First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[Terraceth]

This topic took a weird turn.

[Roy]

So back to my other joke comment... if the odds of you NOT catching the flu each year is 80%, then why doesn't THAT add up and after a few years the odds of you NOT catching the flu become close to 100%?

They do.

Specifically, the odds of there having been at least one year in which you did not catch the flu become close to 100%.

Using 20% as the chance of catching the flu:

So over a sixty year lifetime, there will be years when you did catch the flu (unless you manage that 1 chance in 100000), and years when you did not - given total randomisation.

The effects of flu spreading locally rather than randomly, and variations in social interaction, constitution, exposure etc will shift the odds in one direction or the other, but unless you are either (i) the sole inhabitant of a Florida key and get your groceries delivered by parachute, or (ii) a Christian Scientist whose hobby is licking the patients in an infectious diseases unit, you won't shift either probability below 99%

Does this help?

[Roy]

Explain to us then how your example doesn't involve correlation.

Because you've deliberately only quoted the first definition of "correlation", which is not the definition relevant to the phrase 'correlation does not equal causation', which definition is "interdependence of variable quantities".

Thanks for providing another point of correlation ("interdependence of variable quantities" and "a connection between two or more things") between 'Conservative American Christian' and 'dishonest schmuck'.

[Roy]

PS there are 12 1's.

Nitpicker

[Sparko]

They do.

Specifically, the odds of there having been at least one year in which you did not catch the flu become close to 100%.

Using 20% as the chance of catching the flu:

So over a sixty year lifetime, there will be years when you did catch the flu (unless you manage that 1 chance in 100000), and years when you did not - given total randomisation.

The effects of flu spreading locally rather than randomly, and variations in social interaction, constitution, exposure etc will shift the odds in one direction or the other, but unless you are either (i) the sole inhabitant of a Florida key and get your groceries delivered by parachute, or (ii) a Christian Scientist whose hobby is licking the patients in an infectious diseases unit, you won't shift either probability below 99%

Does this help?

yep. thanks.

[Sparko]

Nitpicker

I call for a recount!

[Roy]

I call for a recount!

You should have stopped the count earlier

[oxmixmudd]

yep. thanks.

So in the end. If you have an 80% chance of catching the Flu in any given year, you have a nearly 100% chance of getting the flu at least one year, and you also have a nearly 100% chance of NOT getting the flu at least one year.

Now you know why statistics (in the hands of those wishing to deceive) can be used (on the general population) to support most any conclusion

Jim

[Sparko]

So in the end. If you have an 80% chance of catching the Flu in any given year, you have a nearly 100% chance of getting the flu at least one year, and you also have a nearly 100% chance of NOT getting the flu at least one year.

Now you know why statistics (in the hands of those wishing to deceive) can be used (on the general population) to support most any conclusion

Jim

Thanks. So by my calculations I should win the lottery soon, then get hit by lightning, while suffering from the flu, while throwing dice playing a board game.

[oxmixmudd]

Thanks. So by my calculations I should win the lottery soon, then get hit by lightning, while suffering from the flu, while throwing dice playing a board game.

Somehow - I'm just not quite sure you've got the hang if it yet ...

[Littlejoe]

Because you've deliberately only quoted the first definition of "correlation", which is not the definition relevant to the phrase 'correlation does not equal causation', which definition is "interdependence of variable quantities".

Thanks for providing another point of correlation ("interdependence of variable quantities" and "a connection between two or more things") between 'Conservative American Christian' and 'dishonest schmuck'.

Well Roy, you're certainly showing your colors. You can call me names all you want, does not make it so.
Even conceding your math is correct, that everyone WILL get the flu sometime, my point that your more likely to die from the flu that you are 100% of getting is much higher than in a mass shooting stands. Thanks for actually strengthening my point!

[JimL]

Well Roy, you're certainly showing your colors. You can call me names all you want, does not make it so.
Even conceding your math is correct, that everyone WILL get the flu sometime, my point that your more likely to die from the flu that you are 100% of getting is much higher than in a mass shooting stands. Thanks for actually strengthening my point!

Seriously, what is it that you gun enthusiasts have against strengthening the gun laws. Very odd how you're all for stricter voting laws with no actual evidence of rampant voter fraud, but when people including children are being mowed down in school, restaurants and malls you've got a million excuses for doing nothing at all about it. It seems as if life isn't really all that sacred to you christians after all, well unless it's a fetus that is.

[Jedidiah]

Seriously, what is it that you gun enthusiasts have against strengthening the gun laws. Very odd how you're all for stricter voting laws with no actual evidence of rampant voter fraud, but when people including children are being mowed down in school, restaurants and malls you've got a million excuses for doing nothing at all about it. It seems as if life isn't really all that sacred to you christians after all, well unless it's a fetus that is.

The gun laws are plenty stiff. Why do I not see you anti gun folks pushing for enforcement of existing laws, instead of parroting meaningless "strengthening the gun laws" tripe.

[oxmixmudd]

The gun laws are plenty stiff. Why do I not see you anti gun folks pushing for enforcement of existing laws, instead of parroting meaningless "strengthening the gun laws" tripe.

I would think it would be up to those that advocate for the stats quo that then would have the most to gain by making absolutely sure all existing laws are strictly enforced and adhered to. Is that what we see. Are you guys our there making sure there are no wink wink nod nods going on at gun shows? Taking police and judges to task for looking the other way or giving light sentences in existing violations? Are you voting in people that will make sure lax policies between agencies are fixed?

Not that I have seen. If anything it's the gun lobbies and hobbies exerting pressure against these corrections that have given us the lax situation we now enjoy.

So the push for tougher laws is then a compensation for lax enforcement. That is, eventually the laws get strong enough that even the existing lax attitude towards them can't stop them from being effective.

Jim

[Littlejoe]

Seriously, what is it that you gun enthusiasts have against strengthening the gun laws. Very odd how you're all for stricter voting laws with no actual evidence of rampant voter fraud, but when people including children are being mowed down in school, restaurants and malls you've got a million excuses for doing nothing at all about it. It seems as if life isn't really all that sacred to you christians after all, well unless it's a fetus that is.

The only strengthening to gun laws that I think would help is to include Mental/Behavioral Health information to the background checks. That's currently against the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) laws. When it comes to legally owned firearms, those with mental health issues pose the greatest danger. There is currently no way to guarantee they cannot get a gun legally.

As an aside, I spoke with 2 of my LEO buddies this weekend about guns and gun control laws. They said that just about EVERY time they arrest someone with a gun on them (with no carry permit) that when they ask where they got it, they say: "I got it from a friend of a friend" NOT at a gun show, NOT legally at the store where they had to pass a background check, but from the "hood" dealers. When I asked them, Local Police officers with a combined 45 years of experience, both of them said a gun ban would make their job harder and endanger more people to criminal activity. They said that in their opinion, about 90% - 95% of officers that they worked with thought that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens made it safer for everyone, not just those carrying.