Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LetsGoGameCrocks t1_iwlnqk1 wrote

Shootings/violent crimes is a pointless statistic for the argument you’re trying to indirectly push. Violent criminals being shot isn’t the huge problem - it’s nonviolent criminals being unjustly shot

5

tommytornado OP t1_iwlofiw wrote

I'm directly pushing the argument that there's isn't a direct correlation between police fatal shootings and hours of training.

Unjust/just shootings have no bearing on this at all.

−1

LetsGoGameCrocks t1_iwlp0qg wrote

I completely disagree. You’re ignoring the context of the data in a society where unjust police brutality frequently makes headlines. This is either intentionally or ignorantly misleading analytics

4

tommytornado OP t1_iwlpx62 wrote

What has that got to do with the original assertion that more training equals less fatal shootings?

−1

LetsGoGameCrocks t1_iwlsakf wrote

It has literally everything to do with it? The assertion that more training = less shootings is only relevant because there have been many high profile incidents of cops shooting nonviolent individuals. You’re literally exempting all of these high profile - relevant - examples from your analysis.

An analogy:

Person A presents a graph showing that more driving training correlates to safer driving. This is pretty obvious because trained drivers are more prepared to drive under less than ideal circumstances like traffic, rain, etc.

Person B (you) presents a graph showing that in clear weather with no traffic, additional driving instruction doesn’t have much correlation with safer driving. This is obviously true, but erroneously presenting it as evidence that training has no correlation with safety is misleading.

Under ideal circumstances the training doesn’t matter as much. What society cares about is the fringe cases where training actually matters. You’re completely ignoring the important cases and trying to present the boring obvious leftovers as if they’re important.

3

tommytornado OP t1_iwlsmo9 wrote

What makes you say I'm ignoring the important cases? My data includes all police shooting fatalities.

−2

LetsGoGameCrocks t1_iwlxldh wrote

But you’re regularizing on something irrelevant. Your data views a state where 1000 innocent people are shot and 100 violent crimes occur the exact same as a state where 10 innocent people are shot and 1 violent crime happens. Those are the same data point in your set. Do you not see how insane that is? 990 more innocents killed in the first state, completely ignored because there’s more violent crimes?

4

tommytornado OP t1_iwlyzqr wrote

I'm no longer sure what point you're trying to make exactly. Better leave it there perhaps?

−1

LetsGoGameCrocks t1_iwlz9u0 wrote

My point is that this is a pointless and misleading dataset because you’re regularizing on something nonsensical. If you can’t understand that then I advise you to revisit it your notes from your Stats 101 class

5

tommytornado OP t1_iwlztc1 wrote

I'm finding you quite rude and I'm going to ignore you from now on.

−1

CosmoKramerJr t1_iwmedsp wrote

No you’re not. You’re combining random data on the y axis to obfuscate the correlation from the original post.

2