The problem goes like this: blacks and hispanics are poorer than whites. Being poorer means more crime. More crime means law enforcement agencies, when deciding where and how to police, target blacks and hispanics, and places where more of those races live, for more policing. In turn, this means less policing for…

One other person made a similar claim and I agree - the data can be biased for the very reasons you’ve stated, thus yielding an inaccurate or even inappropriate conclusion.  

Background checks and guns sales are related, but they are not interchangeable.

This is true.

Well, thanks for coming around to my original point: people are going to believe whatever they want to believe, so is it even worth reporting or debating?

Ok - so let’s follow your logic through, since there can’t seem to be an agreement on what a legitimate source is for facts. You’re stating, essentially, that the gun industry (which is apparently gun manufacturers, pro-second amendment organizations, related right-wing news outlets, etc.) is intentionally fabricating…

Who is “he”?

So anyone that supports constitutional rights can’t be heard from or is it just second amendment supporters that are the problem? I mean, we’re freely considering Media Matters and other left-leaning organizations here, so maybe it is just right-leaning that’s the problem?

Well, see, you can find a problem in citing any source. Someone is always going to claim that their methods and analysis are as they appear to be. You cited the America Journal of Preventive Medicine, to which I would offer this:

I stated my opinion and the sources I used to form that opinion. You are not in a position to place any onus on me for anything. If you don’t like the facts or the source for those facts, that is for you to deal with.

You give me:

But my mother is dead. How is it that she is engaged in the kind of sexual activity that you describe? Please cite your source.

Of course, you’re going to argue against the validity of these points because they were collected together on MediaMatters—in spite of the fact that the people quoted above are legitimate statisticians, academics and scientists.

after firing James Comey, the president was apparently mad to see him leaving on a government jet, and this call transpired (emphasis added):

The creators of The Simpsons should be all over this. I’ll throw in $ just to see it.

You’re the one that’s questioning it, how about you show me where it is wrong? News outlets like the Washington Times already reviewed it. We both know that no matter what analysis and independent confirmation I did wouldn’t matter to you as you would simply dismiss the findings like you are now.

How about facts? Feel free to provide information showing John Lott’s analysis to be incorrect. I’m not going to hold my breath though...

“It’s very interesting the actors they put in that ad, the victim is a white woman, the perpetrator is a male with dark hair, a mustache or facial hair so one could argue they’re trying to create this image of the Latino man that’s suspect,”

It’s ok - we’ll save in the long run. Melania’s staff size is only four people. The previous first lady’s staff (at least during the first year) was 16, costing about $1M more. Some reports (e.g. FactCheck.org) placed Michelle Obama’s staff numbers as high as 24 for the first year.

And yet somehow correct. How do you figure that?