Right. What's the goal of the study, though? What's the purpose of the research? What questions were asked? What testing or survey methods were used? How did they "control" for variables, to ensure they didn't erroneously self-select particular types of people. A lot of fudging can go on there, by folks who know how to design "fouling" into the batter and how to "spin" the results. They've got at least one PhD on the study group, but that is meaningless by itself without knowing the parameters of the study.Quote:
Those possessing gun in assault situation 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those not possessing one.
Here's the thing, as RetSupt99 suggests. Statistics absolutely can be fouled, depending on what's done to foul them. It can be designed-in from the get-go as part of the study's purpose, to sway opinion or policy. Or, the goal can be "misconstrued."
For example: 4.5x, yes? But what's the goal in a violent rape or murder? To stop and survive the crime, right? So what, if you get shot during a murderous attempt on your life but end up successfully surviving and sending the felon straight to Hades? You survived. I mean, that's the goal, right? So, 4.5x more likely to get shot is very likely a GOOD thing, right? Perhaps so. The researchers don't touch any of that. The article simply summarizes the 4.5x stat, without validation or support of that statement. Big deal.
For example ...
Let's say you're unarmed and about to be raped. Are you likely to get shot by a firearm, if you meekly oblige the felon and yield to the rape? Not likely, no.
However, let's flip the coin, now. Let's say you ARE armed and fairly skilled in H2H and firearms use, and now the violent rapist comes calling, but this time you absolutely refuse him to negotiate with your life. Are you a bit more likely to be shot? Sure. So what?
In a pool of 5000 people who were raped (with half shot, half not), I'm sure you would clearly see that "tendency." But, being shot isn't the point. Stopping and surviving the crime are the point. What if those "4.5x" people all died, despite not having been shot at all. The study doesn't specify. Makes you wonder, hm?
So, you're 4.5x more likely to get shot if you have a firearm, but what if you're 23x more likely to halt the rape and survive the crime? Would you be willing, with odds of survival and "success" like that? I would. Damn straight.
So. "4.5 times more likely" is a good thing, or bad? Who's to say, just having a silly number dangling there like ripe fruit. The researches could specify, via being much more specific with the questions and the data such that these distinctions clearly show themselves. Otherwise, "4.5x" is meaningless, by itself. Thank you, RetSupt99, for reminding us of this.
Yes. A bald-faced attempt to do exactly that. Pretty obviously so, if you ask me. (But then, nobody asked me, I guess. Tough! :rofl:)Quote:
I think of this as more liberal crap intended to make everyone feel like a helpless victim, and therefore unable to do anything to protect yourself....