> Well, suddenly the Baggers are in favor of "gun control" again.

Sockpuppet wrote:

Let me ask you this.

Is the race of the offender an important criminal stat?

Still refusing to answer his very simple question about your absurd 'analysis' garbage:

"why did you make up a metric that gives a "rate" that decreases as the target population size grows?

I've already pointed out that expressing rates using data from disjoint data sets (in this case, attackers and victims) is highly problematic and prone to giving you results that are utterly meaningless - so if you are going to do this you need some supportable and clearly articulated rationale for doing so. Especially in cases like this when it's an adjustment that clearly skews the numbers in a specific direction.

So the question remains - why did you do this? Especially since this isn't some tangential issue - it's absolutely central to the headline results you originally presented."

Why are you so afraid of answering that?

Don't bother, I already know, as does everyone here looking at your racist bullshyt; you're a dishonest hypocrite scumbag fraud. Like all libfilth vermin. No exceptions.

wrote:

My data doesn’t do what you say and it doesn’t mix unlike groups.

You don’t understand the data.

But please feel free to prove your point. You can’t.

wrote:

Again:

"why did you make up a metric that gives a "rate" that decreases as the target population size grows?

I've already pointed out that expressing rates using data from disjoint data sets (in this case, attackers and victims) is highly problematic and prone to giving you results that are utterly meaningless - so if you are going to do this you need some supportable and clearly articulated rationale for doing so. Especially in cases like this when it's an adjustment that clearly skews the numbers in a specific direction.

So the question remains - why did you do this? Especially since this isn't some tangential issue - it's absolutely central to the headline results you originally presented."

My data doesn’t do what you say and it doesn’t mix unlike groups.

You don’t understand the data.

But please feel free to prove your point. You can’t.

Spanky wrote:

My data doesn’t do what you say and it doesn’t mix unlike groups.

You don’t understand the data.

But please feel free to prove your point. You can’t.

I'm quoting AMT, noticing that you are terrified of answering the question, then stamping your feet and making clearly false statements, while still insistently refusing to answer his question.

By all means, keep it up. It shows for the bazillionth time what a fuqing racist you are, even though you falsely claim to be opposed to racism.

You are a conclusively, repeatedly, thoroughly documented dishonest hypocrite scumbag fraud.

wrote:

I'm quoting AMT, noticing that you are terrified of answering the question, then stamping your feet and making clearly false statements, while still insistently refusing to answer his question.

By all means, keep it up. It shows for the bazillionth time what a fuqing racist you are, even though you falsely claim to be opposed to racism.

You are a conclusively, repeatedly, thoroughly documented dishonest hypocrite scumbag fraud.

And I am replying to that:

My data doesn’t do what you say and it doesn’t mix unlike groups.

You don’t understand the data.

But please feel free to prove your point. You can’t.

Cold, dead hands. Thanks.

Yrah. Still refusing to answer the valid questions. Your severe mental defects on display yet again.

wrote:

Yrah. Still refusing to answer the valid questions. Your severe mental defects on display yet again.

The question was not valid. Which is what I said 38 times.

Sockpuppet wrote:

You are describing a problem that doesn’t exist in the data. It’s either entirely fabricated or you don’t understand the data. You’ve provided no explanation of the mistake in any terms that can be discussed.

False. He clearly did. You are a total fraud.