People tend to love data, especially if they can use (twist?) it to back up their emotional appeals to further things towards their desired ends.
Hey, we all do it.
The trick for the listener is to sift through everything and truly see the data for what it is, not what someone wants to present.
So to that, well… I’d reblog this if there was a way, but as a posting on Facebook the best I can do is copy/paste it. This was posted by Marc MacYoung here:
In a thread about gun control, the old saws about the victims being children, women and targets of racism came up. Here’s some things to think about…
Here are some raw, baseline — and indisputable — facts about violence that spin-doctors tend to deep six. (As they should because they undermine the credibility of the agenda-group’s message.)
An overwhelming majority of violence occurs between people who know each other. (Killing a stranger is exceedingly rare.)
An overwhelming majority of violence is committed by a member of a race on someone of his/her own race. Violence between different races is rare — except robbery.
A large — if not overwhelming — majority of homicide ‘victims’ have criminal records (and are themselves engaged in criminal lifestyles or illegal activities)
An overwhelming majority of homicide perpetrators have criminal records and are actively engaged in criminal lifestyle or illegal activities)
(Note and distinction — a criminal lifestyle means literally crime is their profession. They make their living off it. [e.g., a drug dealer]. This as opposed to someone who is doing something that is illegal [e.g., buying drugs])
Criminal enterprises — especially drug dealing — commonly involve teens and even children (under 12) as part of their ‘crew.’ (In other words, the ‘children’ killed by guns are often gangmembers and drug dealers.)
Men are more likely to be the ~cough cough~ victims of physical violence than women. With the following caveats…
Women are far less likely to become physically violent with a stranger, but are AS likely (although some argue more likely) to become physically violent within family/ relationship.
So where women are as likely to be victims as men are in domestic situation, BUT they are just as likely to be the perpetrators. (I have a saying that before someone can be certified as an expert in the subject of domestic violence they should be required to live in a trailer park for a year.)
Where women ARE the leading ‘victims’ of physical assault is when it comes to rape. But with the current redefinition of rape to include drunk sex — technically speaking men are being raped at a higher rate. (Granted that’s not how it’s being legally interpreted, but drunk and unable to give consent is not sex/gender specific.)
Rape has a legal precedence of being deemed ‘Grievous bodily injury’ — thereby justifying use of lethal force.
Now, these ‘facts’ are available, but you have to dig — I mean REALLY dig.
Because simply stated, a lot of the times questions (that would reveal these) are deliberately not asked in studies/statistics that are going for a specific answer. Answers to support particular agendas. Oddly enough, in studies where they are, the common response to claim the study is biased, unreliable and agenda driven. (How do they manage not to choke on the irony?)
That’s why when people start with the women, children and race aspects of gun control I have to hold up my hand and say “Wait a minute…” because this is the stuff they’re leaving out. Starting with the fact that we have an armed professional criminal class in this country. (The good news is they prefer shooting each other over civilians.)
Spend some time looking up this data at the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Again, it takes digging and you’ll often find only fragments here and there. But when you put the pieces together, you’ll find that things are WAY different than what the agenda pushers are selling.
So, take it for what you will.
One thing that sprung to my mind after reading Marc’s posting was something Tom Givens trots out.
Tom likes to point out that you’ve got about a 1-in-150 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. Tom uses numbers taken from those above same sources. If you look at Tom’s number through the filter of Marc’s information, the average law-abiding citizen doesn’t have a 1-in-150 — their chances are much less; 1-in-300? 1-in-1000? 1-in-10,000? I can’t say, but certainly not 1-in-150. And if you’re a member of that criminal class, your chances are much higher; 1-in-15 maybe? Again I can’t say.
Granted, Tom is simplifying to make a point, because whatever the actual chances are, it’s still a likely event.
But however you look at it, and whomever is presenting data – even people “on your side” – it’s wise to dig deeper.