Quote:
Originally Posted by vaylorie
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Dude, you can't be serious. The statistics I gave you show official numbers, year over year, for a multi-year period. I realize you are trying to change the topic or divert attention away from your ignorance with the 'learn stats!!1!' stuff but you are only further proving out that you are out of your element.
Look, the reality is that you have a basic understanding of statistics and you must have just finished an intro to stats class based on what you posted so far. Call me back when you finish college or take a more advanced class that moves beyond sample sizes, distributions, binomials, correlations, etc. I understand that you think you are smart from the class you have taken but once you take some 300/500 level statistics and analysis classes and then learn how to apply it to be able to be on the same page, the conversation would be more fruitful.
In the meantime, you are still wrong from a raw-data perspective.
|
I had to look at the stats again because it was hard for me to believe you could be this dense. I actually was convinced I misread those stats somehow. After review, I have not. What I think is the problem is you seem to think that raw numbers somehow equate to rates. They do not. England has been on a steady decline in violent crime rates for over a decade. This is of course based on population. As the population of the country increases so might the violent crime but not necessarily the violent crime rate (violent crime per person).
Sorry you were so confused, if you need further instruction let me know.(I expect you will).