Skip to main content

View Diary: First gun show accident of 2014 continues avg. 1-per-month streak into 3rd year: GunFAIL LVII (150 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Theoretical math? (0+ / 0-)

    Methinks you don't know what the word theoretical actually means.

    The numbers in the external validation calculations are vetted against actual reported reality, not extrapolations from 56 people in a survey, and therefore much less uncertain than any of the self-reported surveys.

    A gun saved FOUR lives that day.  I could give a flying rats ass if they never saved a life before or after. At the moment I needed superior force, it was within arms reach and saved my life.
    And how many has a gun killed since then? Ah right, you 'could give a flying rats ass'. Also known as the: don't give a shit about anyone but myself defense.

    Your four lives are important to you, everyone gets that. The thousands who have died from gun violence since then have been important to others, just as much. You may think I'm 'minimizing' your experience and the four saved lives, but you are doing the same to many tens of thousands more.

    108.000 live per year have been saved, AT A MINIMUM, through the exercise of the "Right To Keep And Bear Arms".
    BULLSHIT. 100% That is a self-reported survey that doesn't include the error bars, confidence intervals, or any statistical measures of accuracy. It also fails the 3 external validations, the statistical p value test linked further down, and the 'smell test' in the complete and utter dearth of 'DGU saved my life' stories that gun rights advocates would be publishing all over the web, to the tune of and expected 300 PER DAY. Where are they? chirping crickets

    Your disregard of math and external validation does not give you the right to claim things that just aren't true.

    With regard to a DGU when no threat is present, I'm not asking you to validate each one of those in the survey, I'm asking you to provide an example of a justifiable DGU when no threat is present. Give an example, that's all. Explain how one can 'defensively' use a gun when there is no threat to defend against.

    So, wise master sir, does this mean those "survey's" our gov't uses...just like "The National Crime Victimization Survey" is invalid as well?
    If they are self-reported surveys with a low incidence value, then absolutely they suffer the same problems with false positives, see here:

    http://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/...

    You can't have it both ways baby.  Your "math argument" fails yet again.

    You need to find a better argument.

    Laughable. You don't even appear to understand the math well enough to critique it. Just bury your head in the sand. Do you need me to explain the relevance of the statistical p-value link posted above? I hope not since it has the good fortune of including a DGU example as well as others.

    Answer these?

    What if just 1 life was saved?
    What if that 1 life was yours?

    Would the numbers matter then???

    Seriously? You're falling back on emotional appeals to make your argument? I didn't answer before because transparently emotional appeals are a pretty fucking stupid way to debate policy, but sure, I'll answer. Of course it would matter to me, just like it matters to the few thousand lives saved each year from DGU. But there are many things that matter to me that shouldn't necessarily be implemented as policy.

    But then, the argument is just as easy to turn on you, as all emotional appeals are: would it matter to you if you or your family were gunned down by someone who would have been denied a gun with a background check?

    Do you think it matters to the friends and family of the thousands of people killed each year by gun violence?

    When it comes to policy, do you really think we should fall back on emotional appeals, because that sure sounds like a piss-poor way to run a country to me.

    Shit, had I known you would refuse the answer because it didn't fit your agenda, then I wouldn't have wasted my time.
    Refuse to answer? There are 3 external validations still waiting your critiques. You can add to that the issues with false positives and p value for low incidence occurrences in the link above.

    You've got a lot of work to do before you get the privilege of saying I've 'refused to answer' your questions. Especially when one of your responses was an pathetic attempt at a zero-content pithy one-liner insult.

    Yes, I 'demanded', or rather asked that you justify yourself. But I asked specifically to justify your uprate of the 100% incorrect math of that response.

    If math and statistics just isn't your thing, just say so and go find less numerical discussions.

    •  Your argument fails in some logic... (0+ / 0-)
      And how many has a gun killed since then? Ah right, you 'could give a flying rats ass'. Also known as the: don't give a shit about anyone but myself defense.
      The question should be:

      How many has THAT gun killed before or since?

      Zero, would be the answer...by the way.

      I truly care that all whom need (or want) a tool, have it, if they so desire.

      It's that simple.  That tool, if used incorrectly can maim and kill.  It can also intentionally kill.  It's up to the person holding it that matters, NOT the item they're holding.

      Huge difference.  I want as many people as possible to have a many tomorrows as life grants them.  I don't want or need to know "the numbers"...really.   I know too many people are dying from violence, including gun violence...Well...how do we become less violent?

      Teach our children non-violent dispute resolution, teach them how to think critically and logically.

      If you ban "X"...they'll start using "Y"...wash, rinse, repeat until anything and everything one can use to hurt another is banned...TEACH the person to be non-violent and poof...problem solved!

      This is why your math is immaterial...it leads to false solutions that will do nothing to stop violence.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 08:08:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site