[PLUG-TALK] Re: ouroboros

glen e. p. ropella gepr at tempusdictum.com
Tue Jul 13 00:33:42 UTC 2004


=><=><= "g2" == GLL  <guy1656 at ados.com> writes:

g2> : g> Another factor which skews the data is the severe under-reporting (due to
g2> : its g> non-sensational outcome) of the instances in which a would-be victim
g2> : g> successfully interdicts a crime and holds the aggressor at bay until g>
g2> : authorities arrive to complete the arrest - all without a shot being fired.
g2> :
g2> : Do you have access to any independent studies of this? ... I'm
g2> : looking for a study carried out by a neutral party... or a party
g2> : that at least claims neutrality like the AMA or the surgeon general
g2> : or somesuch.


g2> Craig. However, as a memner of my county sheriff's posse I often get 
g2> agreement with the opinion when I ask other officers. I would think they'd be 
g2> the ones to counter me if the assertion was wrong. If the validity of the 

I think this evidence is too anecdotal to be trusted.  Plus, I think
most law enforcement probably has a skewed idea of when a gun would be
useful and when it wouldn't, given that they're trained in the use of
guns.  Since they have advanced skills, what they consider "normal"
usage or normal tasks with a gun might prove difficult for a lay
person.

g2> However, another question: why have no 'neutral parties' collected and 
g2> published their own statistics. When Lott claims that 2.5 million people ( a 
g2> little less than 1% of us) have already used a gun to STOP a knuckle-head,
g2> why isn't there anyone else who can say: 'the actual figure is 1.8M.' (Or 
g2> whatever. 3.4M.)

This is a powerful question.  I think you're on to something here.

g2> The lack of other data actually indicates that this question is severely 
g2> UNDER-investigated, which still implies a bias against reporting on the 
g2> lawful use of guns to stop crimes: "Don't ask a question whose answer will 
g2> derail our current agenda." Lastly, though, part of the problem COULD be that 
g2> this is like collecting events predicted by the Pareito distibution: events 
g2> you can count the instances of, but you cannot count the instances in which 
g2> they did NOT occur:

I'd be careful using this argument to make the point for handguns as
defensive weapons.  (It might work with a small shotgun for home
defense, though.)

This is a "black swan" problem.  And, logically, you're absolutely
correct.  But, the gun-banners have the gun-bearers beat with this
argument.  The number of crimes that are unreasonable to commit if one
doesn't have a gun (like robbing a bank using machetes or hunting
knives) would go up.  And the gun-banners can argue: How many crimes
would not be committed if guns were rare?  And they're using your own
rhetorical tactic against you at that point.  So, this route won't get
you very far, I don't think.

But, the one about competing statistics is very powerful...

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list