Site that I happened across, unsure if..

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't trust organizations whose "about" pages are so opaque. No names, no location, just a general inquiry email.

"It is hoped that this information will inform and assist those engaged in discussions and activities concerning gun violence, including analysis of proposed regulations or legislation relating to gun safety usage."
​
Sure. ;)
 
I take issue with the term "gun violence." The same as I take issue with the term "gun crime."

Ever heard of "knife violence?" "Knife crime?" "Hammer violence?" "Automobile violence?" "Unattended swimming pool violence?"

There's violence, and there's crime. Assigning an object before the word implies the object causes the violence, or the crime.

And statistics on suicides by firearms, defensive gun use, accidental injuries and deaths, all lumped in as "gun violence?"
 
I just looked the Org up at the IRS. It has been a 502(c)3 nonprofit since 2013. It had no iPad staff but does pay independent contractors. It’s last (2018) IRS Form 990 showed it had income of $550,000 and and a loss of about $60,000. So it is real, but of course that does not certify its studies. However, I heard of it some years back, and I tend to believe it is legit.
 
I've been crawling through the different incidents on the maps (in the charts&Maps tab) and have been checking the different hot spots for a few states.
 
I think I'd be more interested in a similar site showing successful defensive or preventive use of firearms.

Trouble is, those don't get 130 man person humanoid hours of coverage for five straight days on each TV news program.

Heck, they don't hardly get any coverage at all.

That's what I'd be more interested in.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
memtb said:
If you want lots of data and facts ....check on John Lott’s web site! He’s a statistic egghead! Wrote the book....More Guns, Less Crime! memtb
Click to expand...
Well aware of Mr. Lott's work I think this website can be a good addition to his stuff.
 
230RN said:
I think I'd be more interested in a similar site showing successful defensive or preventive use of firearms.

Trouble is, those don't get 130 man person humanoid hours of coverage for five straight days on each TV news program.

Heck, they don't hardly get any coverage at all.

That's what I'd be more interested in.

Terry, 230RN
Click to expand...
It does show defensive use of firearms in the Charts&Maps tab. Just go to the map and click the title of the map and it brings up a chart with each individual incident.
 
Tinkerer's_Dam said:
Seems to provide good documentation
Click to expand...

Sorry, no. Here's the flaw from their About -The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 7,500 law enforcement, media, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence.

Firstly, NPR established that media and commercial and government references to "gun violence" at schools was completely unreliable when they conducted contact calls to the schools that were referred to in Dept of Ed and media accounts of "school shootings" most of the time the schools contacted denied that any shooting had taken place on school grounds, many reported the referenced "gun violence" had been in parking lots or sporting areas as opposed to the academic facilities, and much of the remainder involved rounds found on school property where no injuries occurred. NPR showed the Education department's own database couldn't be validated to better than 20%. They also could not validate more than 50% of shootings reported by the media. If the GVA is using unsupportable reporting by media and flawed reporting by government that NPR showed as unreliable then GVA is misreporting rumors as data.

Secondly, GVA is trying to present "near-real time" "data" when we have repeatedly seen that any information about a shooting within the first 48 hours is generally unreliable to any extent beyond the most basic level. Numbers of victims, types of weapons, numbers of deaths are typically revised in the first 48 hours.

Third, no criteria for inclusion in their "data" is given. We've time and time again seen that reporting from various sources change the definition of ill defined terms and even intentionally alter well defined terms from the FBI on violent crime, homicide, murder, mass shooting, mass murder, etc. The only consistently quality data on mass shootings other than the DOJ/FBI reports has been...Mother Jones. Yes, Mother Jones is the only reliable media resource reporting consistently using the DOJ/FBI definitions on mass shootings/mass murder. Other organizations conflate violent crime, homicide, gun homicide, mass shooting numbers.

I would NOT consider the Gun Violence Archive to be a reliable source of information.
 
hso said:
Sorry, no. Here's the flaw from their About -The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 7,500 law enforcement, media, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence.

Firstly, NPR established that media and commercial and government references to "gun violence" at schools was completely unreliable when they conducted contact calls to the schools that were referred to in Dept of Ed and media accounts of "school shootings" most of the time the schools contacted denied that any shooting had taken place on school grounds, many reported the referenced "gun violence" had been in parking lots or sporting areas as opposed to the academic facilities, and much of the remainder involved rounds found on school property where no injuries occurred. NPR showed the Education department's own database couldn't be validated to better than 20%. They also could not validate more than 50% of shootings reported by the media. If the GVA is using unsupportable reporting by media and flawed reporting by government that NPR showed as unreliable then GVA is misreporting rumors as data.

Secondly, GVA is trying to present "near-real time" "data" when we have repeatedly seen that any information about a shooting within the first 48 hours is generally unreliable to any extent beyond the most basic level. Numbers of victims, types of weapons, numbers of deaths are typically revised in the first 48 hours.

Third, no criteria for inclusion in their "data" is given. We've time and time again seen that reporting from various sources change the definition of ill defined terms and even intentionally alter well defined terms from the FBI on violent crime, homicide, murder, mass shooting, mass murder, etc. The only consistently quality data on mass shootings other than the DOJ/FBI reports has been...Mother Jones. Yes, Mother Jones is the only reliable media resource reporting consistently using the DOJ/FBI definitions on mass shootings/mass murder. Other organizations conflate violent crime, homicide, gun homicide, mass shooting numbers.

I would NOT consider the Gun Violence Archive to be a reliable source of information.
Click to expand...
This has been my experience with even a casual look at readily available info. I find it hard to stomach most narratives that "report" on "gun violence". It is usually easy to ID the agenda that drives the narrative. Read critically my friends.
 
From the Gun Violence Archive website: “The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 7,500 law enforcement, media, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence. GVA is an independent data collection and research group with no affiliation with any advocacy organization”.

GVA is aggregating data from the sources it mentions above. Of course, some of the data it acquires could me inaccurate, but it is nit drawing conclusions from its data. It advocates nothing. Based on the law of averages I would bet it’s data is generally statistically reliable. No more-no less. So let’s assume that it has an error rate of 15%. It would still be the most available comprehensive data. It may be unique.
 
hso said:
Sorry, no. Here's the flaw from their About -The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 7,500 law enforcement, media, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence.

Firstly, NPR established that media and commercial and government references to "gun violence" at schools was completely unreliable when they conducted contact calls to the schools that were referred to in Dept of Ed and media accounts of "school shootings" most of the time the schools contacted denied that any shooting had taken place on school grounds, many reported the referenced "gun violence" had been in parking lots or sporting areas as opposed to the academic facilities, and much of the remainder involved rounds found on school property where no injuries occurred. NPR showed the Education department's own database couldn't be validated to better than 20%. They also could not validate more than 50% of shootings reported by the media. If the GVA is using unsupportable reporting by media and flawed reporting by government that NPR showed as unreliable then GVA is misreporting rumors as data.

Secondly, GVA is trying to present "near-real time" "data" when we have repeatedly seen that any information about a shooting within the first 48 hours is generally unreliable to any extent beyond the most basic level. Numbers of victims, types of weapons, numbers of deaths are typically revised in the first 48 hours.

Third, no criteria for inclusion in their "data" is given. We've time and time again seen that reporting from various sources change the definition of ill defined terms and even intentionally alter well defined terms from the FBI on violent crime, homicide, murder, mass shooting, mass murder, etc. The only consistently quality data on mass shootings other than the DOJ/FBI reports has been...Mother Jones. Yes, Mother Jones is the only reliable media resource reporting consistently using the DOJ/FBI definitions on mass shootings/mass murder. Other organizations conflate violent crime, homicide, gun homicide, mass shooting numbers.

I would NOT consider the Gun Violence Archive to be a reliable source of information.
Click to expand...
I agree 100 percent with what you said .

That NPR investigation was quite an eye opener .
 
Here's a story about the guy that started the site:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/23/kentucky-gun-owner-gun-violence-archive-mark-bryant

(the guy's database building skills are - pretty damned good (my professional opinion based on my 20 plus years as a database administrator)

The source of their funding seems to be
Michael Klein

The oddest thing about them I can see is - they don't beg for donations.

I would NOT consider the Gun Violence Archive to be a reliable source of information.
Click to expand...
While I agree with you 100% - the problem is - the people that would use this type of data to support claims of "gun violence" will believe the slanted and incorrect data - and those are the people that make the rules (or vote for the people that make the rules).
 
Last edited:
hso said:
Sorry, no. Here's the flaw from their About -The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 7,500 law enforcement, media, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence.

Firstly, NPR established that media and commercial and government references to "gun violence" at schools was completely unreliable when they conducted contact calls to the schools that were referred to in Dept of Ed and media accounts of "school shootings" most of the time the schools contacted denied that any shooting had taken place on school grounds, many reported the referenced "gun violence" had been in parking lots or sporting areas as opposed to the academic facilities, and much of the remainder involved rounds found on school property where no injuries occurred. NPR showed the Education department's own database couldn't be validated to better than 20%. They also could not validate more than 50% of shootings reported by the media. If the GVA is using unsupportable reporting by media and flawed reporting by government that NPR showed as unreliable then GVA is misreporting rumors as data.

Secondly, GVA is trying to present "near-real time" "data" when we have repeatedly seen that any information about a shooting within the first 48 hours is generally unreliable to any extent beyond the most basic level. Numbers of victims, types of weapons, numbers of deaths are typically revised in the first 48 hours.

Third, no criteria for inclusion in their "data" is given. We've time and time again seen that reporting from various sources change the definition of ill defined terms and even intentionally alter well defined terms from the FBI on violent crime, homicide, murder, mass shooting, mass murder, etc. The only consistently quality data on mass shootings other than the DOJ/FBI reports has been...Mother Jones. Yes, Mother Jones is the only reliable media resource reporting consistently using the DOJ/FBI definitions on mass shootings/mass murder. Other organizations conflate violent crime, homicide, gun homicide, mass shooting numbers.

I would NOT consider the Gun Violence Archive to be a reliable source of information.
Click to expand...
Many "School shootings" do take place like that and it coincides with information documented in Colin Flaherty's books "White Girl Bleed Alot" and "Don't Make The Black Kids Angry". Much of the local and national media decline to comment on such events due to the racial demographic involved. It's almost an unspoken rule in most news rooms.
 
State laws restricting defensive carry result in disproportionately higher gun deaths.

An observation I made based on the charts below, which should be easy to statistically reject if untrue. Compare the lower left death map to the defensive map. Lots of deaths in NY, NJ, CA with relatively few defensive stops. Lots of deaths in TX with lots of defensive stops. Some deaths in Missouri with some stops. Just a few examples.


View attachment 987717
 
Some things I noted.

<<Corrected error>>
They don't define "children" anywhere on the website. My guess is that they are including everyone up to 18, at least as a "child". That's a reasonable cutoff, but it includes a lot of persons that probably don't fit the picture that most folks immediately form when they hear the word "children". It would be nice to have some kind of breakdown to see what the actual ages are. My guess is that such a breakdown would show that the deaths are heavily weighted toward the upper limit

They are careful to define what they mean by "defensive use", but their definition will result in pretty low numbers for reasons that are well explained by Gary Kleck in his survey. It's sort of unavoidable if you want to have data where you can pull up a specific incident and talk about it, but it does tend to give the impression that defensive uses are much less common than experts agree they really are.

Boiling large, complicated data sets down to very simple plots or charts can hide a lot of important information. For example, most people tend to form an immediate picture in their mind when someone talks about a murder victim. The picture is often pretty innacurate.

Here are the summary results of interesting study in one large city.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/bpd-2019-murder-victim-suspect-analysis/30374201#
  • Over 80% of murder victims had a criminal record.
  • Almost 70% of murder victims had a previous drug-related arrest.
  • Over 40% of murder victims had been previously arrested for some kind of firearm related crime.
  • One in 6 or 7 had been shot before.
One more interesting data point. Almost exactly the same statistics applied to their killers.

So, we look at the plots and think. So many innocent people killed. Which, I suspect, is exactly the goal of the website. In reality (though I don't mean to downplay the tragedy or loss of life) it's really more about so many criminals killed by other criminals. Again, not saying that's a good thing, just that it's not exactly what most people are going to think when they look at the plots.
 
Last edited:
JohnKSa said:
Some things I noted.

They don't define "children" anywhere on the website. My guess is that they are including everyone up to 18, at least as a "child". That's a reasonable cutoff, but it includes a lot of persons that probably don't fit the picture that most folks immediately form when they hear the word "children". It would be nice to have some kind of breakdown to see what the actual ages are. My guess is that such a breakdown would show that the deaths are heavily weighted toward the upper limit.

They are careful to define what they mean by "defensive use", but their definition will result in pretty low numbers for reasons that are well explained by Gary Kleck in his survey. It's sort of unavoidable if you want to have data where you can pull up a specific incident and talk about it, but it does tend to give the impression that defensive uses are much less common than experts agree they really are.

Boiling large, complicated data sets down to very simple plots or charts can hide a lot of important information. For example, most people tend to form an immediate picture in their mind when someone talks about a murder victim. The picture is often pretty innacurate.

Here are the summary results of interesting study in one large city.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/bpd-2019-murder-victim-suspect-analysis/30374201#
  • Over 80% of murder victims had a criminal record.
  • Almost 70% of murder victims had a previous drug-related arrest.
  • Over 40% of murder victims had been previously arrested for some kind of firearm related crime.
  • One in 6 or 7 had been shot before.
One more interesting data point. Almost exactly the same statistics applied to their killers.

So, we look at the plots and think. So many innocent people killed. Which, I suspect, is exactly the goal of the website. In reality (though I don't mean to downplay the tragedy or loss of life) it's really more about so many criminals killed by other criminals. Again, not saying that's a good thing, just that it's not exactly what most people are going to think when they look at the plots.
Click to expand...
Good point, but it's when you point out the typical ages for the children murdered or shot during a home invasion or defensive use (more often than not it's teenagers involved in criminal activity)
 
It’s there on the website. 0-11 years old are considered children.
Click to expand...
Sure enough. I looked at their definitions page--should have just looked at the categories more carefully.

So from the data, the number of teens (12-17) is about 4x higher than the number of children (0-11)who were killed.
The number of teens (12-17) injured is between 4x and 5x higher than the number of children (0-11) injured.
That makes sense.
 
JohnKSa said:
Sure enough. I looked at their definitions page--should have just looked at the categories more carefully.

So from the data, the number of teens (12-17) is about 4x higher than the number of children (0-11)who were killed.
The number of teens (12-17) injured is between 4x and 5x higher than the number of children (0-11) injured.
That makes sense.
Click to expand...

I’ve got mixed feelings about the site. My rough assessment is that it appears to try and present facts, and does a pretty good job describing how data is put into bins. I don’t agree with some of the binning, and I don’t like the fact they are in DC, as two examples. But I appreciate the effort.
 
Funny thing is, if you just look at the "raw graphic" the vast majority of all shootings happen in "blue states" with more restrictive gun laws. Except for Florida of course, where you can get shot for honking your horn in traffic. Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
This just ain't right!
Replies
6
Views
988
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
O
  • Locked
Does Anybody See the Bias?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Viking6
V
L
  • Locked
An interesting threat ranking
Replies
0
Views
447
Logan5
L
DM~
  • Locked
Two CCW Holders Kill Eachother Over Road Rage
Replies
6
Views
979
Al Thompson
A
G
  • Locked
Biased reports on gun control
Replies
4
Views
1K
gunsmith
G
Back
Top