The 'non-sensical-ness' or 'sensical-ness' of the reply, is wholly dependent on the question asked.Scott wrote:That's like saying that comparing the health/safety of smokers to non-smokers is absolutely nonsensical. No, it's basic correlation statistics, and calling it nonsensical is nonsensical.
RJG wrote:Does apple eating make the apple-eater safer or less safe?
Not so. This is non-sensical (a non-sequitur) as it attempts to answer a question that was not asked! My question specifically refers to the safety of "apple-eaters". I couldn't care less about the safety of "non-apple-eaters", nor do I care about those who get sick from non-apple-eating related reasons. The safety of non-apple-eaters (and non-apple-eating related sickness/deaths) has NOTHING to do with my question! Therefore to answer my question:Scott wrote:To find the correlation, you simply check:
#1 - The percentage of people who eat apples who get hurt/sick during a certain time frame
#2 - The percentage of people who do not eat apples who get hurt/sick during a certain time frame.
#1 - The percentage of apple-eaters that get sick/hurt/die from eating apples.
#2 - The percentage of apple-eaters that get health benefits/live from eating apples.
If #1 is greater than #2, then eating apples is BAD (less safe/not healthy) for the apple-eater.
If #2 is greater than #1, then eating apples is GOOD (safer/healthy) for the apple-eater.
#1 - The percentage of gunowners that are safer because of their guns (i.e. have enhanced protection, prevented injuries and deaths, etc)Scott wrote:Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?
#2 - The percentage of gunowners that are less safe because of their guns (i.e. had gun accidents, suicides, etc)
If #1 is greater than #2, then gunowners are SAFER for owning their guns.
If #2 is greater than #1, then gunowners are LESS SAFE for owning their guns.