re: Heather Heyer's mom lost a loved one at Sandy Hook too, according to 8chan.

quote:

---

The lack of compassion for the kids at Sandy Hook and their parents is breathtaking. It's not that you posted this lie on here but to have more up votes than down just shows how hateful the people on this board really are.

---

Well that wasn't the goal. The goal was to spark a conversation. Apparently it worked.

LINK

1 in 2,000 chance the kid shoots that way according to the statistics:

[quote]Here, we are going to do something the MSM won't: provide context for the Sandy Hook event by conducting a statistical analysis of hard data on 30 years' worth of mass public shootings in the United States.

Quickly, though, I want to show you an example of an MSM outlet's (CNN) utter failure to do its job on Sandy Hook/Newtown. A Sandy Hook timeline at CNN contains the following claims:

1.Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls.

2.The gunman took his own life, police said. He took out a handgun and shot himself in a classroom as law enforcement officers approached, officials said. A March 28 post at CNN asserts the following:

3. Lanza didn't make it home alive. Nor did the 26 people -- 20 of them schoolchildren ages 6 and 7 -- he shot dead in less than five minutes, firing one bullet roughly every two seconds he was at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

So, the people Lanza killed were dead in less than 5 minutes, Lanza shot himself as "law enforcement officers approached", but it also took "police and other first responders" 20 minutes to arrive on the scene?

Doesn't a reasonable construction of the above at least raise the question: so what was Lanza doing in the 15 minutes or so after the killings and before he shot himself f-- particularly when Lanza is described as trying to kill as many people as possible, and when Lanza is described as having been found dead alongside a multitude of unspent rounds?

Please notice that it doesn't matter for purposes of this issue whether the claims are accurate; what matters is that CNN asserts that they are -- so why aren't they asking the obvious follow up questions?

The MSM Sandy Hook Narrative

Readers will agree that the MSM narrative regarding the Sandy Hook mass murder event runs something like this, in terms of its basics: a lone gunman (Adam Lanza, age 20), who was perhaps psychotic, acted in a purely private capacity and murdered 26 people (20 children and 6 adults) while wounding only two.

I say "wounding only two." Why? In part, for empirical reasons -- and in part for common sense as well as theoretical reasons.

When you look at the Mother Jones data set of mass public shootings over the last 30 years, you will see that mass public shootings in which there are on the order of 20 or more people killed and as few as 2 people wounded have never, in the last 30 years, happened.



It's true that in 1987 David Burke used a gun to commit a mass murder that left 43 people dead (including Burke) and nobody wounded. BUT THIS ENDED IN A PLANE CRASH!

There, the outcome is either a head or a tail, which, by analogy, corresponds with "killed" and "wounded."

The more times you flip a coin (the more victims

That is, unless, of course, the coin (shooter) is perfectly biased (in that the shooter is certain to kill) -- but nobody can make that claim about Lanza since he is said to have wounded

But, we can do more.

We can, using the hard Fatalities and Injuries data in the Mother Jones data set (which canvasses 62 mass public shootings in the United States since 1982), assess the probability that -- whatever the causal processes are that have functioned to produce mass public shootings over the past 30 years -- produced Sandy Hook Elementary's 27 killed (including Lanza) and 2 wounded, figures.

The analysis drops the Crandon, Wisconsin case because, as Mother Jones notes, the shooting took place in a private dwelling. In case you are wondering, this minor change does not affect the results. So, simply put: what does 30 years' worth of data on mass public shootings say about the probability that Lanza, acting alone, purely privately, and possibly psychotic, killed 27 people and wounded only 2?

At this point, some people are saying: "so what if this kind of thing has never happened before."

The Jacksonville Jaguars (2-14 last year) have never won the Super Bowl. Do you think they'll win next year?

Statistical Analysis

This statistical analysis deploys a model known as "exact logistic regression."

Exact logistic regression (click here for a gentle introduction) is superior to ordinary logistic regression when sample sizes are relatively small, as is the case with the Mother Jones data set (61 events).

It's an excellent model to use here for substantive purposes as well, since it allows us to model the probability that mass murder events yield -- as a function of the total number of victims produced by the incident -- three or more, in contrast to two or less -- wounded victims.

So, an exact logistic regression offers one good way to test the reasoning in the previous section.

We are particularly interested in doing so since Newtown generated a scant 2 wounded victims in comparison to 27 dead at the scene.

What is the probability of such an occurrence?

If we use exact logistic regression to model the general question of the probability of three or more wounded in contrast to two or less as a function of the total number of victims, we can use the output to derive the probability that a specific mass murder event with 29 total victims (Newtown) had two or fewer victims.

Thus, the outcome variable is the 3 or more wounded/2 or less wounded dichotomy, and the predictor variable is the total number of victims.

The regression was run in STATA 12. Here is the output:

The "Pr >= Score" value of .0001 indicates that the model is highly statistically significant.

"WoundedSplit" is the dichotomous outcome measure described above.

"Totalvic" is the label for the Total Victims predictor variable. The "2*Pr(Suff.) of .0000 shows that this variable is highly statistically significant, but what is its effect?

In a word: powerful.

The "Odds Ratio" associated with the "total victims" predictor variable of 1.43 indicates that each time the victim total climbs by one (working from a minimum total of 4, since a minimum of 4 had to be murdered in order to qualify for the Mother Jones dataset), we expect a 43% increase in the odds that 3 or more victims are wounded and not killed. With the odds ratio (and its underlying coefficient of .3580897 in hand), we can compute the probability of observing, with a total victim count of 29, a wounded count of 3 or more. Here is the output:

Now, if, with 29 total victims, the probability of observing a wounded count of 3 or more is .9995, the probability of observing the alternative of 2 wounded victims or less is 1-.9995, or .0005. .0005 is 5 in 10,000, or 1 in 2,000.

quote:

---

The article analyzes only one admittedly small unweighted data set.

---

No, he actually incorporated all of them.

Care to offer up any others he may have missed?

Nah, man. The article you posted in your big gotcha moment; was a spoof, a joke, and even the title of the article begged the question "WAS Taylor Swift...."

Run along clown, I'm supposed to take you seriously after you couldn't post a fricking link that I'm still waiting on?

All you've done for the past two hours is come at me with some vague and bland bullshite.

I'm done here...

Here's a quote to the last paragraph of the article you stated!

quote:

---

This is REALLY happening you guys….this cloning stuff is really going on behind closed doors, and has been since the fallen angels gave the technology to the Nazi’s.

---

That's a nice melt there snowflake

My favorite thing about conspiracy theorists is that they always use known conspiracies from the past to prove that conspiracies exist

except they ignore the fact that we did find out about those conspiracies and we found out about them during times in which was way easier to control information

yet today, in a world where its so hard to control information, these conspiracies are able to be kept secret

its the very definition of cognitive dissonance

quote:

---

My favorite thing about conspiracy theorists is that they always use known conspiracies from the past to prove that conspiracies exist

except they ignore the fact that we did find out about those conspiracies and we found out about them during times in which was way easier to control information

yet today, in a world where its so hard to control information, these conspiracies are able to be kept secret

its the very definition of cognitive dissonance

---

Set up the logical fallacy...attack the messenger...

I'm not even arguing your point...the point is, that isn't the argument...

All it does is point out it's happened over and over again...and there's a chance it would continue

quote:

---

Are they running out of actors and having to recycle?

---

I've always wondered why the cabal is so cheap when it comes to hiring new actors

quote:

---

All it does is point out it's happened over and over again...and there's a chance it would continue

---

And that's the logical fallacy. Evidence of the existence of something is not evidence of the existence of something else.

Again. Real conspiracies have and do exist. But that doesn't make a theory that's far more implausible any more plausible.

It's like arguing that because a person got arrested for underage drinking in college twenty years ago, that makes it more plausible that he's a serial killer. Afterall, multiple homicides and underage drinking are both crimes.

quote:

---

Well that wasn't the goal. The goal was to spark a conversation. Apparently it worked.

---

Just

Asking

Questions