From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Rape and Statistics
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Apr7.220220.19894@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr13233834@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Apr13.165458.22422@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:21:32 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:54:58 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>(Andy Freeman) said:
>>> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>Knives are 14% "better" than unarmed and guns are 21% "better", so a gun
>>>>is a 50% more effective weapon than a knife for a rapist.
>>
>>> That's a dishonest measure of "more effective".  (X-Y)/(Z-Y) depends
>>> on not only X and Z, but on Y, yet Lambert insists that it tells us
>>> only about the differences between X and Z.

> If you want to compare the effectiveness of two alternatives, which is
> what "more/less effective" means, the effectiveness of a third
> alternative IS irrelevant.  Lambert would have us believe that the
> relative speed of two computers on a given program and data set
> depends on the speed of some other computer, which is silly.

False analogy.  Try comparing two computer systems with pencil and
paper.  If I can solve a particular problem with pencil and paper in
11 minutes, while using computer system 1 to solve it takes me 10
minutes, and using computer system 2 takes me 5 minutes, we could say
that system 1 is "twice as fast" as system 2, but if I'm trying to
decide which one to purchase it is more interesting to look at how
much time each one saves me.  System 1 saves one minute, while system
2 saves me six times as much time.

>>>>>   (I've repeatedly posted references to data contradicting Lambert's
>>>>> "criminals will just start using guns more often if they think that
>>>>> defenders are carrying" theory.  Yes, some do, but the overall
>>>>> effect is different.)
> ...  Armed and Considered Dangerous by Wright and Rossi.

50% of the gun criminals in Wright and Rossi's study said that the
"chance victim would be armed" was a VERY important reason to carry.
Only 25% said it was not at all important.  Perhaps you made a typing
error above and typed "contradicting" when you meant to type "proving".

>>>>All I've seen is you twisting yourself in knots, arguing that a gun is
>>>>not useful for self defence against someone armed with a gun.
>>
>>> Huh?  I claim that guns ARE useful for self-defense against someone
>>> armed with a gun.
>>
>>So it would be sensible for a criminal to carry to defend against an
>>armed victim.

> Only if said criminal's "crime" is to go about life peacefully,
> waiting to be attacked by an armed victim.  Sure, we could make that a
> crime, but ....

> For initiating an attack, a gun is no more effective than readily
> available alternatives.  

> ... the medical data shows that handgun wounds are not significantly
> more lethal than knive wounds, even though both are significantly
> more deadly than "edged weapon" wounds ....

You are invited to present your "medical" data.

> However, guns are more useful in response than other weapons, because
> one can do something useful with one during the action-reaction gap.
> In other words, one can "outdraw" a drawn gun/knife/club.  That's not
> true of other weapons, let alone running away.

Which is why it is useful for a criminal to carry to defend against an
armed victim.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns