Gun training

[drop bear]

I think a fairer statement would be that the US is very little shooty, and the UK is even less so.

Mabye if your point of reference is a casual thousand people a year. If your point of reference is never having had a thousand people shot by police in recorded history.

It seems a lot.

But that the U.K. police is less shooty than American police is basically a statement of fact.

You can't flat earth your way out of it.

 

[CB Jones]

So at an average of 6 times the population of the U.K. who shoot about 4 people a year. Makes the comparison about.

24 shootings vs a thousand

I will reevaluate my opinion from less shooty. To the U.K. is almost non existantly shooty when compared to the astronomically shooty that is conducted by police in America.

(I don't know if the amount of police contacts to getting shot by police is in the U.K. but I would bet money that America would me more shooty in that regard as well.)

Whats the percentage of police in UK that carry guns compared to the US?

What is the percentage of UK citizens that carry guns?

How often do UK police encounter armed criminals?

Comparing the two is apples to oranges.

 

[drop bear]

Whats the percentage of police in UK that carry guns compared to the US?

What is the percentage of UK citizens that carry guns?

How often do UK police encounter armed criminals?

Comparing the two is apples to oranges.

More like apples to less shooty apples.

But if less cops carry guns because less crooks carry guns and therefore less people get shot by cops?

That would be a different discussion again.

 

[Dirty Dog]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

This thread is getting into gun politics. Which means, as usual, that your options are
1 - Stop.
2 - Take it to US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where it belongs
or
3 - The thread gets locked and people get points.

I suggest options 1 or 2.

Thank you.
Mark A. Cochran
Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Take it to US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum where it belongs

I do have a question, is that a affiliate of this website? I am presuming it is.


also just a generic point if its not raised on U.K firearm deployment, not meant to be political. But some forces reserve AFO deployment quite heavily and will be reluctant to deploy them for anything less than violent firearm incidents or terrorism. Not meant to be political but the policy is varied across and can change often.

Just thought that would be a interesting/useful tid bit of information.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I do have a question, is that a affiliate of this website? I am presuming it is.

Yes. It is. The rules here do not allow political debate.

 

[lklawson]

So at an average of 6 times the population of the U.K. who shoot about 4 people a year. Makes the comparison about.

24 shootings vs a thousand

I will reevaluate my opinion from less shooty. To the U.K. is almost non existantly shooty when compared to the astronomically shooty that is conducted by police in America.

(I don't know if the amount of police contacts to getting shot by police is in the U.K. but I would bet money that America would me more shooty in that regard as well.)

nope. What you're talking about is statistically insignificant as compared to statistically insignificant. When you get to percentages that low it's literally insignificant.

Any other interpretation is misrepresentation of statistics, usually with a political axe to grind.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

 

[drop bear]

nope. What you're talking about is statistically insignificant as compared to statistically insignificant. When you get to percentages that low it's literally insignificant.

Any other interpretation is misrepresentation of statistics, usually with a political axe to grind.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

It is a direct literal interpretation of statistics.

If something is less than another thing. Then the interpretation is that something is less than that other thing.

Political axe is yours.

 

[lklawson]

It is a direct literal interpretation of statistics.

If something is less than another thing. Then the interpretation is that something is less than that other thing.

Political axe is yours.

Nope. 0.000020423 per capita contact is, quite literally, statistically insignificant. The point of statistically insignificant is that you can draw no conclusions from the metric. Both of the metrics are statistically insignificant and you can draw absolutely no conclusions from them, either independently or in comparison to each other. Attempting to do so is foolishness and misunderstanding or misapplying statistics. It is really as simple as that.

(mobile)

 

[drop bear]

Nope. 0.000020423 per capita contact is, quite literally, statistically insignificant. The point of statistically insignificant is that you can draw no conclusions from the metric. Both of the metrics are statistically insignificant and you can draw absolutely no conclusions from them, either independently or in comparison to each other. Attempting to do so is foolishness and misunderstanding or misapplying statistics. It is really as simple as that.

(mobile)

But I am not comparing per capita contact. It is irrelevant to the statement I made.

I can draw exactly the conclusion I made from the data I had.

Your statistics dont effect mine.

This is why I don't trust your conclusions you add to much bias.

And insignificant is your opinion.

 

[lklawson]

But I am not comparing per capita contact. It is irrelevant to the statement I made.

I can draw exactly the conclusion I made from the data I had.

Your statistics dont effect mine.

This is why I don't trust your conclusions you add to much bias.

And insignificant is your opinion.

That's not how statistics actually work.

And this, dear readers, is why a good education is so important. Particularly training in logical thought.

 

[drop bear]

That's not how statistics actually work.

And this, dear readers, is why a good education is so important. Particularly training in logical thought.

Logic is designed so you can write off a thousand people a year?

So what number would it have to be to be significant?

 

[lklawson]

Logic is designed so you can write off a thousand people a year?

yes, two one-hundred-thousandths of a percent is, in fact, statistically insignificant.

You are very nearly four times more likely to be struck by lightning in the US as opposed to being shot by the police for any reason at all, whether justified or not, and no one looks at the US and thinks, "boy that's a lightning strikey place."

How Dangerous is Lightning?

It is clear that you are objections are either illogical or motivated from some other reason. Perhaps you're just arguing because you feel you have to "win" or something else. Regardless the numbers don't lie.

So what number would it have to be to be significant?

Nice appeal to emotion. And that is exactly what I mean about not using logical thought. Good job! Thanks for illustrating it so well.

 

[drop bear]

yes, two one-hundred-thousandths of a percent is, in fact, statistically insignificant.

You are very nearly four times more likely to be struck by lightning in the US as opposed to being shot by the police for any reason at all, whether justified or not, and no one looks at the US and thinks, "boy that's a lightning strikey place."

How Dangerous is Lightning?

It is clear that you are objections are either illogical or motivated from some other reason. Perhaps you're just arguing because you feel you have to "win" or something else. Regardless the numbers don't lie.

Nice appeal to emotion. And that is exactly what I mean about not using logical thought. Good job! Thanks for illustrating it so well.

You have arbitrary defined insignificant based on your opinion and agenda driven statistics. And can't put a number on what significant is.

And eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Lake Maracaiboin northwestern Venezuela is the most lightning strikey.

 

[lklawson]

You have arbitrary defined insignificant based on your opinion and agenda driven statistics. And can't put a number on what significant is.

And eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Lake Maracaiboin northwestern Venezuela is the most lightning strikey.

So what you're saying is that arguing is so important to you that you didn't even bother checking. Facts are less important to you than the argument. You didn't even come close to finding the obvious error that I left for you. I left it to see if you would find it. You didn't.

you don't care about facts, or statistics, or anything else. You just want to argue.

Case closed.

 

[drop bear]

So what you're saying is that arguing is so important to you that you didn't even bother checking. Facts are less important to you than the argument. You didn't even come close to finding the obvious error that I left for you. I left it to see if you would find it. You didn't.

you don't care about facts, or statistics, or anything else. You just want to argue.

Case closed.

Not really. Your obvious error is your argument relies on your own bias as to what significant is.

Which is your thing. Biased argument.

By your statistics would a sudden spike to say 10,000 people shot a year become significant?

Have we hit 1% of shootings to interaction yet?

Quite simply you are suggesting that if I said A is more than B that is incorrect because if we compare them to all the stars in the sky they are technically equal.

But the relationship between A and B doesn't change regardless of what I compare them both to.

 

[lklawson]

Not really. Your obvious error is your argument relies on your own bias as to what significant is.

Which is your thing. Biased argument.

By your statistics would a sudden spike to say 10,000 people shot a year become significant?

Have we hit 1% of shootings to interaction yet?

Quite simply you are suggesting that if I said A is more than B that is incorrect because if we compare them to all the stars in the sky they are technically equal.

But the relationship between A and B doesn't change regardless of what I compare them both to.

No. I'm suggesting that you can't do math, don't understand basic statistics, missed the simple math error I left for you to find, and clearly just want to argue. Since you can't be bothered to check facts, never mind your own assumptions, I won't bother arguing with you about it. Ta...

 

[drop bear]

No. I'm suggesting that you can't do math, don't understand basic statistics, missed the simple math error I left for you to find, and clearly just want to argue. Since you can't be bothered to check facts, never mind your own assumptions, I won't bother arguing with you about it. Ta...

I understand this