6
6
0
Yet there are Media pundits that quote GVA as gospel. You have to depend on the reliability of your source.
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, LTC Trent Klug,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones, MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
1SG Dan Capri, LTC (Join to see)
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, LTC Trent Klug,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones, MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
1SG Dan Capri, LTC (Join to see)
Gun Violence Archive Assessment | Gun Facts
Posted from gunfacts.info
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns
Gun Control
Edited 5 mo ago
Posted 5 mo ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is not a gold-standard data source. It isn’t even a reliable source. Yet it is commonly, and tragically, cited by people in the media who don’t know enough about gun violence data and criminology to understand why they should avoid citing GVA.
(3)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Most of the people quoting GVA just assume it is correct because it supports their agenda, but many know the data ranges from manipulated to plain false and quote it anyway, because it does support their agenda.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I intentionally use GVA for many things specifically BECAUSE their definition is weaker.
The FBI definition excludes domestic violence, criminal violence, and gang violence. GVA does not. Why is this important? By excluding shooting involving other crimes or gangs, places like Chicago or LA or Baltimore or New Orleans all of a sudden appear safer than places like Cheyenne or Juneau. But that is not a true relation of the facts.
Additionally, very, very few of these mass shooters are taking individual, well-aimed, shots. The difference between 4 dead, 2 wounded and 2 dead, 4 wounded is arbitrary and comes down to luck more than anything else. Discounting the latter because two more people were lucky seems like a disservice to data, IMHO.
Yes, when comparing, data definitions are vital, and the clarity of that definition is also vital - and should be relayed in the discussion.
The FBI definition excludes domestic violence, criminal violence, and gang violence. GVA does not. Why is this important? By excluding shooting involving other crimes or gangs, places like Chicago or LA or Baltimore or New Orleans all of a sudden appear safer than places like Cheyenne or Juneau. But that is not a true relation of the facts.
Additionally, very, very few of these mass shooters are taking individual, well-aimed, shots. The difference between 4 dead, 2 wounded and 2 dead, 4 wounded is arbitrary and comes down to luck more than anything else. Discounting the latter because two more people were lucky seems like a disservice to data, IMHO.
Yes, when comparing, data definitions are vital, and the clarity of that definition is also vital - and should be relayed in the discussion.
(1)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
Five Ways To Lie:
1. Lie.
2. Tell a Half-Truth.
3. Repeat Unverified Information.
4. Distraction.
5. Quote Statistics.
1. Lie.
2. Tell a Half-Truth.
3. Repeat Unverified Information.
4. Distraction.
5. Quote Statistics.
(2)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
And, of course, the simplest reason for using GVA despite knowing the data is often manipulated or just plain faked is because it supports your agenda when real facts would not.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"gunfacts.info" is not a gold-standard data source. It isn’t even a reliable source. And yet, here you are.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google