re: Gun control narrative # 3,903,754,118 (Connecticut related)

quote:

---

Oh no. Do you not know what a confounder is? That's not a good look for you.

---

If you are going to assert confounders are applicable to your reply, you actually have to say how fricking idiot.

quote:

---

It's not convenient, it's the answer he asked for.

---

False

quote:

---

If he needs me to define the word and spell out for him why it answers his question, he can ask for that.

---

And you won't supply it.

quote:

---

Do you not know what a confounder is?

---

Obviously I do. I'd like to see you fumble through explaining it.

I'll wait.

quote:

---

Obviously I do. I'd like to see you fumble through explaining it.

---

Dude knows better than to try and spell it out. Scared shitless

quote:

---

He asked why the US gun violence rate is lower than some other countries that happen to have lower rates of gun ownership.

---

That's not what I asked.

If you're confused, then apologize and ask me politely to explain it to you.

quote:

---

DisplacedBuckeye

---

Not every situation is similar - there are external variables that differ between environments that can effect the variables being studied in a way that distorts their actual relationship.

In this case, you asked why some countries have lower gun ownership rates than the US (though that depends on the country and how you count 'ownership' and whether it's by # of guns or % of population), yet lower gun violence rates. Your thought was that somehow this would disprove the hypothesis that "more guns = more gun deaths."

The problem, of course, is that you can't do a direct comparison between the US and any other country looking at only those two variables without controlling for potential confounders. For example, there's a link between socioeconomic status (SES) and crime. In order to see if there was a true effect, you'd need to control for differing SES between the two countries - things like poverty, inequality, density, etc.

Additionally there are a host of other variables to look at that could effect your analysis, and in your case bring you to the incorrect conclusion that you appear to support - though of course with you, we never really know.

Which is why actual researchers always endeavor to control for what variables they can, to find a more correct nature of a relationship between variables. Because looking at JUST gun ownership (however you define it) and gun deaths, as you suggested, is. a horrible idea.



In the future, you can just tell us you didn't know what the word meant.

quote:

---

I'm not sure I've ever seen someone write 5 paragraphs and somehow, STILL avoid answering a question.

---

We
Cannot
Compare
Gun
Ownership
And
Gun
Violence
Rates
Between
The
US
And
Other
Countries
Because
They
Are
Too
Dissimilar
To
Determine
A
True
Relationship

quote:

---

In this case, you asked why some countries have lower gun ownership rates than the US (though that depends on the country and how you count 'ownership' and whether it's by # of guns or % of population), yet lower gun violence rates.

---

That isn't what I asked. Let's get you there first.

Or we can watch you fumble through explaining why your response to two variables was confounders.

quote:

---

That isn't what I asked.

---

That's exactly what you asked.

If you don't think that's what you asked, please spell out exactly what you think you asked.