Graph and Logic Lesson For The Day

[ThoughtCrimes]

That's a scatter plot of the data I did from the year 1994 to 2012. That's the years I could find murder incident data on the FBI website. The scatter plot uses the number of guns owned as the x-axis, and number of murders as the y-axis. As you can see, the relationship is not at all linear. I didn't even bother doing a regression once I saw the scatter plot. There's absolutely no point.

It's possible that if we went back to 1984 you might have more data, but I'd find that very doubtful.

That pretty much settles it. There's not really anything to learn from the data you posted.

BTW, I did that again for the murder rate, which is usually the data point that reputable scientists use to study violent crime. The scatter plot doesn't change at all. There's still no linear relation.

So the number of guns in circulation is irrelevant to the crime rate.
Thanks!
End gun control now.

That's one way to read it for sure. All I can say is that if you are going to make an argument relating these two datasets (gun sales vs. number of murders), you can't argue more guns makes you either more or less safe.

OK. You're right.
So why does the Left want to restrict all this? It doesnt work.

We'd like to make it more difficult for the people who are likely to use guns to kill.....to get their hands on them.

You know.....nut cases, wife beaters, toddlers and chicken shit losers who think they are going to get mugged at McDonalds.

"We'd like to make it more difficult for the people who are likely to use guns to kill..."

And this is how normal folks recognize that Liberals are deficient.....
....they actually argue that criminals get their guns via the same process that law abiding folks do.



For clarity: licensed gun owners are the single most law abiding people in the nation.

Example:

“Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.”
http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html

Charged with a crime..... .00086% of permit holders.


.00086%

Hey Chica! You appear to be math challenged. The percentage to your five place example derived from 44 divided by 51,078 is 0.08614% you fucking idiot, close to a tenth of a percent or a one in a thousand ratio! All your claims that you never err are nothing more than bullshit flowing from that gaping orifice below your nose, IDIOT!

Further, one data point, which is all you provided, sure as Hell does not put a lock on your erroneous conclusion that, "licensed gun owners are the single most law abiding people in the nation." That could never even be considered a start to confirm that proposition. Its just more of your horseshit thrown against the wall!

Have a nice day, Chica!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You expect schools to tell the difference?"

Yes, they COULD tell the difference. Even an ENGLISH TEACHER could tell the difference. She held onto it for hours. The school was not evacuated. The cop put it in his car.

In short, EVERYONE knew the difference.

Except "Bob Owens" and PC.

When you're in this deep a hole.....you should stop digging.

So why don't you?

Anyone viewing the pictures will recognize both that the kid's "clock" was designed to look like a bomb....

...and that you have been revealed as a lying sack of offal.
Clearly, you have none of the expertise that you claimed....

...and....everyone of your past and future posts will be judged through this prism.



Your first mistake was lying....

...but the greater error is in not admitting the truth, truth clear and evident in the picture above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You named the 2 out of the 3, Cletus.

I'm aware of that Jethro.

who was the third?

Do you want a lolly for noting my imperfect usage? Here. Suck on it. Don't choke.

Drag yourself back into adulthood and tell why homicides have declined more in Democratic presidencies in the last 20+ years than in that awful Bush presidency.

It's because murderers feel empowered by Democrats but alienated by Republicans so they go on killing sprees to make up for it.
Obviously.
LOL!

Many a truth is said in jest....



Many Democrat politicians are famous for support of allowing felons to vote.


'A cynic may be forgiven for suspecting that the motivation behind such support has as much to do with political expediency as principle.

Several recent studies contend that even allowing for their expected lower participation rates, the restoration of voting rights to felons would have shifted the outcome of a number of recent congressional elections. This tantalizes the felon-vote movement. But the movement receives its greatest inspiration from the 2000 election fiasco in Florida. Felon-vote proponents claim that had felons who have completed their sentences been permitted to vote in Florida, Gore would be president today. And they're probably right.

The restoration of voting rights to felons is decidedly unpopular with the electorate. For example, in 1998, more than 80 percent of Utah voters approved a measure to bar inmates from voting. In 2000, the Massachusetts electorate, among the most liberal in the country, voted for a constitutional amendment barring felon inmates from voting.

But overwhelming public opposition has not deterred felon-vote advocates. They've simply resorted to a receptive judiciary to achieve their objective

As David Lampo notes, these distinctions are immaterial to many felon-vote advocates. Their aim is nothing less than the wholesale restoration of voting rights to all convicts — and that suggests an agenda that's more partisan than altruistic.'
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200401080830.asp

 

[NYcarbineer]

"You expect schools to tell the difference?"

Yes, they COULD tell the difference. Even an ENGLISH TEACHER could tell the difference. She held onto it for hours. The school was not evacuated. The cop put it in his car.

In short, EVERYONE knew the difference.

Except "Bob Owens" and PC.

When you're in this deep a hole.....you should stop digging.

So why don't you?

Anyone viewing the pictures will recognize both that the kid's "clock" was designed to look like a bomb....

...and that you have been revealed as a lying sack of offal.
Clearly, you have none of the expertise that you claimed....

...and....everyone of your past and future posts will be judged through this prism.



Your first mistake was lying....

...but the greater error is in not admitting the truth, truth clear and evident in the picture above.

And what was this designed to look like?

 

[Wildman]

Do any gun control freaks own firearms?

wat the heck is a gun and/or firearm ??

 

[PoliticalChic]

A lot of the things I said about the first post apply here again. At first glance the graphic looks impressive, but again you see a lot of clear signs of data manipulation. Notice how the stats above reference data from only two years, some from multi year trends, and none of them match up over the same period of time. All of that makes the above graphic very very fishy.

Note: I'm not saying there isn't the possibility of truth in there. Just that the data is so cherry picked and manipulated I can't tell if the message its trying to send is true or not.

If we were to take the categories above, track them over the same time periods, then we could look for correlation either through straight up linear regression on pairs of data categories or multivariable regression. This isn't hard by the way. It isn't hard math. Excel can do it. Wolfram alpha can compute this.

However the person who made this graphic made a conscious choice NOT to do this and to instead cherry pick data. That doesn't exactly instill faith in the data.

Tell you what: give me a few data sources acceptable to you and I'll run a few scatter plots like before. If the correlation looks good I can run a few regression models.

"... clear signs of data manipulation."

So....your premise is that Left wing 'factcheck. org' is out to support the very opposite perspective of the very Left wing Democrat Party?

Really?

You might want to think that through.



For your edification:

"Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama."
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group



With this new understanding in mind.....
...you may retract or modify your post at any time.

 

[SwimExpert]

Some political positions are based on indoctrination, and eschew logic, intellect, and experience.

You have alot of experience with that, don't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A lot of the things I said about the first post apply here again. At first glance the graphic looks impressive, but again you see a lot of clear signs of data manipulation. Notice how the stats above reference data from only two years, some from multi year trends, and none of them match up over the same period of time. All of that makes the above graphic very very fishy.

Note: I'm not saying there isn't the possibility of truth in there. Just that the data is so cherry picked and manipulated I can't tell if the message its trying to send is true or not.

If we were to take the categories above, track them over the same time periods, then we could look for correlation either through straight up linear regression on pairs of data categories or multivariable regression. This isn't hard by the way. It isn't hard math. Excel can do it. Wolfram alpha can compute this.

However the person who made this graphic made a conscious choice NOT to do this and to instead cherry pick data. That doesn't exactly instill faith in the data.

Tell you what: give me a few data sources acceptable to you and I'll run a few scatter plots like before. If the correlation looks good I can run a few regression models.

"... clear signs of data manipulation."

So....your premise is that Left wing 'factcheck. org' is out to support the very opposite perspective of the very Left wing Democrat Party?

Really?

You might want to think that through.



For your edification:

"Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama."
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group



With this new understanding in mind.....
...you may retract or modify your post at any time.

The above comes from the poster who routinely ridicules other posters for attacking the source instead of the substance.

Unsurprisingly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some political positions are based on indoctrination, and eschew logic, intellect, and experience.

You have alot of experience with that, don't you?

Funny that she says that long after her original premise has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be illogical.

 

[edthecynic]

The OP says nothing about households.

It clearly says "New US Firearms"

And by that moronic "logic" someone with 20 guns is 20 times safer than someone with 1 gun but only 1/5 as safe as someone with 100 guns.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

A lot of the things I said about the first post apply here again. At first glance the graphic looks impressive, but again you see a lot of clear signs of data manipulation. Notice how the stats above reference data from only two years, some from multi year trends, and none of them match up over the same period of time. All of that makes the above graphic very very fishy.

Note: I'm not saying there isn't the possibility of truth in there. Just that the data is so cherry picked and manipulated I can't tell if the message its trying to send is true or not.

If we were to take the categories above, track them over the same time periods, then we could look for correlation either through straight up linear regression on pairs of data categories or multivariable regression. This isn't hard by the way. It isn't hard math. Excel can do it. Wolfram alpha can compute this.

However the person who made this graphic made a conscious choice NOT to do this and to instead cherry pick data. That doesn't exactly instill faith in the data.

Tell you what: give me a few data sources acceptable to you and I'll run a few scatter plots like before. If the correlation looks good I can run a few regression models.

"... clear signs of data manipulation."

So....your premise is that Left wing 'factcheck. org' is out to support the very opposite perspective of the very Left wing Democrat Party?

Really?

You might want to think that through.



For your edification:

"Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama."
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group



With this new understanding in mind.....
...you may retract or modify your post at any time.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm not mocking, I'm expressing sincere confusion.

Bad Math is Bad Math, regardless of the source. Left Wing, Right Wing, it doesn't matter. Using cherry picked data to support your conclusion, manipulating data to fit your conclusion, data herding, etc are all bad practices.

 

[L.K.Eder]

a shotgun marriage of two data sets. awesome logic.

 

[edthecynic]

I've never made an error.....

And you can believe me...because I never lie, and I'm always right.
- George Leroy Tirebiter, -- Firesign Theatre

 

[PoliticalChic]

A lot of the things I said about the first post apply here again. At first glance the graphic looks impressive, but again you see a lot of clear signs of data manipulation. Notice how the stats above reference data from only two years, some from multi year trends, and none of them match up over the same period of time. All of that makes the above graphic very very fishy.

Note: I'm not saying there isn't the possibility of truth in there. Just that the data is so cherry picked and manipulated I can't tell if the message its trying to send is true or not.

If we were to take the categories above, track them over the same time periods, then we could look for correlation either through straight up linear regression on pairs of data categories or multivariable regression. This isn't hard by the way. It isn't hard math. Excel can do it. Wolfram alpha can compute this.

However the person who made this graphic made a conscious choice NOT to do this and to instead cherry pick data. That doesn't exactly instill faith in the data.

Tell you what: give me a few data sources acceptable to you and I'll run a few scatter plots like before. If the correlation looks good I can run a few regression models.

"... clear signs of data manipulation."

So....your premise is that Left wing 'factcheck. org' is out to support the very opposite perspective of the very Left wing Democrat Party?

Really?

You might want to think that through.



For your edification:

"Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama."
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group



With this new understanding in mind.....
...you may retract or modify your post at any time.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm not mocking, I'm expressing sincere confusion.

Bad Math is Bad Math, regardless of the source. Left Wing, Right Wing, it doesn't matter. Using cherry picked data to support your conclusion, manipulating data to fit your conclusion, data herding, etc are all bad practices.

See if this helps:

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxisttheoretician and founding member and one-time leader of theCommunist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Anyone viewing the pictures will recognize both that the kid's "clock" was designed to look like a bomb....

...and that you have been revealed as a lying sack of offal.
Clearly, you have none of the expertise that you claimed....

...and....everyone of your past and future posts will be judged through this prism.



Your first mistake was lying....

...but the greater error is in not admitting the truth, truth clear and evident in the picture above.

OH horseshit, Chica, you ignorant twit! How many suitcase bombs do you see with 120VAC power cords hanging out needed to power up the device? That's a really covert sign of a fucking bomb isn't it you IDIOT! How would you disarm it? Cut the blue wire first then the red like they instruct in the movies?

You claim;

Anyone viewing the pictures will recognize both that the kid's "clock" was designed to look like a bomb....

Is it your background as a foreign national that gives you such unerring powers of identification? From where does your expertise spring? When I first saw it, I recognized it as a mass produced beginners clock KIT. But perhaps that was just a lucky guess or the 52 years of experience I have in electronics as a tech and engineer.

 

[The Rabbi]

a shotgun marriage of two data sets. awesome logic.

Translation: This goes against what I know to be true so I must marginalize and dismiss it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a shotgun marriage of two data sets. awesome logic.

Translation: This goes against what I know to be true so I must marginalize and dismiss it.

Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter not a bit in informing belief.

Even hearing Obama promise the Russians that he would betray America after the election, they raced to the polls to pull the Democrat lever.

 

[Dot Com]

Less households own guns than ever before. All the OP proves is that those households which do own guns, own a LOT of guns. But there are less people who own them, and that is what matters when it comes to the homicide rate.


When viewing the next graph, remember the Brady Bill was passed in 1993:

Agreed.

I heard on the radio news months ago that instead of one person having 1-2 guns, now its the same person having 3-4 guns. Same gun nutz, more gunz per nut

 

[L.K.Eder]

a shotgun marriage of two data sets. awesome logic.

Translation: This goes against what I know to be true so I must marginalize and dismiss it.

That is a translation? Bwahah

 

[Dr.Traveler]

A lot of the things I said about the first post apply here again. At first glance the graphic looks impressive, but again you see a lot of clear signs of data manipulation. Notice how the stats above reference data from only two years, some from multi year trends, and none of them match up over the same period of time. All of that makes the above graphic very very fishy.

Note: I'm not saying there isn't the possibility of truth in there. Just that the data is so cherry picked and manipulated I can't tell if the message its trying to send is true or not.

If we were to take the categories above, track them over the same time periods, then we could look for correlation either through straight up linear regression on pairs of data categories or multivariable regression. This isn't hard by the way. It isn't hard math. Excel can do it. Wolfram alpha can compute this.

However the person who made this graphic made a conscious choice NOT to do this and to instead cherry pick data. That doesn't exactly instill faith in the data.

Tell you what: give me a few data sources acceptable to you and I'll run a few scatter plots like before. If the correlation looks good I can run a few regression models.

"... clear signs of data manipulation."

So....your premise is that Left wing 'factcheck. org' is out to support the very opposite perspective of the very Left wing Democrat Party?

Really?

You might want to think that through.



For your edification:

"Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama."
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group



With this new understanding in mind.....
...you may retract or modify your post at any time.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm not mocking, I'm expressing sincere confusion.

Bad Math is Bad Math, regardless of the source. Left Wing, Right Wing, it doesn't matter. Using cherry picked data to support your conclusion, manipulating data to fit your conclusion, data herding, etc are all bad practices.

See if this helps:

Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxisttheoretician and founding member and one-time leader of theCommunist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."

So you're saying your two pro-gun posts are Communist propaganda?

Look, bad math is bad math. It isn't limited to Conservatives or Liberals. It isn't limited to Right or Left. I've seen Republican and Democratic governors make idiotic decisions based on cherry picked data that were more wish fulfillment than sound analytical policy.

If you want to argue guns make people more or less safe, make the argument. Just, if you try to rely on statistics, be careful about what you post. It's way to easy to be led astray on manipulated data. On top of that, once the manipulation is revealed (and it will eventually be revealed) then your argument is finished whether you were right or not.