Trump doesn't give a damn about school shootings, so why would anyone think he wanted to boost the numbers?
TDS strikes again.
Trump doesn't give a damn about school shootings, so why would anyone think he wanted to boost the numbers?
Sorry - should have been in purple. I generally feel they're good at remaining unbiased on the whole. There's a few that can't manage it, a have been regulated to non-news (e.g. Guy Raz). Diane Reim was the really openly biased one, and thankfully she retired.
Nevertheless, because they've been critical of the Trump administration (face it, there's a lot to be critical about), many INGO'ers dismiss them outright as "mainstream liberal media".
Per the article, the .gov’s definition included, “any discharge of a weapon at a school-sponsored event, or on school buses.” Even that’s pretty broad and would include a parent’s accidental/negligent discharge at an event, or a student who commits suicide in a school parking lot – neither of which we think of as a “school shooting.” So, even a real number based on that definition would be considered by many to be inflated.
Per the article, “The answer — "nearly 240 schools (0.2 percent of all schools)" — was published this spring.”
If we take the 11 incidents identified by NPR as “the number” (and even it is likely high) that’s more like 0.00009 of all schools, or 0.009%
If you read the entire article, everyone comes up with a different “number” on this; CRDC, NPR, the anti-gun “Everytown” people, and the ACLU.
Lots of totally made up stuff here - including incidents with knives or scissors getting conflated with “shooting” data.
All of this shows the data “collection” and quality are terrible. So terrible, I hesitate to even call it “data” which are defined as, “facts and statistics collected together for reference and analysis.” So terrible, it's worse than useless. It's misleading.
Calling these numbers "data" is an insult to data everywhere.
Yup.....and the .gov sending surveys to schools is ridiculous. This should be data taken from reliable sources.....not surveys. Hell, NPR found that one school was responsible for 20something reports of gun use because they wrote the wrong number on the wrong line. To call this "data" is ludicrous and a slap in the face to people that value true data. And it's a HUGE issue since this "data" is used to make big policy decisions.
For example, the Omro school district in Wisconsin wanted to know whether a consensual paintball-gun fight involving several students should be considered an "attack with a weapon" or a "possession of a firearm."
It saddens me that there are people filling out these kind of surveys that can't figure that out on their own. It tells you something about how much you should trust the data on pretty much anything. In fact, the whole report tells you how much you should trust data taken from surveys.
I wouldn't classify NPR as fair. I do listen to them a lot though because they offer more indepth coverage on news than the 2 min drill on WIBC. By a lot I mean 2-4 hours a day.
Their word selection is what gives it away for me. Specifically the adjectives, adverbs, and verbs they choose to use. I don't think they balance their coverage very well either when they have on experts.
Seems like we've had a thread on here some time back where someone (an article) had gone through and analyzed a bunch of so-called school shootings and debunked the vast majority of them as this NPR article appears to.
For example, the Omro school district in Wisconsin wanted to know whether a consensual paintball-gun fight involving several students should be considered an "attack with a weapon" or a "possession of a firearm."
It saddens me that there are people filling out these kind of surveys that can't figure that out on their own. It tells you something about how much you should trust the data on pretty much anything. In fact, the whole report tells you how much you should trust data taken from surveys.
THIS. And the gleeful giddy tone that Steve Innskeep gets whenever he's reporting on what he perceived to be a Trump screw up.
Where should they get the info from? The schools themselves should be reliable, and entering the wrong number on the wrong line does happen. They should double check, but...
Are you serious, or did you intend to purple this? I’m assuming you’re serious, because no purple.....
It’s a shooting.....so I’d say they should get the data from police or FBI records.
But instead they sent a ridiculous survey.
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems ****ing insane to me for them to have collected the “data” like they did with surveys. It’s the .gov for Christ’s sake. They have access to the actual criminal data and info that is gathered in the event of a shooting.
Nope, no purple. So instead of the schools send a survey to the police?
Re-read what I typed. There shouldn't be a survey.....period. The DATA should be collected directly from police agencies and the FBI. Surveys are not the same as a rigorous data collection process, and if this data is to be used to sway public opinion and/or make legislation, they better damn well get it right.
It would have been important if a funeral is important. A waste of time, in my mind. John doesn't care.
It would have been important if a funeral is important. A waste of time, in my mind. John doesn't care.
NPR, with the exception of certain shows, is generally pretty fair minded. I've read or listened to several pro-hunting, pro-firearms stories. One about female hunters and another on the need for sportsman to keep deer herds healthy have been discussed here on INGO before.
NPR is actually pretty unbiased. It may come off as liberal at times, but that's normally because of who they're interviewing. If it's coming off as slanted, you likely aren't hearing NPR's bias, you're hearing the bias of the person telling their story or opinion (not the reporters).
I don't wear Crocs. That gives me a leg up on any argument you make.