#### Comment Preferences

• ##### And?(0+ / 0-)

What does the rate matter?  A life is a life, and CT lost three times as many as WV to gun violence.

When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

[ Parent ]

• ##### Holy moly(4+ / 1-)

You really are a stupid man.  Even though that was my impression, you just kept commenting long enough to prove it.  So thanks much for that.

Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

[ Parent ]

• ##### Sticks and stones.(0+ / 0-)

But seriously, what does the rate matter?  You can't use it to calculate risk.

When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

[ Parent ]

• ##### Risks ARE rates(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Glen The Plumber, Miss Blue

City A has 1,000 people who die of disease X.
City B has 2,000 people who die of disease X.

You can say that City B has twice as many deaths, but that's not the same thing at all as saying that "People in City B have a greater risk of dying from disease X."

We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

[ Parent ]

• ##### How does this connect to gun violence?(0+ / 0-)

Gun violence isn't pathology; it doesn't strike randomly.  It is the sum of willful, criminal acts.

When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

[ Parent ]

• ##### Since you need the dots connected . . .(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Glen The Plumber, skohayes, Miss Blue

Risk is probability applied to undesirable outcomes. It's a simple mathematical formula that doesn't care about etiology or volition.

City A has 50 people die from guns.
City B has 100 people die from guns.

City B, clearly, has twice as many people die from guns.

But that is not the same thing as saying "People in City B have twice the risk of dying from guns."

For example, if City B has ten times as many people as City A, then, proportionally, the risk of someone in City B dying as the result of a gun is five times lower. If City A has ten times as many people as City B, then the risk of gun death in City B is twenty times higher.

We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

[ Parent ]

• ##### Correct definition of risk(0+ / 0-)

Wrong application, though.  Mortality rates apply to similar events involving similarly situated actors.   It does not make sense, for example, to divide the number of HIV-related deaths by total population in a given year; you divide by the number of HIV victims to determine the mortality rate due to said infection.

When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

[ Parent ]

• ##### You're changing the goalposts(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Glen The Plumber, skohayes, Miss Blue

I'm not talking about mortality rate, which has a very specific definition, and is irrelevant to the point at hand.

So please explain to me why you can't draw the conclusion that based on the following data, it is unreasonable to conclude "A person (i.e., a randomly-selected individual) in Wyoming is more likely to die as the result of a gun than a person in Connecticut."

CT: 1,755 gun deaths from 2001 to 2010, 5.0 deaths/100,000 people/year
WY: 818 gun deaths, 15.6 deaths/100,000 people/year

We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

[ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.