Once again, the first "fact" conflates justified shootings with unjustified ones, and pretends they're all unjustified. We've covered this ground before, but you keep telling the same lie.
The "62% would sell" comes from Point, Click, Fire: An Investigation Of Illegal Online Gun Sales". But there's a couple of rather "interesting" issues with the methodology:
In looking at the report, the criteria used to select sellers for the investigation seems to have favored those sellers who have telltale signs of being unscrupulous. Instead of randomly selecting sellers, it appears that investigators targeted those individuals who would be more inclined to break the law.
Here’s what the report states with respect to the criteria used:
Investigators chose which private sellers to investigate based on several factors, including whether the seller had a relatively high volume of unique gun-related posts, whether they were selling a make and model of gun commonly used in crimes and whether the seller included direct contact information in their listing.
There are some obvious red flags in looking at these factors, i.e. what exactly are “unique gun-related posts”? Did the listing in someway imply that the seller was willing to sell to anyone?
The truth is that one can find almost anything on the Internet. There are certain code words that criminals use to sell firearms, drugs, sex, etc. on the web. It appears that investigators were sensitive to such signs and pursued sellers who used and/or exhibited those signs
However, this fact is not disclosed in their findings. The way the info is worded is meant to imply a representation of the entire online gun community, “62 percent of online sellers agreed to sell guns to investigators posing as buyers who couldn’t pass a gun background check – a felony under federal law.”
There’s no qualifying remark to suggest that the sellers met certain criteria.
The investigation should have included a randomized selection of online sellers (a control group) to cross reference with its targeted sample.
In other words, they did the exact type of pre-screening to get the results they wanted, not the complete, actual truth.
There are also major discrepancies between how many listings were at various sites and how many they sampled. For example, CraigsList (which doesn't allow any firearms listings at all) represented a much higher sample size relative to all the other sites. That's a sign of statistical manipulation.
Be sure to read the article to get the full story, complete with the actual numbers and charts.
"In other words, they did the exact type of pre-screening to get the results they wanted, not the complete, actual truth."
Correct version:
"In other words, they pre-screened who they tested to select those who were most likely to give them the results they wanted, not the complete, actual truth."
Serves me right for just posting right away so I could handle a phone call instead of waiting to proofread.
Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. But this error is particularly bad--and nerve-wracking to the janitors and security guards who were misled by the president’s comments.
4 comments:
Once again, the first "fact" conflates justified shootings with unjustified ones, and pretends they're all unjustified. We've covered this ground before, but you keep telling the same lie.
The "62% would sell" comes from Point, Click, Fire: An Investigation Of Illegal Online Gun Sales". But there's a couple of rather "interesting" issues with the methodology:
The Problems with Bloomberg’s Undercover ‘Point, Click, Fire’ Investigation of Illegal Online Gun Sales
In looking at the report, the criteria used to select sellers for the investigation seems to have favored those sellers who have telltale signs of being unscrupulous. Instead of randomly selecting sellers, it appears that investigators targeted those individuals who would be more inclined to break the law.
Here’s what the report states with respect to the criteria used:
Investigators chose which private sellers to investigate based on several factors, including whether the seller had a relatively high volume of unique gun-related posts, whether they were selling a make and model of gun commonly used in crimes and whether the seller included direct contact information in their listing.
There are some obvious red flags in looking at these factors, i.e. what exactly are “unique gun-related posts”? Did the listing in someway imply that the seller was willing to sell to anyone?
The truth is that one can find almost anything on the Internet. There are certain code words that criminals use to sell firearms, drugs, sex, etc. on the web. It appears that investigators were sensitive to such signs and pursued sellers who used and/or exhibited those signs
However, this fact is not disclosed in their findings. The way the info is worded is meant to imply a representation of the entire online gun community, “62 percent of online sellers agreed to sell guns to investigators posing as buyers who couldn’t pass a gun background check – a felony under federal law.”
There’s no qualifying remark to suggest that the sellers met certain criteria.
The investigation should have included a randomized selection of online sellers (a control group) to cross reference with its targeted sample.
In other words, they did the exact type of pre-screening to get the results they wanted, not the complete, actual truth.
There are also major discrepancies between how many listings were at various sites and how many they sampled. For example, CraigsList (which doesn't allow any firearms listings at all) represented a much higher sample size relative to all the other sites. That's a sign of statistical manipulation.
Be sure to read the article to get the full story, complete with the actual numbers and charts.
Oops. Incorrect version:
"In other words, they did the exact type of pre-screening to get the results they wanted, not the complete, actual truth."
Correct version:
"In other words, they pre-screened who they tested to select those who were most likely to give them the results they wanted, not the complete, actual truth."
Serves me right for just posting right away so I could handle a phone call instead of waiting to proofread.
It is sad how unfamiliar you are with facts.
And speaking of facts...
Remember how much you love that fact checking?
Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week. But this error is particularly bad--and nerve-wracking to the janitors and security guards who were misled by the president’s comments.
Post a Comment