dscntnt: While I don't have formal training on this type of statistics, I have plenty of exposure to college level math. As a physics major, I concentrated more on Bose–Einstein, Maxwell–Boltzmann and Fermi-Dirac flavors of statistics. Feel free to discontinue embarrassing yourself with this didacticism anytime.
The 'statistics' I posted are not that involved, in fact most college statistics courses cover what I used in the first year, that is 'statistics 101'. If you contend to have 'plenty of exposure to college level math', it's odd you missed statistics 101. Maybe you were sick that day? I can see why you are discontented.
So, if you 'concentrated more on bose-einstein, maxwell, and fermi flavors of statistics', you'll surely be able to discuss the basic tenets of non euclidean geometry (I got a B, tho was only a C student in integral & differential calculus). So go ahead & start, what's the basic foundation of non euclidean geometry? (hint, ties in with one of einstein's theories).
dscntnt: Since my '1 gun in 470' was also an extrapolation based on a very crude approximation that every crime involved a different gun... well you can see where that's going (I hope).
No actually I didn't see where you suggested that at all, & I don't see where you are going at all either. You only fabricate a weak excuse without having to get involved explaining in depth what you are talking about.
Here is what you wrote:.
what dscntnt wrote: Using percentages 1 in 470 is 0.2%. Using your logic over the next 470 years every existing handgun will be used in a crime. By that logic I guess the repeat offenders (rapists for one) go out and get a new gun for each crime.
You clearly thought every handgun which will have existed during the next 470 years, would be used in a crime, accd'g to the 0.2% per year figure (0.4% closer). All you did was roughly multiply 0.2% (or 0.002) by 470 (rounded to 500), to get 100%. Doesn't work that way statistically.
Furthermore, US crime figures have only existed for approx 240 years, about half as much as 470 years so there is no precedent to rely on; guns don't last that long, which would also need be taken into account.
So the resultant 15% I came up with is a priori, just a hypothetical figure based upon pure statistical analysis alone, simply to rebut your sophomoric attempt at statistical analysis. Likely be far less.
dscntnt: But most of all, thanks for the chuckle. The ironic conjunction of pedantic lecture and your misspelling of the word 'dummies' in the subject was amusing.
Your trivial ad hominem doesn't erase your own blunders, nor your pathetic attempts to save face with your 'flavors of statistics'.
= new reply since forum marked as read