• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CNN Townhall with Parkland Students, Rubio, NRA and others

Now I'm no expert in statistics like a sociologist or IT employee, but doesn't the 'Deaths per 100k residents' data point skew the results for the states with smaller than average or larger than average populations?

And how is the Brady State Score quantified in relation to this?
 
Last edited:
Colonel Angus said:
Now I'm no expert in statistics like a sociologist or IT employee, but doesn't the 'Deaths per 100k residents' skew the results for the states with smaller than average or larger than average populations?

And how is the Brady State Score quantified in relation to this?
Click to expand...

Seems to me it unskews it.
 
So it's simply coincidental that the states with the smallest populations (Montana, Alaska, Wyoming) show a highly unfavorable variance vs the Brady State Score and the states with the largest populations (California, New York, Illinois) show a favorable variance?
 
If anything, I'd guess that population density would skew it. since a million people in a small area have more opportunity for murder than a million people in a large area. That's not evident from the graph though-NJ and CT are pretty safely on the low end.
 
No, it means states with less gun laws have a higher percentage of gun related deaths.

It's a fairly logical idea.
 
There was a nice paper in JAMA-IM this month along these lines. They found that not only were rates of homicides and suicides lower in states with strong gun laws, but there was a protective effect on other states. That is, a state with weak gun laws had lower rates of firearm deaths if surrounded by states with strong gun laws.

Here's the link. Not sure if it's behind a paywall.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2673375
 
Colonel Angus said:
Now I'm no expert in statistics like a sociologist or IT employee, but doesn't the 'Deaths per 100k residents' data point skew the results for the states with smaller than average or larger than average populations?

And how is the Brady State Score quantified in relation to this?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize percentage was such a hard thing to understand.
 
When I was a kid sponsoring marksmanship and hunter safety programs was probably one of the NRAs biggest expenditures. If they would give up the assault rifle craziness and get back to that I'd send 'em a donation.
 
Colonel Angus said:
There is an 87.5% chance Numbers is furiously fapping to this table.
Click to expand...

I do enjoy being proven correct, but generally not at the expense of people being killed by guns.

My biggest crusade in the gun debate arena is addressing the idiocy that is people claiming that by increasing the number of guns around we can decrease the number of gun deaths. That's beyond stupid.
 
Deacon923 said:
When I was a kid sponsoring marksmanship and hunter safety programs was probably one of the NRAs biggest expenditures. If they would give up the assault rifle craziness and get back to that I'd send 'em a donation.
Click to expand...

Yep, I was an NRA member as a kid, too. Had a little pin on my hat. #CampMorehead #riflerange
 
Deacon923 said:
When I was a kid sponsoring marksmanship and hunter safety programs was probably one of the NRAs biggest expenditures. If they would give up the assault rifle craziness and get back to that I'd send 'em a donation.
Click to expand...

I think most people would support a gun advocacy organization that focused on marksmanship and hunter safety and overall gun responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top