Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:53 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Oh jeez, here we go again... 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Philidelphia study disembowled.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:03 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:32 am
Posts: 515
Location: Metro Area - Apple Valley
Just as I tell people, 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

_________________
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Philidelphia study disembowled.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:16 am 
Member

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:30 am
Posts: 39
Location: Nerstrand
[quote="havegunjoe"]Just as I tell people, 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.[/quote ]

74% of people know that.

_________________
Judge, jury, and anything else I need to be.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again...
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
chunkstyle wrote:
Quote:
40 cases is the minimum number considered to produce a statistically significant sample, depending on what shape the results take. The size of the sample after that doesn't really matter except in reducing the margin of error or increasing the confidence level, and size in relation to the population doesn't matter.


But that assumes no errors in sample selection, and more significantly, no bias in sample selection deliberately induced to skew results to a desired end. This is when science becomes propaganda.


Perfectly said chunk.....In a lot of instances this type of propaganda is targeted at that segment of the population that couldn't sort out the number(s) even with their shoes off counting their toes. The propagandists rely on people being scared by scary numbers.

_________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -


WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again...
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:17 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Not only did they NOT screen for unlawful possession, they did NOT screen for drugs/alcohol in blood at time of assault, NOR for gang membership. Those are the three variables that crop up most often in violent crimes (just ask the Criminologists). The MD's always cherry pick their data base in order to secure the desired result. This seems to be just another version of the original Kellerman study (43 times) with all the same flaws.

Good refutation is contained here:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-s ... -be-better

_________________
President of AACFI, GOCRA, CCRN, and A2A


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again...
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:42 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
That's the first thing I thought when I read Philly. From all I've heard and read there's large parts of the city that are a wasteland. Manipulated (cherry picked) data is just G.I.G.O. :roll: :evil:

_________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -


WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again...
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:21 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 666
Location: St Cloud
chunkstyle wrote:
Quote:
40 cases is the minimum number considered to produce a statistically significant sample, depending on what shape the results take. The size of the sample after that doesn't really matter except in reducing the margin of error or increasing the confidence level, and size in relation to the population doesn't matter.


But that assumes no errors in sample selection, and more significantly, no bias in sample selection deliberately induced to skew results to a desired end. This is when science becomes propaganda.

Yup.

I also forwarded this stuff to my statistics professor for his thoughts. He talked to me today and basically said he can see where they were trying to go with this, but their method still looked like crap, and they're drawing a conclusion from the information that is not appropriate to draw from the information that they have.

Andrew, any chance you'll have a version of the article I would be able to get my hands on?

_________________
Try not. Do or do not, but do not try. - Yoda
Never give up. Never, never, never. - Churchill
Stand on the shoulders of your giant.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again...
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:39 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Eventually -- looks like a couple weeks.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Oh jeez, here we go again...
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:42 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 818
Location: downtown Mpls
The statistic may be perfectly correct. It's still garbage. (See Simpson's Paradox.)

Consider the following hypothetical society:

10% of people are gangsters.
90% of people are civilians.

90% of gangsters (9% of population) have guns.
10% of civilians (9% of population) have guns.

80% of gangsters without guns (0.8% of population) get shot.
40% of gangsters with guns (3.6% of population) get shot.

1% of civilians without guns (0.9% of population) get shot.
0% of civilians with guns (0.0% of population) get shot.

Now, let's do some statistics.

People with guns: 18% of population.
People with guns who get shot: 3.6% of population (3.6%+0%)

People without guns: 82% of population
People without guns who get shot: 1.7% of population.

So, overall, percentage of people with guns who get shot: 3.6/18= 20%
Percentage of people without guns who get shot: 1.7/82= 2.07%

So if you look at the overall percentages, it looks like you're 10 times more likely to get shot if you have a gun. But it's easy to see that if you're a gangster, you're less likely to get shot if you have a gun. And if you're a civilian, you're less likely to get shot if you have a gun.

And if you're a doctor who doesn't understand statistics or cause and effect, having a gun makes you 40 times more likely to be a gangster.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group