The Liberal Gun Club Forum

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ast-years/

And there we have it. CDC's gun injury data is bogus.

They've been sampling from a select small set of hospitals that are not indicative of the country as a whole. Their data says that gun injuries are on the rise when literally every other data source says the opposite.

They are still putting out junk data. It goes back to the sample of hospitals they use to prepare their data, it's not a true sample of all US hospitals, there are too many hospitals with gun shot cases.

According to the CDC’s most recent figures, somewhere between 31,000 and 236,000 people were injured by guns in 2017.

Prior thread on their 2016 data.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=50115

What's the matter with using data from all hospitals in a given year? You could get "actual" numbers that way.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:33 am What's the matter with using data from all hospitals in a given year? You could get "actual" numbers that way.

CDFingers

And it's precisely that reason that lends people to think that the CDC has an anti-gun rights agenda. I'll be honest, what other reason would they have for using such an obviously biased data sample? Given the current administration, it couldn't possibly be to curry favor with the admin. One has to conclude 1 of the 2 following options:

1) They have an anti-gun agenda
OR
2) They really suck at doing studies

Or, as the article states, congress doesn’t fund studies about firearm injuries.

We don't know what the CDC is doing, but they ARE documenting the issues with their reported data. If researchers don't look at the caveats and then go to the much more reliable data base, then the stigma of bad scholarship needs to be on THEM!

When it comes to anything concerning guns, the CDC is in the cross-hairs of every congresscritter and senator big on the gun manufacturers' donation list. They've actually created legislation to DELIBERATELY keep the agencies from researching gun violence. It's like the cig companies 30 years ago paying off the Virginia, North&South Carolina and other tobacco state senators to shut down warnings and legislation. Jesse Helms, that prick whom, if there is a hell, I hope he's burning in it, advocated for the tobacco companies, among all the other evils he advocated.
(The sonuvabitch even once said you didn't need a rape exception for anti-abortion laws because a woman couldn't get pregnant from rape! And the hundreds of thousands of women in Darfur who bore babies of their North Sudan rapists know that's a lie!)

CDC could use the total numbers since their sample is not valid. Then they'd have brake it down to do comparisons. They have to do something soon or all the data they produce starts looking suspicious.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:37 am We don't know what the CDC is doing, but they ARE documenting the issues with their reported data. If researchers don't look at the caveats and then go to the much more reliable data base, then the stigma of bad scholarship needs to be on THEM!

The problem is not so much the researchers using this data as it is the reporters using this data. Reporters don't pay attention to things like margin of error. Too ofyrn they don't even know what that is. By publishing data known to be unreliable the CDC is tacitly encouraging the public to be fooled by it.

Eris wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:39 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:37 am We don't know what the CDC is doing, but they ARE documenting the issues with their reported data. If researchers don't look at the caveats and then go to the much more reliable data base, then the stigma of bad scholarship needs to be on THEM!

The problem is not so much the researchers using this data as it is the reporters using this data. Reporters don't pay attention to things like margin of error. Too ofyrn they don't even know what that is. By publishing data known to be unreliable the CDC is tacitly encouraging the public to be fooled by it.

Well that certainly is a valid concern and point, Eris. Hate to say "Fake new" but it is.