Summations Only

Personal defense, due to their involvement in drugs, and whatever else. Personal defense from rival gangs, etc.These are people who are arming themselves for protection. No other citizens are more at risk of being shot than them.Do you believe they need more guns? Manhattan...- Oni

I think you've misunderstood what line I've been talking about. I've been talking about the trendline on Percy's plot, not the one on Dr. A's.

You're in essence in a room full of people looking at you funny while you're screaming at them that they're all crazy. The trendline doesn't begin at -1,-1. This has been explained several times already, but it's hopeless explaining things to you once you're all in a dither, I don't see the point in trying one more time. Look, if I'm as obviously wrong as you seem to think then everyone can see it and there's no sense in going on and on about it. As I persist in my senseless errors more and more people will start chiming in about how wrong I am. If you're right you won't be a lone ranger. This has been responded to multiple times. Don't you need to follow that with, "Now I know that people have offered several counterarguments, such as , but ."

​

--Percy

​

Edited by Percy, : Forgot close quote.

I'm just saying, when they use those weapons to defend themselves, that's going to be classified as a felony murder, not a justifiable self-defense homicide. The people who merely reveal that they're armed and scare off an assailant aren't going to be statistically captured in any way, but I haven't seen gun opponents respond to that except by saying that there are therefore zero known instances where people use guns to defend themselves.If you can't know how many times it happens, you can't know. Period. And therefore for all we know it happens 200 times a day, or a minute. For all we know firearms in the US save ten lives for every one they take. I don't happen to think that's true, but by the same token it's not reasonable to say that they never save even a single life. Prove it. What's the rate of gun ownership in Manhattan over the past 20 years?

crashfrog writes: Firstly, the only one in this discussion that LIES that the trendline begins at {-1, -1} is YOU. Stop that shit.Secondly, Percy did not use the term "trendline", he used the term "line". The line could be curved, curved sharply downward into {0,0}.

This has been explained before, and it's blindingly obvious. Here's the image again: The x/y minimums and maximums are labeled "Scale" and are for the graph, not the line. I can see where it might be a bit confusing for you because the lower left of the line almost hits -1,-1, but if you look at the upper right of the line you'll see that it's nowhere near the x/y maximum for the graph of 10,89. That's because 10,89 corresponds to the top right of the graph, not the line.The software chose the values for the x/y minimums and maximums that you see, and while the user can change them if he wishes, I didn't do that. And no matter what values you choose, when you click on Apply it only changes how the graph is displayed. It doesn't affect the line one bit. The line can only be influenced by the x,y values in the table.Here's the link to that website: Play with it a bit. You'll see I'm not wrong, I'm not making it up, and I'm not misrepresenting you.--Percy

crashfrog writes: Percy's line is BLUE not RED. Perhaps you failed to notice that. And Percy threw out 10 data pairs for some unknown reason, including Argentina, which really hurts the correlation coefficient. And the blue line also does NOT go through the point {-1, -1}.You be busted now.

The trend line in this plot: looks like it goes right through -1,-1.

Except that I'm not screaming anything. I'm the one being screamed at that I'm crazy - literally - while politely asking what it is, exactly, I'm being crazy about. And nobody can tell me. I'm not screaming about anything. I'm sitting here, wondering why normally reasonable people are screaming at me. Which is certainly the kind of thing that makes me sit up and take notice, but then I ask them and they can't tell me. So then I start to be pretty sure that you, and they, are the ones with the problem. And sure enough, you are! You're the one with the problem that you can't interpret a simple chart. If you don't know how to read labeled axes, then there's not going to be any way for us to communicate. But it should suffice to ask you to look at this image, the one you've been talking about:And look where that line enters the graph. Let me baby-talk you through it since we're having such a tremendous failure in communication. The X axis is spaced by 1 per tick and the Y axis is spaced 9 per tick. Count back 1 from 0 on the X. That's X = -1. Count down 9 from the 8 on the Y. That's Y = -1. Since that's where the axes meet, that's the origin. This is confirmed by the fact that you've set the Xmin to -1 and the Ymin to -1, as shown in this screencap of the UI of the webpage you're using.I don't understand how you're not seeing that, or how when you look at that graph you see a trendline that passes through 0,0. This isn't me being crazy; this is you not being able to see what's in front of your face. It's fine, it's no problem, that happens sometimes when we make assumptions about how graphs work based on how graphs are usually presented - with an origin at 0,0, for instance - but it's also the kind of thing where graphs can mislead unless you really look at what is being presented. It's like how when you look at this:and you don't notice, until I tell you, that the word "the" is in there twice. You don't expect it so you don't see it. Similarly, you're expecting the intersection of the axes of a graph to be at 0,0, and so you see that on the graph even though that's not what's there. What's hopeless is getting you to admit you made a mistake when you have, especially when it's me you're talking to. Because you're convinced that I won't admit error about things, you're convinced that every time I won't admit that I'm wrong it's because I'm not seeing the truth.But I do admit error. In this thread I've admitted error perhaps a dozen times on a wide variety of subjects, including the population of the United States in the last census. I've not yet seen you admit error about anything. So objectively, if there's someone here in this back-and-forth who won't admit they're making a mistake, it seems most reasonable to me that it's you - particularly since there you are, insisting something about a plainly-labeled chart that I can see just isn't so. It's not been responded to even once. Even getting you to admit that I said it took four posts, Percy.

I didn't say they were for the line. They're for the axes. That is, the X axis goes from -1 to 10 and the Y axis goes from -1 to 89. Which means that the point where they intersect is -1, -1, not 0,0. That's also the point where the trendline intersects. But the equation Y = 6.8X + 5.6 doesn't intersect -1, -1 (6.8(-1) + 5.6 doesn't equal -1) so the line on the graph can't be the line described by that equation.This is all stuff that is readily apparent once you stop looking at that image expecting to see a line that passes through 0,0. The line has to be drawn in the same coordinate system as the rest of the graph if it's to have any meaning in terms of describing the data plotted on the graph. If you're saying that the coordinate system of the line is not the same as the coordinate system of the scatter plot then you've definitely admitted that your image is deeply misleading.

If I said that Percy's line was red instead of blue, or black as it looks to me, then that was certainly a mistake. I don't recall whether I did that or not. If I did, it wasn't an intentional mistake. I'm looking right at it and it goes through -1, -1. I don't know what you think you're seeing.

Uh, ok, I guess, but it's not. It's a straight line that passes through -1, -1.

It does go very close to -1,-1. The actual point is -1,-1.2. If you click on Ctrl-+ a few times you'll see that the line does actually pass just a bit below -1 of the y-axis.But that's a meaningless extrapolation of the line - there's no such thing as negative guns or gun deaths. Crash somehow concluded from it that I was manipulating the drawing of the line on the graph. But I provided the link to the website, he has Dr Adequate's graph just like I did, he can eyeball values onto that website just like I did, and hopefully he'll do a better job than I did, Xongsmith says I left out some points.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.

No, I was telling you that you were incorrectly describing as "rising from 0,0" a line that doesn't even pass through 0,0. I was telling you that because you did that. I don't see how I could have been any clearer than that.

Hi Crash,I never described the best-fit line as rising from 0,0. The y-intercept is 5.6, it couldn't possibly rise from 0,0.What I did say is that mathematically we know that 0 guns must correspond to 0 gun deaths, and that the line can only rise from there.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Correct the y-intercept value.