Statistics based on what a small number of polled people say they are going to do obviously are a lot more prone to error than statistics based on what actually happened.
I didn't come to this forum as much in the past, not around the election. But, I thought I read some posts, weren't you pretty sure that statistically Hillary was likely to win the election, that is what the numbers showed?
Statistics based on what a small number of polled people say they are going to do obviously are a lot more prone to error than statistics based on what actually happened.
I'm not throwing out all numbers. But you and I both know studies have been wrong (eat margarine, live forever, don't eat eggs) and shouldn't be taken at face value as absolute truth.
When you look at the number of gun owners vs. number of gun owner deaths by firearm you're talking about factions of a fraction of a percent. It is a meaningless statistic, far too broad, and has zero practical application.
Good for 538, what about you and the statistics you backed? What about everyone else and their numbers? Point is, you've been wrong with numbers before, this is a silly meaningless statistic you're trying to push.
You always start with the defensive name calling when something gets a little too close to home for you, when you know something has some truth to it you don't like.
No it's actually from dozens, maybe even hundreds of different studies, a bunch of which I linked earlier in this thread.
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ar-mandalay-bay.2520590/page-37#post-39102405
The findings are robust across a large range of different methodologies, areas of the country, etc. What I linked here is really only the tip of the iceberg and in many ways is common sense. If you have more lethal means around you people tend to die more.
Literally no one takes them as absolute truth. This is ridiculous.
You already tried to claim it was far too broad but it turned out that's because you didn't understand what you were talking about. If you're going to claim it's 'too broad' then please operationalize how you are using the term 'broad' and how it applies here.
As for practical application that's incredibly easy. If your purpose for owning a gun is to protect yourself, don't buy one.
This is a desperate and silly attempt to dismiss facts that tell you things you don't want to hear. Empirical research is not always right, but that's a ridiculous standard that shouldn't be applied to almost anything. You can keep covering your ears and claiming that the fact you are more likely to die if you own a gun than without is meaningless but nobody is going to buy that crap.
Are you saying a normal civilian never has used a gun to defend themselves and their home? If someone has indeed done so (and they don't kill themselves with a gun later - what a joke), then they bucked that statistic and it doesn't apply to them. To say all gun owners are less safe for having a gun is a far too broad of a stat. The reality is the vast majority of the 100,000,000 gun owners in this country will die from something other than a gun. That statistic has no practical meaning.
Numbers don't tell the whole picture. That is all.
Thanks. I was mostly curious. I believe it is that 1993 Kellerman that often gets cited because it specifically says gun or guns in home of victim. It's good that there are at least more recent studies out there.
We know guns aren't going away in this country. So I wonder if we can pivot to a more healthy gun culture like that of Switzerland or Czech Republic.
Are you saying a normal civilian never has used a gun to defend themselves and their home? If someone has indeed done so (and they don't kill themselves with a gun later - what a joke), then they bucked that statistic and it doesn't apply to them. That statistic has no practical meaning.
Numbers don't tell the whole picture. That is all.
Dude. That's not how statistics work or are applied.
wrong, no one can say with 100% certainty that he would not have done it later.
i have zero sympathy for suicide. i r43efuse to go to funerals for people ihave known that have done this.
This literally doesn't make any sense. Statistics apply to the the population studied and, perhaps, a larger population through inference depending on design. You mentioned if a guy uses a gun to defend himself, then the statistic doesn't apply? ... Yes it does. Nothing has changed. Yet, you then go and talk about smoking with statistics? Stop being so dishonest, or at least admit you're all emotion.This statistic is being applied in a very broad manner that is meaningless.
This statistic is being applied in a very broad manner that is meaningless.
Statistics like this by nature indicate degrees of risk. Just like statistics about smoking risks. Some people who smoke will never get a smoking related illness. Statistics are not meant to suggest absolutes, unless the statistic is 100%.
Either you don't understand numbers and statistics, or you're pretending not to.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a bold unsubstantiated claim--the people who would bully shooting victims on social media do not vote Democrat, and are less likely to support "establishment" Republicans. Discuss.Braden Matejka survived a bullet to the head in the Las Vegas massacre. Then, the death threats started coming.
“You are a lying piece of s**t and I hope someone truly shoots you in the head,” a commenter wrote to Matejka on Facebook, one week after a gunman killed 58 people and injured hundreds more. “Your soul is disgusting and dark! You will pay for the consequences!” said another. A Facebook meme quickly spread with a photo of him after the shooting, captioned: “I’m a lying c**t!”
The 30-year-old victim – who narrowly escaped death in the worst mass shooting in modern US history – has faced a torrent of online abuse and harassment, forcing him to shut down his social media accounts and disappear from the internet. The bullying, taunting and graphic threats have also spread to his family and friends.
.. 2nd hand smoke
..anti-2A
..second hand smoke
...And bobo likes your comment, I am not shocked...
This statistic is being applied in a very broad manner that is meaningless.
I don't even. Amirite?what the hell does this mean?
...I'm starting to think that you actually don't understand a fucking thing.
Well, with Alex Jones going on full alert, it was only a matter of time before the Sandy Hook truthers went full retard on Vegas victims:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/26/las-vegas-shooting-conspiracy-theories-social-media
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a bold unsubstantiated claim--the people who would bully shooting victims on social media do not vote Democrat, and are less likely to support "establishment" Republicans. Discuss.
Usually assholes in forums and other social media are almost always Democrats. Discuss.Well, with Alex Jones going on full alert, it was only a matter of time before the Sandy Hook truthers went full retard on Vegas victims:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/26/las-vegas-shooting-conspiracy-theories-social-media
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a bold unsubstantiated claim--the people who would bully shooting victims on social media do not vote Democrat, and are less likely to support "establishment" Republicans. Discuss.
How can the proposed shooters hard drive be missing from the laptop in his suite? WTF is going on with this investigation?
http://fox61.com/2017/10/26/las-vegas-shooters-laptop-missing-its-hard-drive/
"
LAS VEGAS — A federal official says a laptop found in the Las Vegas shooter’s hotel suite after the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history was missing a hard drive.
The official says Wednesday that investigators believe gunman Stephen Paddock removed the hard drive from the laptop before taking his own life after he opened fire on a crowd at a country music festival. The official said the hard drive hasn’t been found.
The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity."
Did he remove it after he was dead or before he was dead? What did the security officer that stopped the whole shooting say about it?Apparently the authorities believe Paddock removed it. Is there some other assumption you're urging us to make?
Not true...EVERYONE posting in forums and on social media is an asshole. Democrats are usually the witty ones.Usually assholes in forums and other social media are almost always Democrats. Discuss.
Apparently the authorities believe Paddock removed it. Is there some other assumption you're urging us to make?
Did he remove it after he was dead or before he was dead? What did the security officer that stopped the whole shooting say about it?