>>248198>your graph shows injury rates in a specific sample of crimes, not "chance of injury".Wrong. It's showing neither. It's showing the rate of people getting injured in response to one crime, which is called "statistical probability."
So you take the word "Chance" which means "Probability", in the context where it's clearly statistical, and you can use the term "Chance of injury".
>you still aren't getting the percentages correct.How fucking hard is it to comprehend a 40% reduction?
40% of 50 is 20. Therefore if you reduce 50 by 40% you are removing 20 from it. This equals 30.
I REALLY don't know how to explain translating a simple graph with simple arithmetic any more clearly to you.
>your graph only shows a small percentage difference between using a knife, none, and non-violent means. however, it does show a dramatic difference when using a gun.Because the central point that was being addressed was that knives were useless for self defense, and you just keep chanting "MUH GUNS" to try and deflect that you were wrong.
Guns are beside the point of this conversation and the thread itself.
>can you even read?[irony intensifies]
