Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

What about expansive views of the first and fifth amendments? They protect criminals along with the law abiding.

Na, your data found pretty much the same as my data. They are just in denial about it.

They should have taken a larger sample, then it would have been significant. The raw numbers do agree with Gallup. Gun ownership is on the rise. Do you really deny this? Why do yo think the gun shops are all empty?

More bad luck when trying to think…

Are you really asserting that the authors are in denial as to when exactly they conducted their survey? Uh, dummy, that wouldn’t be denial, that would be fraud.

For fun, why don’t you tell me what the statistical power in their survey was.

Really? Are you saying that Gallup found that 34% of households had a firearm in the home? I’d suggest that you try to think real hard before answering this one.

You don’t seem to be able to understand the difference between number of firearms owned by individuals and number of households with a firearm in them. That’s a pretty crucial piece of this puzzler to get a good, firm conceptual hold on. Again, my advice to you is to step back and think real hard before responding, even if it hurts a little or even if it is kind of boring.

It happens all the time. So does selective publication.

Less than it would be with more subjects.

No you should read the Gallup study for yourself, I’ve linked it several times. Both studies found gun ownership on the rise. Correct?

Sorry, at this point I’m feeling like a bully with a 98 pound weakling.

It’s not you, it’s me. Really.

You have been delusional for a long time. It’s OK for you to admit that your stats don’t say what you think, really it is. :slight_smile:

My favorite is the second graph from the top.

Comments?

At first I thought you were kidding around. But now it is obvious – you really don’t understand what “not statistically significant” means.

Well, then, what was the point of bringing it up? Were you just trying to get a rise out of somebody or what?

I wonder if the overall drop in armed households is due mostly to urbanization and decreased hunting- meaning fewer sporting guns- with the number possessing handguns and other tactical defense weapons sharply up.

No, I know what it means. It means is the change big or not big enough that it is likely not due to chance at a given level. P value being set at .05 or 01 or whatever arbitrary amount. I don’t see Hentor’s study giving a P value at all, but since it confirms an increase in ownership just like the Gallup study I think it would be irrational to assume it’s just statistical noise. If the times found ownership went down rather than up 2 points, I’m pretty sure they would have found a way to conclude it was significant.

Yes, I went to college, and yes I got an A in statistics.

That’s part of the suggested reasons. Another explanation is the increase in female headed households over the years, with women just recently increasing in their ownership of firearms themselves.

I’m not looking to insult you, but surely you must realize – it is the authors of the survey, not you, who are in a position to expound upon the statistical validity of their results. And their statement is that the year to year difference “isn’t statistically significant”. They don’t tell you what ‘p’ value they chose, nor what standard deviation was calculated. In fact, they tell you nothing about the statistical limitations of their results – except to declare that the difference “isn’t statistically significant”. Yet you, secure in your presumptions, holding fast to a world view wherein facts shall not sway you from a higher truth, deign to tell them and us that their opinion of their own survey is wrong.

Tell me, are they brass? I’m just curious, is all. Must be uncomfortable.

That’s all pretty strong evidence in favor of bullshit don’t you think? A good study/article would be very transparent regarding all that.

No charge for the lesson.:slight_smile:

Did you just dismiss your own cite? Awesome.

Of course not. Gallup gives their confidence interval.

Hey, only the stupid parts! The rest of it is ok, just cut out the dumb stuff that’s wrong. It’s like that Japanese delicacy, the tofu fish, which has parts of it that are deadly poison and will kill you, but the rest is just fish. Which is why they are so very careful to always get the fatal bits out before somebody eats it. Almost always. Usually.

More zero-[del]intelligence[/del]tolerance schooling: School nixes toy-soldier decorated cupcakes:

Did they at least get to eat the cupcakes after the choking hazards were discarded?