The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

antsi · January 1, 2009, 02:02 PM

Alloy, above, probably is taking the smartest tack. Just to go the completely opposite direction, I'll go ahead and over-analyze the analysis.

There is obviously some selection bias here, which the authors acknowledge.

However, that doesn't mean the information is completely useless. This is similar to information that is sometimes compiled on "characteristics of top 10 executives," or "training regimens of most successful marathon runners." There is a fairly well-known book called The Millionaire Next Door that describes the behaviors of people whose wealth tends to increase over time. It isn't definitive evidence, but it is certainly reasonable to read these kind of descriptive accounts and think about how one might make oneself more like the successful cases shown. Certainly if one is doing something that is a radical departure from the successful cases, that might bear thinking about.

One aspect of the NRA's reporting probably is fairly systematic: you can be reasonably well assured that they're not suppressing any successful self-defense shootings or "positive outcomes." They certainly would have no interest in doing so.

Actually, I don't think the NRA is the greatest potential source of bias here. Probably the greatest source of bias is that all these accounts are gleaned (by the NRA) from newspaper reports. That could easily account for the high proportion of shots fired and assailants wounded or killed - if the intended victims defuse the situation simply by brandishing a firearm or saying "I've got a gun!" the incidents may not be reported to police, or may not make it in to the paper if they are.

Regarding the findings about the "shark circling" behavior and the successful use of small caliber firearms, these could reflect biases as noted above, but they still don't render the findings totally meaningless.

If you have a killer who moves in deliberately and achieves total surprise, these incidents aren't ever going to become cases of armed self-defense. They will be outright unchallenged murders of people who may or may not own guns. However, I am not too troubled by this bias. Frankly, if my home is attacked by highly trained professional assassins, I'm probably dead no matter what. The "sizing up your prey" behaviors are pretty well known among more casual predators and are described from other sources.

Regarding the successful use of small caliber firearms, yes there is a potentially biased sample here, but it seems unlikely that there are large numbers of cases where crime victims shoot at and hit their attackers only to succumb to a determined attacker who overcomes a non-lethal wound. The vast majority of criminals are likely to be of the "predatory" type who are looking for a soft target. Having any kind of gun and shooting back means at least one is not a soft target, and probably will be sufficient for the vast majority of criminal attacks. Again, if we are confronted by seriously determined attackers who are willing to press their attacks even after being shot, that is likely a small minority of criminals and our odds are much worse in such a situation no matter what kind of gun we use.

January 1, 2009, 02:02 PM	#8
antsi Member Join Date: April 20, 2002 Posts: 92	Alloy, above, probably is taking the smartest tack. Just to go the completely opposite direction, I'll go ahead and over-analyze the analysis. There is obviously some selection bias here, which the authors acknowledge. However, that doesn't mean the information is completely useless. This is similar to information that is sometimes compiled on "characteristics of top 10 executives," or "training regimens of most successful marathon runners." There is a fairly well-known book called The Millionaire Next Door that describes the behaviors of people whose wealth tends to increase over time. It isn't definitive evidence, but it is certainly reasonable to read these kind of descriptive accounts and think about how one might make oneself more like the successful cases shown. Certainly if one is doing something that is a radical departure from the successful cases, that might bear thinking about. One aspect of the NRA's reporting probably is fairly systematic: you can be reasonably well assured that they're not suppressing any successful self-defense shootings or "positive outcomes." They certainly would have no interest in doing so. Actually, I don't think the NRA is the greatest potential source of bias here. Probably the greatest source of bias is that all these accounts are gleaned (by the NRA) from newspaper reports. That could easily account for the high proportion of shots fired and assailants wounded or killed - if the intended victims defuse the situation simply by brandishing a firearm or saying "I've got a gun!" the incidents may not be reported to police, or may not make it in to the paper if they are. Regarding the findings about the "shark circling" behavior and the successful use of small caliber firearms, these could reflect biases as noted above, but they still don't render the findings totally meaningless. If you have a killer who moves in deliberately and achieves total surprise, these incidents aren't ever going to become cases of armed self-defense. They will be outright unchallenged murders of people who may or may not own guns. However, I am not too troubled by this bias. Frankly, if my home is attacked by highly trained professional assassins, I'm probably dead no matter what. The "sizing up your prey" behaviors are pretty well known among more casual predators and are described from other sources. Regarding the successful use of small caliber firearms, yes there is a potentially biased sample here, but it seems unlikely that there are large numbers of cases where crime victims shoot at and hit their attackers only to succumb to a determined attacker who overcomes a non-lethal wound. The vast majority of criminals are likely to be of the "predatory" type who are looking for a soft target. Having any kind of gun and shooting back means at least one is not a soft target, and probably will be sufficient for the vast majority of criminal attacks. Again, if we are confronted by seriously determined attackers who are willing to press their attacks even after being shot, that is likely a small minority of criminals and our odds are much worse in such a situation no matter what kind of gun we use.