Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:22 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So... are you trying to say that a 20% relative difference is meaningless? Because, that'd be stupid, but I just want to be sure.

Where is this 20% difference? From a biased anti gun University of Chicago "study?" Gallup has found an 8% drop in households with guns since 1969.

Can you even math, bro? From ~50% to ~40% is a relative differential of 20%. That's how numbers work.

I like that you pulled "anti-gun bias" from your ass, though. That's cute! The NORC data is pulled from the regular GSS. Do you have genuine methodological objections to it, or are you just raving? It's broadly an identical procedure to the Gallup survey results you seem to think disagree with it, notwithstanding the same unambiguous trendline present in either case.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-12-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:22 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Where is this 20% difference? From a biased anti gun University of Chicago "study?" Gallup has found an 8% drop in households with guns since 1969.

Can you even math, bro? From ~50% to ~40% is a relative differential of 20%. That's how numbers work.

I like that you pulled "anti-gun bias" from your ass, though. That's cute! The NORC data is pulled from the regular GSS. Do you have genuine methodological objections to it, or are you just raving? It's broadly an identical procedure to the Gallup survey results you seem to think disagree with it, notwithstanding the same unambiguous trendline present in either case.

Sure, I can math real good.

49% of households had guns in 1969.
41% of households had guns in 2015.

8% difference.

That's how numbers work.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:32 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Can you even math, bro? From ~50% to ~40% is a relative differential of 20%. That's how numbers work.

I like that you pulled "anti-gun bias" from your ass, though. That's cute! The NORC data is pulled from the regular GSS. Do you have genuine methodological objections to it, or are you just raving? It's broadly an identical procedure to the Gallup survey results you seem to think disagree with it, notwithstanding the same unambiguous trendline present in either case.

Sure, I can math real good.

49% of households had guns in 1969.
41% of households had guns in 2015.

8% difference.

That's how numbers work.

8% reduction in one direction, 8% increase in the other.

Add in error and it is a change of ~16-20%.

Your math is as flawed as your logic. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:32 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Can you even math, bro? From ~50% to ~40% is a relative differential of 20%. That's how numbers work.

I like that you pulled "anti-gun bias" from your ass, though. That's cute! The NORC data is pulled from the regular GSS. Do you have genuine methodological objections to it, or are you just raving? It's broadly an identical procedure to the Gallup survey results you seem to think disagree with it, notwithstanding the same unambiguous trendline present in either case.

Sure, I can math real good.

49% of households had guns in 1969.
41% of households had guns in 2015.

8% difference.

That's how numbers work.

Can you, though? Because you seem to have missed - either inadvertently, or, worse, deliberately - the word relative, which I explicitly emphasised repeatedly.

Hint: if I measure a 100% relative increase on a 20% baseline, it does not mean I measured 120%.
Remedial hint: what's 50 divided by 40?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-12-2015, 10:44 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:32 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Sure, I can math real good.

49% of households had guns in 1969.
41% of households had guns in 2015.

8% difference.

That's how numbers work.

Can you, though? Because you seem to have missed - either inadvertently, or, worse, deliberately - the word relative, which I explicitly emphasised repeatedly.

Hint: if I measure a 100% relative increase on a 20% baseline, it does not mean I measured 120%.
Remedial hint: what's 50 divided by 40?

Without referencing the change in the total number of households, the relative change is misleading to most.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:32 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Sure, I can math real good.

49% of households had guns in 1969.
41% of households had guns in 2015.

8% difference.

That's how numbers work.

8% reduction in one direction, 8% increase in the other.

Add in error and it is a change of ~16-20%.

Your math is as flawed as your logic. Drinking Beverage
Lol, it has nothing to do with that.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Can you, though? Because you seem to have missed - either inadvertently, or, worse, deliberately - the word relative, which I explicitly emphasised repeatedly.

Hint: if I measure a 100% relative increase on a 20% baseline, it does not mean I measured 120%.
Remedial hint: what's 50 divided by 40?

Without referencing the change in the total number of households, the relative change is misleading to most.

But the total number of households is a function of the growing population. The rate (the frequency of households with guns) is the measure of the trend.

It is the exact same thing with religion. Are there more (in terms of absolute numbers) religious people in the US now than 50 years ago? Of course. But are the rates of religious opinion among the population the same? No. By that measure, religiousness has gone down appreciably.

Which is a better measure of the trend of religion, the total population of religious individuals or the relative percentage of religious people out of the total population?


(it is taken as a given that the population has increased)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:48 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  8% reduction in one direction, 8% increase in the other.

Add in error and it is a change of ~16-20%.

Your math is as flawed as your logic. Drinking Beverage
Lol, it has nothing to do with that.

Nothing to do with what? How rates change or what polling numbers indicate?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:22 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Where is this 20% difference? From a biased anti gun University of Chicago "study?" Gallup has found an 8% drop in households with guns since 1969.

In rough numbers it's a 20% reduction in the number of households with guns. 10 is 20% of 50.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
08-12-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 10:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 10:32 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Sure, I can math real good.

49% of households had guns in 1969.
41% of households had guns in 2015.

8% difference.

That's how numbers work.

Can you, though? Because you seem to have missed - either inadvertently, or, worse, deliberately - the word relative, which I explicitly emphasised repeatedly.

Hint: if I measure a 100% relative increase on a 20% baseline, it does not mean I measured 120%.
Remedial hint: what's 50 divided by 40?

Wtf kind of quantum physics are you using?

It seems pretty easy to understand.

In 1969, 49% of all American households had a gun.
In 2015, 41% of all American households had a gun.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: