Moms Demand Action Has No Business Existing

[RF667799]

Until "homicide threat" can be quantified, it remains a factor that merely likely contributes to the independent variable (firearms)

Homicide threat contributes to guns?

Can you elaborate on this new notion you've suddenly introduced?

Causality is merely a matter of high probability that is often demonstrated by association.

Every murder is associated with a human being. Each and every one. So what's the causality demonstrated by that?

Back to PeeWee's Playhouse for you.

I wasn't wrong because of unsupported contradiction, and neither am I wrong because of childish attempt at insult.

 

[Spock]

You could have just told me you have 15 guns from the beginning.


I assumed you had 0 guns. If that were true, guns would be more prevalent at my location than yours.

Not necessarily. They would be more numerous but prevalence is the wrong descriptor from a firearm violence point of view as a public health problem.

 

[RF667799]

Not necessarily. They would be more numerous but prevalence is the wrong descriptor from a firearm violence point of view as a public health problem.

If I have one gun and someone else has zero guns, guns are more prevalent at my location.

I don't think you understand you couldn't even attempt your arguments if the prevalence of guns was the same everywhere.

 

[Spock]

Homicide threat contributes to guns?

Can you elaborate on this new notion you've suddenly introduced?

You complained about homicide proclivity as a threat being an unidentified independent variable.

Every murder is associated with a human being. Each and every one. So what's the causality demonstrated by that?

Firearms make humans more lethal, presumably.

I wasn't wrong because of unsupported contradiction, and neither am I wrong because of childish attempt at insult.

I disagree with your personal characterization. Both features apply.

 

[Spock]

If I have one gun and someone else has zero guns, guns are more prevalent at my location.

Depends on what you want to communicate. They are present at your location and if you have multiple firearms they are more numerous. It the issue concerns firearms as a risk factor, they may or may not be more prevalent (depending upon the way prevalence is defined)

I don't think you understand you couldn't even attempt your arguments if the prevalence of guns was the same everywhere.

The prevalence of firearms is difficult to determine because is does not equate with number of firearms.

 

[RF667799]

You complained about homicide proclivity as a threat being an unidentified independent variable.

How does homicide threat contribute to guns?

Firearms make humans more lethal, presumably.

Not necessarily. And every murderer was equally lethal as fast we can tell.

I disagree with your personal characterization. Both features apply.

Neither your insult attempt or your unsupported contradiction demonstrate me to be wrong.

 

[RF667799]

Depends on what you want to communicate. They are present at your location and if you have multiple firearms they are more numerous. It the issue concerns firearms as a risk factor, they may or may not be more prevalent (depending upon the way prevalence is defined)

Babble meant to cover for no meaningful
response.

The prevalence of firearms is difficult to determine because is does not equate with number of firearms.

You better figure out how to determine prevalence, given it is so crucial to your argument.

 

[Spock]

How does homicide threat contribute to guns?

I have no idea. However, paranoia would likely tend to result in bad judgment.

Not necessarily. And every murderer was equally lethal as fast we can tell.

Nope. Violent acts with knives or bludgeons are far less lethal than firearms.

Neither your insult attempt or your unsupported contradiction demonstrate me to be wrong.

Any insult you have have suffered was your choice of a response. Don't choose to feel insulted.

 

[Spock]

Babble meant to cover for no meaningful
response.



You better figure out how to determine prevalence, given it is so crucial to your argument.

You seem determined to assign the word to the wrong situation.
If you lived in a country with 2 households, one belonging to you and one to another person who does not have guns, the prevalence of firearms would be 50 %.
Prevalence involves time and location although that could be modified by other risk factors, such as the prevalence of unsecured firearms.

Proxies for legal firearm prevalence - Quantitative Marketing and Economics

Product acquisition policies define legal markets. Policy evaluations require data but prevalence data are not always available. We introduce Legal Firearm Prevalence (LFP), a direct behavioral measure based on the population of firearm licensees in Massachusetts, and argue that it can help...

link.springer.com

 

[RF667799]

I have no idea. However, paranoia would likely tend to result in bad judgment.

You said homicide threat contributes to guns. Now you have no idea of it. Okay, I'll consider you're just trolling at this point.

Nope. Violent acts with knives or bludgeons are far less lethal than firearms.

Goalpost move. I said murders. A murder with a knife is as lethal an outcome as a murder with a gun.

Any insult you have have suffered was your choice of a response. Don't choose to feel insulted.

A careful reader would have seen I said "insult attempt".

 

[RF667799]

You seem determined to assign the word to the wrong situation.
If you lived in a country with 2 households, one belonging to you and one to another person who does not have guns, the prevalence of firearms would be 50 %.
Prevalence involves time and location although that could be modified by other risk factors, such as the prevalence of unsecured firearms.

Proxies for legal firearm prevalence - Quantitative Marketing and Economics

Product acquisition policies define legal markets. Policy evaluations require data but prevalence data are not always available. We introduce Legal Firearm Prevalence (LFP), a direct behavioral measure based on the population of firearm licensees in Massachusetts, and argue that it can help...

link.springer.com

Why is your calculation limited to a specific geographical area? The prevalence in my household would obviously be 100%.

You're supposed to be showing that prevalence is uniform. Of course that would destroy all the complaints about different laws and regulations- in fact even prevalence itself- having varied outcomes in terms of homicides. But carry on with your tap dancing.

 

[Spock]

Why is your calculation limited to a specific geographical area? The prevalence in my household would obviously be 100%.

You just limited the measurement to one location.

You're supposed to be showing that prevalence is uniform.

When a given location is defined, the prevalence is typically considered uniform. For example, the prevalence of Covid carriers would be typically for a city, country, or state. The prevalence between regions might vary but the prevalence for a specific location would not vary unless the region is subdivided.

Of course that would destroy all the complaints about different laws and regulations- in fact even prevalence itself- having varied outcomes in terms of homicides. But carry on with your tap dancing.

You seem to be struggling with the concept.

 

[Spock]

You said homicide threat contributes to guns. Now you have no idea of it. Okay, I'll consider you're just trolling at this point.

Doubtful that I would have stated that. You must be confusing my statement that firearms promote homicide.

Goalpost move. I said murders. A murder with a knife is as lethal an outcome as a murder with a gun.

pedantic tautology

A careful reader would have seen I said "insult attempt".

If you perceive the insult, that is your choice. Make better choices.

 

[RF667799]

You just limited the measurement to one location.

To show you that prevalence must be based on location. Your idea that one gun in one household and zero guns in a household 3000 miles removed equates to 50% prevalence is silly.

When a given location is defined, the prevalence is typically considered uniform. For example, the prevalence of Covid carriers would be typically for a city, country, or state. The prevalence between regions might vary but the prevalence for a specific location would not vary unless the region is subdivided.

Nothing says that you get to define the specific location. Firearms are more prevalent in my county than in other counties. But we have the same regulations and laws.

You seem to be struggling with the concept.

You couldn't address that part of my post.

 

[RF667799]

Doubtful that I would have stated that. You must be confusing my statement that firearms promote homicide.

You wrote: "Until "homicide threat" can be quantified, it remains a factor that merely likely contributes to the independent variable (firearms)"

Take away the word salad like "merely likely" and the excess verbiage, and you're saying that homicide threat contributes to guns.

pedantic tautology

It was a valid response to yet another categorical claim of yours.

If you perceive the insult, that is your choice. Make better choices.

You said "the insult" as if you acknowledge its existence. Use better English.

 

[Spock]

To show you that prevalence must be based on location. Your idea that one gun in one household and zero guns in a household 3000 miles removed equates to 50% prevalence is silly.

Your rejection of the common definition is fantasy. Prevalence refers to the occurrence of a condition within a population.

Prevalence - Health, United States

The number of cases of a disease, number of infected people, or number of people with some other attribute present during a particular interval of time. It is often expressed as a rate (for example, the prevalence of diabetes per 1,000 people during a year).

www.cdc.gov

What is Prevalence?

What is Prevalence?

www.nimh.nih.gov

Nothing says that you get to define the specific location. Firearms are more prevalent in my county than in other counties. But we have the same regulations and laws.

How do you know the prevalence of firearms in your county?

You couldn't address that part of my post.

Addressed but you rejected it. Your problem.

 

[Spock]

You wrote: "Until "homicide threat" can be quantified, it remains a factor that merely likely contributes to the independent variable (firearms)"

Take away the word salad like "merely likely" and the excess verbiage, and you're saying that homicide threat contributes to guns.

I was responding to your claims about "proclivity to homicide" to show that YOUR statement required determination of homicide threat.
post 554 " They don't all have the same risk. Unless those households with an already high proclivity to homicide are excluded, this tells us nothing."

 

[RF667799]

Your rejection of the common definition is fantasy. Prevalence refers to the occurrence of a condition within a population.

Prevalence - Health, United States

The number of cases of a disease, number of infected people, or number of people with some other attribute present during a particular interval of time. It is often expressed as a rate (for example, the prevalence of diabetes per 1,000 people during a year).

www.cdc.gov

What is Prevalence?

What is Prevalence?

www.nimh.nih.gov

Just a post or two back, you said geographic location.

How do you know the prevalence of firearms in your county?

I hear them. If you want to claim that firearms are distributed uniformly, you're going to have a tough case to make. Even the Gun Control Industry disagrees.

Addressed but you rejected it. Your problem.

It wasn't addressed by your personal comment. It's in my post 586, if you would like to review.

 

[RF667799]

I was responding to your claims about "proclivity to homicide" to show that YOUR statement required determination of homicide threat.
post 554 " They don't all have the same risk. Unless those households with an already high proclivity to homicide are excluded, this tells us nothing."

Regardless of what you were responding to, you said what you said. Now apologize for trying to deny you said what you said.

 

[Gardener]

Moms in action have every right to do what they do, just as anybody else has the right to advocate for the second amendment.

Just because the authoritarian left is so hell-bent on eliminating free speech, that does not mean that non-leftists need to follow suit.

 

[Spock]

Regardless of what you were responding to, you said what you said. Now apologize for trying to deny you said what you said.

Your interpretation of what was said is YOUR fault. Sorry I cannot change you.

 

[Spock]

Just a post or two back, you said geographic location.



I hear them. If you want to claim that firearms are distributed uniformly, you're going to have a tough case to make. Even the Gun Control Industry disagrees.

No reliable data. Bogus.
You do not seem to understand the concept of prevalence.

It wasn't addressed by your personal comment. It's in my post 586, if you would like to review.

Once again, you seem to have failed to understand and continue to fail to take responsibility for that failure.
Try to get educated on the subject by the resource links I have included over the past many posts.
This is boring and I am uninterested in trying to educate someone who refused to learn after reasonable attempts have been made.

 

[Rich2018]

Wow, this car crash of a topic is still going?

Seemingly so.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why isn't the firearm homicide rate higher in the UK than in Switzerland?

Who cares? The homicide rate is higher what difference does the means make?

Switzerland vs United Kingdom: Crime Facts and Stats

Murder rate per million people, Crime levels, Intentional homicide rate, Total crimes, Murder rate and 65 More Interesting Facts and Stats

www.nationmaster.com

 

[RF667799]

Your interpretation of what was said is YOUR fault. Sorry I cannot change you.