View Single Post
Old January 14, 2009, 02:52 PM   #67
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,623
Academic research using standard statistical methods have demonstrated the lack of utility of the AWB and the large number of defensive gun usages. These studies have been strong counterevidence to the folk knowledge of some (not all) antigun law enforcement experienced people - like chief of police types who are brought forward to support all gun bans, oppose shall issue laws and the like.
I think using statistics to make policy decisions (like your example) has merit but that is off topic.

The real dange, IMO, is developing plans based on incorrect perceptions, bad data, and so on. THAT is where the poor plan is more likely to come from, IMO.
Precisely my point. Many academic studies have all those faulty elements; poorly formed premises, measuring the wrong thing, not taking bias and other factors into consideration, etc. As I have stated earlier, just pulling some statistic from a study or report and then making a plan based on that without understanding what the stats mean or how they were gathered can cause you to form a bad plan. Just because some academic publishes something surely doesn't make it so. In fact if you read that stats from here You probably would plan to have no gun around ever.

But if you read this one: you might have ten guns.

Do I really need to read some mathematical formula to plan how to protect myself rather than use acknowledged experts in the field and my own common sense to filter their bias? I think not. BTW the references to Tigers attacking you is strawman stuff.

So, you might get what you wish for. Arguing from the one vivid instance and then overestimating the probability of such is a common mistake.
I have not proposed that Glenn, that is not my position. However, if the vivid instance as you call it matches what I encounter it might have more relevance than a linear progression chart.

Cho used handguns - experts say handguns kill - ban them.
I think the Volokh conspiracy calls that an intuitive argument.

It COULD be argued by a person that doesn't understand statistics.
My point here is that most people don't understand statistics (and some who claim to don't either) other than in a very rudimentary way and I am dubious that this is really helping someone make informed decisions with their self defense tactics?
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 14, 2009 at 02:57 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Page generated in 0.03649 seconds with 7 queries