Liste des Groupes | Revenir à rb tech |
On 7/7/2024 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:>
Ah Frankie, how quickly he forgets. My referencing Vermont, New
Hampshire and Maine was in direct reference to Franking stating that
is you have a gun in the house you are more likely to die from a
gunshot , which seems to be a statement that is applicable to all
houses with guns. I simply pointed that, as is so common with
Frankie's posts, that in at least three cases he was wrong.
<sigh> John, your knowledge of data and statistics and their
interpretation seems pretty dismal!
>
"... more likely to die ..." does not imply "In every case you will
die," just as "Smoking causes cancer" does not imply every smoker will
die of cancer.
>
And national data does not necessarily apply to every neighborhood,
every city or every state. There are exceptions to every average
condition - that's among the meanings conveyed by the Normal Curve I
keep referencing.
>
Those exceptions do not disprove the fact that by national averages, if
you have a gun in the home, you are more likely to die from a gunshot.
Also, as I've stated repeatedly, I have no problem with hunting, and for
guns designed for hunting. That puts the majority of the guns in
super-rural Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine out of the discussion.
Those people cause almost no problems by hunting using guns that will
probably never fire more than four rounds in one minute.
>
Now this next bit of math discussion may baffle you, but:
>
If we remove guns designed for hunting from the computations; or if we
remove rural areas where such guns are typically used; then in the
remaining areas (places like suburban Wisconsin, suburban Florida, Tom's
hellhole etc.) the correlation between gun ownership and gun death would
be even stronger. Think about that.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.