Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:48 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
As opposed to right wingers who do not understand elementary statistics...
Hmmm...

A increases while both B and C decrease. What does that tell you about basic statistics, and about A as a causative factor?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:52 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,718 posts, read 7,597,559 times
Reputation: 14988
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol View Post
Not lies, but almost certainly a misunderstanding.

Stats 101 - correlation does not equal causation.

What is your proof of causation?
You're addressing that to the "Guns cause crimes" crowd, right?

If so, I fully agree. They have never even come close to proving the causation they claim is there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:52 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol View Post
I understand all the facts
I understand that correlation does not equal causation

You're trying to say that because two things are correlated that one caused the other.
No, not me. The liberals who are blaming gun ownership for gun homicides and violent crimes are doing that, and erroneously so, as I and many others have already proven.

Quote:
Who is bad at math?
You.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:53 AM
 
30,140 posts, read 11,765,050 times
Reputation: 18647
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol View Post
*Emphasis mine

Are you bad at English, logic and math?
Correlation does not equal causation.


The standard "correlation does not equal causation" example, adjusted
Since June, coat purchases have decreased 50%
Since June, drownings have increased 50%

You, good at math: Coat sales result in fewer drownings.

Me, bad at math: Perhaps there are other factors to consider
Horrible analogy.

Fact is you can decrease gun violence without decreasing the amount of guns that are in circulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:54 AM
 
29,531 posts, read 9,700,562 times
Reputation: 3466
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Indeed, it does.

But you're asking liberals to have a working comprehension of both logic AND math.

Don't you think that's asking at least a bit too much?
A part of your logic that seems forever missing is that there are conservatives who also don't agree with you...

Fact is, the demographic differences between those who are more or less inclined toward forms of gun control have a bit more to do with lots of other issues, most certainly including local/region rather than levels of comprehension, but the quien es mas smarter game is fun to play too. Of course. I get it. As you were...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:54 AM
 
13,943 posts, read 5,615,884 times
Reputation: 8603
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Actually not true. There could well have been a significant increase in gun deaths caused by more guns that was more than offset by other factors. Again you are confusing correlation with causation.
Nope. I am saying that as A increased, B decreased. Therefore, A is not directly proportional with B, nor can it be as the slope of A is positive and the slope of B is negative. That's basic math and the definition of "directly proportional."

Given the inversely proportional relationship of the two graphs, you can say that increase in A does NOT cause increase in B. You cannot say that increase in A necessarily causes a decrease in B, but you can say for certain that increases in A do not increase B because B has not increased at any time during the increase in A (over the observed time period).

Increasing per person gun ownership has not increased gun related homicide because there has been no increase in gun related crime, but rather a decrease.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:55 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
The orange is your opinion and has no basis in fact.
Except for the ACTUAL rate of gun homicides and nonfatal violent gun crimes. Hmmm...

Are you bad at math?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:55 AM
 
29,531 posts, read 9,700,562 times
Reputation: 3466
Comprehend away...

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...ntrol-2011.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:55 AM
 
3,565 posts, read 1,920,365 times
Reputation: 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
A increases while both B and C decrease. What does that tell you about ... A as a causative factor?
Nothing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:55 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,718 posts, read 7,597,559 times
Reputation: 14988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
This is not true. Gun control was expanded under the Weimar Republic after WWI. The Hitler regime actually encouraged gun ownership for most Germans except for Jews.
Chalk up yet another person who believes it's OK to give government the authority to restrict private citizens' guns.

Despite the long history of governments who were given that authority, using it to disarm their citizens and leaving them helpless before criminals, rapists, murderers etc., letting crime rates soar. And the many governments who then went on to commit huge massacres of their own people.

Historians have concluded that Americans would be much better off, safer, and more prosperous if government had NO authority to restrict guns in any way, than if we gave govt that authority. Even if some madman occasionally brought a bunch of guns to a restaurant, concert, etc.

And no one has yet tried to refute their conclusions on this forum.

Yet hysterical Democrats who know that, inexplicably keep calling for government "gun control" anyway.

Anyone want to guess why they do that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top