First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[Littlejoe]

If
1) Each year 5-20% of USans get the flu.
And
2) You get the flu every year without a flu shot
Then
3) 80%-95% of Usans must be getting flu shots each year

But that's false, so one of your premises is wrong.

No, correlation does not equal causation...as I know you know.

[Leonhard]

They should have used established due process, not gone in like gestapos.

I find the whole thing hard to understand. What can a person say about another person that would cause a judge to say that their guns should be taken away, but that they were not bad enough to warrent a police investigation another way? If he threatened someone with murder, that's already a felony as others have pointed out.

This thing seems odd to me. And I'm not a pro-gun person by any means.

[Littlejoe]

I find the whole thing hard to understand. What can a person say about another person that would cause a judge to say that their guns should be taken away, but that they were not bad enough to warrent a police investigation another way? If he threatened someone with murder, that's already a felony as others have pointed out.

This thing seems odd to me. And I'm not a pro-gun person by any means.

I haven't had time to study the Red Flag laws of Maryland, but ISTM that a proper procedure would be:

1. Person in question (X) is (quickly) summoned to court where the charges are made clear.
2. X has the chance to defend himself and present evidence to clear his name.
3. Judge rules on the validity of the order.
4. If X loses in this hearing then the Judge would issue an order for immediate (but temporary) confiscation of the weapons until the next hearing.
5. X would have to undergo psychiatric/psychological evaluation for competence and aggression.
6. upon completion of the eval, a final judgement would be made.

[Sparko]

I make it 500%...

So if you can add up the chances you get the flu over many years to increase the odds you will catch the flu, why can't you add up the even higher percentages you won't catch the flu over many years?

[oxmixmudd]

Ah! I'll concede Roy didn't make up the number, but posted a real number that doesn't fit my point (or my model) thus a straw man. Agreed?

He posted an accurate answer assuming the average persons response to the flu. To the more important point, your challenge of his use of probability, he posted the correct answer assuming the distribution of flu catchers was random. which is, in fact, what the situation is for most people. You are mostly* engaging in the "I'll never admit I ever make a mistake' fallacy.


Jim

*you did concede Roy didn't make up the number. Some are not even capable of admitting that much

[oxmixmudd]

So if you can add up the chances you get the flu over many years to increase the odds you will catch the flu, why can't you add up the even higher percentages you won't catch the flu over many years?

Sparko, please. You've had probability - right? Assuming an even distribution, it's a relatively simple equation. And yes, if the odds of wining the lottery are 1/14000000 and you can find a way of making a sufficiently large number of random picks, your probability of winning goes up, to the point if you could make 14,000,000 random picks, you'd have a better than even chance of a win somewhere along the way. The problem there of course is that if you play every single week, you have to live to be 269,231 years to reach that number of plays - and you will likely have spent more money on lottery tickets than you'd actually win (remember, odds are always in the house's favor) and you still might lose.


Jim

[Sparko]

Sparko, please. You've had probability - right? Assuming an even distribution, it's a relatively simple equation. And yes, if the odds of wining the lottery are 1/14000000 and you can find a way of making a sufficiently large number of random picks, your probability of winning goes up, to the point if you could make 14,000,000 random picks, you'd be almost assured a win somewhere along the way. The problem there of course is that if you play every single week, you have to live to be 269,231 years to reach that number of plays - and you will likely have spent more money on lottery tickets than you'd actually win (remember, odds are always in the house's favor).


Jim

no because you are dealing with a different random number each week. So your odds never go up no matter how many times you play. The only way to lower the odds is to buy more tickets for the same drawing. If you get two tickets your odds are 2/14M, 10 tickets 10/14M, but if you buy a ticket every week for 14 million weeks, your odds are still 1/14 million. Your odds don't add up over time.

Every year your odds of getting the flu are still 20% (if that number is correct) no matter how many years you are alive. Now the more times you are exposed to someone with the flu during a year, the better the chances you will catch the flu.

[Littlejoe]

He posted an accurate answer assuming the average persons response to the flu. To the more important point, your challenge of his use of probability, he posted the correct answer assuming the distribution of flu catchers was random. which is, in fact, what the situation is for most people. You are mostly* engaging in the "I'll never admit I ever make a mistake' fallacy.

Jim

Nope, because I'm not wrong in this instance. You saying it over and over doesn't make you right either. The equation you posted to support Roy's number stated that there was statistically 100% chance that you would get the flu over your lifetime. That's just wrong. Both of you are wrong. There's a 5% - 20% chance every year that you will contract the flu. That doesn't accumulate because of the years you live. You'll have to do more to convince me than just your say so.

*you did concede Roy didn't make up the number. Some are not even capable of admitting that much

Thanks! I try to admit it when I know I'm wrong. I don't think my analysis is flawed in this instance.

[Zymologist]

I'm pretty sure if someone had a 5%-20% chance of catching a disease every year, then that would accumulate so that the odds of them catching it at some point in their lifetime would indeed increase, but would never actually reach 100%. Maybe when Roy said 95%-100% chance he meant it exclusive of 100%.

[Littlejoe]

I'm pretty sure if someone had a 5%-20% chance of catching a disease every year, then that would accumulate so that the odds of them catching it at some point in their lifetime would indeed increase, but would never actually reach 100%. Maybe when Roy said 95%-100% chance he meant it exclusive of 100%.

Sorry Zym, but I'm going to disagree with you too. The chances of being exposed to the flu may increase every year but that still doesn't mean you contract it. I don't think it reaches anywhere near 95% even. That formula is too simplistic to define all the variables that make up the 5% - 20% yearly number. I'd be interested if anyone has the actual number, not one posited via a formula.

[Sparko]

Sorry Zym, but I'm going to disagree with you too. The chances of being exposed to the flu may increase every year but that still doesn't mean you contract it. I don't think it reaches anywhere near 95% even. That formula is too simplistic to define all the variables that make up the 5% - 20% yearly number. I'd be interested if anyone has the actual number, not one posited via a formula.

it seems like a silly argument to be having anyway. After all you don't just have a random chance to get the flu each year. It depends on many factors like how many people with the flu you are exposed to, how many times in a year you are exposed to them, how strong your immune system is, whether you had that strain before and are immune, if you had a flu shot, etc.

This whole thing is just another Roy nitpick to avoid the topic by attacking an analogy with minutia.

[Littlejoe]

it seems like a silly argument to be having anyway. After all you don't just have a random chance to get the flu each year. It depends on many factors like how many people with the flu you are exposed to, how many times in a year you are exposed to them, how strong your immune system is, whether you had that strain before and are immune, if you had a flu shot, etc.

This whole thing is just another Roy nitpick to avoid the topic by attacking an analogy with minutia.

True! Regardless of what nit is picked, you are still MUCH more likely to die from the Flu than from a mass shooting.

[Sparko]

True! Regardless of what nit is picked, you are still MUCH more likely to die from the Flu than from a mass shooting.

Or cancer. Maybe cancer would be a better example. Or getting killed in an auto accident. Or having a heart attack. Or being struck by lightning...

or winning the lottery.

[oxmixmudd]

no because you are dealing with a different random number each week. So your odds never go up no matter how many times you play. The only way to lower the odds is to buy more tickets for the same drawing. If you get two tickets your odds are 2/14M, 10 tickets 10/14M, but if you buy a ticket every week for 14 million weeks, your odds are still 1/14 million. Your odds don't add up over time.

Every year your odds of getting the flu are still 20% (if that number is correct) no matter how many years you are alive. Now the more times you are exposed to someone with the flu during a year, the better the chances you will catch the flu.

Guys - this is basic stuff. The probabiliy of an event stays the same, per event, yes. But the probability there will HAVE BEEN a hit goes up with each event.

So, just like if I toss a coin, the probability I'll have seen at least one heads is 50% on the first toss, 75% on the second, 87.5% on the third and so on. The way you calculate that is 1 - (probability of a miss)^{<number of tries>}

So if I take a single die with probabilty 1/6 that any of the 6 numbers pops up, then the pobability I get a 1 the first time is 1/6, the probability I will have seen a 1 after two tries is 1-(5/6)² and so on.

When I play the lottery it's the same. And it doesn't matter if I play the same set of numbers or a random set of numbers each time, though it's more intuitive to think that sooner or later my numbers will come up. So if I play the lottery 14,000,000 times with a probability of winning of 1/14000000, then the probability is about 63.2%* I will have won at least 1 time.


Jim

*btw, anybody recognize what number we are running into here with that 63.2%? Very famous. Not pi

[JimL]

Or cancer. Maybe cancer would be a better example. Or getting killed in an auto accident. Or having a heart attack. Or being struck by lightning...

Again, the above are unintentional occurences of nature which we do what we can to protect ourselves from. We should also do what we can to protect ourselves from being intentionally mass murdered by people with guns by enacting tougher common sense gun laws, which btw some 90% of americans are for anyway.