try to destroy open mindedness (which are employed by both sides of the political spectrum) and the problem is exacerbated.

hga 11y ago

I loved it as well, and I've been a pro-gun activist since the early '70s. Although my opinion is "not a strong correlation between the two", and that certainly seems to be supported by the supplied data.

dice 11y ago
>Although my opinion is "not a strong correlation between the two", and that certainly seems to be supported by the supplied data. That position is supported by the first analysis, but not the other two. The three analyses provide three different conclusions: no correlation, correlation with increased homicide, correlation with decreased homicide.
- hga 11y ago
  Could be, I only eyeballed the pretty graph.

carc 11y ago

It doesn't help that the government is literally disallowed from funding any gun related medical research. My girlfriend does rural health related research and this fact always infuriates her - I never even knew this until she had explained it to me.

hga 11y ago
Nope, only the CDC can't, and that was after serious abuse in both science and in violation of their charter. You want some money for that? Billionaire Bloomberg's pockets are wide open right now, and are funding a lot of "research".

sturgill 11y ago

I run the analytics department at Daily Burn and we were joking today about making shirts with this slogan on it. Unbiased insight is hard enough to get in a business setting. There is a latent tendency to prove one's preconceptions. Add divisive political tactics that actively try to destroy open mindedness (which are employed by both sides of the political spectrum) and the problem is exacerbated.