From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:40:39 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Dec15042039@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> >>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 1992 21:16:43 GMT, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) said:
> 
> > i use the "kick in the door" example as a means of
> > emphasizing the criminoid's lack of concern about getting
> > justifiably shot by a homeowner.
> 
> I see.  How would you react to a poster who said "How many babies must
> be shot before something is done about gun violence?"  Said poster
> using "babies" to empasize the innocent nature of so many gun
> casualties.

In absolute numbers (from rkba.004):

            MURDERS AND NON-NEGLIGENT HOMICIDES (1988)
     AGE    By firearms   Other (cutting, stabbing, blunt objects, poison...)
     < 1    10            230
  1 to 4    44            289
  5 to 9    56             96

    AGE  Accidental deaths by firearms
    <1     2
     1     5
     2    12
     3    10
     4    14
     5     9
     6     9
     7    10
     8    12
     9    18
    10    27

Sources listed were:

National Safety Council, Accident Facts 1988 Edition, Chicago, IL,
1988. Available via Customer Service, National Service Council, 444 N.
Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60611. (800) 621-7619.

TIME magazine, volume 133, issue number 6, February 6, 1989
issue, cover titled "ARMED AMERICA  More guns, more shootings, more
massacres", cover illustration is a drawn outline of the continental USA
distorted as the upper part of a skull with eye sockets and nose, with a
crossed AR15 and AK47S below.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform
Crime Reports 1989.

> >>Do you really believe that ALL criminals are deterred by guns?  Some
> >>think they are immortal, others consider them "an exciting challenge",
> >>others don't consider them at all, and some might be deterred.  (See
> >>Wright and Rossi's survey of criminals.)  Since gun ownership can't be
> >>100% effective at deterring "kick-ins", there must be some other
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>reason why it doesn't happen.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But "kick-ins" *do* happen!  You can't make it go away because you
declare it so!

> > i *love* this!  since its not 100%, it must be due to something
> > else!  since the correlation between smoking and cancer isn't
> > 100%, its just got to be due to something else, eh tim?  i take
> > it you smoke 3-4 packs a day?  interesting logic.
> 
> My compliments on a clever piece of misdirection.  Like the
> correlation between smoking and cancer, the correlation in question is
> less than 100%.  This is because 0 is less than 100.

You accuse Andrew of misdirection, and then attempt to perform the
exact same action.  Interesting.

Yes, zero is less than 100, as are all other 1 and 2 digit integers.
Obviously the point being made is that the sum of the terms must
yield 100%.

> Unlike the
> correlation between smoking and cancer, the correlation between
> kick-ins and gun deterrability is nonexistant:

From which data do you draw this conclusion?  Remember to compare
similar data sets when presenting this; You must have a control group.

Why restrict the discussion to "kick-ins"?  If you examine history of
all crime, relative to various factors (including firearm ownership),
you may be able to extract correlations.

For instance, examine the crime rate for NY City when the police went
on strike.  It seems that the number of crimes dropped for the duration
of the strike.  The people were protecting themsleves, and several
criminals were killed.  As soon as the police went back on duty, the
crime rate returned to normal.

> Kick-ins by criminals who might be deterred by guns: 0
> Kick-ins by criminals who are not deterred by guns: 0

Please present your source for this data.

> No correlation here.  Interesting logic you use to claim causation
> when no correlation exists.

I've noticed that many of your posts make claims, while presenting no
correlation.  I also notice you spout statistics, but it is quite
evident that you have a poor understanding of statistical analysis.

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns