Smasharoo wrote:
Sure Smash. You're technically correct in that the incident rate can't be zero, but it was close enough to be statistically irrelevant.
How far from zero does it have to be to become statistically relevant? To be clear, I don't stipulate that it's not relevant. Since you have data and have considered this issue, though, I'm sure you'll share the criteria you've used, right? So. At what point do children being injured from firearms become statistically relevant? If one dies, I assume that's perfectly fine. Ten? How many extra dead children does it take to matter at all?
How far from zero does it have to be to become statistically relevant? To be clear, I don't stipulate that it's not relevant. Since you have data and have considered this issue, though, I'm sure you'll share the criteria you've used, right? So. At what point do children being injured from firearms become statistically relevant? If one dies, I assume that's perfectly fine. Ten? How many extra dead children does it take to matter at all?
He doesn't have any children, so it probably doesn't matter to him at all.