From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:49:26 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
	<1992Aug17.155648.28224@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Aug19.163045.374@informix.com>
	<1992Aug19.191133.18443@cc.gatech.edu>
	<LOWRY.92Aug19174710@rotor.watson.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <LOWRY.92Aug19174710@rotor.watson.ibm.com> lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:

 > Reasoning by worst-case scenarios is very rarely useful as a guide for
 > decision making.  It's mostly useful when you want to put a bound on
 > the damage or cost you risk incurring.  That is, you use it to
 > understand your risk, but not as a basis for deciding a course of
 > action.  Generally, if you want to maximize your benefits, think in
 > terms of likely scenarios, not worst-case.

Regarding the numerous followups to my post:

I never said that when there's an intruder in your house you should
assume they're not dangerous.  I merely stated my belief (and I may be
wrong on this) that they are not likely to intend you or your family
harm.  The main points are that (1) if you own a gun you should not
simply go blasting at the intruder without a better reason that they
have intruded into your house; and (2) keeping a gun in the house to
begin with strikes me as idiotic.

One poster suggested that keeping a gun in the house promotes
evolution... stupid people get killed, and the species is better off
for it (I'm paraphrasing... apologies if I'm not doing an accurate job
of it).  Perhaps we'd be better off if this poster simply went out and
sped things up by shooting people who act stupidly (making sure to
leave himself for last :-).

The claim was that by properly training children and other household
occupants in the dangers and proper use of firearms makes their
presence in the house safe.  Fact is, I frequently hear news reports
of children who accidentally shot each other, or someone who
accidentally shot a friend because they thought the gun was unloaded.
In most cases, these people had been taught to respect guns.
Unfortunately, training and responsible thinking are far from
foolproof when a child is caught up in horseplay, is pressured by
peers, or when an adult is intoxicated.  It just doesn't seem to work
very well.

It seems pretty clear to me that if I have a gun in the house I stand
a much greater risk of having that gun accidentally used to kill a
family member or friend than of having my home invaded and then using
the weapon to disable / kill the invader.  If I consider the
conditional probability that the weapon is used to stop an invader
given that my home has been invaded, we're probably talking a
reasonably high probability.  But my home is not that likely to be
invaded in the first place.  That's why not owning a gun is most
likely to result in the continued health and safety of my family.  If
I follow worst-case reasoning I buy a gun.  If I consider likelihoods
I forbid them in my house, knowing (due to my worst-case reasoning)
that there's a small chance that I've made the wrong choice.
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598