Comment

Self-Defense Statistics-When Stats Are Colored With Attitude

40
Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)6/04/2014 11:33:40 am PDT

re: #37 Rightwingconspirator

Because some want to have the option even understanding the risk is very low.

First, I really don’t think many people who actually understand how low the risk is still want to have a gun for self-defense. I think it usually represents a resistance to the truth of how safe they are.

But even so, if someone says, “I realize that I’m super-safe but I still want a gun for self-defense”, why not try to dissuade them? They’re already showing a huge logical inconsistency, a desire for a gun for irrational reasons, why wouldn’t that make you leery of their ability to use the gun responsibly?

Oh so we agree that training at the same quality as the police get is adequate? To me that’s new information about how you feel. See we agree more than you think.

No, I don’t. I don’t know how you can ask that right after I talked about how the police get continual and on-the-job training. I don’t have a definite level that I’d like them trained at, but the training should be continuous and failure should be a real possibility.

The most honest answer I have is my surprise at your level of outrage. And again you misrepresent my words. I said DISCOURAGEMENT. I did NOT say obstruction.

Again: The purpose of the training is so they will be well-trained.. Implying I want it for some sort of subtextual reason is weird, and insulting. Stop doing shit like that. I want people to be well trained so that they will be well trained, and I want to know they can actually pass training that requires them to act responsibly over time.

There are lots of gun control laws that are deliberate discouragement. Would you be so kind as to oppose those as well? (With the stipulation for discussion such laws exist)

Sure, whatever. I’m not going to take your word that their purpose is discouragement, but I don’t have any interest in a law that just makes it harder for people to get guns.

I don’t challenge your expertise on statistics. Just sometimes that next step-The conclusion part. The “what to do differently given those numbers” part.

When you respond to statistics with anecdotes, when you argue with me about the relevance of the FBI statistics after misrepresenting their purpose, you are doing something worse than challenging, It’s fine to challenge me: just because I’ve gotten some education on it doesn’t mean I’m unchallengeable. But replying to statistics with an anecdote is pointless. They are not the same domain. And when I explain why the FBI data is not “helping us understand the day to day risk of being a victim”, and yet it’s still just up there in your article, you’re misusing statistics in something that would be, in an academic setting, dishonest. The FBI doesn’t make that claim, in fact, they caution anyone against even using these stats to try to assess risk on a more granular level.

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use the figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction.

And they clearly state what the purpose of these statistics are, and their intended audience:

Program staff are committed to improving their annual publications so that the data they collect can better meet the needs of law enforcement, criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the media, and other students of criminal justice who use the statistics for varied administrative, research, and planning purposes.

Claiming that these stats are so we can assess day to day risk of being a victim is not true. That is not something you possibly could do with statistics. It is a misrepresentation of what statistics is. The day-to-day risk of being a victim depends on a thousand contingent factors. It is as foolish as using US cancer statistics to try to figure out whether you’ll get cancer.

Do you understand this part?