From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Rape and Statistics
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:54:58 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Apr13233834@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>On Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:02:20 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (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.
>
>The usefulness of any tool is measured by the difference it makes.  If
>we could drive nails into pieces of wood just as easily without
>hammers, then hammers would be useless.

No, they'd just be no more useful or effective than alternatives.

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.

>>>>   (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.)
>>>
>>>I guess I must have missed it.
>
>> Don't worry, I've posted it AGAIN.
>
>Where? When?

A couple of messages before.  Armed and Considered Dangerous by
Wright and Rossi.  Lambert will probably miss it again.

>>>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.  In fact, as Lambert has mentioned several
times, with-gun threats are more likely to result in compliance.  He
didn't bother to mention that crooks who use "lesser" weapons are far
more likely to skip the "threaten" step and initiate the attack by
injuring the victim in a "just so you know that I'm serious/resistance
is a bad idea/I'm a bad person" strategy.  Since 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 ....

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.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns