Braininvat » Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:45 pm wrote:I think he meant the latter. And that was my point, that a single instance (or data point) is not a basis for any meaningful analysis.
Nice save. ;) Forgive me for doubting you, but I don't think that was your point. You prefaced it with "Want to know my reaction to Munich's shooting?" I took what followed to be your personal opinion. I did not challenge it because you are entitled to express your own personal opinion on this forum. It's what we do. Not everything we say here is meant to be the results of in depth scientific analysis. I am dissecting your comment now because biowizard has made it part of the discussion. Please don't be offended.
As stated, it is definitive in that it precludes any other possibilities. Had you said "he would have most likely had an AR-15" a reader might assume you were basing it on an analysis of data that indicated a high probability that the weapon used would be an AR-15 (although no data was provided). Such analysis would involve examining all mass shootings in the US and what weapons were used in each. Although I haven't done such analysis, I suspect the conclusion would be valid.
The second part of your statement would also require compilation of data from all mass shootings, comparing the number of deaths occurring when an AR-15 is used to the number of deaths resulting from a different choice of weapon. To convince me that the result would be "triple" would definitely require statistical support.
But I didn't ask for data. I accepted your opinion as your opinion.