"Concealed Carry Killers" Statistics Reviewed

We’ve talked about how statistics can be so skewed in multiple threads (here’s jus tone example: Do Australia's Gun Laws Reduce Deaths?).

I’m always amazed at how the numbers can be so skewed - whether intentionally or because someone was just taking the high-level numbers (or was really bad at math).

The headlines labeling of Concealed Carriers as killers with the supposed numbers to back up that claim are misleading at best and malicious at worst.

This blog article debunks the slant taking in another article:

The center claims to have a database that includes 1,335 total people killed by “concealed carry killers” since May 2007.

Whether it’s a math oops or an editorial agenda:

What other topics do you see creative statistics?


ANY topic, any time, anywhere. If statistics are involved they are being used creatively, either because it’s just so easy to do (whereas using them correctly is actually difficult and tedious) or because people who are losing an argument often resort to bogus statistics as a way to “cite from authority”.

In any event, statistical analysis is a demanding and painstaking discipline. Any use of statistics, pro or con, should be taken with a grain of salt and examined thoroughly.


My favorite, is the per capita argument when discussing gun deaths. Chicago has more shooting deaths than any other city, but, St Louis is often labeled the most dangerous city. Why? Per capita numbers.


As my Father used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure”. In perusing statistics, the first thing I do is look at the source and determine their reputation. If past statistics have proven out as accurate after verification, then I will take the information as factual. In all other cases it ends up in the round file.


How many drinks drunk drivers say they have had versus their BAC. :joy:


Statistically speaking, the average person has one testicle and one ovary. :smiley:


My favorite is taxes. So, we are going to raise taxes on say cigs, so more people will stop smoking, and we will also use ALL the revenue for treating smoking related health issues… Kinda like trying to burn a sinking ship…


As Hannity says, “Journalism is dead!” So called “journalists” don’t do research anymore. They just submit a story (fake news) that fits their agenda and go on to the next lie. They aren’t required to admit that they are deceiving the readers.
Nowadays, a lot of people just read the headlines and don’t dive into the articles. So if they post a “shock” headline, they have pushed their agenda.
It’s our job to question them and prove that they are wrong…and call them out on it!


The problem is their “shock headline” is is in huge font on the front page, and if you are able to force a retraction it’s buried, usually in the back of the newspaper with the tiniest font possible. So all anyone remembers is the shock headline.

At one time, I went after a newspaper for a false and misleading story about the company that I was a regional director for (it happened in my region) took them to court, won the case, plus attorney fees, and they had to print a retraction and that is exactly what they did was print it in tiniest font possible in the legal notices section. My boss, other regional directors were like let it go, you’re just tilting at windmills and I was “no that’s my professional reputation on the line”. Still aggravates me.