Monday, February 25, 2008

The Gazette wants your guns.

Clearly. They want them. Otherwise, why print such clearly biased rubbish? Whenever you pass those guys trying to give you or sell you a free paper at Walmart or on the street, simply reply "No thanks, I don't subscribe to communist propaganda." It's what I do.

Check out this pile of drivel.

"February 25, 2008
Bring more crime
Researchers based in Charleston have published a study showing that violent crime is worse in Mountain State regions with the greatest number of pistols - especially where there's a high rate of "illegal guns" that have been stolen.

Researchers based in Charleston have published a study showing that violent crime is worse in Mountain State regions with the greatest number of pistols - especially where there's a high rate of "illegal guns" that have been stolen." Gee, you think maybe that's because the areas with the highest number of pistols are also the areas with the highest population? You'll note that NO numbers are provided. Just a half-assed interpretation of them. This is transparent "statistics" if I've ever seen it. What controls are applied in this study? Which ones are left wide open? Like say, oh, population density?

"Gun Availability and Crime in West Virginia" is the title of a report in the Justice Research and Policy professional journal. It was written by Dr. Stephen Haas and others at the Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, a unit of the West Virginia Division of Criminal Justice Services."

Never heard of them. Who funds them? The state? The Brady Campaign? The Violence Policy Center? Who gives these guys their money? Are our taxpayer dollars being spent to cook up bogus reasons to disarm us and make us subjects? Not that it would surprise me.

"The survey - designed to support America's "Project Safe Neighborhoods" to reduce gun violence - compares county-by-county figures in three categories: the per-capita rate of violent crimes, the per-capita rate of "legal guns" as indicated by concealed pistol permits, and the per-capita rate of "illegal guns" as indicated by thefts reported to police."

Oh man, where do I start shredding this. The "per capita rate of 'legal guns' as indicated by concealed pistol permits" simply has to be completely bogus. How many people do you know with a gun in their home, but no carry permit? These numbers are skewed off the charts right there. There is absolutely NO way they can measure "legal guns." So just take whatever "ratios" or conclusions they're trying to draw, and throw them out the window as completely bogus. Once you do that, what you're left with is someone's agenda. Because all the of the actual data is broken.

"The authors acknowledge that these categories are fuzzy, because some gun thefts aren't reported to police and some unlicensed "street guns" are traded informally among drug dealers and others. "More comprehensive measures of true illegal gun activity are likely to be substantially higher," the report says."

No kidding the "categories" are fuzzy. Everything's fuzzy. Mainly, because this article is bullshit, as I suspect is the study. Just remember, "fuzzy" = "bullshit."

"Counties with a high rate of legal guns have more violence, the study found - but the danger soars further in counties with many illegal guns."

Hah! You can't even measure the rate of "legal guns." So the findings are worthless. And I have yet to see a population reference. So, we've got bad conclusions based on nebulous "fuzzy" (ahem... make that "bullshit") data.

"The results indicate that counties with high concentrations of both legal and illegal guns are associated with violent crime, gun crime and knife crime," the report concludes. "... Our analysis supports the notion that both legal and illegal guns contribute in specific ways to crime problems in West Virginia."

Gee, once again, I have to wonder about that "population density" factor so conveniently omitted from this whole article. And what exactly are those "specific ways?" The article doesn't say. So the "specific ways" could be positive, but due to the tone of the article, we're left to infer that they're negative, whether that is the case or not.

The authors added that their findings contradict the common belief that legal, licensed pistols kept for self-defense cause crime rates to be lower

So the bogus finding on the "fuzzy" (ahem, "bullshit") data contradict the "common belief" that legal licensed pistols cause crime rates to be lower. Hey, at least the good news is that the "common belief" is coming around to the realm of sanity! And, well, the Gazette isn't doing a very good job of debunking it with their "fuzzy" (ahem, "bullshit") study.

Kanawha and Mercer counties - the Charleston and Bluefield regions - have the state's worst gun crime rates, according to the journal article.

Thoughtful West Virginians should ponder this report. It's a shame that most legislators fear the right-to-bear-arms lobby so much that they constantly vote for more pistol-carrying. The report's conclusion is clear: The more pistols, the more crime.

If a "thoughtful West Virginian" ponders this article, let alone the report, the only conclusion available is that the Gazette will spin any "fuzz" (ahem, "bullshit") towards their statist socialist agenda. I truly hope "thoughtful West Virginians" actually do ponder this article.

Thoughtful West Virginians should likewise ponder the idea that this article is unsigned. I might be blind, but I can't find a single credit for the author. And to be honest, I don't blame him. If I'd written such ignorant trash, I wouldn't want my name associated with it either.

Again, one lucky commenter who posts within the next 24 hours will win a $25.00 membership in the WVCDL.

1 comment:

gunsarebadforyou said...

Do you know you read an editorial on the article, rather than the actual article? are a retard.

11 control variables (if you know what that is) were included in the study, and yes "population density" was one of them.

Get your facts straight, imbecile (if this is too big of a word, it means "someone with a low IQ).