Politics

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

The article uses biased language when describing certain individuals and groups, such as referring to John Lott as a "pro-gun advocate" and Daniel Webster as someone who "disagreed with Lott's findings." This kind of language can influence readers' perceptions and is not conducive to an objective analysis.

The article presents opposing views but fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the counterarguments. It briefly mentions that anti-gun advocates see different patterns in the statistical evidence, but it does not explore these alternative perspectives in depth or provide specific examples or studies that contradict Lott's findings.

The article heavily relies on the viewpoints of Daniel Webster and Louis Klarevas to challenge Lott's research. While it is valid to include different perspectives, the selective use of sources can create a skewed representation of the available evidence.

The article portrays Lott's research as flawed without providing substantial evidence to support this claim. It mentions that academics have criticized his work, but it does not delve into specific critiques or present a balanced assessment of the academic debates surrounding Lott's findings.

The article dismisses Lott's characterization of certain locations as gun-free zones because armed security personnel are present. However, it fails to address Lott's argument that shooters may target areas where civilians are not armed, regardless of the presence of armed guards or police officers. This oversight undermines the comprehensive evaluation of the issue.

The article briefly mentions that some academics have criticized Lott's methodology, but it does not provide a detailed analysis or explanation of these criticisms. Without a thorough examination of Lott's methods, readers are left without the necessary information to assess the validity and reliability of his research.

The article concludes that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the motivations of perpetrators of mass shootings or their relationship with gun restrictions. While this statement may be true to some extent, the article fails to provide a clear analysis of the available evidence and expert opinions. It leaves readers without a strong understanding of the topic.

Oh well, better luck next time...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315794349_Adding_More_Police_Is_Unlikely_to_Reduce_Crime_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Police_Agency_Size_and_Crime_Research

The scope of the study is off topic as it discusses the size of a police force relative to the amount of crimes within an area. The proposed argument isn't about the size of police forces, it is about putting existing police in places which we deem important places worth protecting, such as the buildings in which our children congregate on a daily basis.

If you had half a brain, you would notice that tons of government buildings have armed security forces and they are rarely ever the target of mass shootings.

The article does not provide any context or summary of the research it is discussing. It jumps straight into discussing the findings without explaining the methodology or the scope of the study.

The article does not provide any in-text citations or references to support its claims. It mentions the number of studies analyzed and the conclusions drawn from them but does not provide specific examples or evidence from the research itself.

The article presents a binary view of the findings, stating that there is no consensus among the studies and that police agency size has no impact on crime. However, it fails to acknowledge the nuances and variations within the studies analyzed. It also does not discuss potential factors that may influence the relationship between police agency size and crime.

The article focuses solely on the impact of police agency size on crime and does not consider other important outcomes, such as officer health and safety or public perception of the police. This narrow focus limits the comprehensiveness of the analysis.

The article presents its conclusions as definitive and dismisses any other interpretations as contradicting theory, evidence, and common sense. However, it fails to address potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives, which weakens the overall credibility of the article.

The right is emotional and wants to manipulate you with flawed conclusions based on their feelings.

Hilarious to say such a thing when you are clearly letting your emotions control your opinions while putting faith in bunk "science". A true leftist, "trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it"...