Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo
Oh, of course. And as your own link says, "rates are more for comparative purposes then absolute numbers." So, while the exact numbers maybe not be entirely accurate, the percentage is. That's why I included the percentage. So, 67% is roughly accurate for the percentage of people killed by a gun in 2009, and 1.4% is roughly accurate. That's how statistics work. You get a sample size and develop %'s. The larger the sample size, the more accurate it is.
|
Sigh, please do not twist the words, the "rate" here refers to the per-capita ratio, while the "absolute number" refers to the final numbers, as in 10,000 murders , 50,000 assaults etc., the "comparative purpose" it's talking about is that when you're comparing two different locales, the rate is more useful as comparing the total number of murders in a city with a population of 2 million with one that has 200 would be pointless, it does not mean what you're claiming here.
It doesn't surprise me one bit that you apparently chose to skip all the parts where it talked about the deficiencies with the various crime statistic figures, so again, per the FBI:
Quote:
|
These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kaijo
That's why, in the past election, the poll results we got were so accurate in predicting the winners.
|
Because election polling = crime statistics
also, I do not appreciate your continued insinuations, DQ can discuss the issue without taking cheap shots, why can't you?
and FYI, I voted democrat in 2012, I guess that makes me a liberal leftist