Sujet : Re: Applying the Scientific Method...
De : x (at) *nospam* y.com (X, formerly known as \"!Jones\")
Groupes : talk.politics.gunsDate : 07. Sep 2024, 04:05:09
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <qrbndjlbqre382okis6v6pqvf61mdubu7p@4ax.com>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
If you have a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!
On 9/5/2024 10:01 AM, X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
It is as obvious as gravity that gun proliferation and gun violence
tend to have a positive correlation.
>
Fact, not opinion: In the USA, gun buying splurges do not have
a positive correlation with gun violence. Also, non-urban areas
where gun ownership is high do not have corresponding high gun
violence.
Actually, simple correlation isn't a particularly compelling data
point and tends to vary widely (meaning +- 0.2, which is significant)
depending on the population; however, I know of no national data set
(except John Lott's) in which it isn't positive.
Now, is it possible to *find* a data set that isn't positive? I don't
know, but I wouldn't wager you couldn't if you had long enough to look
for it. In *general*, worldwide, it runs between 0.2 and 0.6
depending on *many* factors (e.g.: do self-inflicted wounds count as
gun violence?) When you discuss correlation, always remember what a
high correlation there is between a rooster's crowing and the sun
subsequently rising.
Can you tell us the meaning of "correlation" without resorting to
Google?
If you're interested in statistical methods, I recommend:
https://www.pewresearch.org/about/follow-us/Methodological_research(quarterly) but I doubt you are.