In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:35:33 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:



No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?


No, I don't choose to "extrapolate," since that yields an opinion or
attempts expand known data into an area not known so as to arrive at a
conjectural position.

No it doesn't. I didn't ask you to make an opinon, I asked you to
extrapolate. You yourself said it was "raw data".

In other words, I'm not going to perpetuate rumor or attempt to divine
tea leaves, so as to support a predisposed position.

No rumors involved. It's "raw data".

Besides, researchers have already crunched the existing data and found
it to support the following position:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

That's because there are no fewer guns. No one made anybody get rid of
what they have. You do realize, don't you, that most gun crimes are
committed with guns that were either stolen or borrowed from a legal
owner, don't you?

"The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent."

THAT is raw data.

But finding correlation and drawing a final conclusion, without
establishing causation is sophomoric, at best.

I suggest you review the following paragraph on cause and effect:
http://www.vassarstats.net/textbook/ch3pt2.html

I suggest you read the whole thing instead of just cherry picking one
paragraph. THAT is "sophomoric, at best".

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:12:07 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:35:33 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:



No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?


No, I don't choose to "extrapolate," since that yields an opinion or
attempts expand known data into an area not known so as to arrive at a
conjectural position.

No it doesn't. I didn't ask you to make an opinon, I asked you to
extrapolate. You yourself said it was "raw data".

In other words, I'm not going to perpetuate rumor or attempt to divine
tea leaves, so as to support a predisposed position.

No rumors involved. It's "raw data".

Besides, researchers have already crunched the existing data and found
it to support the following position:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

That's because there are no fewer guns. No one made anybody get rid of
what they have. You do realize, don't you, that most gun crimes are
committed with guns that were either stolen or borrowed from a legal
owner, don't you?

"The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent."

THAT is raw data.

But finding correlation and drawing a final conclusion, without
establishing causation is sophomoric, at best.

I suggest you review the following paragraph on cause and effect:
http://www.vassarstats.net/textbook/ch3pt2.html

I suggest you read the whole thing instead of just cherry picking one
paragraph. THAT is "sophomoric, at best".

Have it your way, you are going to believe what the DNC tells you to
believe, anyway.

I'm sorry, please show where the DNC was involved in the above study, I
must have missed it.