From tribune.usask.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!news.sinet.slb.com!dcd Thu Mar 17 11:39:14 1994 Path: tribune.usask.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!news.sinet.slb.com!dcd From: dcd@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.activism,soc.culture.usa Subject: Pim's cooked figures Date: 15 Mar 1994 22:19:12 GMT Organization: GeoQuest System, Inc. Houston Lines: 42 Message-ID: <2m5c90$56p@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com> References: <1994Mar9.134826.22160@muffin.apana.org.au> <2lpg5p$nom@network.ucsd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mudd.se.houston.geoquest.slb.com Xref: tribune.usask.ca talk.politics.guns:100105 alt.activism:59960 soc.culture.usa:31433 In article <2lpg5p$nom@network.ucsd.edu> pim@nepac.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes: > >>Several Britons (and Aussies) and Americans with British spouses have posted >>articles in talk.politics.guns citing a drastic increase. > >Lets stick to numbers not impressions: Let's do, but let's not use numbers that are not only calculated incorrectly, but are incorrect in a way which exactly reverses the conclusions. Read on. >Rates are per million (1989 Killias) >Lambert posted the following data: >scaled so 1972 rate = 10 > > 72 78 88 (ave72-78)/(ave79-88 >Aus 10 9 9 10 10 10 9 10 8 9 10 10 9 10 9 10 9 1.01 >Can 10 10 12 14 13 14 13 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 10 11 9 1.07 >Eng 10 9 12 10 11 10 11 13 13 11 12 11 12 12 13 14 12 0.85 >USA 10 10 11 11 10 10 10 11 11 11 10 9 9 9 10 9 9 1.04 >Ger 10 10 10 11 10 10 9 10 10 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 0.98 Say, Pim, if you're trying to calculate an increase, aren't you supposed to divide the LATER figures by the EARLIER figures, instead of the other way around? Here are the *real* rates of increase: 72 78 88 (ave79-88)/(ave72-78) Aus 10 9 9 10 10 10 9 10 8 9 10 10 9 10 9 10 9 0.99 Can 10 10 12 14 13 14 13 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 10 11 9 0.93 Eng 10 9 12 10 11 10 11 13 13 11 12 11 12 12 13 14 12 1.18 USA 10 10 11 11 10 10 10 11 11 11 10 9 9 9 10 9 9 0.96 Ger 10 10 10 11 10 10 9 10 10 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 1.02 Say, lookee there -- when you do the calculations correctly, it shows that the USA has had a 4% drop, whereas England has had a whopping 18% increase. Also, I got the impression the "drastic increase" the original poster referred to was within the last few years -- why are you trying to rebut this with figures that only go up to 1988?