how many guns is too many

[mar_cline]

Pointing out it’s an invalid dataset because it’s a made up number has nothing to do with MY education lol.

Oh look, another invalid comparison.

Quite well. Destroying by your arguments is quite easy and honestly a fun hobby.

Reality remains. Guns increased and homicides decreased. This rendering your position invalid.

Per Capita: What It Means, How It’s Determined, Uses, and Examples

Per capita is a Latin term that translates to “by head.” It’s used to refer to an average number per person.

www.investopedia.com

 

[RF667799]

You really have never heard the phrase "per capita" before? Wow. That's a pretty poor education.

In a per capita analysis you spread a given item evenly over the population. It is a means of "normalizing" the data for cross comparison against other populations.




That is literally how per capita analyses work.

Wow.

Just. Wow.

Now you're wanting to compare to another population? I thought you were determining if there was a correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate within this population? Guns per capita is not the same as an ownership rate, yet you have claimed that is where the correlation can be seen.

You complained that your own analysis showed no trend...uh, you characterized it as no significant trend, probably because it was negative...and that it was "noisy".

Seems that is what might be expected from obtaining a conclusion using data that is unrealistic and false. Yet you claim that is done all the time. That's the interesting bit.

 

[mar_cline]

Now you're wanting to compare to another population?

No.

I thought you were determining if there was a correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate within this population?

Yes

Guns per capita is not the same as an ownership rate,

This is called "normalizing the data".

You complained that your own analysis showed no trend...uh, you characterized it as no significant trend, probably because it was negative...and that it was "noisy".

My analysis showed an F-test on the regression line that was NOT statistically significant. The F-test on the regression tests the question of whether the data shows a REAL slope or if it is more likely just "horizontal" (ie no effect). The test checks whether the minor slope you "see" is actually just what happens from random noise in the data and not a real slope. This is standard statistical inference.

It may be that the slope is negative but you cannot say that using the data. It is far more likely to be random noise and not a real trend.

Seems that is what might be expected from obtaining a conclusion using data that is unrealistic and false. Yet you claim that is done all the time. That's the interesting bit.

You will need to learn a LOT more about statistical inference. You are out of your depth here.

 

[rahl]

Per Capita: What It Means, How It’s Determined, Uses, and Examples

Per capita is a Latin term that translates to “by head.” It’s used to refer to an average number per person.

www.investopedia.com

Yep. And your use of per capita for firearm ownership is invalid because it’s a made up number. You have exactly zero way of determining if 400,000,000 guns are owned by 100,000,000 people or 10,000.

Meanwhile, guns increased and homicides decreased. Your argument remains refuted.

 

[RF667799]

No.



Yes



This is called "normalizing the data".




My analysis showed an F-test on the regression line that was NOT statistically significant. The F-test on the regression tests the question of whether the data shows a REAL slope or if it is more likely just "horizontal" (ie no effect). The test checks whether the minor slope you "see" is actually just what happens from random noise in the data and not a real slope. This is standard statistical inference.

It may be that the slope is negative but you cannot say that using the data. It is far more likely to be random noise and not a real trend.



You will need to learn a LOT more about statistical inference. You are out of your depth here.

You did say, "In a per capita analysis you spread a given item evenly over the population. It is a means of "normalizing" the data for cross comparison against other populations." But now you say, "No."

Yes, your analysis was shit and now you're disappointed and failing to consider that arbitrarily tossing data, and manufacturing data you admit is false and unrealistic, might in fact have directly led to your shit analysis.

Why are you so opposed to considering raw numbers, when the solution you earlier touted specifically depended on reducing raw numbers? Hilariously so.

 

[RF667799]

Yep. And your use of per capita for firearm ownership is invalid because it’s a made up number. You have exactly zero way of determining if 400,000,000 guns are owned by 100,000,000 people or 10,000.

Meanwhile, guns increased and homicides decreased. Your argument remains refuted.

It's funny his earlier solution was to remove guns from people who have a large number of them. Thus reducing the raw numbers of guns, arbitrarily. Ignoring that could very likely lead to the same number of people having guns. Ignoring that the people who generally create problems with guns, don't have a large number of guns.

 

[mar_cline]

Yep. And your use of per capita for firearm ownership is invalid because it’s a made up number.

Nope. WHen you've been in school a bit longer you will learn about DIVISION. That's when you divide one number by another! It's going to be exciting as you learn basic math.

You have exactly zero way of determining if 400,000,000 guns are owned by 100,000,000 people or 10,000.

And, it doesn't matter! That's how these things are calculated.

When an economist talks about "per capita gdp" do you think everyone contributes the exact same amount to the GDP? (Well, you probably haven't heard that phrase before, wait until you are grown up and watch the news.)

Meanwhile, guns increased and homicides decreased.

PROVE IT.

Just show me a graph, what the data source is,and the statistics on the robustness of the regression.

The fact of the matter is you don't know the meaning of ANY of those words and it shows. But I'll still ask them of you so one day when you've learned about basic math and you take a statistics course you can talk to me like a peer.

 

[mar_cline]

You did say, "In a per capita analysis you spread a given item evenly over the population. It is a means of "normalizing" the data for cross comparison against other populations." But now you say, "No."

I was answering your question. If you don't understand how data is processed please learn it.

Yes, your analysis was shit

it's not like YOU would know. You would have to know what I'm talking about in the statistics! It's not like you have a clue what n F-test on the regression is.

and now you're disappointed and failing to consider that arbitrarily tossing data, and manufacturing data you admit is false and unrealistic, might in fact have directly led to your shit analysis.

Well, you just made up a bunch of accusations without any proof or evidence. You effectively lied about my post, but I'll assume it's just because you are mistaken since you don't seem to understand even basic inferential statistics or how data is processed.

Why are you so opposed to considering raw numbers, when the solution you earlier touted specifically depended on reducing raw numbers? Hilariously so.

I'm opposed to treating data like a child would, yes. But that's because I've spent 30 years processing and interpreting data. You, on the other hand, have none that is obvious or apparentl

 

[RF667799]

You will need to learn a LOT more about statistical inference. You are out of your depth here.

Then again, I didn't try to use admittedly false, unrealistic data to arrive at a valid conclusion. Then complain that the arrived at conclusion didn't coincide with a preconception.

That would be you.

Perhaps you could massage the data a little more, and arrive at the results you desire?

 

[mar_cline]

It's funny his earlier solution was to remove guns from people who have a large number of them.

Wow. You guys are hilarious.

I'm going to ask you again: when you hear an economist say "per capita GDP" do you honestly think every single member of the population makes the exact same contribution?

(You see, you don't even understand what is being discussed here. Learn some basic science and data processing).

Thus reducing the raw numbers of guns, arbitrarily.

Wow. Have you never heard the phrase "per capita" before? I'm not shocked because so many of you seem mathematically illiterate on here but I'm amazed you've never even heard that phrase before. You probably did but lacking any training or even mild curiosity it was just more noise for you.

Ignoring that could very likely lead to the same number of people having guns.

That's not how this data works. Sorry you don't understand basic science.

 

[mar_cline]

Then again, I didn't try to use admittedly false, unrealistic data to arrive at a valid conclusion.

Nor did I. But you wouldn't know it anyway because you don't understand even basic data analysis.

Perhaps you could massage the data a little more, and arrive at the results you desire?

You are so out of your depth here. But Dunning-Kruger keeps you from knowing exactly how far out from shore you are.

Some day, maybe, if you start to pay attention to stuff you'll figure it out.

Hey, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN FIND A STUDY THAT CONDUCTS IT EXACTLY AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED HERE. A real peer-reviewed publication in a legitimate reference source.

If you can find one that doesn't summarize data on gun ownership on a per capita basis let's talk about THAT. WHEN you find it. (Of course you won't even look because you don't know the first foreign thing about any of this.)

Try. (Or don't...I already know how little education you have in any of this)

 

[RF667799]

I was answering your question. If you don't understand how data is processed please learn it.



it's not like YOU would know. You would have to know what I'm talking about in the statistics! It's not like you have a clue what n F-test on the regression is.



Well, you just made up a bunch of accusations without any proof or evidence. You effectively lied about my post, but I'll assume it's just because you are mistaken since you don't seem to understand even basic inferential statistics or how data is processed.



I'm opposed to treating data like a child would, yes. But that's because I've spent 30 years processing and interpreting data. You, on the other hand, have none that is obvious or apparentl

I'm going by what you're saying. Are you not a credible source? You said that per capita is used, "for cross comparison against other populations."

I asked if that was what you were doing here, and you said, "No". So why are you using per capita data, if it is irrelevant to your intent?

I also went by what you said, when I characterized your analysis as "shit". You said it was "noisy" and showed no significant trend. Would you like to backtrack and support your analysis as valid?

Did your earlier solution not hinge on arbitrary reduction of raw numbers of guns?

 

[mar_cline]

I'm going by what you're saying. Are you not a credible source? You said that per capita is used, "for cross comparison against other populations."

Yes. The population of the USA in 1999 is different from the population of the USA in 2019.

Does this confuse you?

I also went by what you said, when I characterized your analysis as "shit". You said it was "noisy" and showed no significant trend.

All data is noisy. This just shows you have NO experience with data at all. If you have data without noise you probably have fake data.


Please learn some science. Just a little. Either you are in junior high school or you somehow made it out of school with NO training in graphing data. That's weird.

 

[RF667799]

Wow. You guys are hilarious.

I'm going to ask you again: when you hear an economist say "per capita GDP" do you honestly think every single member of the population makes the exact same contribution?

(You see, you don't even understand what is being discussed here. Learn some basic science and data processing).



Wow. Have you never heard the phrase "per capita" before? I'm not shocked because so many of you seem mathematically illiterate on here but I'm amazed you've never even heard that phrase before. You probably did but lacking any training or even mild curiosity it was just more noise for you.



That's not how this data works. Sorry you don't understand basic science.

When you are determining GDP, is it not generally to the purpose of comparison with another population?

I know exactly what per capita means, as evidenced by my criticisms of your posts. What is at question, is your use of per capita here, when you state that comparison to another population is NOT your intent.

And per capita still doesn't substitute for gun ownership rate.

 

[mar_cline]

When you are determining GDP, is it not generally to the purpose of comparison with another population?

Usually. In that case they either compare the current day with past times or against other countries. It's called normalization of the data.

I know exactly what per capita means, as evidenced by my criticisms of your posts.

Just the opposite.

And per capita still doesn't substitute for gun ownership rate.

Yes it does. Show me a study on gun homicide rates and gun ownership rates that doesn't use a per capita estimate of the variables.

If you can.

(Hint: you'll have to learn some science to read the papers.)

 

[RF667799]

Yes. The population of the USA in 1999 is different from the population of the USA in 2019.

Does this confuse you?



All data is noisy. This just shows you have NO experience with data at all. If you have data without noise you probably have fake data.


Please learn some science. Just a little. Either you are in junior high school or you somehow made it out of school with NO training in graphing data. That's weird.

You implied the noise was sufficient to render the analysis invalid (shit).

So have the number of guns per capita gone up or down?

 

[RF667799]

Usually. In that case they either compare the current day with past times or against other countries. It's called normalization of the data.



Just the opposite.



Yes it does. Show me a study on gun homicide rates and gun ownership rates that doesn't use a per capita estimate of the variables.

If you can.

(Hint: you'll have to learn some science to read the papers.)

A gun ownership rate is the number of people who own guns as a portion of the total population.

The number of guns per capita is irrelevant to the gun ownership rate. For the blindingly obvious reason that not everyone owns the same number of guns, or even owns a gun at all.

 

[RF667799]

Usually. In that case they either compare the current day with past times or against other countries. It's called normalization of the data.



Just the opposite.



Yes it does. Show me a study on gun homicide rates and gun ownership rates that doesn't use a per capita estimate of the variables.

If you can.

(Hint: you'll have to learn some science to read the papers.)

You earlier show us a study that used estimates, and which concluded with several variables having a much greater correlation with the gun homicide rate than did gun ownership.

You don't like that one anymore?

 

[mar_cline]

A gun ownership rate is the number of people who own guns as a portion of the total population.

The number of guns per capita is irrelevant to the gun ownership rate. For the blindingly obvious reason that not everyone owns the same number of guns, or even owns a gun at all.

And yet you can't show me any studies that process the data according to your version?

Intersting.

 

[mar_cline]

You earlier show us a study that used estimates, and which concluded with several variables having a much greater correlation with the gun homicide rate than did gun ownership.

You don't like that one anymore?

Show me what you are talking about. Thanks.

 

[Artymoon]

View attachment 67365249

Lol. Simple questions are usually the hardest for some.

 

[mar_cline]

Lol. Simple questions are usually the hardest for some.

There are a lot of folks on here who heard someone smarter than them say "straw man" and "ad hominem" and now they use the phrases freely and unmoored from their actual meaning. But they sound so very, very smart.

 

[RF667799]

And yet you can't show me any studies that process the data according to your version?

Intersting.

It's your claim that you are the data analyst. I'm accepting your claims and showing you your flaws as relates to the real world. The world where guns divided by total population has no bearing on the number of people in that population that actually own guns.

 

[rahl]

Nope.

Yep

And, it doesn't matter! That's how these things are calculated.

No it isn’t

When an economist talks

It has no relevance to firearm ownership or homicides.

PROVE IT.

I have

Just show me a graph, what the data source is,and the statistics on the robustness of the regression.

Already have

The fact of the matter is you don't know the meaning of ANY of those words and it shows.

Because I’ve been schooling you in every exchange? Lol ok

But I'll still ask them of you so one day when you've learned about basic math and you take a statistics course you can talk to me like a peer.

No matter how hard you stomp your feet, the data is perfectly clear. More guns added and homicides decreased. Your position remains refuted.

 

[mar_cline]

It's your claim that you are the data analyst. I'm accepting your claims and showing you your flaws as relates to the real world.

You have failed so far.

The world where guns divided by total population has no bearing on the number of people in that population that actually own guns.

Then PROVE IT. Find me a study on gun homicide rates and gun ownership rates that don't use per capita type data normalization.

Just prove it.

You are boring. And you clearly can't even back up your points with ANYTHING.

PROVE IT.

PROVE IT.

PROVE IT.

Big talker. Just like a couple other posters. They talk big but can't bring anything to the table.