|
|
It is currently Mon May 13, 2024 1:29 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Oh jeez, here we go again...
Author |
Message |
havegunjoe
|
Post subject: Re: Philidelphia study disembowled. Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:03 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:32 am Posts: 515 Location: Metro Area - Apple Valley
|
Just as I tell people, 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
_________________ DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.
|
|
|
|
|
Judge
|
Post subject: Re: Philidelphia study disembowled. Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:16 am |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:30 am Posts: 39 Location: Nerstrand
|
[quote="havegunjoe"]Just as I tell people, 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.[/quote ]
74% of people know that.
_________________ Judge, jury, and anything else I need to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Hughes
|
Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again... Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:28 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm Posts: 1525 Location: Isanti, MN
|
chunkstyle wrote: Quote: 40 cases is the minimum number considered to produce a statistically significant sample, depending on what shape the results take. The size of the sample after that doesn't really matter except in reducing the margin of error or increasing the confidence level, and size in relation to the population doesn't matter.
But that assumes no errors in sample selection, and more significantly, no bias in sample selection deliberately induced to skew results to a desired end. This is when science becomes propaganda. Perfectly said chunk.....In a lot of instances this type of propaganda is targeted at that segment of the population that couldn't sort out the number(s) even with their shoes off counting their toes. The propagandists rely on people being scared by scary numbers.
_________________ “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -
WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again... Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:17 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
Not only did they NOT screen for unlawful possession, they did NOT screen for drugs/alcohol in blood at time of assault, NOR for gang membership. Those are the three variables that crop up most often in violent crimes (just ask the Criminologists). The MD's always cherry pick their data base in order to secure the desired result. This seems to be just another version of the original Kellerman study (43 times) with all the same flaws. Good refutation is contained here: http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-s ... -be-better
_________________ President of AACFI, GOCRA, CCRN, and A2A
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Hughes
|
Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again... Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:42 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm Posts: 1525 Location: Isanti, MN
|
That's the first thing I thought when I read Philly. From all I've heard and read there's large parts of the city that are a wasteland. Manipulated (cherry picked) data is just G.I.G.O.
_________________ “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -
WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM
|
|
|
|
|
AGoodDay
|
Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again... Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:21 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:06 pm Posts: 666 Location: St Cloud
|
chunkstyle wrote: Quote: 40 cases is the minimum number considered to produce a statistically significant sample, depending on what shape the results take. The size of the sample after that doesn't really matter except in reducing the margin of error or increasing the confidence level, and size in relation to the population doesn't matter.
But that assumes no errors in sample selection, and more significantly, no bias in sample selection deliberately induced to skew results to a desired end. This is when science becomes propaganda. Yup. I also forwarded this stuff to my statistics professor for his thoughts. He talked to me today and basically said he can see where they were trying to go with this, but their method still looked like crap, and they're drawing a conclusion from the information that is not appropriate to draw from the information that they have. Andrew, any chance you'll have a version of the article I would be able to get my hands on?
_________________ Try not. Do or do not, but do not try. - Yoda
Never give up. Never, never, never. - Churchill
Stand on the shoulders of your giant.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again... Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:39 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
|
|
|
|
SethB
|
Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again... Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:42 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm Posts: 818 Location: downtown Mpls
|
The statistic may be perfectly correct. It's still garbage. (See Simpson's Paradox.)
Consider the following hypothetical society:
10% of people are gangsters. 90% of people are civilians.
90% of gangsters (9% of population) have guns. 10% of civilians (9% of population) have guns.
80% of gangsters without guns (0.8% of population) get shot. 40% of gangsters with guns (3.6% of population) get shot.
1% of civilians without guns (0.9% of population) get shot. 0% of civilians with guns (0.0% of population) get shot.
Now, let's do some statistics.
People with guns: 18% of population. People with guns who get shot: 3.6% of population (3.6%+0%)
People without guns: 82% of population People without guns who get shot: 1.7% of population.
So, overall, percentage of people with guns who get shot: 3.6/18= 20% Percentage of people without guns who get shot: 1.7/82= 2.07%
So if you look at the overall percentages, it looks like you're 10 times more likely to get shot if you have a gun. But it's easy to see that if you're a gangster, you're less likely to get shot if you have a gun. And if you're a civilian, you're less likely to get shot if you have a gun.
And if you're a doctor who doesn't understand statistics or cause and effect, having a gun makes you 40 times more likely to be a gangster.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|