Bloomberg Lies: US accounts for “84% of female firearm homicides in 25 countries

[JimBowie1958]

Typical misinformation put out by Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action: The claim that US accounts for "84% of female firearm homicides in 25 countries are in US" - Crime Prevention Research Center

Typical misinformation put out by Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action: The claim that US accounts for “84% of female firearm homicides in 25 countries are in US”

Given the Santa Barbara killers’ hatred of women (though 4 of the 6 people killed were men), it is understandable that the topic of violence against women would be discussed. Not too surprisingly, despite the fact that half of those killed were killed by being stabbed, gun control organizations have been pushing for more gun control. In particular, Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action makes this claim about female victims of firearm homicides.

What complete and utter bullshit. Ignoring the rest of the Third World outside of California, comparing the US to Europe shows that we are among the safest countries for women.

The gun grabbing fascists bastard only know how to lie, lie, and lie some more.

 

[AceRothstein]

Bloomberg may not be lying. It is possible both Bloomberg and the chart shown above are correct, they are measuring different things.

 

[Ringel05]

Bloomberg may not be lying. It is possible both Bloomberg and the chart shown above are correct, they are measuring different things.

You keep telling yourself that.......

 

[AceRothstein]

Bloomberg may not be lying. It is possible both Bloomberg and the chart shown above are correct, they are measuring different things.

You keep telling yourself that.......

Basic knowledge of statistics tells me that. I'm sorry that is above your head. I never said I agreed with the info Bloomberg presented but it very well could be accurate.

 

[Ringel05]

Bloomberg may not be lying. It is possible both Bloomberg and the chart shown above are correct, they are measuring different things.

You keep telling yourself that.......

Basic knowledge of statistics tells me that. I'm sorry that is above your head. I never said I agreed with the info Bloomberg presented but it very well could be accurate.

Yup, I have a basic knowledge of statistics also....... and how often some manipulate the data to arrive at the results they're looking. I have an even more substantial knowledge of Bloomberg and his aggressive agenda.
I'm sorry that is above your head............

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Bloomberg may not be lying. It is possible both Bloomberg and the chart shown above are correct, they are measuring different things.

You keep telling yourself that.......

Basic knowledge of statistics tells me that. I'm sorry that is above your head. I never said I agreed with the info Bloomberg presented but it very well could be accurate.

The graph does not support the claim. If you have a different graph then please include it.

 

[AceRothstein]

You keep telling yourself that.......

Basic knowledge of statistics tells me that. I'm sorry that is above your head. I never said I agreed with the info Bloomberg presented but it very well could be accurate.

Yup, I have a basic knowledge of statistics also....... and how often some manipulate the data to arrive at the results they're looking. I have an even more substantial knowledge of Bloomberg and his aggressive agenda.
I'm sorry that is above your head............

That doesn't mean Bloomberg is lying which was my entire point. He is manipulating the statistics to try to make a political point. It is similar to righties on here saying Chicago is the most dangerous city in the country due to the number of homicides while ignoring homicide rate.

 

[AceRothstein]

You keep telling yourself that.......

Basic knowledge of statistics tells me that. I'm sorry that is above your head. I never said I agreed with the info Bloomberg presented but it very well could be accurate.

The graph does not support the claim. If you have a different graph then please include it.

The graph has completely different data than what Bloomberg claimed. I don't know where Bloomberg pulled his info from so I can't verify. Because of the high number of murders in this country compared to the other countries on the graph, the US could very easily account for 84% of female firearm homicides. That doesn't mean the US is a more dangerous place for women though.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are women who are killed by means other than firearms somehow not as dead?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Basic knowledge of statistics tells me that. I'm sorry that is above your head. I never said I agreed with the info Bloomberg presented but it very well could be accurate.

The graph does not support the claim. If you have a different graph then please include it.

The graph has completely different data than what Bloomberg claimed. I don't know where Bloomberg pulled his info from so I can't verify. Because of the high number of murders in this country compared to the other countries on the graph, the US could very easily account for 84% of female firearm homicides. That doesn't mean the US is a more dangerous place for women though.

Exactly, until l I see a graph that supports Bloomberg's claim, I will assume his numbers are inaccurate.

 

[Ringel05]

Basic knowledge of statistics tells me that. I'm sorry that is above your head. I never said I agreed with the info Bloomberg presented but it very well could be accurate.

Yup, I have a basic knowledge of statistics also....... and how often some manipulate the data to arrive at the results they're looking. I have an even more substantial knowledge of Bloomberg and his aggressive agenda.
I'm sorry that is above your head............

That doesn't mean Bloomberg is lying which was my entire point. He is manipulating the statistics to try to make a political point. It is similar to righties on here saying Chicago is the most dangerous city in the country due to the number of homicides while ignoring homicide rate.

Okay, I got your point. I disagree with you because Bloomberg and cabal are, by manipulating data, for all intent and purposes, lying.
Yes some RW's practice the same deceptive lie tactics. I've studied this issue for decades and I'll continue to rely on the FBI and Interpol data which is most often in direct conflict with Bloomberg's.
Besides Bloomie and and cabal have been caught numerous times manipulating data as well as conducting illegal, contrived stings, proving to me that he and they are not to be trusted.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yup, I have a basic knowledge of statistics also....... and how often some manipulate the data to arrive at the results they're looking. I have an even more substantial knowledge of Bloomberg and his aggressive agenda.
I'm sorry that is above your head............

That doesn't mean Bloomberg is lying which was my entire point. He is manipulating the statistics to try to make a political point. It is similar to righties on here saying Chicago is the most dangerous city in the country due to the number of homicides while ignoring homicide rate.

Okay, I got your point. I disagree with you because Bloomberg and cabal are, by manipulating data, for all intent and purposes, lying.
Yes some RW's practice the same deceptive lie tactics. I've studied this issue for decades and I'll continue to rely on the FBI and Interpol data which is most often in direct conflict with Bloomberg's.
Besides Bloomie and and cabal have been caught numerous times manipulating data as well as conducting illegal, contrived stings, proving to me that he and they are not to be trusted.

To support that claim the Bloomberg Nazis would have to list the 25 nations that they compare the US to in order to support that claim, but they don't. They just let people assume which countries are the statistical control group.

Yes, Bloomberg and his Nazis are using statistics to lie, and that doesn't make it any less a lie.

Edit: found this and the study was published in 2002 and used data from 1991 through 1994, twenty years out of date. They compare "female homicide victimization rates among 25 populous high-income countries" and I am not paying for their shit to found out which 25 countries they cherry picked for comparison.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11991417

got PDF of an earlier study this Hemenway did in 2000 and it is ridiculous.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730664/pdf/v006p00263.pdf

OMG, what bullshit, the data is from phone surveys!

"Methods
Data come from two national random digit dial surveys conducted by Fact Finders, Inc in the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1999. The
samples comprise, respectively, 1905 and 2521 adults living in the 50 states. The samples were stratified by state, with the
number of interviews designated for each state determined by that state’s population relative to the total population according to the 1990
census. All households with a single telephone line, including those with unlisted numbers, had an equal probability of inclusion in the
sample. Households without a telephone were excluded from the sample. No more than one adult from each household
was interviewed. Rather than interview the adult who happened to be at home at the time of the call, the interviewers alternately
asked to speak with a man or with a woman living in the household. If there was no adult living in the household of the requested gender,
the initial respondent was interviewed.
Results show unweighted data. Once a telephone number was randomly
selected, as many as 10 repeat phone calls were made until a final disposition was assigned. In 1996, 27% of contacted households refused to
participate in the survey; in 1999, 35% refused. These response rates are comparable to other self defense gun use surveys.11 12
Respondents who answered yes to either gun use qualifying question were asked up to 30 follow up questions about the most recent
event, including an open ended question which asked them to describe the incident. All results eliminate respondents who were police officers,
security guards, or military personnel.
Results also eliminate cases in which the respondent reported that the event occurred more than five years before the survey or outside the United
States.
In the case of hostile gun displays, we also eliminated incidents in which the respondent refused to provide any detailed information
about the event at the time of the initial interview, the respondent appeared to be an observer rather a participant in the event, or
was thought to be a criminal (for example, by the police).We were more stringent about what was counted as a hostile gun display, and more
permissive about was counted as a self defense gun use.
The specific qualifying questions in both surveys were similar.13 In 1999 respondents were asked “In the past five years, has anyone
used, displayed or brought out a gun in a hostile manner against you [italics added], even if this event did not take place as part of the
commission of a crime?” The 1996 question did not include the “against you” and so obtained more instances when the respondent
was merely a witness.
The 1999 survey inadvertently omitted an open ended question about the most recent hostile gun display. Four to eight months after
the initial interview we tried to recontact all those who had reported a hostile gun display against them. We were able to gain a verbatim
description of the most recent event from half these respondents. In 6% of these instances it appeared that the respondent merely witnessed
the hostile gun display. In calculating the number of hostile gun displays, we thus excluded 6% of all non-contacted respondents
who reported a hostile gun display.
All respondents in the 1999 survey were asked “In the past five years, have you used, displayed or brought out a gun in self defense
to protect yourself from a person or people?” The 1996 survey asked “In the past five years, have you used a gun to protect yourself from a
person or people?” In order to obtain a generous estimate of self defense gun uses, we included incidents even
when the respondent refused to give any information about the event or, from the description, it appeared the other party never knew the
respondent displayed the gun. Self defense gun use incidents were summarized and sent to five criminal court judges
(from California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) who were assured anonymity. The judges were told to assume that the respondent had a
permit to own and carry the gun and had described the event honestly from his/her own perspective. The judges were then asked to give
their best guess whether, based on the respondent’s description of the incident, the respondent’s use of the gun was very likely
legal, likely legal, as likely as not legal, unlikely legal, or very unlikely legal.

This is the kind of agit-prop bullshit that gun rights advocates have to deal with all the time. The fascist gun grabbers lie, lie and lie some more every damned day.