You did read the explanatory footnotes at the bottom didn't you Anti?

"(b) Data cells with small values have been randomly assigned to protect the confidentiality of individuals. As a result, some totals will not equal the sum of their components. It is important to note that cells with a zero value have not been affected by confidentialisation."

It may happen to be that they are commercial quantities, but that is an assumption. It would be good to dig up some historical data on how safe personal firework use was in terms of cause of death and injury before being heavily restricted.

And Max, I do not support the idea that "stats are meaningless", unless what you meant to say is "I [Max] think stats are meaningless."

I certainly think that statistics are abused and ignored by people who don't understand them or how they are collected (nor care to disabuse themselves of their inexperience, most of the time).

SJF, another abuser, playing the man, you’ll all note he doesn’t reply to any of my points, just attacks, symptomatic of the group, yet again, right down to defining, yet again, my “philosophical space”, as if, lol. And yet another mysterious unrecorded death, of course a child, for the sympathy effect. When will the lies end?
OH, and what list? I only mentioned a couple of the worst offenders, in case people reading it weren’t sure.
Yes, I have struck back, as I said above, I’m only human, when I’m attacked I defend myself. It is that very fact that called into question the “people” here, and I use that word reluctantly.
Nazi’s, Communists, Ultra-rightists, Ultra-leftists, Born-again Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islamic Fundamentalists, they ALL have one thing in common, they have a rigid, unthinking Ideology, and will brook no discussion, no other opinions, no “free-thinkers”, no individualism. Sounds awfully familiar doesn’t it? Remind you of anyone here?
Buggy-one, I quote your own post: "(b) Data cells with small values have been randomly assigned to protect the confidentiality of individuals. As a result, some totals will not equal the sum of their components."
And that’s just step one, no intelligent person accepts statistics as anything more than a loose guide, and ALWAYS checks who, where, how, they were made, just so they can assign an error factor to them, now why do you suppose they do that?
Because they’re reliable? Hardly!
While there are one or two people here I would invite to the civilised side of forum discussions,(Pericles, Foxxy, a couple of others) there’s no way for me to inform them without informing the ferocious fools, so they have to wait for an invite, which I’m sure they’ll get, in time, the crucial factor is an ability to discuss dispassionately, objectively, so I’m absolutely sure the rabid “ists”here will never even hear about them, who’d want a pack of psychotic chihuahua’s tearing up decent conversations?

Max, your statement
"no intelligent person accepts statistics as anything more than a loose guide....."

is a variant on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Data is data, some is more reliable than others depending on collection methods. The ABS in this case used death certificate stated causes of death. I would have thought that this method of collecting cause of death data was reasonably reliable.

If it does not suit your argument or purpose you may rubbish the collection method, the reliablity of the data, or the authoritativeness of the source. This is often done. But if you have issues with the treatment of the data could you please present something that you would consider more reliable? I am very keen on reliable data. Do you have something that can show us what you base your stated position on personal-use fireworks on?

Bugsy, reliable data is the LAST thing either Maximillion or his "brother in arms" Antiwomen are interested in. Just look at the fire cracker statistics presented in ALL THEIR GLORY by Max: Presented as FACT! ! ! I immediately PROVED it was a GROSS misrepresentation by Max - - - - he offered NO apology to anyone, NO retraction, NOTHING. Only just within the past few posts, in an effort to look "reasonable", has he finally admitted he was WRONG; and what a LAME excuse he has offered for his willful misrepresentatiom. His behaviour speaks for itself.

Whenever the two buddies (the two terrible twins), Antiwomen and Maximillion, are out debated or feel attacked they OFTEN resort to personal attack, self righteous indignation, sarcasm and abuse. Usually within topics that display their often "shared" Politically Correct views ie. what THEY consider to be Politically Correct - - - "their" views and "only" their views. If "their" views are attacked they scream "foul play". Look at Antiwomen for example, he's easily the biggest whinger on this site. He's happy to dish the c r a p out, but when it's shoved back into his face tenfold what do we get? WHINGE, WHINGE and more WHINGE from Antiwomen. He can dish it out (he thinks), but HE CAN'T TAKE IT.

Yep the terrible "brothers in arms", Maximillion and Antiwomen.

Yet again, half of what I said, read the rest, or it’s the rolled up newspaper!
Quote, in full:
“And that’s just step one, no intelligent person accepts statistics as anything more than a loose guide, and ALWAYS checks who, where, how, they were made, just so they can assign an error factor to them, now why do you suppose they do that?
Because they’re reliable? Hardly!
The distinct lack of multiples of scarred people and deaths known to all speaks for itself. Don’t forget, most of us were there, Oz wide, and if there had been large numbers of “victims” it would have been well publicised, people tend to get a bit antsy with dead sproggs laying about!
The furore at the time over whether to ban or not also speaks volumes, if only you’d unlock your brain.
And that’s me finished with this discussion, it’s a waste of time speaking to people who are incapable of taking off their “righteous armour”,…….and alfoil helmets!

Max, I added the "....." to indicate the rest had been chopped, as I really don't think that quoting the whole thing makes much of a difference to the context in which the phrase "no intelligent person" was used. The partial quote was used to highlight the operative phrase. Do you really think I go around reading half sentences? For that matter, do you really think that all intelligent people check who, where, how, statistics were made, just so they can assign an error factor to them?

There are lots of emotive assumptions about dead/injured sproggs and how much they would have been publicised. The idea that you were "there", that is temporally coincidental to deaths and injuries that were apparently most often ascribed as "accidental" and how you don't remember much publicity about aforementioned injuries and deaths, does not evidence make. How much do you remember the publicity of deaths due to poor seat belt usage? Or deaths due to lack of helmets on motorcycles?

Ok, lets talk about real data, how about a report from the Northern Territory, where they are still legal, (ok, it's a bit old, 2002) that gives an indication of what injuries are usually sustained within a four-day window of "cracker night". Also listed are reports of grass fires and domestic animal (ie dog) deaths resulting from spooked pets and noise complaints.

http://www.health.nt.gov.au/library/scripts/objectifyMedia.aspx?file=pdf/11/96.pdf&siteID=1&str_title=Bulletin%20September%202002.pdf

Keep in mind though, that the Northern Territory in 2002 had only a little over 199,000 people living there, or approximately only 1% of the Australian population.

Oh yeah, I'm the one that needs the tinfoil hat.