Primarily, look at the source and their history. An anti-gun source for data is really no more reliable than a pro-gun one. What one needs to do is simply look for the "actual data", not just data that they think will back up their beliefs. That is where most in here tend to fail. They would not recognize unbiased sources and information if it bit them on the ankle.
Exclusive: Elsevier retracting 500 papers for shoddy peer review Elsevier is retracting 500 papers from a journal dedicated to conference proceedings because “the peer-review process was confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected,” Retraction Watch has learned. As we reported a month ago, “data thug” James Heathers “found at least 1,500 off-topic papers, many with abstracts containing ‘tortured phrases’ that may have been written by translation or paraphrasing software, and a few with titles that had been previously advertised with author positions for sale online.” Shortly thereafter, Elsevier told us they were beginning an investigation of the title, Materials Today: Proceedings. Yesterday, they said the retractions were beginning. Continue reading
Thanks for posting this it actually is proving the system IS working. It is not about how many crooks are caught it is about the fact they ARE caught and systems are then changed to bring the system back to a level of honesty
Climategate: Never Forget (12th anniversary) Guest Blogger The growth of the technical skeptical blogosphere (pioneered by Steve McIntyre) has challenged traditional notions of expertise, i.e. credentials and sanctity of journal publications, through Climate Audit’s blogospheric deconstruction of…
Pretty much all the sources, FBI, etc., etc., come with some level of analysis they make. They divide between handguns and others, for example. The same is true for gun death reporting. From there, ANY suggestion on firearms requires more analysis. Knowing that, gun proponents have responded by working hard to prevent CDC and other organizations from having full access along with the funding needed to examine this particular health risk.
So long as gun ownership is constitutionally protected via the 2A, none of that matters. Health risk or not.
Public safety is one of the reasons for limits on all of our rights. And, that includes guns, as one can see today.
You're the one who invoked public safety in a thread about scientific research. During the French Revolution the "Terror" was led by the Committee of Public Safety.
The issue was about claims of rights. And, comparing the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution to life in America is just plain preposterous.
And that there is a horrible example of how people manipulate data for their own purposes. Such as the use of the word "homicide". Which is misleading as most people tend to think of the term being the same as "murder", which it is not. Which is why it includes things like suicide, and justifiable homicide in cases of law enforcement, self defense, even mishandling of the weapons. Yet anti-gun people will try and convince every one is a "murder". And yes, we see the exact same thing in the annual hyped reports where they will report the number of "military rapes" when the DoD releases a new report. Of course, that is not what the statistics are actually even about, but that is what a lot of people who have agendas will report. You see, there is a reason I hate manipulated data. Because the vast majority of the time, it is manipulated in a way to try and convince people it is something that it actually is not. And thank you for giving a perfect example of that.
OK, fine. Public Safety demands that all of your emails be screened to ensure nothing you send can be taken as possibly harmful to others. Public Safety demands that you notify the government any time you travel more than 300 miles form home, to help stop the smuggling of drugs and people. Public Safety demands that anybody that has an STD must notify any potential partner before having sex with them their status. Public Safety demands that devices be put on all cars, allowing no travel of more then 400 miles in 8 hours. And after traveling those 8 hours you must stop for at least 6 hours to ensure that you are not overtired. Public Safety demands that breathalyzer devices be placed on all cars, and used every hour to ensure nobody drives drunk. No, "public safety" demands none of that. That is your mind trying to justify masking things you do not like illegal. However, here is where we differ. And I bet I could predict how you would respond to each and every one of those. However, I bet you have absolutely no idea how I would respond to which of those, and why. But I bet that most others could pick out how I would choose, and why. And each and every one is actually clarified in the Constitution. What you really mean to say is you want to see limits on things you yourself do not like. Which is actually the fundamental opposite of "Liberty". Then people wonder why I regularly say that a great many "Leftists" oppose liberty, and they only want to project their own twisted version of it onto others.
Why is that? I threw out a bunch of example very close to what you are proposing as "limiting rights" based on the exact same justification you just used. Yet it seemed that it pinched when the shoe was on the other foot. Because so long as people are willing to limit the rights of others based on their own beliefs, it will not stop. Heck, look at yourself! You seem to have no problem restricting the rights of others, just so long as it is not your rights that are being restricted. Myself, I make it no secret that I tend to find most "Libertarians" to be idealistic idiots. However, that does not mean that I myself am not very aware of their beliefs, and share most of them. And resist the restriction of any rights of others simply because I do not like those beliefs.
Honestly, I think that is exactly it. I think WR found it very frustrating that I gave him the exact same response and justification on a slew of other rights that can be restricted, most of which he probably absolutely hated. And he would have screamed and yelled if any of those were tried, yet is happy with rights being curtailed in the case that he did agree with. Me, I actually agree that all of those I listed are wrong, except for a single one. And that was the one involving STDs. And actually, that has been stated multiple times as being legal by SCOTUS as indeed being for the benefit of the country, and is the basis for over 200 years of quarantines. Unless you are in California that is, which recently decriminalized having sex with another if you have HIV and do not tell them. Think upon that insanity for a moment. The state with more HIV cases than any other (both in total numbers AND per capita) in the nation made it legal to have sex with as many as you want if you have the disease and not tell them your status.
Back on the topic of Twitter, you haven't mentioned ANY rights that have been curtailed in ANY way. Plus, this idea that what we need is for Twitter to become another conspiracy theory platform is ridiculous. There are already PLENTY of conspiracy theory platforms. It's not a service to America to provide more of those - even when it might be profitable to do so. You need to learn how to focus your argument on the topic.
Why should I? That was never my claim. This entire thread is on fraudulent research. This tangent started because you used your entire justification on restricting a freedom based firmly in the Constitution on "public safety" and statistics that are slanted in a way to favor the restriction of those rights. I simply pointed out that the use of statistics in such a way also is fraudulent, and asked why it could not be used to curtail other rights. Maybe in ways to curtail rights you believe in as strongly as you do of curtailing the rights you do not agree with. And doubling down and showing that to you, it does not matter if it is a guaranteed right or not, or even the data itself. Your only concern is if it supports or opposes your beliefs. Trust me, I am very focused on the topic. You are the one that is wiggling and squirming all over the damned place trying to justify why weighted and slanted statistics should be accepted, simply because they support your belief in curtailing Constitutional Rights. And apparently going off in a hissy fit if somebody was to do the exact same thin against rights you support. In other words, I held up a mirror to your claims, and you did not like it one little bit. And that post is a perfect example of your spinning in circles. Where in the frackety-frack-frack did I ever mention Twatter? You go off on this crazy rant about it, and then conspiracy theories. I never mentioned it! Once again, that is you just spinning off in a completely different direction, and trying to project onto me all kind of crazy nonsense. But for an FYI that might keep you grounded for an entire 3 minutes, I do not use Twitter. Nor MySpace, FriendSpace, FaceBook, or any other "social media" platforms. I abandoned them all years ago, and see them as a major factor in the dumbing down of the population, and nothing but a toxic soup that makes the community in Rust look like saints. You give a long rant aimed at me about Twitter, which I never even mentioned. And at the same time ranting on about my being off topic. Apparently oblivious that this entire time I have been on topic, and you are the one spinning all over the place like a top on meth. You are also the one that quite clearly talked about curtailing rights based on fraudulent or misleading data, and saying it was fine so long as it was against something you did not like. You see, this is really the biggest difference between us. You are all for anything that supports your beliefs, and attacking anything that is against your beliefs. And as I said before, the funniest thing is I bet you could not point out what my beliefs really are. Because I know a great many times you have tried, and always failed spectacularly.
