RE: The catch-all gun thread
November 30, 2013 at 10:12 pm
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2013 at 10:22 pm by Darth.)
We already have the per 100,000 rates for '97 and '07: 7.8 and 9.4, why try to estimate them for one year earlier and later?
If it's so easy as your asserted in a pervious post, please do so and settle the argument rather than making estimates that get us nowhere. Till then I'm going to assume a 20% increase in the per 100,000 rate, given the huge sample size (95% of australians apparently according to http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html) is in fact statistically significant.
Not when it's per 100,000 no.
The point was, you were all gung-ho about a slightly lower murder rate even with a skyrocketing assault rate. Are you as enthusiastic, when we assume that the sexual assault rate increase is real and significant?
Quote: But it will likely be statistically irrelevant too.
If it's so easy as your asserted in a pervious post, please do so and settle the argument rather than making estimates that get us nowhere. Till then I'm going to assume a 20% increase in the per 100,000 rate, given the huge sample size (95% of australians apparently according to http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent...sault.html) is in fact statistically significant.
Quote: The population change was 16.3% over the same time frame.
So, a reflection of population growth would make more sense?
Not when it's per 100,000 no.
The point was, you were all gung-ho about a slightly lower murder rate even with a skyrocketing assault rate. Are you as enthusiastic, when we assume that the sexual assault rate increase is real and significant?
Nemo me impune lacessit.
