Jump to content

Mass shooting


PIK

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apparently they're supposed to write studies without conclusions.

Conclusions can be as simple as a summary of the most relevant data and results of the data analysis. They don't need to (and shouldn't, if we're talking about scientific studies) contain political/social "suggestions".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you lost the argument so the fall back about talking about or studying these issues is?

There is no argument....U.S. health care professionals recognized gun related injuries and deaths as a public health problem at least a decade ago. I don't care about your partisan political ramblings from Canada when there are substantive actions already being taken to study the problem in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the "carnage" would be equally bad regardless of whether it is before or after the arbitrary date of some pagan holiday. Are there some days of the year when it is preferable to have your children massacred?

Of course not. It's horrible. However, there are practical things that are disturbing. They need to relive the memory if they had already purchased gifts for the children. What do you do with them? Donate them? Return them? It turns my stomach even imagining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. It's horrible. However, there are practical things that are disturbing. They need to relive the memory if they had already purchased gifts for the children. What do you do with them? Donate them? Return them? It turns my stomach even imagining it.

Happens all the time for "tolerated" "inner city" "gang related" gun homicides for children, including Xmas Eve.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no argument....U.S. health care professionals recognized gun related injuries and deaths as a public health problem at least a decade ago. I don't care about your partisan political ramblings from Canada when there are substantive actions already being taken to study the problem in the U.S.

But aren't allowed to study them at least at a federal level where they need to be studied. That isn't science. You can care less about it but pretending the facts are on your side when they aren't isn't going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conclusions can be as simple as a summary of the most relevant data and results of the data analysis. They don't need to (and shouldn't, if we're talking about scientific studies) contain political/social "suggestions".

A summary of the data and results of the analysis may have political implications. If gun-related deaths are greater in places where gun-control laws are more lax, discussing those results, analyzing them, and writing conclusions from them is going to be inherently political. You can't get away from it. So saying that they can't write studies that advocate for gun control, when perhaps one of the findings is that gun control is an effective strategy, then the government is indeed censoring scientific discourse on the subject. Conclusions are not the same thing as merely presenting the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happens all the time for "tolerated" "inner city" "gang related" gun homicides for children, including Xmas Eve.

Not helping your case. There has not been a single poster that has said or even suggested that those deaths are tolerable. You're the only one, as you try to claim mass murders should also be tolerated. None of them should be tolerated. However, the NRA has made it impossible to study the problems, as punked has pointed out, so in fact supporting the NRA is a vote for tolerating it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But aren't allowed to study them at least at a federal level where they need to be studied. That isn't science. You can care less about it but pretending the facts are on your side when they aren't isn't going to work.

It doesn't matter.....such studies are already in place, including the federal level. This is not about your partisan politics from far away Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conclusions can be as simple as a summary of the most relevant data and results of the data analysis. They don't need to (and shouldn't, if we're talking about scientific studies) contain political/social "suggestions".

In 1997 Congress cut $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. They then resorted the funding but ear marked for studying things other then fire arms. They then pass language that said “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” for the CDC. 2 years later they applied that language to ALL federal health departments. What is that besides censorship. These people are smart enough to get the message. Study guns get your funding cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. It's horrible. However, there are practical things that are disturbing. They need to relive the memory if they had already purchased gifts for the children. What do you do with them? Donate them? Return them? It turns my stomach even imagining it.

Who cares what to do with the toys? You really think that's what people are going to be thinking about when they've just lost their child? Talk about messed up priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conclusions can be as simple as a summary of the most relevant data and results of the data analysis. They don't need to (and shouldn't, if we're talking about scientific studies) contain political/social "suggestions".

You can't do any study without someone making it political, even when it includes nothing but the results of data analysis. Statistics always "lie" to someone, when they don't indicate what they want them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't do any study without someone making it political, even when it includes nothing but the results of data analysis. Statistics always "lie" to someone, when they don't indicate what they want them to.

Check out Mitt Romney's campaign for this one. Half of America and many members of this board went on record on how the polls were lying to them. Election day came and the stats were right, and the gut feelings were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't different no one said that. There is less of them. That is the key 600% less of them. If you cut your gun deaths in half in America we wouldn't even be talking about this.

600% less means we would have a negative amount of homicides. The most that you can be less than something by is 100% (that would reduce any finite amount to 0).

If you are gonna talk about statistics you may want to learn what % means...

If the US has 600% more homicides (as in 7x the homicide rate), then it would be appropriate to say that Canada has 86% less homicides, not 600% less.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares what to do with the toys? You really think that's what people are going to be thinking about when they've just lost their child? Talk about messed up priorities.

The fact is it's something they won't immediately think of, but it will be a painful reminder after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is it's something they won't immediately think of, but it will be a painful reminder after the fact.

Any different than the empty room in the house? The clothes and other personal possessions? All the toys that are already lying around from previous years? All the photos that the family has? The report cards from school? Sorry but I don't see any difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

600% less means we would have a negative amount of homicides. The most that you can be less than something by is 100% (that would reduce any finite amount to 0). If you are gonna talk about statistics you may want to learn what % means...

If we take America's number and subtract Canada's number in order to get to 0 you must multiply Canada's number by 600%. There happy with that statement. America's number=Canada number x 600%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we take America's number and subtract Canada's number in order to get to 0 you must multiply Canada's number by 600%. There happy with that statement.

Sure, although that is an odd way of comparing two numbers.

America's number=Canada number x 600%.

Yes, that is correct. Here's a little math lesson for you:

If Canada's rate is 1 and America's rate is 6. Then:

America's rate is 6 times Canada's rate

Canada's rate is 1/6 times America's rate

America's rate is 500% more than Canada's rate (0% more would mean that the rates are equal, 100% more would mean America's rate is double)

Canada's rate is 83% less than America's rate (83% of 6 = 5 and 6-5 = 1)

Just giving you some free math help so you can debate statistics more correctly...

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we take America's number and subtract Canada's number in order to get to 0 you must multiply Canada's number by 600%. There happy with that statement. America's number=Canada number x 600%.

Bonam's right on this one. It would be right to say that the US has 600% more but you can't have more than 100% less of anything and not have less than zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonam's right on this one. It would be right to say that the US has 600% more

Not entirely correct. 600% more means that they have our rate, plus 600% more in addition to that, meaning 7 times our rate. If you want to use the phrasing x% more to express a rate that is 6 times ours (as is punked's intent), it would be correct to say that the US has 500% more. Alternately, to avoid any possibility of confusion, one could simply say that the US has 600% Canada's rate.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, although that is an odd way of comparing two numbers.

Yes, that is correct. Here's a little math lesson for you:

If Canada's rate is 1 and America's rate is 6. Then:

America's rate is 6 times Canada's rate

Canada's rate is 1/6 times America's rate

America's rate is 500% more than Canada's rate (0% more would mean that the rates are equal, 100% more would mean America's rate is double)

Canada's rate is 83% less than America's rate (83% of 6 = 5 and 6-5 = 1)

Just giving you some free math help so you can debate statistics more correctly...

Don't need your less. Although you are right often when putting math into words you have to be careful at the words you picked. If you asked for a clarification I would have given you the formula. Thanks for nothing though, and thanks for not addressing what I was talking about. Anything not to talk about the problem right guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...