Out of 27,900 research publications on gun laws, only 123 tested their effects rigorously.

This was a very interesting video. There is actually a lot going on in the background about actual statistics (confidence intervals, significance/p-value, null/alternative hypotheses) and this video sums it up in layman's terms quite well. The whole study of statistics is about proving (or disproving) that correlation equals causation, that is, in this case, a "gun control policy did or did not have the desired outcome as a result of its implementation".

However, people should not use this video to "disprove the effectiveness of gun control". The same statistical problems affect both sides of the argument, namely a poorly constructed hypothesis and the lack of quality data. I also believe the author is correct, that it is certainly possible to use statistics to "suppress" information, and without rigorous supplementary analysis, it is hard to discover.

Think "averages". If you do an arithmetic average (sum all parts then divide by the number of parts) you can hide the fact there is a very large range of data. For example: 1 + 50 + 100 has an 'average' of 50.3, and the 'median' is 50. If I used this method to describe "gun control by year", it would appear that the average of mass shootings or whatever has not changed over 3 years, when in fact there was a dramatic change. If we had used standard deviation and variance, we would see that the data points are an 'average' of 49.5/2450 from the 'mean', indicating a HUGE dispersion in the data. So, if we were given the 'average' of 50, but also the SD and Var of 49.5 and 2450, we would know something is really strange with this data even if we could not see the data itself.

Gun control is going to be a huge debate for a while. I was going to write more, but it's time for lunch!

[snipped]

Gun control is going to be a huge debate for a while. I was going to write more, but it's time for lunch!

You deserve a snack!  I think you gleaned the important take-aways from the video.

We know correlation does not prove causation because everyone who disagrees with the conclusions of a study uses that as their #1 argument.

What the majority of people don't seem to get is that no statistic or "fact" will ever balance out the loss of a civil right -- especially the one that the founders understood is essential for protecting ALL civil rights.

As for the effectiveness of gun control, we know it works -- to the benefit of the government and criminals.  In terms of individual safety and protection?  Not so much.

What many have come to trust is that statistics are facts.  Anyone who understands statistics will admit that the results are a guess -- an estimate -- with a defined error rate above or below the stated number.  Even reports of incidents are not facts, since so many incidents go unreported for various reasons.  The people viewing the conclusions as the gospel will deny any studies that result in conclusions that contradict what they believe.

Stats and studies will never decide gun control or gun rights.  That answer has already been decided throughout history.  Stats will only serve to convince the layman of an agenda they might not have believed otherwise.

What many have come to trust is that statistics are facts. 

It's unfortunate that many do not understand or acknowledge this.  Add in logic as well. "If an active shooter is standing 10 feet from you, would you want a gun or a phone to call 911?".  With the exception on the rep for HI's retail association.  She said she rather have an active shooter continue shoot until HPD gets here, than a good guy with a CCW stopping them in seconds.

It's unfortunate that many do not understand or acknowledge this.  Add in logic as well. "If an active shooter is standing 10 feet from you, would you want a gun or a phone to call 911?".  With the exception on the rep for HI's retail association.  She said she rather have an active shooter continue to shoot until HPD gets here, than a good guy with a CCW stopping them in seconds.

She forgot(?) to mention as long as she is not in the immediate area.