Printable View
One of the major flaws in the "study". Was the fact that many of the injuries reported, were in fact classed as W34, and X95 ( Other and unspecified firearm - includes BB guns, airguns and flare guns), however, this is classed in the study as "firearms".
There are a number of thing S. Some are sort of "no big deal", some like that very big deals when taken within the context that's it supposed to be "best evidence" that will be used and presented to the feds for decisions/changes.
What happens during a trial when a cop is caught fudging, or lying or planting evidence.
It calls everything into question. Present, past and future.
Cant be trusted.
I personally am not convinced that largely the researchers agenda isn't much more than hoping for research grants to do more. Are they a little biased, sure I can agree with that. The "scary" thing here ( hows that for irony) is that, as "easily as we've blown holes in it", as easily as we've seen some of them um.....shortcomings and that more is needed"
How did they not, or why didn't they?
Not sure I'm phrasing all of this succinctly and clearly.
Previously, if the medical association published findings with conclusions and or recommendations. While I might feel they are somewhat biased, or worded differently, I know they aren't fans of guns, but that study and their conclusions, yeah you know what, its hard to argue with that.....................
And the fact they won't retract, issue an apology that to speaks volumes
Because those injuries aren't separable from actual firearms injuries. This is a flaw in the reporting, not in the study itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Those injuries are classified for medical purposes as firearms injuries, so the study includes them.
I pointed this out three days ago, yet Brian Lilley acts as if he's discovered a nefarious secret.
Thanks Welsh,Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Yes, you can't actually flaw a study if the data presents itself without parsing out the details.
Sorry, I didn't read all the posts between page one and 10. I was discussing it on various pages on FB, but not on here.
lol oh please.
Secret or not, it's no different than using "faulty" ( even though it's not the stats, but rather is the way the data is collated) research for anything thats published. "forest for the tree's". And surely, without question they knew/know that.
garbage in......garbage out
And yet conclusions are being made as are recommendations. This to is utterly without question. While the media is certainly doing it's thing. Theres an inconvenient matter of many quotes.
Could just as easily say.
Fast to discredit "lilley" but when the shoe is on the other foot and it's proponents being discredited "circle the wagons".
There is literally no excuse for it.
My gawd, I'm thinking about work we do/did.....If we know theres a problem or shortcoming or whatever we want to label it, with the data...............
garbage in......................garbage out
And yet they still published, and more than that.
edit. using hyperbole
We've run the data, crunched the numbers, we know theres "problems" with the data. Were going to invest billions of the publics money in
Bre-X
Just back to this for a moment, having had a thought. A somewhat different way to highlight what the actual problem is.
Is it the stats? Aka "findings" and that is literally all they are at this point and thats being generous. What they have is nothing more thats closer to suspicions.......theory.....conjecture....
No. and the shame is, I feel there is enough there to warrant looking under the surface see if there just might be something....
Is it the holes or shortcomings (choose a label).
No. Most of them are things we "know"already.
Is it the media?
No. Thats what media does whether it's the Sun or CBC or any of the others
Is it the CMA.
Yes. There is literally no excuse for it, "garbage in, garbage out" is one of the most basic concepts. The "data" should be bullit proof. What conclusions people come to, what recommendations etc. Always open to interpretation and more, even "disagreement". Aka " we have found this and think we should do "that". Ok, some might say, well I agree, but do we really to do "that". Is the problem really all that the bad. or other.
But instead, despite knowing garbage in is garbage out, despite knowing this or that, that the study wasn't even close to complete and there are shortcomings....They...published....and they....and they "fear mongered"
Orson Wells (war of the worlds) did something similar to, pulled a fast one. But theres a world of difference between what he does, and what "they" do.
Yes that is extreme and not the best example.
Mission statement
"Best Evidence"
Would they be called 'immigrant gangs', when the members where born, (many third generation) and raised in Canada? What about he 'mafia' is it Italian , Sicilian or can the members born here be called 'mafia'? Any 'wise guys' out there... or fans of Goodfellas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbear
Regarding Lilley attacking the study as flawed: he accuses the study authors of describing 24 year olds as children.
The study does not do this, anywhere. A couple of news reports did.
Not so good on the basic accuracy, Brian.
Well agree with that.
Just as they should have stuck to..."there might be something here that warrants more study"
He to is selling news. Should have just stuck with why data needs to be bullit proof, stand up to peer reviews and being torn apart before "publishing"...He could have made his case without grandstanding,
Their mission statement really underscores it all.
Re youth.
Kind of agree, kind of disagree.
Forget for the moment all the possible shortcomings with the data or well known (and credit to the one author she does admit all that stuff) dynamics.
Its scientifically proven (pardon the word play) that the human brain and personality doesn't stop developing until the age of 24. So are they really adults?????
But on the other hand. That same 18-22 yr old male that does stupid things and Im sure we all have.
Is adult enough to drive
Adult enough to vote
Adult enough to drink
Adult enough to go to war.
This study is very flawed as some of our first and second generation JAMAICAN gang banger,s who are over 24 years old don,t even get an honorable mention for all the shootings and mayhem they cause on the street.In fact Caribbean is not even in the break down of sub categories named and are labelled "others".Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I,am not concerned if farmer Browns 12 year old accidentally gets whacked by an air rifle in the barn while shooting pigeons.