When are Democrats going to return to reality regarding firearm rights?

[HypX]

edit: Over 1% of 5000 households is over 50 households. That's hardly likely to be a measurement error, unless the methodology is flawed.

Even if it was conducted perfectly, it is still indistinguishable from 0 due to sampling noise. Further research suggest it is 82,500, not 2.5 million.

 

[Lithium381]

Even if it was conducted perfectly, it is still indistinguishable from 0 due to sampling noise. Further research suggest it is 82,500, not 2.5 million.

82000 is still > 0 so there is a net positive . . .

 

[MrMuppet]

Even if it was conducted perfectly, it is still indistinguishable from 0 due to sampling noise. Further research suggest it is 82,500, not 2.5 million.

Really?

So,

p = 82,500 / 200,000,000 = 0.0004125

n = 5000

p * n = 2.0625

The most likely outcomes would be 1 or 2 positives.

Here follows the probabilities (binomial distributions) for getting x positives (or more):

>=x	probability
1	0.8729183528
2	0.6107042921
3	0.3402385566
4	0.1542910381
5	0.0584298337
6	0.0189024160
7	0.0053228521
8	0.0013248828
9	0.0002951746
10	0.0000594802
11	0.0000109357
12	0.0000018480
13	0.0000002889
14	0.0000000420
15	0.0000000057
16	0.0000000007
17	0.0000000001
18	0.0000000000

Do I need to go on? The probability of even getting 20 or more positives is less than 1 in 9 trillion, "if it was conducted perfectly".


We had over 50 positives.

Are you suggesting that would not be statistically significant?

 

[MrMuppet]

What do you mean? The US is a special case. I would guess you can't buy a gun in your country because it's illegal to do so. What conviction am I suppoesd to have that you think makes me less understanding?

Bolded it for you.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

"guns are useless against a modern military" is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever fucking heard and you should be ashamed of yourself for even saying it. If they are so useless why the fuck do we arm our soldiers with them? Oh you think we're the only ones with a modern military? If they're so worthless, explain why you need to take them away then? Why? Shouldn't your military or police be able to fly in like superman and protect you with their guns? No, because that's not how it fucking works. Wanting to get rid of guns is a knee jerk reaction of emotions from weak individuals projecting their own weakness onto the rest of the world. You're weak Moonbeam mentally, spiritually and physically.

Boy you have a really low opinion of our military.

 

[MrMuppet]

Boy you have a really low opinion of our military.

The thing is, given discipline, modern armies can easily commit genocides and massacre civilians. However, maintaining an occupation where you're trying to win hearts and minds and minimize civilian casualties is another beast entirely.

 

[Nebor]

The thing is, given discipline, modern armies can easily commit genocides and massacre civilians. However, maintaining an occupation where you're trying to win hearts and minds and minimize civilian casualties is another beast entirely.

Exactly. Large portions of the military might go along with orders to occupy American cities, but they're not going to follow orders to massacre everyone. And once they're occupying a hostile place, and start getting shot by, and having to shoot fellow Americans, low morale will quickly break the force. Of course, if the area they're occupying is disarmed, there won't be many shootouts, and so the occupation will stand.

 

[HypX]

Really?

So,

p = 82,500 / 200,000,000 = 0.0004125

n = 5000

p * n = 2.0625

The most likely outcomes would be 1 or 2 positives.

Here follows the probabilities (binomial distributions) for getting x positives (or more):

>=x	probability
1	0.8729183528
2	0.6107042921
3	0.3402385566
4	0.1542910381
5	0.0584298337
6	0.0189024160
7	0.0053228521
8	0.0013248828
9	0.0002951746
10	0.0000594802
11	0.0000109357
12	0.0000018480
13	0.0000002889
14	0.0000000420
15	0.0000000057
16	0.0000000007
17	0.0000000001
18	0.0000000000

Do I need to go on? The probability of even getting 20 or more positives is less than 1 in 9 trillion, "if it was conducted perfectly".


We had over 50 positives.

Are you suggesting that would not be statistically significant?

Then I stand corrected on the issue of statistics. But we do know the answer is ~80k. Most likely explanation is that there were false positives. 50 out of 5000 is 1% after all, and 1% false positives is pretty common even in the best of polls.