[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-May-19, 02:04, said:

this continues the false very false theme that the right to bear arms was created by the bill of rights...it was not...

please read your history..it existed before....

Second Amendment did not create any rights.

People seem to forget the bill of rights is all about limiting govt....one may even go further and say it is about limiting the majority of voters, the tyranny of democracy.

---


As we all know the bill of rights has been voted down in poll after poll over decades and decades.

--


Please read Madison or Jefferson but please read Plato....on this issue.

You forgot to mention Leo Strauss and Ayn Rand.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2013-May-17, 13:16, said:

I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that guns have never been used for reasonable purposes. Some people have successfully defended themselves from attacks by using a gun.

But the issue is whether the good outweighs the harm. Murders, suicides, and accidents are far more common results than self defense. I think it's something like a 3:1 ratio.

There must be a helluva lot of accidents then, because even the most conservative figures for self defense that I can find substantially outnumber murders and suicides together.

Of course this does not take into account nonfatal gun crime, which might be much higher than murders.

[barmar]

There must be lots of non-fatal gun injuries (I guess most people aren't that good a shot, and doctors are pretty good at patching up shooting victims). From http://www.heedinggo...t/pfctoolkit-10

Quote

Everytime a gun injures or kills in self-defense, one is used:

11 times for a completed or attempted suicide
7 times in a criminal assault or homicide
4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury

Source: Journal of Trauma, injury, Infection and Critical Care (1998)

I know that's 15 years old, so the precise statistics have surely changed, but I doubt they've shifted so much that the point is lost.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2013-May-20, 08:35, said:

There must be lots of non-fatal gun injuries (I guess most people aren't that good a shot, and doctors are pretty good at patching up shooting victims). From http://www.heedinggo...t/pfctoolkit-10


I know that's 15 years old, so the precise statistics have surely changed, but I doubt they've shifted so much that the point is lost.

But in turn, these figures ignore the (much more frequent) defensive uses of guns that do not involve injuries, or even firing the weapon - merely displaying it is sufficient.

[onoway]

billw55, on 2013-May-20, 09:41, said:

But in turn, these figures ignore the (much more frequent) defensive uses of guns that do not involve injuries, or even firing the weapon - merely displaying it is sufficient.

Then perhaps the NRA ought to sell signs like alarm companies do for people to post prominently on their front lawns :

Member of the NRA. This house protected by guns and people not afraid to use them.

You could even have what appeared to be bullet holes artisically arranged here and there through the sign (like one I saw in Mexico plaintively telling people not to shoot the signs )

People wouldn't actually even have to have guns at all or be a member of the NRA! What a deal! Mind you the police would likely think people had a grow op or something in there and the neighbors might be a little alarmed thinking they had a nut case in their community (or maybe want to buy signs for their houses too, you just never know) but minor details could be worked out. There's a biz op for someone..

[billw55]

Actually, I have seen NRA member stickers. Mostly on cars, but hey, someone might stick one on their mailbox . Don't know if it would deter anyone or not.

[onoway]

billw55, on 2013-May-20, 11:07, said:

Actually, I have seen NRA member stickers. Mostly on cars, but hey, someone might stick one on their mailbox . Don't know if it would deter anyone or not.

Yes, that's the problem with deterrents you can never be sure if they were effective because you don't know if they were ever needed.

They say it pays to advertise...I think a sticker on a mailbox might not be seen, you'd be best to brand the place with a big sign that couldn't be missed. Or two - one in front and one in back. Both together way cheaper than a box of ammo, with money left over to brand your vehicle too!

[barmar]

onoway, on 2013-May-20, 12:07, said:

Yes, that's the problem with deterrents you can never be sure if they were effective because you don't know if they were ever needed.

I had my apartment sprayed with elephant repellant. It seems to be working well, I haven't seen any elephants here.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2013-May-20, 23:54, said:

I had my apartment sprayed with elephant repellant. It seems to be working well, I haven't seen any elephants here.

Good plan! It is my understanding that, at least around here, elephant repellant has a 100% success rate. Very few products can make that claim.

Imo, the single most important prerequisite for the effective use of statistics is total commitment to their accurate use. To mix threads a bit, the article Mike cited about schools in LA cited evidence that students who had been suspended from schools were more likely to drop out of school than students who have not been suspended from school. Uh, yeah. I can believe that. The question is so what?

I have great distrust of statistical arguments for or against almost anything unless I am willing to take the time to look into the methodology, the assumptions, and the ideological predispositions of the presenter. I look much more to my direct experience and evaluate it as best I can. Some sensible but by no means confiscatory gun regulation makes sense to me. I have no statistics to prove this is best, but I also distrust any statistics anyone supplies, for or against. Lies, damn lies, and statistics is more than just a clever remark.

Owning a gun shoould be a heavy responsibility. Loading it an d firing it, or threatening to fire it, should be an even greater responsibility. If this responsibility is put front and center, a lot of other issues would take their proper place.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-May-21, 10:38, said:

Good plan! It is my understanding that, at least around here, elephant repellant has a 100% success rate. Very few products can make that claim.

Imo, the single most important prerequisite for the effective use of statistics is total commitment to their accurate use. To mix threads a bit, the article Mike cited about schools in LA cited evidence that students who had been suspended from schools were more likely to drop out of school than students who have not been suspended from school. Uh, yeah. I can believe that. The question is so what?

I have great distrust of statistical arguments for or against almost anything unless I am willing to take the time to look into the methodology, the assumptions, and the ideological predispositions of the presenter. I look much more to my direct experience and evaluate it as best I can. Some sensible but by no means confiscatory gun regulation makes sense to me. I have no statistics to prove this is best, but I also distrust any statistics anyone supplies, for or against. Lies, damn lies, and statistics is more than just a clever remark.

Owning a gun shoould be a heavy responsibility. Loading it an d firing it, or threatening to fire it, should be an even greater responsibility. If this responsibility is put front and center, a lot of other issues would take their proper place.

Ken, I bow to your superior mathematical knowledge yet also have the impression that statistics that are derived from measurements of physiological responses (i.e., alcohol consumption)are more valuable than attempted measurements of psychological reactions (will one shoot or not shoot a gun.) Your thoughts?

[mycroft]

One of the issues I have is that (as opposed to "protected by <alarm company>"), "This house protected by Smith & Wesson" == "we have expensive fenceable stuff here, wait until we leave to break in". Yes, there should be trigger locks and gun safes, but a) how many do, and b) how "protected" are you if you have to get into your safe, pull out your weapon, crack the trigger lock, load it, and then deal with the break in? (which leads to more in the above category, of course).

But then again, the first thing I thought when I heard of Foursquare is "follow me to find out when I'm not home so you can steal all the stuff you see on my Facebook feed". So maybe I'm a little paranoid.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-21, 13:47, said:

Ken, I bow to your superior mathematical knowledge yet also have the impression that statistics that are derived from measurements of physiological responses (i.e., alcohol consumption)are more valuable than attempted measurements of psychological reactions (will one shoot or not shoot a gun.) Your thoughts?

I am not sure exactly what you mean, "statistics that are derived from measurements of physiological responses (i.e., alcohol consumption" does not really bring up a clear picture in my mind, but probably I agree. You mean it is probably easier to tell if a person is drunk than it is to tell if he will shoot someone? Yes, my guess is that this is so. Now whether it is easier to tell if he will get drunk tomorrow or if he will shoot someone tomorrow, maybe I am less sure.

Mostly I am not sure where you are going with this. I suspect I have not answered the question.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-May-21, 15:51, said:

I am not sure exactly what you mean, "statistics that are derived from measurements of physiological responses (i.e., alcohol consumption" does not really bring up a clear picture in my mind, but probably I agree. You mean it is probably easier to tell if a person is drunk than it is to tell if he will shoot someone? Yes, my guess is that this is so. Now whether it is easier to tell if he will get drunk tomorrow or if he will shoot someone tomorrow, maybe I am less sure.

Mostly I am not sure where you are going with this. I suspect I have not answered the question.

I probably formed the question poorly. Basically, what I am asserting is that drunk driving/death statistics should be regarded as more of a valid cause and effect than gun/murder statistics as the latter can never show if the gun prompted the murder or if the murderer simply would have chosen another weapon. With alcohol, diminished driving capacity can be demonstrated in tests.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2013-May-21, 10:38, said:

Owning a gun shoould be a heavy responsibility. Loading it and firing it, or threatening to fire it, should be an even greater responsibility. If this responsibility is put front and center, a lot of other issues would take their proper place.

I have absolutely no quarrel with this.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-21, 18:59, said:

Basically, what I am asserting is that drunk driving/death statistics should be regarded as more of a valid cause and effect than gun/murder statistics as the latter can never show if the gun prompted the murder or if the murderer simply would have chosen another weapon. With alcohol, diminished driving capacity can be demonstrated in tests.

(source:xkcd.com)
The question is how plausible it is that the student's change in attitude was caused by the course, as opposed to how plausible it is that some third factor caused the student to take the course and also caused the change in attitude. (And of course, there is the issue of robustness of the statistics. but let's say for the case of the argument that we observed a million students who took the course, and a million who didn't, and we observed a difference in attitude change rates between the two groups).

I suppose it could be argued that drunk drivers are just irresponsible people and that they would have caused accidents anyway even if we somehow prevented them from driving. (lol I mean drinking of course!)

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2013-May-23, 02:00

[barmar]

Correlation vs. causation is definitely a tricky problem.

However, in many cases it's made easier by understanding the underlying mechanism involved. If we see a correlation AND there's a good reason to expect causation (e.g. we understand the effects of alcohol on the brain), they support each other. On the other hand, if there's a correlation, but no feasible causal link can be determined, we should suspect a coincidence (e.g. Super Bowl wins and the economy, or women's hemlines and who will win the Presidency). But in the first case, you have to be careful not to let yourself be biased by your hypothesis -- you have to consider other possible reasons for the correlation.

Silver discusses this quite a bit in his book. There's no magic, one-size-fits-all solution -- different areas of study require different strategies, and you need to be flexible and receptive.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2013-May-22, 13:44, said:

Correlation vs. causation is definitely a tricky problem.

However, in many cases it's made easier by understanding the underlying mechanism involved. If we see a correlation AND there's a good reason to expect causation (e.g. we understand the effects of alcohol on the brain), they support each other. On the other hand, if there's a correlation, but no feasible causal link can be determined, we should suspect a coincidence (e.g. Super Bowl wins and the economy, or women's hemlines and who will win the Presidency). But in the first case, you have to be careful not to let yourself be biased by your hypothesis -- you have to consider other possible reasons for the correlation.

Silver discusses this quite a bit in his book. There's no magic, one-size-fits-all solution -- different areas of study require different strategies, and you need to be flexible and receptive.

agree 100%


the funny thing is I thought this was basic 100 math/stats....that all freshmen or hs students learn.


As a finance guy....we are taught this on day one....I guess most of us forget it on day 1000.


fwiw I thought your last sentence very important...I would use option rather than flexible but ok.

[mike777]

helene_t, on 2013-May-22, 02:27, said:

(source:xkcd.com)
The question is how plausible it is that the student's change in attitude was caused by the course, as opposed to how plausible it is that some third factor caused the student to take the course and also caused the change in attitude. (And of course, there is the issue of robustness of the statistics. but let's say for the case of the argument that we observed a million students who took the course, and a million who didn't, and we observed a difference in attitude change rates between the two groups).

I suppose it could be argued that drunk drivers are just irresponsible people and that they would have caused accidents anyway even if we somehow prevented them from driving.

as usual Helene says it better.

[onoway]

kenberg, on 2013-May-21, 10:38, said:

.

Owning a gun shoould be a heavy responsibility. Loading it an d firing it, or threatening to fire it, should be an even greater responsibility. If this responsibility is put front and center, a lot of other issues would take their proper place.

background checks and such may have become irrelevant
http://arstechnica.c...ver-600-rounds/

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 10:41, said:

As for guns, they are inanimate objects and thus harm no one on their own.

I have to agree with Blackshoe. Guns are not dangerous, kids are. What we need to do is ban couples from producing kids.

Quote

PRESCOTT VALLEY, Ariz. -- Authorities in northern Arizona say a 4-year-old boy has accidentally shot and killed his father at a Prescott Valley home.