LogFAQs > #910978381

darkknight109 posted...

Of course it's not factually incorrect, because the way I phrased it is entirely subjective. I didn't say they were at historic lows like you're claiming, I said they were "near" historic lows, and "near" can mean pretty much anything. If the lowest number of shootings on record is 35000 a year and one year they dropped to 35016, that's pretty near historic lows - just 16 off the record.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly how far off of the historic lows 2017 was for grenade attacks in Sweden.

As you're hopefully starting to learn, when you put your own interpretive words around statistics - like, say, "a pretty huge increase" - you can basically spin the narrative to be whatever you want, no matter if it's completely detached from reality.

Speaking of which...

I know it's your shtick to show everyone your great knowledge of statistics but truth be told statistics courses were part of my curriculum so I'm not impressed. It's just your thing to dodge a point and argue semantics from some statistical high horse. The bottom line is that a decade ago grenade attacks were more or less non existent. Now they are anything but.

darkknight109 posted...

See, I'd consider that a pretty huge mischaractierization. Subjectivity is wonderful, isn't it.

Moreover, I see you haven't yet bothered to read up on sample size. As I've been harping on for a while, playing this up like it's this enormous, horrifying trend is ignoring the fact that while the statistical increase might be huge (an 800% jump, holy s***!!!1!1) that means relatively little when you're dealing with tiny numbers. And talking about low-double digit attacks out of a population of 10 millions is a laughably small sample size.

Oh man, the irony of you claiming that 24 grenade attacks in one year isnt a problem in such a small country of less than 10 million but claiming that 154 mass shootings country of over 300 million is a gigantic issue. Let's compare the statistics of the populations here since you love statistics. The US has more than 30 times the population of sweden. If you multiply those 24 by 30 you get 720. Man that's a whole lot of grenade attacks. No problem there! And before you start to harp on statistics again, I know there are other factors to consider... socioeconomic factors, availability of weapons, a thousand other factors... etc. The same goes for America's gun problem. darkknight109 posted...

Lemme flip this back on you - why do you think they're a big deal? Bigger than, say, America's issue with guns, which is causing more deaths in a day than Sweden is dealing with in a year?

Grenades are a violent, s***ty way to die, no arguments there... but so are guns, and I don't see you shrieking in terror about those, despite the fact that they're a much larger threat.

That's like 5 times, you've tried to make this topic about America's gun problem. And now you're baselessly assuming that I dont think America has a gun problem. I'd say we have a pretty huge problem as well but it's funny to me that you keep trying to divert a discussion about an issue in sweden with a weapons issue in another country. Could you just admit that both countries have an issue? I know America is your favorite boogie man but c'mon man... at least try to appear like you're capable of relatively unbiased critical thinking