Mass Shooters and Mental Health

Lursa · Nov 20, 2017

ultmd said:
First, you're wrong. There is PLENTY of evidence (discussed in both research and journalistic reviews), but some of us aren't really looking for evidence as much as affirmation.
1. "The background check loophole matters. Data shows that common-sense public safety laws can reduce gun violence and save lives. In states that require background checks for all handguns sales, there are…

2. NPR: research-suggests-gun-background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything

3. The research is clear: gun control saves lives

lol, actually, "low wattage voters" are the ideologues who ignore research and objective data in favor of self-affirmation and right wing talking points. The factS of the matter are that background checks DO help............have NEVER been promoted as a simple, silver-bullet solution..............and MUST be combined with new regulations (among which could/should be AWB's and LCM bans, and.....yes.....even universal registration). It's long since past the point of placating the irrational fears of the conspiracy theorists and repressed culture/social warriors on the far-right. Hell, those are the folk most likely to become mass-shooters and mass murderers in the first place.

To be honest, none of those 3 groups should affect the rights of *everyone. *

Certainly not suicides. That personal choice is not a danger to the public and should not be used as punishment against the rest of law-abiding gun-owning society. And as for police, I'm claiming bull ****...I'd LOVE to see how many criminals that shoot cops underwent background checks to acquire their guns.

Btw WA state's law has only been in affect a year so I'm going to go with more bull**** on the stats...no way we can make conclusions after a year.

Edit: Forgot domestic abuse, i.e., women. I dont agree with women allowing themselves to be victimized in this way. It's not simple, it's not easy, but it's still wrong and stupid to stay with an abusive man. yeah, there are 'complex mental issues' involved. Doesnt matter...no one says it's easy to leave but it is the only choice. Men dont just wake up and shoot women. THey are abusive over time. Again...women have a choice. I also dont believe that all citizens should be punished because women allow themselves to be victimized.

TurtleDude · Nov 20, 2017

ultmd said:
First, you're wrong. There is PLENTY of evidence (discussed in both research and journalistic reviews), but some of us aren't really looking for evidence as much as affirmation.
1. "The background check loophole matters. Data shows that common-sense public safety laws can reduce gun violence and save lives. In states that require background checks for all handguns sales, there are…

2. NPR: research-suggests-gun-background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything

3. The research is clear: gun control saves lives

lol, actually, "low wattage voters" are the ideologues who ignore research and objective data in favor of self-affirmation and right wing talking points. The factS of the matter are that background checks DO help............have NEVER been promoted as a simple, silver-bullet solution..............and MUST be combined with new regulations (among which could/should be AWB's and LCM bans, and.....yes.....even universal registration). It's long since past the point of placating the irrational fears of the conspiracy theorists and repressed culture/social warriors on the far-right. Hell, those are the folk most likely to become mass-shooters and mass murderers in the first place.

you are lying. when you use crap like common sense gun control laws, that is the language of the gun banning movement . The duke study proved that the background checks that cover more than two thirds of gun sales have done NOTHING to decrease violent crime

secondly, when you spew nonsense claiming semi auto rifles are designed for mass killing I cannot take seriously any of your claims that all you want are "reasonable" gun laws. Everything harmful someone can do with a gun is already illegal. so is possession of firearms by those adjudicated dangerous if they are armed. everything people like you push involves more restrictions on honest people and nothing further on actual criminals who use firearms illegally

ultmd · Nov 21, 2017

Lursa said:
No. Australia did it very suddenly and never had firearms as prevalent within society nor crime. Australia is also an island...we have 2 borders where arms can always be exchanged. One down.

Ummm....no. One down, my left foot. This is ridiculous. Australia is a island that is the same size as the entire continental U.S., Lursa. And weapons aren't transported INTO the U.S. from our neighbors. They are transported FROM the U.S. to our neighbors. But, just as importantly, you ignored every other example I listed in order to make THIS ridiculous argument? What about the others? Geez. And btw, Australia's mass shooting incidence dropped dramatically when they banned assault weapons.

Of course there is no logic in limiting the police. Nor citizens when it comes to firearms when it comes to self-protection.

One of those is a logic-based argument. The other is pure emotion.

I'm not interested in generations...I'm interested in protecting myself and my family. And focused changes in mental health diagnosis and treatment, and socio-economic changes, will have an even better effect on society over the same period. Another one down.

You flatter yourself again. LOL. Not interested in future generations, huh? Well that does not surprise me.

btw I'm a woman, Democrat, and not particularly interested in guns themselves. They mean no more to me in terms of 'things' than my vehicles. However I enjoy shooting and I compete and I also believe in my option to carry for self-defense. Sooooo....not a gun nut.

Well I'm a gun owner and love to shoot. But like most gun owners, I also understand that the NRA positions on gun control are based on lies and fear-mongering. If anyone truly believes they need an AR to adequately protect themself..........they are either sorely in need more training, or they're not a rational-minded gun owner (and, thus, are EXACTLY the kind of person who should never own one).

TurtleDude · Nov 21, 2017

ultmd said:
Ummm....no. One down, my left foot. This is ridiculous. Australia is a island that is the same size as the entire continental U.S., Lursa. And weapons aren't transported INTO the U.S. from our neighbors. They are transported FROM the U.S. to our neighbors. But, just as importantly, you ignored every other example I listed in order to make THIS ridiculous argument? What about the others? Geez. And btw, Australia's mass shooting incidence dropped dramatically when they banned assault weapons.

One of those is a logic-based argument. The other is pure emotion.

You flatter yourself again. LOL. Not interested in future generations, huh? Well that does not surprise me.

Well I'm a gun owner and love to shoot. But like most gun owners, I also understand that the NRA positions on gun control are based on lies and fear-mongering. If anyone truly believes they need an AR to adequately protect themself..........they are either sorely in need more training, or they're not a rational-minded gun owner (and, thus, are EXACTLY the kind of person who should never own one).

BS BS and more BS-the Ben and Jerry seminar poster nonsense. there is so much nonsense in your claims. ARs are idea home defense weapons in many cases. especially in these days of multiple attacker home invasion robberies. and its much easier to get hits under stress with an AR compared to a pistol. and this is coming from a guy who was a 95% rated USPSA shooter on classifiers years ago and held the national record in another pistol speed shooting event. So you really demonstrate to me you have no idea what you are talking about. You want to pretend you're an avid gun owner to give your anti gun arguments more credibility but it doesn't cut it.

Australia didn't have a statistically significant number of mass shootings before its stupid gun bans. and it has had some mass shootings since then.

Lursa · Nov 21, 2017

ultmd said:
Ummm....no. One down, my left foot. This is ridiculous. Australia is a island that is the same size as the entire continental U.S., Lursa. And weapons aren't transported INTO the U.S. from our neighbors. They are transported FROM the U.S. to our neighbors. But, just as importantly, you ignored every other example I listed in order to make THIS ridiculous argument? What about the others? Geez. And btw, Australia's mass shooting incidence dropped dramatically when they banned assault weapons.

One of those is a logic-based argument. The other is pure emotion.

You flatter yourself again. LOL. Not interested in future generations, huh? Well that does not surprise me.

Well I'm a gun owner and love to shoot. But like most gun owners, I also understand that the NRA positions on gun control are based on lies and fear-mongering. If anyone truly believes they need an AR to adequately protect themself..........they are either sorely in need more training, or they're not a rational-minded gun owner (and, thus, are EXACTLY the kind of person who should never own one).

You presented nothing new. Nada.

Why is it logical to support police needing self-protection but not citizens? Why is it 'emotional' for citizens to need self-defensive firearms but not cops? Please explain.

And I indicated concern for both...current and future. I just didnt accept your focus on guns as a cure to violence in the future. I have a more broad perspective that seeks to cure the cause....not just the symptoms.

ultmd · Nov 21, 2017

TurtleDude said:
you are lying. when you use crap like common sense gun control laws, that is the language of the gun banning movement . The duke study proved that the background checks that cover more than two thirds of gun sales have done NOTHING to decrease violent crime

:roll:....I'm lying? No, you're letting your emotions control you. There is no "gun banning movement". There is a gun-control movement. And the fact that you consider gun control efforts to be "gun banning" simply marks you as someone who is irrational (or dishonest) about this. As for the "Duke study".............YOU are lying. First, Phillip Cook as published several studies. He's well known and respected. But there is no singular "Duke study". In general, Phillip Cook in on record as saying the data clearly indicates that background checks DO work, although not all policies have been equally effective. He was first to note that strict gun bans in Chicago and D.C. are rendered moot because those cities directly border states with extremely lax gun laws that give easy access to firearms that are then transported back across state lines. So you just don't know what you are talking about here.

secondly, when you spew nonsense claiming semi auto rifles are designed for mass killing I cannot take seriously any of your claims that all you want are "reasonable" gun laws

.

And I can't take seriously anyone who would even attempt to dispute that FACT. What do you think they were designed and engineered to do, Turtle? Turkey shoots?
I can't believe you would even argue such an obvious, elementary point.

Everything harmful someone can do with a gun is already illegal. so is possession of firearms by those adjudicated dangerous if they are armed.

The issue here is ACCESS. Legality evolves as laws change. Angry, violent and mentally unstable people will always be with us. But without access to AW's, those people will not be able to mow down crowds of innocent people as easily, or as frequently.

everything people like you push involves more restrictions on honest people and nothing further on actual criminals who use firearms illegally

More regulations and restrictions are needed. And all of this "honest people" stuff is just pure garbage, since most of these mass shooters could have presented themselves as "honest people" exercising their 2A rights BEFORE they executed their a bunch of innocent Americans. This isn't about "honest people". Honest people will be alright. This is about making it more difficult for ANYONE to gun down innocent Americans at a moment's notice. The excuses from people like you are all old, empty and discredited. And I think you know it.

ultmd · Nov 21, 2017

TurtleDude said:
BS BS and more BS-the Ben and Jerry seminar poster nonsense. there is so much nonsense in your claims. ARs are idea home defense weapons in many cases. especially in these days of multiple attacker home invasion robberies.

LOL, I know........"fake news", right? Typical. Example # 194,392 proving (once again) that facts which cannot be refuted are dismissed by ideologues. What you call "nonsense" is what rational observers take as "the truth". You asked, I supplied.

Australia didn't have a statistically significant number of mass shootings before its stupid gun bans. and it has had some mass shootings since then.

Huh? What a ridiculous thing to say. What is a "statistically significant number of mass shootings". How do you determine statistical significance? Words and terms have real meanings. You can't just toss them out there because they sound intelligent.........unless you understand what they mean, Turtle.

The FACT is that in the decade before Australia's gun-control law was passed, there were 13 mass shootings. Since the law was enacted (1996) there have been ZERO mass shootings, and more than 700K assault weapons have been recovered through buy-backs. Also, the suicide rate decreased from 2.6 per 100,000 BEFORE, to 1.1 per 100,000 AFTER...................and the HOMICIDE RATE decreased from 0.43 per 100,00 to 0.25 per 100,000. So, while I realize that facts are inconvenient and irrelevant to some you, they still are what they are.

TurtleDude · Nov 21, 2017

ultmd said:
:roll:....I'm lying? No, you're letting your emotions control you. There is no "gun banning movement". There is a gun-control movement. And the fact that you consider gun control efforts to be "gun banning" simply marks you as someone who is irrational (or dishonest) about this. As for the "Duke study".............YOU are lying. First, Phillip Cook as published several studies. He's well known and respected. But there is no singular "Duke study". In general, Phillip Cook in on record as saying the data clearly indicates that background checks DO work, although not all policies have been equally effective. He was first to note that strict gun bans in Chicago and D.C. are rendered moot because those cities directly border states with extremely lax gun laws that give easy access to firearms that are then transported back across state lines. So you just don't know what you are talking about here.

.

And I can't take seriously anyone who would even attempt to dispute that FACT. What do you think they were designed and engineered to do, Turtle? Turkey shoots?
I can't believe you would even argue such an obvious, elementary point.

The issue here is ACCESS. Legality evolves as laws change. Angry, violent and mentally unstable people will always be with us. But without access to AW's, those people will not be able to mow down crowds of innocent people as easily, or as frequently.

More regulations and restrictions are needed. And all of this "honest people" stuff is just pure garbage, since most of these mass shooters could have presented themselves as "honest people" exercising their 2A rights BEFORE they executed their a bunch of innocent Americans. This isn't about "honest people". Honest people will be alright. This is about making it more difficult for ANYONE to gun down innocent Americans at a moment's notice. The excuses from people like you are all old, empty and discredited. And I think you know it.

that alone destroys your nonsense. your arrogant hatred proves if you were in control, you'd try to ban firearms YOU don't think people "Need".

TurtleDude · Nov 21, 2017

ultmd said:
LOL, I know........"fake news", right? Typical. Example # 194,392 proving (once again) that facts which cannot be refuted are dismissed by ideologues. What you call "nonsense" is what rational observers take as "the truth". You asked, I supplied.

Huh? What a ridiculous thing to say. What is a "statistically significant number of mass shootings". How do you determine statistical significance? Words and terms have real meanings. You can't just toss them out there because they sound intelligent.........unless you understand what they mean, Turtle.

The FACT is that in the decade before Australia's gun-control law was passed, there were 13 mass shootings. Since the law was enacted (1996) there have been ZERO mass shootings, and more than 700K assault weapons have been recovered through buy-backs. Also, the suicide rate decreased from 2.6 per 100,000 BEFORE, to 1.1 per 100,000 AFTER...................and the HOMICIDE RATE decreased from 0.43 per 100,00 to 0.25 per 100,000. So, while I realize that facts are inconvenient and irrelevant to some you, they still are what they are.

you're lying again. and even using Australia to pretend your anti gun schemes would work here is stupid.

Australia Model -- Obama's Proposal | National Review

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.” “Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”

and it wouldn't work here. as the article further explains. the amount of guns and armed citizens is many times higher

jaeger19 · Nov 21, 2017

ultmd said:
LOL, I know........"fake news", right? Typical. Example # 194,392 proving (once again) that facts which cannot be refuted are dismissed by ideologues. What you call "nonsense" is what rational observers take as "the truth". You asked, I supplied.

Huh? What a ridiculous thing to say. What is a "statistically significant number of mass shootings". How do you determine statistical significance? Words and terms have real meanings. You can't just toss them out there because they sound intelligent.........unless you understand what they mean, Turtle.

The FACT is that in the decade before Australia's gun-control law was passed, there were 13 mass shootings. Since the law was enacted (1996) there have been ZERO mass shootings, and more than 700K assault weapons have been recovered through buy-backs. Also, the suicide rate decreased from 2.6 per 100,000 BEFORE, to 1.1 per 100,000 AFTER...................and the HOMICIDE RATE decreased from 0.43 per 100,00 to 0.25 per 100,000. So, while I realize that facts are inconvenient and irrelevant to some you, they still are what they are.

Wait.. you are kidding right? You don't understand statistical significance? YOU JUST POINTED OUT THAT IN THE DECADE BEFORE AUSTRALIA's GUN CONTROL LAW THERE WERE ONLY 13 MASS SHOOTINGS.

In 10 years there were ONLY 13 mass shootings. that number is so small.. that statistically any decrease after the law.. could simply be DUE TO CHANCE and have nothing to do with that law.

Besides the effect of extraneous variables.

TurtleDude · Nov 22, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Wait.. you are kidding right? You don't understand statistical significance? YOU JUST POINTED OUT THAT IN THE DECADE BEFORE AUSTRALIA's GUN CONTROL LAW THERE WERE ONLY 13 MASS SHOOTINGS.

In 10 years there were ONLY 13 mass shootings. that number is so small.. that statistically any decrease after the law.. could simply be DUE TO CHANCE and have nothing to do with that law.

Besides the effect of extraneous variables.

His nonsense just got owned on that bit. statistically irrelevant. and his claim that there is no gun banning movement in the USA shows how disconnected with reality his posts are. the substituting arrogant lies for honest facts doesn't cut it with us

FastPace · Nov 22, 2017

blackjack50 said:
Personality disorders--Treatment for the 'untreatable'

I feel most of these people have personality disorders. And given what we know? I think it is a treatable, albeit difficult, treatment option. Give a read to this article and then let me know what you think we as a nation could do to provide treatment to people suffering from personality disorders?

I don't really care about your mass shooters or you. I guess you better hit the deck and roll for cover (like the tiny black children in the video at the sound of a car back firing).

My treatment is simple. They will be treated like Black-Americans that murder people, and the woman at the roughly 30:00 mark of the video, who starts crying recalling going to school so hungry her stomach would growl loud enough for kids to hear and make fun of her. We are going to give a little "all men are created equal" and I'll have my cops that are sharp shooters blow his ___ head off. Subject marked treated.

vasia80 · Nov 26, 2017

there is nothing wrong with mentally ill patients walking on the streets.
Except
1 who will enforce their taking the meds on a regular and consistent basis ,that "keeps them sane"
2 who will pay for their meds

p.s the problem is that a person with a mental disease at some point decides that he/she can manage without meds bc they are doing good right now, in this moment. They know that their mental faculties depend on life long prescription meds yet they choose to stop taking meds-that is when the disaster strikes... The thing is- when they make that choice while still conscious and rational that is the irresponsible part..

Another thing is---may be they hate side effects. Well sorry buddy, I am sorry to hear that but everyone got an ailment of sorts and has to endure side effects of meds. Yet taking meds and be functional >>> then laying in feces drunk

ultmd · Nov 27, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Wait.. you are kidding right? You don't understand statistical significance? YOU JUST POINTED OUT THAT IN THE DECADE BEFORE AUSTRALIA's GUN CONTROL LAW THERE WERE ONLY 13 MASS SHOOTINGS.

:lamo LOL, it's hard to even believe you're being serious. No doubt, between yourself, Turtle and myself.........TWO of three are clueless, blathering, know-nothing, right-wing ideologues who the lack both knowledge and appreciation of very basic scientific terminology to back up their arguments. Unfortunately, it's clear that in your case, you really, truly don't know who clueless you are about this. So, no, I'm not kidding. And, hilariosly enough, you just ONCE AGAIN made a fool of yourself with your last remarks. You STILL don't have a clue about statistical significance. As I've pointed out repeatedly, every time I ask you to define the term, you dodge the question, just like the wannabe/pretend "doctor" that you are.

In 10 years there were ONLY 13 mass shootings. that number is so small.. that statistically any decrease after the law.. could simply be DUE TO CHANCE and have nothing to do with that law.

:lamo Again, if you had ANY clue about statistical significance, you would have NEVER said something as overtly STUPID as this. What's your alpha? Your p-value? See, once again, this is why I previously asked you (when you were still LYING about being a "doctor" and a "published researcher") to explain how we (i.e. REAL doctors and published researchers) actually determine "statistical significance". Obviously, you believe it's a simple function of sample size........which is not surprising given the fact that you are such a fraud, lol. If there were 13 mass shootings (by the standards for "mass shooting" established by Chapman's seminal study, which you've ALSO never read and thus know NOTHING about) over the 17 years BEFORE Australia's gun law was enacted.........and ZERO mass shootings in the 21 years AFTER the law was enacted.............WHAT IS THE P-VALUE, Jaeger? What alpha do you seek? How do you determine whether, or not, the change is statistically significant?

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. DO NOT RUN AWAY AGAIN. DO YOU DEFLECT WITH MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

PLEASE, BE CANDID IN YOUR RESPONSE, "doctor".

Or, just admit that you are EXACTLY what I thought you were, weeks ago: A fake, wannabe, know-nothing 2A ideologue who got caught LYING because that was the only way you could defend your ignorant views :lamo

ultmd · Nov 27, 2017

TurtleDude said:
His nonsense just got owned on that bit. statistically irrelevant. and his claim that there is no gun banning movement in the USA shows how disconnected with reality his posts are. the substituting arrogant lies for honest facts doesn't cut it with us

Honestly, the most enjoyabe part of this has been owning you two, and both of you being so blinded by the anti-intellectual ideology that infests your brains...and, frankly, in this case just too ignorant....to realize it.

I'll never be someone who devotes hours and hours each day to anonymous political message board rage, like some of you. But occasionally, it is somewhat fun to make fools of internet "experts" and blind ideologues. LOL

jaeger19 · Nov 27, 2017

ultmd said:
:lamo LOL, it's hard to even believe you're being serious. No doubt, between yourself, Turtle and myself.........TWO of three are clueless, blathering, know-nothing, right-wing ideologues who the lack both knowledge and appreciation of very basic scientific terminology to back up their arguments. Unfortunately, it's clear that in your case, you really, truly don't know who clueless you are about this. So, no, I'm not kidding. And, hilariosly enough, you just ONCE AGAIN made a fool of yourself with your last remarks. You STILL don't have a clue about statistical significance. As I've pointed out repeatedly, every time I ask you to define the term, you dodge the question, just like the wannabe/pretend "doctor" that you are.

Yawn... just more of your trolling.

Again, if you had ANY clue about statistical significance, you would have NEVER said something as overtly STUPID as this

Ummm nope.. I just proved that I understand statistical significance. You however, obviously don't.

Obviously, you believe it's a simple function of sample size

Actually sample size does play a role in it. Its not simply a function of sample size.. but sample size does play a role. Obviously you don't understand that only have 13 mass shootings over a decade is a very small number and any decrease.. could simply be due to chance.. given a number that small.

If there were 13 mass shootings (by the standards for "mass shooting" established by Chapman's seminal study, which you've ALSO never read and thus know NOTHING about) over the 17 years BEFORE Australia's gun law was enacted.........and ZERO mass shootings in the 21 years AFTER the law was enacted.............WHAT IS THE P-VALUE, Jaeger

Well.. if you knew anything about research and correlation.. you would understand that I cannot answer that. The P value is what is calculated depending on what statistic you are using (and with such a small N..its hard to even pick an appropriate statistic.) . .... the alpha is set by the researcher. Generally speaking its set at .05. but for a more stringent test.. like when studying the dangers of drugs etc.. the alpha level can be set at .01. because you want to limit the chance of a type 1 error.

Because the sample size of 13 mass shooting is so small.. you have very little data to do any statistical analysis with any confidence that any findings will be valid.

Much less assume any causation.

Those are just the facts.

jaeger19 · Nov 27, 2017

ultmd said:
Honestly, the most enjoyabe part of this has been owning you two, and both of you being so blinded by the anti-intellectual ideology that infests your brains...and, frankly, in this case just too ignorant....to realize it.

I'll never be someone who devotes hours and hours each day to anonymous political message board rage, like some of you. But occasionally, it is somewhat fun to make fools of internet "experts" and blind ideologues. LOL

BWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHH.... :lamo

Talk about delusional..

TurtleDude · Nov 27, 2017

ultmd said:
Honestly, the most enjoyabe part of this has been owning you two, and both of you being so blinded by the anti-intellectual ideology that infests your brains...and, frankly, in this case just too ignorant....to realize it.

I'll never be someone who devotes hours and hours each day to anonymous political message board rage, like some of you. But occasionally, it is somewhat fun to make fools of internet "experts" and blind ideologues. LOL

nothing is funnier than self awarded medals by people who haven't a clue.

ultmd · Dec 13, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Yawn... just more of your trolling.

LOL, I've been called a "troll", by a troll. That's funny. It's very "Trump-like" of you to rebut the credible criticisms of you with "I know you are, but what am I", over and over again.

Ummm nope.. I just proved that I understand statistical significance. You however, obviously don't.

No, you simply ran from the challenge.......yet again. But you can't hide. So again (for about the 12th time in this thread) I challenge you to prove that you understand "statistical significance". What is your p-value, Jaeger? What is your alpha? Stop running. Stop trying to change the subject. Stop with the empty personal attacks and adolescent responses. Answer the questions, or just hush up about this and admit that you were LYING about being a doctor, experienced and published researcher, and former peer-reviewer who has "read all of the studies on gun control". When caught lying, most people stop and apologize. Committed liars refuse to own up to their lies, deflect and blame others.

Actually sample size does play a role in it. Its not simply a function of sample size.. but sample size does play a role. Obviously you don't understand that only have 13 mass shootings over a decade is a very small number and any decrease.. could simply be due to chance.. given a number that small.

:lamo "could be simply due to chance"? Why ask such a question if you understand statistical significance (as you claim), my fake-doctor friend? Don't you know your p-value? If you did, you wouldn't have to guess about the likelihood of 13 (mass shootings) in 10 years being reduced to ZERO over 20 years.....being "simply due to chance". So........Once again you embarrassed yourself without understanding how/why....and the reason for that is obvious: you have NO CLUE what you are talking about, because you are just a fake, wannabe "expert" posting anonymously on this message board. Your desperation is evidenced by the glaring weakness of your remarks, above, Jaeger. Throughout this thread, almost every time you have tried to justify yourself, you've said something that only exposes you as the fraud that you are.

Well.. if you knew anything about research and correlation.. you would understand that I cannot answer that. The P value is what is calculated depending on what statistic you are using (and with such a small N..its hard to even pick an appropriate statistic.) . .... the alpha is set by the researcher. Generally speaking its set at .05. but for a more stringent test.. like when studying the dangers of drugs etc.. the alpha level can be set at .01. because you want to limit the chance of a type 1 error.

Google is your friend. But the beauty of statistics, in particular (and Science in general), is that while any idiot can read up on a definition, those definitions don't help that idiot solve a problem. If you understood any of what you googled here, you wouldn't be guessing about whether or not the change in mass shootings in Australia was "simply due to chance". And, btw, this has NOTHING to do with correlation....and answering the BASIC questions I've asked of you doesn't require ANY knowledge about research.....it's a SIMPLE, BASIC test of your knowledge of statistics.....so you should stop saying that, as well. The only thing worse that being ignorant about science and statistics..............is being ignorant while arguing with people who do this stuff for a living.

BWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHH....

Talk about delusional..

.....says the anonymous internet troll who lied and got caught while pretending to be a "doctor" and a "published researcher" and "peer-reviewer" who has "read all of the published research about gun control". :lamo Jaeger, you seem to be conveniently forgetting that you entire justification is built upon the LIES you told about your professional credentials at the beginning of this thread. You LIED about being a doctor. You LIED about being an experienced researcher with a lengthy bibliography. You LIED about being an experience "peer-reviewer" of scientific research. So, I'm sorry Jaeger, but liars who will say or do anything in the name of re-affirming their personal political ideology simply do not get to challenge and attack people who actually are what they say they are.

ultmd · Dec 13, 2017

TurtleDude said:
nothing is funnier than self awarded medals by people who haven't a clue.

Actually, verbally castrating anti-science, anti-intellectual, Know-nothing right-wing ideologues is MUCH funnier than simply reading about the stuff they THINK they understand. The best part about this thread has been forcing you two to expose yourselves.

jaeger19 · Dec 13, 2017

ultmd said:
Actually, verbally castrating anti-science, anti-intellectual, Know-nothing right-wing ideologues is MUCH funnier than simply reading about the stuff they THINK they understand. The best part about this thread has been forcing you two to expose yourselves.

Hey.. when you run into some "anti science, anti intellectual know nothing right wing ideologues"... how about you let us know...

Because Turtledude and I have a history of proving them wrong on this board. Just like we have a history of proving left wing, uninformed, and radical anti gun nuts, wrong.

ultmd · Dec 13, 2017

I just did.

But if you can think of a better way to describe someone posts anonymously on message boards while pretending to be a "doctor" and a "published researcher" who has "read all of the research on gun control"...... when in reality he's just a right-wing, Know-nothing NRA-nut who doesn't understand the concept of statistical significance.......please let me know.

Still waiting for you to tell me what you p-value and your alpha would be. Something as elementary as that should be easy for you, right "doctor"?

jaeger19 · Dec 13, 2017

ultmd said:
I just did.

But if you can think of a better way to describe someone posts anonymously on message boards while pretending to be a "doctor" and a "published researcher" who has "read all of the research on gun control"...... when in reality he's just a right-wing, Know-nothing NRA-nut who doesn't understand the concept of statistical significance.......please let me know.

Still waiting for you to tell me what you p-value and your alpha would be. Something as elementary as that should be easy for you, right "doctor"?

Yawn.. to funny.. and I already answered the question about p value and alpha...

The P value is what is calculated depending on what statistic you are using (and with such a small N..its hard to even pick an appropriate statistic.) . .... the alpha is set by the researcher. Generally speaking its set at .05. but for a more stringent test.. like when studying the dangers of drugs etc.. the alpha level can be set at .01. because you want to limit the chance of a type 1 error.

Because the sample size of 13 mass shooting is so small.. you have very little data to do any statistical analysis with any confidence that any findings will be valid.

Your posts have repeatedly proved you know nothing about statistics. Or research.

My credibility on this forum has been well established. Yours? BWWWAAHHHHHHH... :lamo

TurtleDude · Dec 13, 2017

ultmd said:
Actually, verbally castrating anti-science, anti-intellectual, Know-nothing right-wing ideologues is MUCH funnier than simply reading about the stuff they THINK they understand. The best part about this thread has been forcing you two to expose yourselves.

except its you who has no clue about gun issues. Doctors should stick to healing and leave crime control to those of us who are professionals in the field. It must be tough living in Texas which is one of the most pro gun states in the Union.

jaeger19 · Dec 14, 2017

TurtleDude said:
except its you who has no clue about gun issues. Doctors should stick to healing and leave crime control to those of us who are professionals in the field. It must be tough living in Texas which is one of the most pro gun states in the Union.

He/she is not a doctor.

Mass Shooters and Mental Health

Lursa

Tenacious

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

ultmd

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Lursa

Tenacious

ultmd

ultmd

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

jaeger19

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

FastPace

vasia80

New member

ultmd

ultmd

jaeger19

jaeger19

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

ultmd

ultmd

jaeger19

ultmd

jaeger19

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

jaeger19