Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)
39. you flunked the quiz
Wed Mar 30, 2016, 02:04 PM
Mar 2016

beevul: So what? If, IF your goal is to tally those who did versus those who didn't, that's the applicable math

You above unwittingly agree that your signature line is applicable for one year only, since you are disregarding the average yearly gun owner total, which is the valid way to do this.

Your signature line is falsely contending that 99.9% of ALL living gun owners in a drop-back period, do not shoot or kill anyone; written as it is, that's what you are contending: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

You cannot validly claim that is true over time, just because it is approximately true for one year.

beevul: Its not MY contention, jimmy, its YOURS:

You lie again. My table below clearly says 'gun owners', not 'gun owners who did not shoot/kill'. You are actually doing nothing whatsoever with your junk science, just reducing a fraction from larger amounts over 5 years, rather than one year, ergo the stat will remain the same.

80,000,000 gun owners - 2000 ------ 80,000 shootings & gundeaths (0.1% x gunowners)
81,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2001 ------ 81,000 ..... "
82,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2002 ------ 82,000 ..... "
83,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2003 ------ 83,000 ..... "
84,000,000 ..... " ........ - 2004 ------ 84,000 ..... "
........................................ total = 410,000

After 5 years time in the hypothetical, there were actually 410,000 shootings/killing by gun owners, along with approx. 100 million ACTUAL gun owners in existence over that time period.

beevul: You wrote that. You came up with the hypothetical numbers. I just finished your math is all

You botched the statistics & probability quiz, is all.

I contended: You find the shooting/kill percentage of existing plus dead or gone gun owners in America after 5 years, using your 0.1% claim. 410 thousand is 0.41% of 100 million, rough estimate.

beevul: That's funny, the calculator says its .1 percent. Your 'rough estimate' is off by a factor of 4.

Try it again, you messed up. I'll help. First, remember 0.41% = 0.0041 scalar;
Next, enter 0.0041 in the entry box, then click on X (for multiply), then enter 100,000,000 in the box, and see what the answer is.

Oh look, a picture of the Second Amendment. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #1
And yet 99.9x percent of guns aren't used in murders. N/T beevul Feb 2016 #2
But you know... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #7
Invalid Premises Galore jimmy the one Mar 2016 #18
If you spouted anything else, we might go into shock. beevul Mar 2016 #22
to wit jimmy the one Mar 2016 #24
LOL. THATS your gambit? beevul Mar 2016 #25
resident eevul jimmy the one Mar 2016 #32
Jimmy the wesker? beevul Mar 2016 #34
armed robbery is not misusing a gun? jimmy the one Mar 2016 #35
Are you claiming I said that? beevul Mar 2016 #36
quintuple counting jimmy the one Mar 2016 #37
Says you. beevul Mar 2016 #38
you flunked the quiz jimmy the one Mar 2016 #39
Again, says you. beevul Mar 2016 #40
altered figures do not refute anything jimmy the one Apr 2016 #43
Hah. beevul Apr 2016 #47
As usual, you twist facts to suit your fanciful imagination tortoise1956 Mar 2016 #30
sleeping dogs should stay asleep jimmy the one Mar 2016 #33
Oh, you wound me... tortoise1956 Apr 2016 #41
simple explanation jimmy the one Apr 2016 #42
don't go apoplectic due another error jimmy the one Apr 2016 #44
It's empty underpants Feb 2016 #3
Not necessarily tortoise1956 Mar 2016 #31
and it's obviously aroused Fairgo Feb 2016 #4
Apologies accepted, but you should seek treatment for that case of Markley's Syndrome: friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #5
Umm ... no. Straw Man Feb 2016 #8
funny looking AR-15 Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #6
A SIG? Really? Straw Man Feb 2016 #9
Actually, the Wright/Rossi prison survey demonstrated that pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #10
Yeah, but ... Straw Man Feb 2016 #11
Especially a single action sig...you can buy 2 plastic striker junkers for that one sig. ileus Feb 2016 #13
Like a Taurus for example. Still In Wisconsin Mar 2016 #28
That was my thought. Still In Wisconsin Mar 2016 #26
Mine are life saving devices...and some of them are beautiful. ileus Feb 2016 #12
Like a fire extinguisher? nt Logical Feb 2016 #16
Fire extinguishers do not make good weapons GreydeeThos Mar 2016 #20
No, the gun wackos love to say a gun is just a tool, like a fire extinguisher, which is BS. nt Logical Mar 2016 #21
Tool- "a device or implement...used to carry out a particular function" friendly_iconoclast Mar 2016 #29
Which is why we need to ban rifles with pistol grips krispos42 Feb 2016 #14
also be most effective anti murder weapon... ileus Feb 2016 #15
If handguns were used in less than 200 murders a year nationwide, benEzra Feb 2016 #17
Not really a Sig Sauer fan myself doggie breath Mar 2016 #19
I don't know my Sig 220 and 229 have never harmed anyone/thing either. ??? ileus Mar 2016 #23
Well technically no, but OK as an exemplar, in one way at least I guess whatthehey Mar 2016 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #45
Sure - as a variant of a very common firearm most used in homicides whatthehey Apr 2016 #46
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The most effective and mo...»Reply #39