{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Recon Number 54:
2/17/2014 5:42:15 PM
3
[quote] it did not occur to any neighbouring state; the national trend was doing the opposite ..[/quote]
Gotta love it when the person doing the analysis and reaching the conclusion clearly states that they were "cherry picking".
PS: the National InstaCheck System (NICS) is a federal requirement. States can not "opt out" of it. The example in MO was that the local sheriff had to review and approve the purchase as "reasonable".
English
-
They are explaining how they isolated the variable they wished to examine, not claiming to cherry pick. If the thing they are testing is a local variable, surrounding, larger data sets would be the control. By pointing out that surrounding areas did not see a change, and that the local area experiences results opposite the national trend, they are trying to show the local variable difference yielded the different results.
-
At least he admitted it. Better to do that then deny it and say that gun violence in the US is increasing when he only analyzes one state.
-
Well if he lied it would remove all credibility since so many people know. If someone brought it up they may question what else he lied about.
