News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for mass shootings?. Parent comment

Re:We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for m... by dalke on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @06:08AM (#12216870)
You don't need to believe it because that's not what I said.

I said "just because there is a definition doesn't mean it's a good definition". That doesn't mean I think it's a good definition or a bad definition. I personally prefer the definition used by massshootingtracker.org, which concludes there have been 1300+ mass shootings since 2013. However, I also think someone will argue about any reasonable definition.

I also said "It doesn't matter that the federal definition changed a couple of years ago." That doesn't mean I think any definition will work, only that for the purposes of this analysis, we can choose either the old definition or the new one - or any reasonable definition.

I'm willing to accept the old definition and focus on the real "salient", to use your term, issue, which is that the results of this op. ed piece are worthless, because of poor use of statistics.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for m... by Turing_Machine on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @08:02AM (#12217299)
Why wouldn't a "reasonable definition" include people who were shot in large numbers by murderous governments?

Take your time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for m... by dalke on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @09:02AM (#12217611)
Because it doesn't fit the goal of the op. ed piece, which is what we are talking about.

If anything, it says that mandated arming of large numbers of citizens (conscription), and mandatory use of such weapons, leads to a higher number of mass killings.

That's a different conversation than the mandated disarming of large numbers of citizens.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for m... by Turing_Machine on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @11:13AM (#12218522)
"Because it doesn't fit the goal of the op. ed piece"

Translation: it wouldn't fit the political agenda of the op. ed piece.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for m... by dalke on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @12:24PM (#12219144)
I'm glad that you agree with me that your definition is not relevant to the op.ed piece or to this entire thread.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for m... by Turing_Machine on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @03:31PM (#12220797)
That is quite clearly untrue, and you are no longer debating in an honest manner (if you ever were).

Buh-bye.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We adjust for population with murder rates. Why not for m... by dalke on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @03:58PM (#12221004)
If only more kibitzers were so polite.
[ Parent | on HN ]