TexasCHLforum.com

http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's what the anti gun crowd is excited about today. Its a special new way of graphically illustrating gun deaths in the US this year. It expands the 3000 or so people killed by showing the lost years. (if lots of 20 year olds are killed with a gun there are more lost years than a 80 year old who is killed) Its real pretty and obviously some one is spending a lot of time to try an take guns away. Of course you could do this for drownings or car accidents or cancer too.

My feelings meter just went nuts.

Not.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:My feelings meter just went nuts.

Not.

Anygunanywhere

More "cooked" data. I don't want to make light of people being murdered with firearms because I don't think its a laughing matter. But compared to how many folks are killed in car wrecks? That number is much higher. Also, can we take out all the gang-bangers, and victims of gang-bangers, from that little graphic? What would that cut the numbers down to? That is what I mean by "cooked" data. Just like that junk "90% want gun control" thing they keep tossing around, when the Gallup poll showed that only 4% of Americans care about it. Can anyone even give a straight answer where the 90% thing came from? Maybe it was a Twitter thing...maybe they called a hundred people in NYC...maybe they polled a bunch of college students in Berkeley, California...maybe they just made it up. Gallup has their own issues, but at least they TRY to act like a pollster is supposed to. As far as I'm concerned, this slick little graphic is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors exercise designed to wow the ignorant low-information voter.

Can you really count the gang on gang killings as lost years? Sounds like years gained for the rest of us to me.

jmra wrote:Can you really count the gang on gang killings as lost years? Sounds like years gained for the rest of us to me.

Winner!!

Anygunanywhere

K.Mooneyham wrote:More "cooked" data. I don't want to make light of people being murdered with firearms because I don't think its a laughing matter. But compared to how many folks are killed in car wrecks? That number is much higher. Also, can we take out all the gang-bangers, and victims of gang-bangers, from that little graphic? What would that cut the numbers down to? That is what I mean by "cooked" data. Just like that junk "90% want gun control" thing they keep tossing around, when the Gallup poll showed that only 4% of Americans care about it. Can anyone even give a straight answer where the 90% thing came from? Maybe it was a Twitter thing...maybe they called a hundred people in NYC...maybe they polled a bunch of college students in Berkeley, California...maybe they just made it up. Gallup has their own issues, but at least they TRY to act like a pollster is supposed to. As far as I'm concerned, this slick little graphic is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors exercise designed to wow the ignorant low-information voter.

In the US more people die from the flu than from violent people who use guns to commit crimes.

A reporter noted the other day that we needed to face the nations real big problems like "cancer and gun violence." I tweeted him to remind him that 700,000 people in the US died from cancer last year, or roughly 2200% more than those that died at the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged.

K.Mooneyham wrote:More "cooked" data. I don't want to make light of people being murdered with firearms because I don't think its a laughing matter. But compared to how many folks are killed in car wrecks? That number is much higher. Also, can we take out all the gang-bangers, and victims of gang-bangers, from that little graphic? What would that cut the numbers down to? That is what I mean by "cooked" data. Just like that junk "90% want gun control" thing they keep tossing around, when the Gallup poll showed that only 4% of Americans care about it. Can anyone even give a straight answer where the 90% thing came from? Maybe it was a Twitter thing...maybe they called a hundred people in NYC...maybe they polled a bunch of college students in Berkeley, California...maybe they just made it up. Gallup has their own issues, but at least they TRY to act like a pollster is supposed to. As far as I'm concerned, this slick little graphic is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors exercise designed to wow the ignorant low-information voter.

A friend of mine thinks he was one of those polled in the "90%" and the problem was the dishonest questions. According to him the choices were basically "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" "Do you intend to stop beating your wife" or "Do your beatings leave visible marks?", and that the poll was online in a NY Times page that was password protected but could be voted on more than once (and we all know how good those polls are, right?). He said that the way the questions were worded there was no way to vote against more restrictions without having the appearance of supporting arming criminals and such and that he answered as best he could but thinks his answer is probably counted in the 90%.

I have NOT seen the actual poll, and no one that has quoted the statistic to me has been able to present it (most of them even just say "It's common knowledge.") such as when I asked the Bluebonnet Brigade for a source and they just got obscene.

How many killed by drunk drivers, how many years lost there?

philip964 wrote:http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013

Here's what the anti gun crowd is excited about today. Its a special new way of graphically illustrating gun deaths in the US this year. It expands the 3000 or so people killed by showing the lost years. (if lots of 20 year olds are killed with a gun there are more lost years than a 80 year old who is killed) Its real pretty and obviously some one is spending a lot of time to try an take guns away. Of course you could do this for drownings or car accidents or cancer too.

Another junk science study, if you can call it that. Notice at the beginning, before it just goes nuts, that it shows different ages to which each individual could have live to. One would have live to 94, the next to 91, the next to 67, etc. Who did this, Nostradamus? How can they determine to what age a particular individual would have live to? Junk science, nothing more.

If they want to talk about lost years, what about abortions?

JJVP wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013

Here's what the anti gun crowd is excited about today. Its a special new way of graphically illustrating gun deaths in the US this year. It expands the 3000 or so people killed by showing the lost years. (if lots of 20 year olds are killed with a gun there are more lost years than a 80 year old who is killed) Its real pretty and obviously some one is spending a lot of time to try an take guns away. Of course you could do this for drownings or car accidents or cancer too.

Another junk science study, if you can call it that. Notice at the beginning, before it just goes nuts, that it shows different ages to which each individual could have live to. One would have live to 94, the next to 91, the next to 67, etc. Who did this, Nostradamus? How can they determine to what age a particular individual would have live to? Junk science, nothing more.

It's not junk science, it's no science at all. It's just lying with numbers instead of just words.

jmra wrote:Can you really count the gang on gang killings as lost years? Sounds like years gained for the rest of us to me.

Yeah, and how many of those gun deaths were justifiable defense and all that? Its ridiculous, but the graphic does look cool .

I don't like graphs whose axises are not clearly labeled.

TheCytochromeC wrote:I don't like graphs whose axises are not clearly labeled.

I don't think the graph has any meaning at all, as near as I can tell. If you play around with some of the "filters", you even get arcs below the baseline. It simply makes no sense.