Let's Do Some Math Using CDC Numbers

[TailDragger]

BACKGROUND

In a thread on the Concealed Carry and Handgun Gear sub-forum of this forum, a discussion got off track from the original post. The thread morphed to a discussion of the number/percentage of persons killed by handguns. Rather than continuing to drag that thread off topic, I am starting this one to continue the analysis. The following image was posted:

Link Removed

Another poster, challenging the information in the image made the claim that "The chances of being killed by a person with a gun is 1 in 25,000 in America." The FBI and CDC were given as the source for that statistic.

DISCUSSION

This led me to look at the numbers in the image and I am challenged to figure out some of the conclusions stated in the image.

1. "This leaves 1,712 people in a country . . ." I have tried several ways to get to 1,712 with the numbers given, but so far haven't seen a way to get there.
   
   
2. "You have a 0.00010256410256% chance of . . ." Applying this percentage to 312 million gives 32,000 persons, but it is confusing because the previous bullet point refers to a 1,712 persons. There is a reasonable inference by the reader that the percentage stated is related to the previous bullet point.
   
   
3. "If you are not part of a gang, . . . . you have a 0.000008564102564% chance of death by firearm." Applying this percentage to 312 million gives 26.72 persons! It seems that the statistic had two too many leading zeros in it, given that it is stated as a percentage. A value of 0.000856~% would yield 2,672, a more reasonable number. BUT, the non-gang related homicides, per the numbers given, would be 2,112, not 2,672. I don't see where the extra 560 persons comes from using the numbers in the image.

Finally, the "1 in 25,000" challenge statistic works out to 0.0080128%. The challenger apparently did not see that his statistic stated in absolute numbers was in fact quite close to the the percentage for non-gang, non-crime, non-suicide percentage given in the posted image. The apparent apples and oranges turned out to actually be apples and apples.

CONCLUSION

• When using and posting numbers provided by others, it is important to do a reality check on the data and to make sure one is using same metric. Compare absolute numbers to absolute numbers and percentages to percentages, etc.

• When applying a percentage (that is stated as a percentage) to a population, remember that the decimal point must be move two places to the left before making the calculation. Example: if a number is stated as 54%, you would multiply the population by 0.54, not 54.

 

[mikestone967]

Mind if I ask why you would take MY post and start a "new thread" with it? Seems a tad rude to me, seeing as I posted the image you're using..

 

[TailDragger]

Mind if I ask why you would take MY post and start a "new thread" with it? Seems a tad rude to me, seeing as I posted the image you're using..

OK, because you asked . . .

1. I used an image that you posted. There was no indication that you hold a copyright on the image. If you do, my apologies. If not, what is your problem? You borrowed it from someone else. If it is your personal image, then you need to know that there appears to be some problems with the math that it presents. If it is an original image created by you, I would hope you would be a bit more careful in checking your math and the implications of the image as it was organized.
   
   
2. Rude, well let's see. You and another respondent on the other thread essentially hijacked the OP's thread. Now that is rude!
   
   
3. The contribution that you and another posted, though it was off the topic of the subject of the thread, was in itself interesting and deserved fuller discussion but as noted it was off topic. The thread that I started in a more appropriate forum would make it more likely that persons interested in that issue would see it and add to the discussion.
   
   
4. Since the image you posted on the other forum appeared to contain errors, I thought it would not be nice of me to identify you by name. Therefore I did not credit you as the source of the image; but I did note in the opening post in this thread that the image had been posted by someone else, so I did not try to take credit for the image as my original work.
   
   
5. Finally, get a grip, dude!
   

 

[mikestone967]

So, not only do you high jack my posted image, you go and create an entire thread to question its veracity.... That seems to me to be the ultimate form of trolling. So which is it?
Are you trolling?

 

[mikestone967]

OK, because you asked . . .

1. I used an image that you posted. There was no indication that you hold a copyright on the image. If you do, my apologies. If not, what is your problem? You borrowed it from someone else. If it is your personal image, then you need to know that there appears to be some problems with the math that it presents. If it is an original image created by you, I would hope you would be a bit more careful in checking your math and the implications of the image as it was organized.
   
   
2. Rude, well let's see. You and another respondent on the other thread essentially hijacked the OP's thread. Now that is rude!
   
   
3. The contribution that you and another posted, though it was off the topic of the subject of the thread, was in itself interesting and deserved fuller discussion but as noted it was off topic. The thread that I started in a more appropriate forum would make it more likely that persons interested in that issue would see it and add to the discussion.
   
   
4. Since the image you posted on the other forum appeared to contain errors, I thought it would not be nice of me to identify you by name. Therefore I did not credit you as the source of the image; but I did note in the opening post in this thread that the image had been posted by someone else, so I did not try to take credit for the image as my original work.
   
   
5. Finally, get a grip, dude!
   

So it is up to "You" now to take another's post, deem it incorrect, then create an entirely new thread to publicly embarrass the original poster but it's "ok" cause you didn't name names....

You are nothing short of a trolling poster and yes, I have a friggin problem with you jacking my post.

 

[Robgmn]

Trolling is when you post a bunch of useless memes that are made doubly useless in the fact that they contain (at best) inaccurate information and (at worst) outright lies.
Again, you post BS, and then get upset when you get called out on it.
Then, you post a picture of a baby crying, and project that onto someone that is posting in the thread.
Put on your man pants and play the game, or go hide in your safe place, Mikeystoner.

troll
trōl
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling
1.
informal
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

 

[BluesStringer]

So it is up to "You" now to take another's post, deem it incorrect, then create an entirely new thread to publicly embarrass the original poster but it's "ok" cause you didn't name names....

You are nothing short of a trolling poster and yes, I have a friggin problem with you jacking my post.

Mike, I actually thought TailDragger's explanation for why he "jacked" "your" graphic was exceptionally well-stated. Especially #5.

There's at least one graphic I've seen you use repeatedly that I know for a fact you "jacked" because I created that version of it myself, after of course, I "jacked" it from out there in cyber-space somewhere to begin with. You're welcome to it just like I felt perfectly welcome to it, and felt perfectly fine adding the shading that makes it work best with the off-white background of this site. Here, copy and paste it to your heart's content, even if you happen to use it sometime in a way that I don't agree with you on (which hasn't happened that I recall, but which you are certainly able to use in such a way if it suits your purposes).

​

 

[XD40scinNC]

So, not only do you high jack my posted image

Did you create the image? Do you own the copyright for the image?

You saw it on the somewhere on the internet, and felt free to 'use' it.... how does that differ from what TW did?

 

[mikestone967]

Point taken.

ETA: the issue I had was not with the image. It was with the way the thread was designed.
It has the feel of being "called out" by a teacher and I just don't think it was appropriate.

 

[BluesStringer]

Point taken.

ETA: the issue I had was not with the image. It was with the way the thread was designed.
It has the feel of being "called out" by a teacher and I just don't think it was appropriate.

Personally, I think the OP gave clarity to the actual statistics. It turns out nearly everyone who cited the statistics was more or less accurate, even though you were focusing on one number while someone else was focusing on another number, which both turned out to be the same number (+/-). There's no shame in copping to a mistake, mike, just as there's no obvious intent that I could discern in this OP to do anything but crunch the numbers to arrive at what turns out to be the ~correct citation to them going forward. It's no skin off my teeth either way, but this is just the way I read it, and I did happen to see it when it started in the other thread. It just seems like a big nothingburger to me.

Blues

 

[TailDragger]

So it is up to "You" now to take another's post, deem it incorrect, then create an entirely new thread to publicly embarrass the original poster but it's "ok" cause you didn't name names....

You are nothing short of a trolling poster and yes, I have a friggin problem with you jacking my post.

• I did not deem it incorrect. The graphic said, "Do the math . . . " so I did the math and it was in fact incorrect in several points.
  
  
• I specifically did not name you in the opening post of this thread because there was no intent to embarrass an individual, as I pointed out in the part that you quoted, but apparently did not read carefully.

As I stated in the opening post, I thought this "information" was worthy of further examination. This "Let's Do The Math Using CDC Numbers" graphic is obviously floating around the internet. People are likely to use it, as you did to make in important point. I can imagine someone sending it to a legislator to advance the issue that is close to our hearts. But, and this is a BIG but, whoever produced the graphic did not do the math.

Persons we are trying to convince that guns are not the problem will do the easy math and discover the obvious errors. That will hurt our cause, not advance it. If we tell them to do the math, and the math doesn't work, why should they believe that the other data in the graphic is correct. Seems to me that this particular graphic shoots us in the foot.

 

[oneoclock]

People on here sure have a hair trigger.