Tough to Admit You Were Wrong

The Roanoke Times is having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that concealed carry in restaurants hasn’t increased crime in those places, but that crime in bars and restaurants actually seems to have decreased, and proceeds to rationalize their position, and suggest they could still be proven right:

But it is irresponsible to extrapolate too much from a naïve numerical count. Other factors weigh on crime rates. For example, was business down in bars over the same period? If bars had fewer patrons drinking less during the recession, then gun incidents might similarly fall off.

A 5 percent change could be statistical noise. It could reflect a decline from a previous increase. It could be the result of reduced enforcement in the face of less spending on public safety. Without deeper analysis and context, it is unreasonable to conclude any causal connection exists.

But if there had been a five percent increase, you can bet they’d be shouting from the rooftops how right they were. All their criticisms very well could be valid, but the fact of the matter is, the sky did not fall. We told you the sky would not fall. Now you don’t want to admit you were wrong, and that just seems to us to be a lot of whining to us.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Tough Battle on Restaurant Carry in Virginia
  2. Someone Call Hell & Check the Temperature
  3. Property Taxes: Round 3

4 thoughts on “Tough to Admit You Were Wrong”

  1. pff, it’s not a secret alcohol sales are one of the only things that increase during times of economic hardship.

  2. “Editorial: Don’t read too much into gun data”
    Translation: Ignore those inconvenient truths!

    “A slight decrease in crime since Virginia allowed more guns in bars means little.”
    Translation: It doesn’t count when we’re wrong.

    “We’re not sure who thought Virginia’s bars and restaurants would overflow with blood after lawmakers made the ill-advised decision to mix guns and alcohol.”
    Translation: We refuse to be held accountable for what we said, and we won’t admit that we said it.

    “But we are sure no one owes passionate gun advocates an apology based on limited data proffered without context.”
    Translation: We don’t care about civility, we will not apologize for lying to you because we don’t like you.

    “The Richmond-Times Dispatch figured that was long enough to discern the effects of the change.”
    Translation: They didn’t wait long enough, until the results were what we wanted them to be.

    “But it is irresponsible to extrapolate too much from a naïve numerical count.”
    Translation: We didn’t get the numbers we wanted, so the numbers don’t count.

    “A 5 percent change could be statistical noise.”
    Translation: When reality contradicts our anti-gun ideology, it’s reality that’s wrong.

    “Bloodbath was never the real fear.”
    Translation: Our strategy of promoting hysteria failed, so it wasn’t our strategy.

    “A fair assessment of the law’s effects therefore requires years of data.”
    Translation: We will never have to admit that we were wrong.

    “The lack of sound statistical method did not prevent Philip Van Cleave, the head of a Virginia gun rights group, from demanding an apology from all the naysayers. Come back in a few years, Mr. VanCleave, when the numbers will actually mean something.”
    Translation: Screw you, and your apology too!

  3. @ Chas

    Outstanding. You should publish your own gungrabber to english dictionary. :)

Comments are closed.