#### Comment Preferences

• ##### Get back to me after taking a stats class(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
coquiero

You behave like a tobacco company that finds couple of octogenarian smokers.

• ##### I'm back.(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
theatre goon

Guess what?
Stat classes aren't impressed by citing data points that directly contradict the conclusion.
Whodathunk?

"You behave like a tobacco company"
Strange. I seem to remember tobacco companies citing studies that made conclusions that were widely contrary to the data points.
In fact, I would describe the tobacco studies, the same way the above study described itself; "Inexact"

Get back to me when that study can get to the point of demonstrating so much as coincidence.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

[ Parent ]

• ##### How strong is the correlation(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
coquiero

It would be bizarre to find a perfect match between gun ownership and suicide. The data show a strong correlation. You went out and picked the furthest outliers in an attempt to refute that. By your logic, an octogenarian smoker "refutes" what we know about the danger of tobacco. Your logic is bogus. Go argue with Gauss, he invented least-squares-fit.

• ##### When over a quarter of 'correlations' are actually(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
theatre goon

contrary (significantly so), there is no correlation.
There's not even enough of a 'correlation' to be considered so much as a coincidence, let alone a conclusion.

That study is bogus.  Embarrassingly so.
One could even go so far as to call it "Inexact".

"By your logic, an octogenarian smoker "refutes"...."
Not my logic. The study's logic.
They point to the top two states in suicide rate (which are also the states with the lowest population density....something that actually correlates with suicide rate), and "firearm prevalence" and they made that into a stated 'conclusion'.

A conclusion based upon two states that when extended to all 50 states, is wrong.
Illustratively so.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

[ Parent ]

• ##### As I said, come back after a stats class(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
coquiero
When over a quarter of 'correlations' are actually contrary (significantly so), there is no correlation.
It ain't mathematically so.

Gun worship is making you stupid. Just sayin'.

• ##### Yes. You are 'just saying'.(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
theatre goon

I am proving.

Which is a large reason why your arguments are so easily refuted & your viewpoints have been so thoroughly rejected by the public.

Just keep sayin' 'Gun worship', 'Gun nut' & 'Gun Fetishist'....sooner or later inventing words in lieu of citing facts or using any level of intelligence is sure to pan out.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

[ Parent ]

• ##### FrankRose, run the correlation for me(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
coquiero

Until then, you aren't 'proving' squat. The facts are simple: gun ownership correlates with suicide. I've put up links to more than one study showing that. One such study even claims that the non-gun suicide rate is the same in low (urban) and high (rural) states; which surprises even me. Finding some outlier counterexamples doesn't change the correlation. Can you explain, in the language of statistics, what it is you are "proving" and why you think you have done so?

You are just like the conservative idiots who say there is no climate change problem because it snows one day. Indeed, I think you would fit in much better with the conservative anti-math anti-science movement. Are you sure you didn't join here by mistake?

• ##### You haven't even managed to wrap your head(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
theatre goon

around the simple numbers I had to provide to you that showed that over 26% of the claimed 'correlations' were actually contrary, because you eschewed looking at two simple maps, instead choosing to barf-out invented words.

Here, let me put it to you in language you have already demonstrated such a virtuosity for: LOL GUN FETISHIST< GUN NUT!!!111!!!r u a CONSERVAATIVE?!!?!!

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

[ Parent ]

• ##### Look correlation up in a dictionary(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
coquiero

"Claimed 'correlations'"—you are confusing correlations with data points?!

You are innumerate. Sorry, but you should spend less time on the firing range and more at some community college stats class.

I'm done here. You simply don't know what you are talking about in terms of statistical evidence. Maybe it isn't guns, maybe you are that clueless about everything but guns are they only thing important to you that you will venture onto the Web and show you wouldn't know a correlation coefficient if it bit you in the butt.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.