stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hailto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alarti does seem like a pretty likeable guy, even though i disagree with his political stances. I think its the George Clooney avatar.

See I don't care if you have different stances from me, as long as you have good reasons for them. Hatelores reason however is some insane conglomeration of fear and paranoia mixed with a dash of conspiracy.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thanks for getting out your elementary statistics books and posting the intro to chapter 1, it was very helpful and I appreciate the lesson in statistics and data analysis. Please refer to Humerox's reply for more information. I appreciate the guidance that a seasoned hand like yours provides.

While you have the statistics book out, please see if there is anything in there regarding being able to apply data and analysis to a conversation that we are actually having and not some arbitrary facts about a comparison between overall violence between two cultures as opposed to an identifiable effect that gun controls has on a population either positive or negative. Since you've already looked at the data once and can't seem to find the answer, I will give you a hint. Restrictive gun laws, when implemented in Britain, increased the rate of murder and violent crime. Alternatively, you can go back about 6 pages, read my post, and then shit your pants for having realized that you are nothing and you know nothing.

For additional steps, please google video search glengary glen ross. Thank you.

You should probably take your own advice. You need to learn to apply your statistics.

I guess I need to provide more elementary statistics since you still can't seem to understand the basics. You need a large enough sample size for a normal distribution. This is largely dependent on the population of your data but a accepted minimum is 30. You took 1 value and tried to make a claim on that value.
If you had any clue about what you were doing you would realize that isnt a responsible practice.You are basically cherry picking the information you want to serve your bias.

How dare you!



Also, please learn what statistics are and how to evaluate them, you are quite embarrassing.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You should probably take your own advice. You need to learn to apply your statistics.

I guess I need to provide more elementary statistics since you still can't seem to understand the basics. You need a large enough sample size for a normal distribution. This is largely dependent on the population of your data but a accepted minimum is 30. You took 1 value and tried to make a claim on that value.
If you had any clue about what you were doing you would realize that isnt a responsible practice.You are basically cherry picking the information you want to serve your bias.

How dare you!



Also, please learn what statistics are and how to evaluate them, you are quite embarrassing.

Sooo... Actual reported crime rates for a year by the entire population of Britain is not a large enough sample size to represent the population of Britain? Uhh.. What? Just give it up, admit you are wrong and then swallow a Frisbee man.

I must be 'cherry picking' the data that is applicable to the discussion we were having instead of quoting arbitrary data that may help support my cause but is not relevant to the discussion. I don't know how you guys do math down in western Florida or what they taught you in the Navy, but come on... You lose. It's ok to admit it.. It might actually feel good.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sooo... Actual reported crime rates for a year by the entire population of Britain is not a large enough sample size to represent the population of Britain? Uhh.. What? Just give it up, admit you are wrong and then swallow a Frisbee man.

I must be 'cherry picking' the data that is applicable to the discussion we were having instead of quoting arbitrary data that may help support my cause but is not relevant to the discussion. I don't know how you guys do math down in western Florida or what they taught you in the Navy, but come on... You lose. It's ok to admit it.. It might actually feel good.

You still don't understand statistics. It is enough information to show violent crime rates in Britain for one year. But not enough years to demonstrate a trend.

Do you even understand what statistic you are trying to represent? You are trying to link a law to the effect on violent crime. The fact that crime may or may not have increased for one year is not relevant.

How can you possibly not understand this. You lost the moment you started.

[Flamfives]

These statistics prove what? And the point is what? You guys get off on these dick waving 'WHAR I UR PROOFS followed by copy/pasted walls of stats' contests and the point gets lost quickly.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You still don't understand statistics. It is enough information to show violent crime rates in Britain for one year. But not enough years to demonstrate a trend.

Do you even understand what statistic you are trying to represent? You are trying to link a law to the effect on violent crime. The fact that crime may or may not have increased for one year is not relevant.

How can you possibly not understand this. You lost the moment you started.

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.

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by gotrocks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

its for sure the clooney avatar.

as much as i'd like to actually weigh in here, instead of just trolling with another 'braaaiiinss', there is simply no point to trying to convince anyone on here that gun control is good or bad. It's just not going to happen. People who think everyone should have guns are not going to suddenly think its a good idea to give them up, and people who think no one should have a gun or not going to suddenly think there should be no restrictions. it's silly to think otherwise. Especially online.

that being said, hatelore, if I start acting like alarti, will you send me a 100.00 bill to a p.o. box? for real. ill turn it into a rock and some dope and have an awesome night =P

hell yes I would man! You can bet your favorite rock on that! I care about people!

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It took me 10 minutes after my workout and before my shower to look at those statistics. Also, I live with my g/f so she would probably frown on me going out to get a "piece of ass" as you call it. Also, my last post was at 7:37 pm, I don't really know that many people who go out before 8 to get "ass". I am sorry that you operate on geriatric hours but I guess the bingo parlor is only open for so long.


You want to comment on my intelligence yet the only arguments you can provide are, You dumb, You need get laid, and you sad. That is truly pathetic.

How about your "shut your mouth" unless you have viable information to provide. Like those statistics you mentioned? Right now it seems you are nothing more than a puffed up liar.

sigh... I can see now that you are impervious to my caring sense of outreach. Your stage of denial scares me [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I have failed.

[Alarti0001]

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.

yes and those stats you presented for year after year shows a decrease in violent crime. derp

[Alarti0001]

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).