Hawaii is 50th Again - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Emmerich · #16 05-09-2009, 12:37 AM

How misleading can numbers be? Lets look at #1 and #50 La and HI. La has 19.5 per capita deaths, Hawaii 2.58. Looks like LA is 7.8 times as bad as HI right?

Well lets assume both states ONLY have 100,000 each (which works since that is the per capita ratio we work with).

In LA, we have 45,600 with guns and 19.5 die, for a percentage of .0429%

In HI we have 9700 guns and 2.58 deaths for a percentage of .0266%.

So .0429/.0266 = 1.6 so La is 1.6 times worse than HI. What happened to being 7.8 times as bad?????

mpolli · #17 05-09-2009, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

What happened to being 7.8 times as bad?????

You changed the math. That's what happened. You can also compare gun deaths to the number of hound dogs. Then LA will be the safest state.

DeliveryValve · #18 05-09-2009, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Little do people know what the 2nd amendment is really about....

What?..... The right to hairy palms?!?!?!

JK!

.

strelnik · #19 05-09-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

And with that logic, if you banned food, there would be no fat people.

I thought AIG did that under the new "More for Me" program

strelnik · #20 05-09-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

How misleading can numbers be? Lets look at #1 and #50 La and HI. La has 19.5 per capita deaths, Hawaii 2.58. Looks like LA is 7.8 times as bad as HI right?

Well lets assume both states ONLY have 100,000 each (which works since that is the per capita ratio we work with).

In LA, we have 45,600 with guns and 19.5 die, for a percentage of .0429%

In HI we have 9700 guns and 2.58 deaths for a percentage of .0266%.

So .0429/.0266 = 1.6 so La is 1.6 times worse than HI. What happened to being 7.8 times as bad?????

You did not account for windage and elevation

Kuan · #21 05-09-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

How misleading can numbers be? Lets look at #1 and #50 La and HI. La has 19.5 per capita deaths, Hawaii 2.58. Looks like LA is 7.8 times as bad as HI right?

Well lets assume both states ONLY have 100,000 each (which works since that is the per capita ratio we work with).

In LA, we have 45,600 with guns and 19.5 die, for a percentage of .0429%

In HI we have 9700 guns and 2.58 deaths for a percentage of .0266%.

So .0429/.0266 = 1.6 so La is 1.6 times worse than HI. What happened to being 7.8 times as bad?????

You need to compare guns per capita vs. deaths per capita. So use 1341 for guns per 100k in LA and 808 for HI.

On thing's for sure. Marijuana usage does not contribute to gun deaths.

MTUpower · #22 05-09-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

And with that logic, if you banned food, there would be no fat people.

Yes you are correct. Can we start banning food from those that own firearms so they can kill less people? It would come out about equal and we'd have no guns then. A win win!
That logic is about the same as the math on your next post.
While I respect the opinion of people, if the planet was free of guns it would be a much better place.

fz500sel · #23 05-10-2009, 11:33 AM

no wonder I felt so safe. Had a wonderful time!

Secret Squirrel · #24 05-10-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

Surprise surprise; those states with the lower percentage of gun ownership had lower gun death rates. The real trick is to see if those deaths were due to accidental, murder or self defense; and to correlate those figures into an opinion that either says guns protect a person or guns accidentally kill more people than they protect.

Completely backassward when the gun ownership ratio is compared to the # of homicides by firearms is calculated of the 15 states with the lowest numbers:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_num_of_hom-crime-gun-violence-number-homicides

Basically all these numbers prove is that the low population, high gun ownership central plains states have nothing in common with the high population, high gun control states.

DieselAddict · #25 05-11-2009, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret Squirrel

Completely backassward when the gun ownership ratio is compared to the # of homicides by firearms is calculated of the 15 states with the lowest numbers:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_num_of_hom-crime-gun-violence-number-homicides

Basically all these numbers prove is that the low population, high gun ownership central plains states have nothing in common with the high population, high gun control states.

Much more meaningful would be to look at homicides per capita rather than just homicides. Naturally California with its 33 million people or so will have more homicides than say Wyoming.

Mistress · #26 05-11-2009, 08:12 PM

Must be those warm ocean breezes....I know wash, dc isn't a state but with all the murders there I'd like to know where it figures in.

Matt SD300 · #27 05-14-2009, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Wow, 44 thru 50, all bad old liberal "gun control" states. Looks like reasonable regulation of firearms actually works. It's a wonder what a well-regulated milita can accomplish when attempted.

Move to Mexico.....No guns (illegal) ....Zero Crime......Take another hit on the C pipe!!...............

DieselAddict · #28 05-14-2009, 02:55 AM

Gun control is only as effective as its enforcement.