I cherish and celebrate your upholding of the basic conceit that anybody actually changes their mind on this or any other political battleground topic due to data and its proper handling. I haven't seen much evidence of this, but it's a fine and noble article of faith. I will continue to behave as though it were true.
In modern times, this kind of 'data handling' is used exclusively to backstop accusations of being 'anti-science.' It was used with great success by the AGW and COVID catastrophe groups, so it's no real surprise that the gun control gang would try it on...
Honestly, I think the manipulation of statistics for political purposes is just as old, and as successful, as the discipline itself going all the way back to Galton. The abuse of authority and "expertise" is, of course, much older.
It's arguably more effective than ever due to the erosion of traditional forms of moral grounding and the long campaigns of scientism and technocracy. There is a big bulk of middle-class midwits who are well enough indoctrinated to reliably recognize and yield to this kind of faux-scientific rhetoric, but not actually educated enough to challenge or think critically about it.
So we see a kind of bimodal distribution of resistance, where (for a recent example) both non-college-educated and advanced-degree-holding people were less inclined to get those sketchy warp-sped "medical countermeasure" mRNA death jabs than those gullible schmucks with undergraduate degrees ("STEM" or otherwise!). Of course, maybe these were also the most mandate-coerced and propaganda-targeted? Hard to say.
It was happening in gun control *first*. HWFO as a publication began in 2018 specifically because of this. That we were able to apply the same analysis principles to the Covid freakoutery was purely fortuitous.
Additionally, the "firehose of bs", or "repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it", is propaganda 101. Just look at the "your mask saves me" bs that was peddled as "consensus" for 2 years. This is why they (pols of both tribes) want/need "misinformation" laws so they can reduce the flow of counter narratives to convince the "stupid" of their word vomit.
I live in Illinois. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Especially Cook county(Chicago) no one ever addresses the ammount of violent gun crime there. It seems to get conveniently left out of the discussion by the people opposed to 2A. Legal or not I don’t ever go into Chicago without protection. I’d rather go to jail of fight a court battle than be dead. Period.
I appreciate the focus on the pernicious effects of gun-free zones. I avoid those places as much as I can. Fortunately, I live in a place where the trespass law is the only way to enforce it.
Recently, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta stated in a press release, "Research shows that strong firearm licensing laws are effective. States that have weakened these laws have experienced an up to 15% increase in violent crime rates a decade after implementation."
"Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis" by Donahue, Aneja, and Weber.
That's the same Donahue from one of the papers cited in your piece here, "WHY DOES RIGHT-TO-CARRY CAUSE VIOLENT CRIME TO INCREASE?"
Great article. I appreciate you taking time to sift through the shit so we don't have to. God's work, my friend.
I cherish and celebrate your upholding of the basic conceit that anybody actually changes their mind on this or any other political battleground topic due to data and its proper handling. I haven't seen much evidence of this, but it's a fine and noble article of faith. I will continue to behave as though it were true.
In modern times, this kind of 'data handling' is used exclusively to backstop accusations of being 'anti-science.' It was used with great success by the AGW and COVID catastrophe groups, so it's no real surprise that the gun control gang would try it on...
Honestly, I think the manipulation of statistics for political purposes is just as old, and as successful, as the discipline itself going all the way back to Galton. The abuse of authority and "expertise" is, of course, much older.
It's arguably more effective than ever due to the erosion of traditional forms of moral grounding and the long campaigns of scientism and technocracy. There is a big bulk of middle-class midwits who are well enough indoctrinated to reliably recognize and yield to this kind of faux-scientific rhetoric, but not actually educated enough to challenge or think critically about it.
So we see a kind of bimodal distribution of resistance, where (for a recent example) both non-college-educated and advanced-degree-holding people were less inclined to get those sketchy warp-sped "medical countermeasure" mRNA death jabs than those gullible schmucks with undergraduate degrees ("STEM" or otherwise!). Of course, maybe these were also the most mandate-coerced and propaganda-targeted? Hard to say.
It was happening in gun control *first*. HWFO as a publication began in 2018 specifically because of this. That we were able to apply the same analysis principles to the Covid freakoutery was purely fortuitous.
"and it seems almost as if CAP stole exactly half of it while ignoring the other half, when it put together its “Fact Sheet.”"
Noooooo.... They would never, ever, ever do that. *inserts pikachu shocked face*
Additionally, the "firehose of bs", or "repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it", is propaganda 101. Just look at the "your mask saves me" bs that was peddled as "consensus" for 2 years. This is why they (pols of both tribes) want/need "misinformation" laws so they can reduce the flow of counter narratives to convince the "stupid" of their word vomit.
Anyway, enough ranting from me today.
There's apparently a(nother?) semi-formal name for the firehose tactic: "Gish gallop". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Though I suppose it's more directly applicable to in-person debates, where response times are inherently more limited.
Gonna need some Gish gallop gusher galoshes. Oh gosh.
I live in Illinois. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Especially Cook county(Chicago) no one ever addresses the ammount of violent gun crime there. It seems to get conveniently left out of the discussion by the people opposed to 2A. Legal or not I don’t ever go into Chicago without protection. I’d rather go to jail of fight a court battle than be dead. Period.
The problem is the people in chitown aren't your peers. Therefore it is a losing battle even in the court system (at least initially).
Well, yes the peers in Chicago are the problem. But as soon as you hit the burbs and the rest of downstate you’re correct.
Wait misunderstood your post. Yes your correct. The problem is they are not our peers.
I appreciate the focus on the pernicious effects of gun-free zones. I avoid those places as much as I can. Fortunately, I live in a place where the trespass law is the only way to enforce it.
Brandolini's law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
Keep fighting the good fight, Lord knows we need it and most people can't be bothered to do this work.
Ah, I do love a good fisking of a firehose of bullshittery.
Recently, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta stated in a press release, "Research shows that strong firearm licensing laws are effective. States that have weakened these laws have experienced an up to 15% increase in violent crime rates a decade after implementation."
"Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis" by Donahue, Aneja, and Weber.
That's the same Donahue from one of the papers cited in your piece here, "WHY DOES RIGHT-TO-CARRY CAUSE VIOLENT CRIME TO INCREASE?"