Conservative

378 readers

49 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-23

[Canada][2017] Gun advocate says recent 'firearms' study misleading, could influence policy (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I know it's old, but it's a perfect example of why you have to check definitions when looking at politically charged studies.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"The agenda is, 'let's reduce injuries in children and youth and how can we do that?'"

How terrible.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

By lying. Forgot that part.

How are people supposed to trust studies when stuff like this happens? It erodes trust when studies lie.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

How are people supposed to trust studies when stuff like this happens?

By reading the study and not relying on someone's interpretation of it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

The issue is relying on that shifts the bulk of the work to the reader. Most people don't have the time (or let's be honest, the knowledge and experience) to properly go back through the sources and look at the raw data and conclusions to make your own assessments.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago

As I wrote my dissertation, one fascinating thing was when you followed citations back to their source. Often they did not claim what was said. I am not talking about different interpretations, I am talking about the citation that didn't even remotely resemble what was cited. I would say it was well over 30% of the citations.

As such not only reading the study but following the cites back as well.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago

Thats the problem, to properly understand studies, you have to have a solid background in that field. You cant expect the average person to have knowledge in any particular subject.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Seems like it was an oversight, not an intentional lie. If somebody calls an airsoft rifle a firearm, that's colloquially appropriate, even if not legally correct.

Language is muddy. That's life.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who on earth calls an airsoft gun a firearm? I can understand gun, but firearm is a formal term. Its not colloquially correct, and even if it was, a study should know the difference.

The definition of firearm is not nearly muddy enough to excuse that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

Nobody does. the term firearm is defined by law in most places. They did not use the legal definition.

Paintball is another weird one. You will always have some injury playing painball. I use to come home bruised from it.