New Blog That Looks Interesting

The Power of Epsilon. If there’s one thing I think we need in the gun blogosphere, it’s more math geeks. No, I’m serious. This is why:

It’s hard to describe what it is about this comment that irritated me.  Part of it is the statistician in me, annoyed at the misuse of statistics in an attempt to prove a claim that has been discredited over and over again.

When the other side argues statistics, it’s nice to have a statistician in your back pocket to call on. Of course, arguing with MikeB is about as productive as smashing bricks against your head repeatedly, but attacking MikeB is probably a reasonably smart way to start a blog out. Guaranteed to bring commenters, especially if he shows up.

He notes that he won’t strictly be a gun blog. That’s probably smart too. It’s getting tough to write about guns regularly. All this economic meltdown means people don’t pay as much attention to gun issues. That’s probably good for the movement, but not so much for people who talk about it.

8 thoughts on “New Blog That Looks Interesting”

  1. And it’s refreshing to find people who know that in a technical sense, you don’t prove anything scientifically, or statistically.

    Science works by falsifying hypotheses, until one or a few remain, that have withstood attempts to falsify.

    But unfortunately, the general public understands these things only in the terms of whether something has been “proven” or not. And worse, when politics drive the motivation to find an answer (instead of a quest for truth in our understanding of phenomena).

  2. Thanks for the mention, Sebastian. You know that old expression, it doesn’t matter what they’re sayin’, as long as they’re talkin’ about you.

    In this case though, I think your brick imagery is a bit severe. Couldn’t the same be said about you and your friends? After all my attempts to use logic and common sense to reason with you, you still don’t get it. The more guns, less crime idea, for example. Only manipulation of facts and cherry picking of stats can support such a ridiculous theory, yet you do.

    And what about all the common ground between us, the open carry controversy for example, and the 3%ers.

    So, it’s not like I’m a hard-headed one and you’re not. We could both plead guilty to that one. Am I right?

  3. “After all my attempts to use logic and common sense…”

    “Attempts” is, indeed, the correct word for you to use– because you have not yet succeeded in grasping either. Keep trying, though!

  4. MikeB, anyone who would rather see kids die than teach them safety education loses all credibility in my book. The brick imagery is quite relevant methinks.

  5. RuffRidr, What you just said is as dumb as this:

    “RuffRidr, You would rather see kids die in gun accidents than agree to sensible gun laws.”

    One difference between us is I don’t accuse you of something that dumb. In fact, I don’t think you really believe I “would rather see kids die,” I think that’s just another of your incessant exaggerations. You exaggerate what I say then argue against that as if I’d actually said it.

  6. MikeB,
    You’ve mentioned many times that you are totally against gun safety education for kids, am I right? If I am remembering correctly your reasoning is that gun safety introduces kids to guns and that is a big no no in your world. So you tell me, which is better for you a kid that does not learn gun safety and accidentally shoots someone, or a kid who does learn gun safety and doesn’t? Keep in mind that your grand vision of a gun-free utopia where no one is exposed to them isn’t practical. For the foreseeable future, guns will be around and kids will occasionally come into contact with them. So yes, I may have used dramatic license, but that is essentially the position you are taking.

  7. “After all my attempts to use logic and common sense to reason with you, you still don’t get it.”

    Which attempt was that? All I’ve ever seen from you is lies, opinions, and distorted statistics.

Comments are closed.