[PLUG-TALK] Re: ouroboros

[GLL]

: g> Another factor which skews the data is the severe under-reporting (due to
: its g> non-sensational outcome) of the instances in which a would-be victim
: g> successfully interdicts a crime and holds the aggressor at bay until g>
: authorities arrive to complete the arrest - all without a shot being fired.
:
: Do you have access to any independent studies of this? ... I'm
: looking for a study carried out by a neutral party... or a party
: that at least claims neutrality like the AMA or the surgeon general
: or somesuch.

The AMA is -not- neutral on guns. Note the AMA listings here:
http://www.interactiva.org/Dir/I/English/Society/Issues/Gun_Control/Anti-Gun_Rights/

The studies I have found are mostly linked to Trent Lott or Senator Larry 
Craig. However, as a memner of my county sheriff's posse I often get 
agreement with the opinion when I ask other officers. I would think they'd be 
the ones to counter me if the assertion was wrong. If the validity of the 
statistic is limited to rural culture, then this would be another indication 
of the superiority of rural attitudes to overly group-oriented city-folk 
attitudes (somethimes called 'city-think' - the stuff that expands light rail 
or enforces bottle deposits even when both these items were rejected by the 
voters) - in this case, that rural dwellers use guns more responsibly than 
city-folk.

However, another question: why have no 'neutral parties' collected and 
published their own statistics. When Lott claims that 2.5 million people ( a 
little less than 1% of us) have already used a gun to STOP a knuckle-head,
why isn't there anyone else who can say: 'the actual figure is 1.8M.' (Or 
whatever. 3.4M.)

The lack of other data actually indicates that this question is severely 
UNDER-investigated, which still implies a bias against reporting on the 
lawful use of guns to stop crimes: "Don't ask a question whose answer will 
derail our current agenda." Lastly, though, part of the problem COULD be that 
this is like collecting events predicted by the Pareito distibution: events 
you can count the instances of, but you cannot count the instances in which 
they did NOT occur:

Example 1: (gaussian) You can throw dice and determine the number of times the 
roll was less than 5, and also when that condition did not obtain. 

Example 2: (pareito) You can count the number of rocks to hit your car on a 
10-mile trip or the number of flaws per mile of copper wire drawn, but not 
the number of rocks which didn't hit the car, or the number of defects 
avoided.

- GLL


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Speed & Service Have Always Mattered @ http://www.ados.com